juerocalvo,
I agree that animals adapt to their “enviornment”. A Giraff has a long neck to eat from tall trees.
I do not agree that a species, lets take a dog, can turn into another species like a mouse. It has never happened.
This is what you are trying to say happend - that a primate turned into a human being because there skeletons are the most similar to a humans.
What about their DNA? Why is a primates DNA so different than ours?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Carmack/Blaze wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
These skulls prove absolutely nothing!
Like I have said. Why are there billions of human beings in all shapes and sizes?
Do you suppose that the skeletons of Shaquille Oneill and Danny DeVito are going to be similar? Do you think the shape of their skulls are the same? No!
Does this mean that Danny DeVito is a primate and Shaquille Oneill is the “evolved” human being?
Nope, they are both human beings extremely different from one another.[/quote]
Your post is so misguided at so many levels. The only thing we can conclude from it is that, contrary to what you say, you have NOT studied evolution and related disciplines. As I have said many times in this thread, all evidence and reasoning is useless with a creationist.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
How can you say that the human body operates “systematically perfect?” There are so many things that go bad in a human body with age that it is amazing. I doubt taht an engineer would design something as inefficient as a human body, much less a “perfect” creator.
[/quote]
You’ve got to be joking - a human body ineffecient? It’s by far the smartest design I’ve ever come across - think about it carefully.
Can someone think of a better place to put a vagina and an asshole?
Now I’ve been raised catholic but I’m extremely open-minded and believe anyone with some sense should be too. I believe in evolution as do I believe in a higher power. I’ve actually experienced paranormal activities first hand - how do you explian such things scientifically? Man wasn’t created perfect, so thats why I can’t believe every last thing in the bible because it is the word of god, written by MAN.
If ghosts or spirits really do exist, then it would be logical to assume that there is actually life after death - not so? Even if you don’t believe in a god you can deny that. I also believe in re-incarnation as it make sense - as does evolution.
All in all it’s a long and pointless argument - almost the 9/11 debate! The truth will come out one day.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
What about their DNA? Why is a primates DNA so different than ours?[/quote]
I guess no one brought this up yet.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo,
I agree that animals adapt to their “enviornment”. A Giraff has a long neck to eat from tall trees.
I do not agree that a species, lets take a dog, can turn into another species like a mouse. It has never happened.
This is what you are trying to say happend - that a primate turned into a human being because there skeletons are the most similar to a humans.
What about their DNA? Why is a primates DNA so different than ours?[/quote]
Again you are saying that it has never happened, yet I posted a link to a whole bunch of observed instances where it has happened, and all of these instances were within the scientific definition of a species.
Primate DNA is much different than ours? Where do you get that erroneous information from?
I don’t want to get into personal insults, but the reason that people badmouth creationists is that they have no coherent theory, they repeat erroneous “facts”, and they will accept no amount of evidence that contardicts their preconceived notions. Open your mind. You can be a Christian and a rational person at the same time.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
I do not agree that a species, lets take a dog, can turn into another species like a mouse. It has never happened.
What about their DNA? Why is a primates DNA so different than ours?[/quote]
Well if a dog’s DNA went through enough changes, it would cease to be a dog, right? Unless you have a dog that looks and acts exactly like a mouse…
Primate DNA is not that different, Bonobos and humans are 98% in common, I believe.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
Evolution is not a religion, and I accept evolution not out of faith because of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. What precludes somebody from being a christian and accepting evolution? I don’t think that John Paul II was an atheist…[/quote]
Evolution IS your religion. It takes more faith to believe in evolution considering that it is incomplete and has holes everywhere in the idea. It also CANNOT be proven.
Also, I don’t care what any Pope says. I am not a Catholic nor have I ever practiced Catholocism. I follow the Bible, the Bible only. The Catholic Church follows many practices that are against the Bible.
Evolutionists love to choose the Catholic Church against me. “Well if the Pope says it, you must believe that”. ABSOLUTELY NOT! The Pope is a man just like anyone else. The Catholic Church does not follow the true teachings of the Bible.
So far, from what I’ve read, everybody is defending their beliefs with a bunch of “reliable facts” and that’s fine and dandy. I wish I had some “facts” of my own to add, but sadly, I do not. I do, however, have a few questions to pose to all who would attempt and discredit the existence of God. According to science, everything came from the Big Bang. If this is true, what was before this time. Was there nothing, was there another universe, what was there? If there was nothing, then where did the atoms come from, did they merely pop into place? And if there was another universe and it collapsed into the Big Bang, then where did that universe come from. Using the line of logic followed by popular science, that universe would have come from a previous Big Bang, and that Big Bang would have come from the universe before it. Now, if we continue down this line of logic it will lead us to the conclusion the universe always existed and our own current universe is just one more in an infinite sequence of previous universes.
If this is the case, then every possible outcome of existence has been exhausted an infinite number of times in the past universes predating the infinite string of universal expansions and collapses into Big Bangs. So, that would mean we have had this discussion an infinite number of times with an infinite number of outcomes and variations. If you’re okay believing this, then have fun. I, on the other hand, believe in God and keep my mind open to evolution and other scientific theories, because who knows how God meant everything to work out.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
juerocalvo wrote:
Evolution is not a religion, and I accept evolution not out of faith because of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. What precludes somebody from being a christian and accepting evolution? I don’t think that John Paul II was an atheist…
Evolution IS your religion. It takes more faith to believe in evolution considering that it is incomplete and has holes everywhere in the idea. It also CANNOT be proven.
[/quote]
How is belief in evolution a religion? It is supported by abundant evidence, and it can still be observed occurring. It may not be complete, but no science is “complete” - science is constantly refined and changed. Look at physics-quantum theory showed that the normal laws of physics don’t apply at certain levels, yet you don’t see people saying “physics is false” and totally throwing out newtonian physics…
The story of Neandertal man began in 1856 with the discovery of a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone) and portions of a pelvis and ribs in a cave among the limestone cliffs of the Neander valley, 10 miles east of Dusseldorf, Germany. The Neander valley and its limestone cliffs were owned at that time by Herr von Beckersdorf and were being quarried for cement production. Although the Neandertal bones which were discovered in a cave known as the Feldhofer Grotto were obviously human, they looked somewhat different. They were more rugged than most modern human skeletal remains.
When Beckersdorf learned of the discovery he took the bones to J.K. von Fuhlrott a science teacher who felt the bones were from a victim of Noah?s flood. Von Fuhlrott asked Hermann Schaafhausen, professor Hermann Schaafhausen, professor of anatomy at the University of Bonn, to examine the bones. He agreed that the bones were those of an ancient pre-flood human population.
In due time the bones were examined by Rudolf Virchow a professor at the University of Berlin. Virchow, a well respected scientist and the father of pathology (the study of human disease processes) concluded that the bones were of a modern Homo sapiens who was diseased with rickets (the result of a vitamin D deficiency) as a child and arthritis as an adult.
However, when William King, a professor of anatomy at Queen?s College in Galway Ireland examined the bones he placed an evolutionary interpretation on the bones. He assumed that the skull’s prominent brow ridge and the rugged, thickened nature of the femur were evidence of a more primitive creature, inferior to modern man. So he coined a new term: Homo neandertalensis, and promoted that notion that they were the bones of an ancient ancestor of humankind.
Since their discovery the Neandertal bones were highly controversial and a focal point of debate between the evolutionary and Biblical world views. Proponents of the evolutionary world view were inclined to emphasize the minor differences between the Neandertal remains and modern man. On the other hand, many scientists have pointed out that the anatomical structure of Neandertal remains fall well within the normal variation found in current human populations.
In fact, comparative studies of present day Homo sapiens skulls reveal that the skulls of Northern European resemble more closely those of the Neandertal than they do those of Native Americans or Australian Aborigines. This fact, however, is rarely discussed in text books where Neandertal is presented as a proven evolutionary link between a Homo erectus and modern man.
For over a century evolutionary dogma held that Neandertals were “primitive creatures” who supposedly lived from about 200,000-50,000 years ago and who evolved into modern Homo sapiens, between 50,000 and 35,000 years ago. According to this theory Neandertals pre-existed mankind and so their co-existence would not be expected. However, if Neandertals are simply a genetically compatible group of modern Homo sapiens then we should expect fossil evidence of their co-existence.
In recent years an abundance of evidence has accumulated that has seriously disrupted this cozy view of Neandertal and convinced many researchers that Neandertal was a sophisticated member of the human family. For member of the human family. For example, evidence has accumulated that Neandertal lived in complex societies, buried their dead, practiced religion, made sophisticated tools and were skilled hunters. There is even evidence ?albeit not yet conclusive?that Neandertals may have developed skills in metallurgy.
In 1992 at the annual meetings for the American Association for the Advancement of Science a small but vocal number of anthropologists argued that Neandertal was indeed us?Homo sapiens. Although this view has been slow to gain gen to gain general acceptance, recently published articles in the prestigious journal Science have admitted that Neandertal and modern man were contemporaries, THIS OBVIOUSLY ELIMINATES NEANDERTAL AS OUR EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTOR.
In all likelihood Neandertal?s skeletal anomalies were the result of a genetic defect in vitamin D metabolism as well as an inheritable form of arthritis. In just a few generations these diseases, along with considerable inbreeding, could produce a population of people who had significant skeletal differences (frontal bone thickening, stooped posture, more robust long bones, etc.) from other contemporary humans.
Homo Erectus
One of the household names in anthropology is known as Jpology is known as Java Man. This fossil was found by Eugene Dubois and is the most famous of a group of fossils known as Homo erectus. In 1891 near the Solo River in Java a skullcap was found by Dubois that he thought had a combination of human and more primitive, ape-like, characteristics. One year later, but fifty feet away, Dubois discovered a femur (thigh bone) which, although very human, he assumed belonged with the skullcap.
Controversy has surrounded the fossil find from the beginning. Dubois, a physician with no formal training in geology, asserted the bones were from the Pliocene Epoch (supposedly 1.7 million years old). In addition, most of those in the anthropological community felt the Java Man was truly human. The primary reason for their skepticism is the fact that the size of the skullcap and its structural characteristics is well within the range found within the modern human family.
In recent months the supposed evolutionary linkage of Homo erectus to Neandertal and modern man has been seriously challenged with the discovery that Homo erectus actually co-existed with both Neandertal and modern man! The study, published in Science by C.C Swisher et al, of the Berkeley Geochronology center, discussed extensive fossil evidence which seems to confirm the fact that HOMO ERECTUS CO-EXISTED WITH ANATOMICALLY MODERN MAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. Regarding the extraordinary findings the authors stated,
“The temporal and spatial overlap between H. erectus and H. sapiens in Southeast Asia, as implied by our study, is reminiscent of the overlap of Neandertals and anatomically modern humans in Europe”
Homo Antecessor
The confusion in physical anthropology is further exemplified by the recent discovery of an ancient human skull in Spain dubbed Homo antecessor. According to paleobiologist Antonio Rosas of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid Spain this skull “is exactly like ours,” yet it was found in a layer that, according to standard evolutionary dating, is over 780,000 years old, long before the accepted date for the emergence of “anatomically modern” humans! Finds such as these have peppered the literature for a hundred years, yet rarely make it to the mainstream press because they are so disruptive to the prevailisruptive to the prevailing evolutionary paradigm.
The authors also note that the skull possesses anatomical characteristics that are common to Neandertals as well. This is not surprising since it was found in Spain which is a rich source of Neandertal remains.
The Decline of Man!
A recent article in the British journal Nature pointed out that increasing evidence from the fossil record of mankind confirms that we are declining! Studies of 163 early human fossils revealed that our skeletal structures have shrunken by 30 percent since our peak in the days of Neandertal. Even more disturbing is the discovery that our brains have shrunken about 10 percent during that same period. If it is true that we use only 10-15 percent of the human brain that remains this begs the questions: Did our ancestors use more that 15 percent of their brains and did they believe that they were the result of chance chemistry?
Biblical Implications
What has emerged is an extremely confusing scenario for those that hold to an evolutionary origin for mankind. The evidence published in the last year alone reveals that no less than four anatomically human-like beings (Homo erectus, Homo neandertalensis, Homo antecessor, and Homo sapiens) not only co-existed in time but in locality for thousands of years. And yet, because of their evolutionary bias many anthropologists actually propose that there was no interbreeding between these anatomically human groups.
Instead they have posited a scenario (the replacement theory) in which one species with their superior intelligence and strength?Homo sapiens?replaced the other groups by force and intellect. There are of course many dissenters to this unlikely view.
The Bible unequivocally asserts that mankind is a unique and special creation of God, made in his image simultaneously with the animal and plant kingdom. The fact that there were numerous groups of human beings with significant anatomical variation in their skeletal structure is in complete agreement with the Biblical creation view.
This genetic variability was “engineered” by the Creator for the benefit of the human population. Broad genetic variability is an important asset to populations and helps to ensure survival and is evidence of intelligent design and not random evolution. In fact, the genetic variability found in the human groups we have discussed is well within the range of variability seen today and is no evidence at all for an evolutionary an evolutionary origin.
The fact that we have declined structurally is an unexpected but fascinating discovery that is in complete harmony with the creation view of mankind. When mankind was created our stock was perfect from a genetic point of view. After all, on the day God made us He said, “it was very good.” However, because of the fall of man and the dramatic post-flood environmental changes we have accumulated thousands of years of “informational errors” in our gene pool. The result is that we possess more diseased, are more frail, we are smaller in size and we die at a much younger age. All of this is the expected result of genetic decay.
It is also likely that the first men and women used their entire brains, not a mere 15 percent like us. Evolutionary theory certainly cannot explain why a brain evolved that is only 10-15 percent functional. But genetic decline and decay of a once fully functional brain over time in the human population does.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
I do not agree that a species, lets take a dog, can turn into another species like a mouse. It has never happened.
[/quote]
Q. How do you turn a fox into a cow?
A. Marry it.
Oooohhh, here comes Jesus a’knockin’ on the door. This man speaks the word of God!
And yet…posts multiple times in the ass worship thread?
Matthew 5:28 “but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Matthew 5:28 “If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Looks like someone is a hypocrite…
[quote]knuckles wrote:
Oooohhh, here comes Jesus a’knockin’ on the door. This man speaks the word of God!
And yet…posts multiple times in the ass worship thread?
Matthew 5:28 “but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Matthew 5:28 “If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Looks like someone is a hypcrite…[/quote]
Everyone has their own sins. You are right. But you are also not supposed to judge other people.
“He who is without sin, cast the first stone”
“Judge not lest ye be judged”
The hypocracy is the fact that you were in “The ass worship thread” yourself and are now using it against me.
Also, this has nothing to do with Evolution vs. Creation.
My sins as a man does not change the discussion at hand.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
It is also likely that the first men and women used their entire brains, not a mere 15 percent like us. Evolutionary theory certainly cannot explain why a brain evolved that is only 10-15 percent functional. But genetic decline and decay of a once fully functional brain over time in the human population does.
[/quote]
Tuff, I will assume that you are a nice guy, and I will abstain from insulting you personally, even though every bone in my body is straining to unleash a torrent of laughter at your post.
Where do you find this stuff?
Just the above part that I reproduced, let alone all the other stuff in the post… just the above stuff…
Completely wrong. So very very very wrong. We only use 15% of our brains? Oh REALLY? C’mon pal, we use every single area of our brains just fine, they get bloodflow and have neurons fire and everything. Here… have some pictures and explanations of them:
http://www.triumf.ca/welcome/petscan.html
I don’t know why you would think that we have this enormous cerebrum in our skulls that doesn’t do anything.
STOP… NO… AVOID JOKE… UHHNNN
So in conclusion, educate yourself before you masturbate yourself.
DAMMIT! Sorry, I tried to not be a smartass.
Everyone has their own sins true, but I doubt God looks kindly upon those who sin, then organize their means to sin, and distribute that to others.
And since I’m not a believer such as yourself, I have no problems judging you, or admiring a fine female ass- the product of billions of years of evolution.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Where do you find this stuff?
[/quote]
I’m waiting for the geocentrism posts to start. Won’t take long it seems.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
There have been “missing links” found? Where? Please tell me, I would love to know![/quote]
Africa.
You evolutionists just keep dodging the question over and over and over again -
WHERE IS THE “MISSING LINK”?
[/quote]
Right here.
But we both know that you are going to deny their existence somehow.
A) “Those aren’t real.”
B) “Those don’t prove anything.”
C) “It still doesn’t mean we evolved from another species”
D) All of the above.
I figured I would save you some typing, so you can just post a letter as a reply and continue stumbling into walls or whatever you do with your belief system.
Because I care enough to make this easy for you.
A debate about the definition of “species” may remove Homo erectus from the human evolutionary tree.
Traditional evolutionists theorize that Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, who evolved into Homo sapiens. Some evolutionists now want to reclassify Homo erectus as a primitive form of Homo sapiens. Those who don’t want to abolish the Homo erectus classification have been supporting their position by emphasizing the differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Homo erectus has a considerably smaller brain than Homo sapiens. These creatures also had larger teeth and heavier limb bones. Scientists who want to keep the classification conclude that Homo erectus’ characteristics are quite distinct from Homo sapiens’. Those who want to reclassify Homo erectus as Homo sapiens want to blur the differences that we generally use to discern between humans and apes. We need to ask, if evolutionists cannot define a species, how do they know when a new one evolves?
How different is Homo erectus? Dubois, who discovered the first fossils that are today recognized as Homo erectus, finally concluded that the fossils were only the remains of a large gibbon. Dubois had promoted the fossils as those of “ape men” for decades, before reversing his position.
tuff:
Again with the ape vs. man thing. Okay. Do you remember my very first post on this thread? The long one with all the helpful links in it? Page one.
Do you remember the caveats in the fossil record link? Do you understand what the process of “speciation by gradual adaptation” means? You may not know this, but snakes used to have legs that they gradually adapted away:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
Also, there are amphibians who did this, too… as mentioned in the link above.
Now taking into account the limitations of the fossil record, and witnessing for yourself the diversity of the human race as one species, the gradual adaptations between very closely related species are going to be tough to spot. Just like the early reptiles and amphibians, it is going to be hard to sort one from the other. And the reason for this is because we aren’t looking at a big enough picture.
This will help:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
Here we have a bunch of photographs from the fossil record of the horse, taken right here in sunny Florida, the very best state in the country. As you can see, the differences between the various species and their gradual adpatations are tough to spot, but when you look at the first horse ancestor, and then the skeleton of the modern horse… wow, now that is different.
Many creationists have a hard time accepting that they are simply animals, and it is offensive to them to think that they are nothing more than monkeys with bigger brains, but there you have it. Sorry if you are one of these people… reality is a bitch sometimes.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
A debate about the definition of “species” may remove Homo erectus from the human evolutionary tree…
[/quote]
You are so misguided that you even go against creationist ideas:
It is OK, don’t be afraid, the link above is a creationist website. (I can’t believe I just quoted a creationist source… please don’t make fun of me.)