The science community disagrees on a direct ancestor to man. DNA evidence shows that Neanderthals are not an ancestor to man. What is the common ancestor -- has it been discovered? Human Evolution skeptic files Darwin Papers There should be fossils to support human evolution. homo sapiens is the only human species, and the only genus as well. This is a mighty large gap to fill in such a short time (less than 1 million years) for man to evolve.
Didn't we talk about this before? There are a bunch of Homo species. I don't know which one or ones, if any, are our ancestors. Fossils form rarely, even more rarely in forest environments, and our species isn't that old. I think people that talk about the missing link missing don't really understand how scientists classify things. In one of your links, they say that: That is not the case, there have been transitional forms found. They are hominids that walk upright, with proportionally larger brains than modern apes. People are just apes with large brains that walk upright. The classification system is artificial. It will automatically separate apes and hominids, therefore, it's very unlikely that you will find a fossil that splits the definitions exactly. It's designed to make that split. So, almost any of the fossils already found may be a link between apes and hominids. Only DNA will be able to narrow this down, and DNA doesn't fossilize.
SG said: I can't find information that shows any of them are our ancestors. Human Evolution Timeline Recent DNA studies of several populations suggest that modern humans: Why would they replace other hominids? There just weren't that many homo sapiens around, and the world is a big place. Why would mankind replace a hominid -- because of prejudice against hominids? Surely there were enough resources to go around.
I went there and I read: Why was it considered one to start with? Even Neanderthals buried their dead. There should be fossil evidence of a recent pre-human.
Other than an argument to say science doesn't have every single answer in existence, which I personally always thought was quite obvious, I somewhat fail to see the point of your posts here woody. As to the issue itself, I bet you can't even trace your pet dog's grandparents let alone the origins of mankind. It's not something you accomplish overnight - if ever. The important thing is to recognise that the sheer length of time these things take doesn't provide reason to say "a guy in the sky did it". That is dishonest and weak. Is it so hard to just accept and understand that we don't have all the answers yet?
SL said: I hear the same thing said about the bible. How about this quote from Richard Leaky: Well Mr. Leaky, Thine faith is greater than mine. :bugeye: SL said: Actually I can go back further than that because he is pedigreed, but that's not the point. DNA testing is a scientific method to evaluate genetics. It has shown that neaderthal man is no closer to a "man" than a chimpanzee. It wasn't long ago when Neanderthal was considered a predecessor to man. DNA evidence blew that theory out of the water.
Fine Woody. God created Man directly in His image about 6000yrs ago. Do you know who made the Pyramids? God did. So Woody, why did god create creatures with behaviors like eating their own young? Or the young of others within their group? Why did god create man with 98%+ of the DNA of a chimp? Why did He give us toes that seem suspiciously like atrophied fingers? Or the appendix? Why are you so anatomically like a chimp? Why did god make us with DNA at all? DNA is subject to change over time and we will inevitably evolve away from "His Image". Why is your religion so different from thousands of others including sects within your own "christianity"? Why don't you see the utter chaos that is the whole of religion?
Woody, this is a science forum. Science is founded upon the gathering of evidence, the construction of hypotheses, the testing of these hypotheses, followed by their refinement and adaptation (or outright rejection), leading, ultimately to a well attested theory. Such has been the case in the development of evolutionary theory, which has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence from palaeontology, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, microbiology, botany and zoology. It is not based upon faith, superstition, or adherence to a warped agenda. I have no idea what your motivation is for continuously returning to sci.forums with your blinkered attitudes, naive questions and persistent demonstration of your deep ignorance. There is little point in responding to the exposition of your unshakeable, yet flawed beliefs. There are plenty of others on this site who will deal with that. I have decided, therefore, to spend the time that would be wasted with one ignoramus here, to seek out some Creationist discussion boards and deal directly and simultaneously with many of your ilk. It is my hope that that offers the possibility of saving some from the dark well of superstition and devil inspired myopia. Certainly I shall bring to them a depth of knowledge of Scripture that will far surpass your knowledge of evolution. Perhaps I shall see you there. I certainly intend to avoid seeing you here.
I wouldn't use the term 'beasts', and nor should Richard Leaky. Actually interesting to note that the dictionary defines 'beast' as: - An animal other than a human, especially a large four-footed mammal Thus Richard Leaky's statement is instantly brushed up and emptied in the trashcan. It is not "evolutionist dogma", but Richard Leaky's lack of understanding - not only of evolution, but of words as well. I personally fail to see why you religious folk look down upon the animal kingdom the way you do, and seemingly resent the fact that you are part of that kingdom and have evolved along with them. You're probably one of these people that is more than happy to just go out and shoot them for no good reason whatsoever. Only a meagre 98.4% identical then. Nothing to gawk about.. Unlike religion, science is not stagnant. It doesn't write a book and then leave it as "truth" for several thousand years. It admits when it's wrong, and will go through changes when new data/methods are found. I trust something that can be wrong, and will admit it's wrong over something that says it can't be wrong any day of the week.
SL said: Our chemical composition is probably closer than that -- but it doesn't prove anything -- except that we are composed of the same elements -- water, calcium, carbon, etc. Wouldn't you expect that conclusion, since we all develop using the same available resources? 98% DNA correlation -- what does it really mean? When a new species develops, typically speaking -- how close is the correlation with its antecessor?
But then, if you use that as an argument - we should also be 98.4% identical to field mice, pubic lice and bananas as well. No?
to save us from the damnation that awaits all who dont adhere to southern baptist ideals. i thought that was obvious.
I have a similar thread on the human science forum -- where it is more appropriate. I would like to discontinue this thread, as I think I'm getting some intelligent answers over there. By the way -- why is the religion forum a gathering place for atheists? Doesn't atheism belong in the "general philosophy" section? It seems so out of place in a religion section. In a religion thread it belongs about like a turd belongs in a swimming pool.
if there werent anyone to challenge ideas, then what would we have? a bunch of dogma swallowing robots. i warmly accept atheists here, as long as they are civil. i try to be civil toward them in return. the only thing that is "like a turd in a swimming pool" in a subforum like this is idiocy and unchallenged opinion. apparently those are things you want.
