Recently the topic of the theory of evolution has come up in the Religion forum. I thought this would be a more appropriate place to discuss the issue without religion becoming a part of it.

My goal is to take a more measured approach to examining the scientific evidence surrounding the origins of mankind without so much sniping back and forth. Of course there will be debate, but I hope it will be more thoughtful and with the aim of us all learning something, rather than just to try to prove a point.

For starters, I’d like to examine a website recommended by Blibblob. Timeline of Hominids (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html)

I have some questions about how the fossils are classified and dated. Blib’s been helping me out with that, and I’ll get into that later. For now, I’d like all who are interested to check out the site. Don’t worry, Jere, the link’s safe.
:)

what's even more interesting than the bones these species left behind, are their implements, tools, carvings, paintings, and burial of their dead loved ones. These are the things that tell us what they were really up to and what their capabilities were.

Neandertal Tool Kit (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/neander/neander-c.html)




Neandertal Burial (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/neander/neander-d.html)

These guys are interesting because they are a completely different co-existing species of human timelines.

(for the record I do not believe that neandertal turned into humans, the evidence disputes that. We out-competed them......)

Okay, good. In a previous post Blib stated that Carbon dating is good up to approx 50,000 years. If that is the case, carbon dating would only be effective in dating Homo Sapiens and the Neandertals. Blib also stated that radiometric dating was not very effective at all.

So, my question is: How have they dated the Australopithicines, all of which are hundreds of thousands to millions of years old? And if this dating is based on the layers in which the fossils are found, how are the layers dated? And how accurate is this dating?

And as far as the Neandertals are concerned, we see that they developed tool kits and burial rites. I was even surprised to see that (check out the second link in cree's last post) there is at least the possibility that they may have developed language.

This leads me to wonder: At what point do we look at a species and decide that it is not human?

Originally posted by creetwins

(for the record I do not believe that neandertal turned into humans, the evidence disputes that. We out-competed them......) I read a book one time where the premise was that we out competed them simply because we knew how to lie. Very interesting book. Wish i could remember the name. It was fiction of course.

Havok it is also interesting to wonder that our species killed them off. Think about how competetive our nature is, and how they were probably hated and feared to the point of anhialation (sp?). SOmething else about them that interests me, is there knowledge and use of herbs, possibly for medicine, with the intent to heal. And to think these guys competed with lions, and bears for food!!! They were a tough breed, but limited to stay set in their simple ways.

This leads me to wonder: At what point do we look at a species and decide that it is not human?

That is a very good question. The behaviors and technologies developed by these ones, to me isn't very ape-like, and leans more toward something very similar to ourselves. Apes also do not bury their dead. So where is the line? Hard to guess really. But in my opinion, even modern apes are so similar to ourselves socially, that the feel like a form of kin, if you look at all the other animals who are nowhere near as close.

Okay, good. In a previous post Blib stated that Carbon dating is good up to approx 50,000 years. If that is the case, carbon dating would only be effective in dating Homo Sapiens and the Neandertals. Blib also stated that radiometric dating was not very effective at all.
Carbon dating is only one of many ways to date. It only goes back that far, and can only be used to date carbon based material. It does leave some estimation. Other rocks can be tested that exist on the same level, and estimated through there. I don't quite remember where I said radiometric dating was ineffective though, sorry if that came across anywhere.

More on dating can be read in this little essay that pokes a little bit of fun at cynics: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

I read a book one time where the premise was that we out competed them simply because we knew how to lie. Very interesting book. Wish i could remember the name. It was fiction of course.
That may be one guess. One I do remember that doesn't shine very nice light on our ancestors is that we delibrately killed some of them over food and land. Other ways is that we cheated them out of food, ran them out of places and generally were very cruel to them. Other guesses may be that some have crossbred with us, which may leave the question of how closely related we were and if we were of a different species at all.

This leads me to wonder: At what point do we look at a species and decide that it is not human?
"Human" is a genus, Homo. There are a bunch of human species. Generally they begin to be classified as Homo when they started to stand upright and use tools. Australopithecus is far closer to ape, still retaining long arms, very slouched over and a lack of tool use, since their brains are far smaller. Anymore I can't quite remember.

Human" is a genus, Homo. There are a bunch of human species. Generally they begin to be classified as Homo when they started to stand upright and use tools.

I agree.

Here is Another Theory (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0209_040209_neandertals.html#main) for what may have killed Neandertal

Some Current Research (http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/discoveries/d3_x_x.jsp?id=3453) of interest.

And a really cool site too........

Hominids using tools as early as 1.5 million years ago?

Strange findings (http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/newsandevents/n4_x.jsp?id=2802)



Oh, Blib that was a cool link. I enjoyed it. :D

Those are some great links, guys. The article on dating is good, and I'll eventually be looking for more specific examples. Eventually, I'd like to see if I can find an example of a fossil and the calculations of the degradation of the isotope series and then comparisons of findings at the same site. I'm most interested in the dating of the older Australopithecus findings. But this is a great start.

The Leakey website is great, and I'll be spending some more time there. I found this quote, from the "Strange Findings" link very interesting: "We now have to rethink the definition of Homo and our concept of 'species,'" Lordkipanidze said.

I don't feel so bad now about being confused about the boundaries between neandertalensis and sapiens (or Australopithecus and Homo for that matter.):)

The talk about neandertalensis brings up an interesting question to me.

I'm assuming, from what I've read and heard that the Neanderthal and modern humans shared an ancestor in Australopithecus afarensis.

I wonder if we share a common ancestor with any of the other primates who are living today and if this ancestor been identified. Of course, to answer this question, we'd have to go back before our timeline of hominids, but I'm just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The talk about neandertalensis brings up an interesting question to me.

I'm assuming, from what I've read and heard that the Neanderthal and modern humans shared an ancestor in Australopithecus afarensis.

I wonder if we share a common ancestor with any of the other primates who are living today and if this ancestor been identified. Of course, to answer this question, we'd have to go back before our timeline of hominids, but I'm just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

If you go back far enough all life has a common ancestor, so yes, we must have a common anscestor with all existing primates.

Ardipithecus ramidus may be the ancestor you are looking for.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0712_ethiopianbones.html

Our closest living relative is the chimpanzee. An interesting article on how close we are related. So close, the article suggests that chimps belong in the genus Homo:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html

I really loved this quote at the end of the article:

"Richard Dawkins perhaps provided the best visual for our link to chimps," Fouts told Discovery News. "Imagine taking the hand of your grandmother, who was holding the hand of her grandmother and so on down the line. 155 miles out, one of the women would be holding the hand of a chimpanzee."

Those were very interesting links, Vil.

At first glance, I would think that Ardipithecus ramidus would be too young to be a common ancestor since he was contemporary with A. afarensis. I would think that a common ancestor that we would share with, say, a gorilla would be older than this.

The chimpanzee issue is a very interesting one. If they indeed belong in the Homo genus, would this mean that they share Homo habilis as a common ancestor? (I also wonder where the brain size issue fits in this, since brain size seemed to be a determining factor in distinguishing H. habilis from the Ausralopithicines.)

NOTE: I'm not necessarily looking for an immediate response to any of these (although I'm always interested if there is one). I'm putting down my thoughts for further study for myself and anyone else who's interested.
:cool:

Vile answered pretty well to this question : living species all share common anecestors, it just depends how far you go back. We share common ancestors with apes, and also with snakes or garlic (but in a very distant past though).

I'm not sure what question Vil answered. I'm curious as to what the common ancestors are:

-I'm suspicious of Ardipithecus ramidus as being a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, because he is contemporary with Australopithecus afarensis, which is established as an ancestor of modern man. Wouldn't a common ancestor be older than A. afarensis?

-Do we know who the common ancestors between snakes, garlic and man are? How do we know that supposed common ancestors were really ancestors and not competing species, as it appears Neanterthal were?

-In the timeline of hominids, we see species, which, at first blush, may appear to be ancestors of modern man, but were actually other species which died out and did not evolve into any more advanced life forms.

The main problem in identifying common ancestors is that we only know a tiny percentage of prehistoric species, through their fossil remains. Most species, probably including those "common ancestors" we look for, let no identified remains.
Genetic tracking is another way of solving the common ancestors cases, but it can only tell us when a common ancestor existed, not how it really looked.

Clues to common ancestors come from the strangest places.
This article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/193732_lice05.html), which I came across quite unexpectedly, discusses how the different species of lice give clues as to the common ancestry of humans/chimps, and when early humans shed their body hair.:)

Common ancestor? Ancient monkey! A monkey from millions of years ago. And they found this really really cute(well, the artist rendition of it was) monkey/mouse/thing thing that was possibly an ancestor to both us and monkeys. Even older common ancestor, amoeba. Between plant and animals, I have no idea...

Theres no such thing as a common ancestor for Humans other than other humans.

Theres no such thing as a common ancestor for Humans other than other humans.

You know this for sure? How?

Are you aware how similar our genetics are to some modern primates?

Are you aware that humans are primates and are cousins to chimps???

Because we have similiar genetics does not mean we were once one ourselves. Our organs are much like that of a pig...do you think we will someday be a pig?

Are you aware that humans are primates and are cousins to chimps???

Do you and YOUR cousins share common ancestors?



Because we have similiar genetics does not mean we were once one ourselves. Our organs are much like that of a pig...do you think we will someday be a pig?

Please don't insult me by insinuating that I suggested such a thing. Where did I say we were ever chimps? There is eveidence of a vast variety of hominids. The fact that we have similar DNA to modern primates suggests that we are somehow linked far in the past, not that we WERE them.

Originally posted by creetwins
Do you and YOUR cousins share common ancestors?

If you are talking about actual blood cousins, yes, but we are both humans.

If you are talking about our cousins as in chimps...no, we just have similiar make up.




Originally posted by creetwins
[BPlease don't insult me by insinuating that I suggested such a thing. Where did I say we were ever chimps? There is eveidence of a vast variety of hominids. The fact that we have similar DNA to modern primates suggests that we are somehow linked far in the past, not that we WERE them. [/B]


I am concluding by your comments that you do believe in Evolution...which is a belief that we came from Apes or Chimps?

Originally posted by Blibblob
Common ancestor? Ancient monkey! A monkey from millions of years ago. And they found this really really cute(well, the artist rendition of it was) monkey/mouse/thing thing that was possibly an ancestor to both us and monkeys. Even older common ancestor, amoeba. Between plant and animals, I have no idea...

I was looking for something a little more specific and substantial. I was primarily looking at Vil's article regarding Ardipithecus ramidus, but I think that that is too young to be common between chimps and humans, given it was contemporary with A. afarensis. Do they have any fossil evidence to back up this monkey/mouse thing?

The fossil example for just the ape and human shows no proof to me. I think appearances but not species progresses. Charactersistics and physicalities may change.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by creetwins
[B]Do you and YOUR cousins share common ancestors?

-------------------------------

Cree you are funny :)

The fossil example for just the ape and human shows no proof to me. I think appearances but not species progresses. Charactersistics and physicalities may change.
Then you obviously don't know much about bone structure. It's not just how they look, but how the bones are situated together, they show things that are very similar. I'm no bone...guy, but I do know that the progression of how the bones are put together mean just as much as how it looks. Appearance gives a little to genetics of it, but the way things work show more. Besides, what physicalities do you know that change so much, and leave behind a very clear pattern?

which is a belief that we came from Apes or Chimps?
No, it's not. It's that we came from the same ancestors as them. We're genetically related, and historically related, and, compared to the earth, in very recent history.

Do they have any fossil evidence to back up this monkey/mouse thing?
Yeah, that was what they found, little bitty bones, but I can't remember where I saw this, I think it was Popular Science once quite a long time ago. I'll try and find it again.

So you do not think bone structure could have changed in humans due to such things as adaptation to the changing enviroment?

I swear im not trying to start a flame session or anything else. I do know however that someone will see the source of my information and discount it. It all makes sense to me This message is very long, so i'm gonna split it into two parts:

“Ape-Men”—What Were They?

FOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”

True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: “People ._._. evolved from apelike ancestors.” And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. There is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. ._._. the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! ._._. Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”

Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution ._._. to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes ._._. is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. ._._. But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.” He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Man’s “Family Tree”

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.” And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. ._._. The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. ._._. If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.” Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

What Did They Look Like?

However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. ._._. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects ._._. sheer invention.” Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.

What Were They?

If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.” Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.” But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time) “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times) “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins) But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

End Part I.

Beginning Part II

The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”

Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”

What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.” Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, ._._. reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines ._._. are actual human ancestors.” The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus ._._. that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.” And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming ._._. the missing link had at long last been found.”

But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.” Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that ._._. Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.” Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines ._._. were not men.” Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”

If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.” Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.” However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

The Human Family

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy.

Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

What About the Dates?

Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000_B.C.E. or before.

Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago ._._. civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000_BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W._F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. ._._. You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”


I got this information from the book, Life, How Did It Get Here, By Creation or By Evolution, published by...The Watchtower, Bible, And Tract Society of New York. I can already see some of you discounting this, but think about this. All of the sources are real, and can be found to be accurate. If you need the sources i can give them to you. The facts, however, speak for themselves...

"The Rise and Fall of Ape Men" next on Behind the Music...

ha. ;)

:D

now seriously, this post has been here two days and no one has seriously applied to it. Im actually kinda surprised.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
now seriously, this post has been here two days and no one has seriously applied to it. Im actually kinda surprised.
It's too goddamned long...

R-E-A-D!!!!!! lol seriously though im sorry it was just a lot to say i guess. I wanted to cover all the bases

Im sorry, its too much for my eyes on a screen.

Thanks, James for your post. It is long and it's going to take me a while to digest it, but that is the kind of thing I was looking for in this thread: a more measured examination of the evidence. I'm tryng to step back and look at all of this in an objective way and appreciate the responses from both sides of the issue.:)

Alright...I'm sold.

Ill copy and paste the post into word, and blow it up and look at it tomorrow.

Well I guess my post answered everybodies questions about evolution and now it wont be thought of as remotely valid. Way to go me...;)

Actually, James, after reading your post, I'd very much like to get a copy of the book you reference.

My sister's a JW and I think I'll ask her if she can get me a copy.:)

I would like that UnCool. I believe you will find much that will surely surprise you.

I contacted my sister a couple of days ago via e-mail (we live 2000 miles apart) and she will be sending me the book.

I'm wondering, James, what do you think I will read in it that I will find surprising?

Hopefully you will find that anyones argument for evolution has to be the most ridiculous argument ever devised. I dont broadcast half the info i could because i figure i would just be wasting my time. But if you have that book, i swear after a while you will start laughing when somebody brings up evolution, it will become that absurd.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
Hopefully you will find that anyones argument for evolution has to be the most ridiculous argument ever devised. I dont broadcast half the info i could because i figure i would just be wasting my time. But if you have that book, i swear after a while you will start laughing when somebody brings up evolution, it will become that absurd.
Funny, that's how I feel about creationism...

Sounds good, James. I'm looking forward to it. I'll let you know when it arrives and I've had a chance to read a little bit of it.:)

Posted by JWJames
I got this information from the book, Life, How Did It Get Here, By Creation or By Evolution, published by...The Watchtower, Bible, And Tract Society of New York. I can already see some of you discounting this, but think about this. All of the sources are real, and can be found to be accurate. If you need the sources i can give them to you. The facts, however, speak for themselves...

James, do you really think that information about evolution from "The Watchtower" is going to be accurate?

If you want reliable information about evolution go to the library...not a church.

read the last few lines of my post...

Originally posted by Jwjames111
read the last few lines of my post...

I quoted the last few lines of your post...as far as reading something goes, you should read some reliable information about evolution if you want to be able to discuss the subject intelligently. If you get your information from "The Watchtower", you won't be able to do that.

Yes sir Mr Pagan sir:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jwjames111
I dont broadcast half the info i could because i figure i would just be wasting my time.

If that's the way you feel then it must not be very good information. You seem to have a habit of making this claim.

Well Vile if I say it, though it makes perfect sense to myself, you will refute it with some tired claim. So does it bother you that unlike some on this site I know when to quit. You seem content and its quite obvious that you are not going to change. For every argument there is a counter-argument and you find a way to counter every argument i have. So all I can say to you is " Have a Good day sir"...It gets frustrating typing all that i do just to see you ask some question or make some statement that i think is perfectly clear but for you is hardly that. I dont know Vile. Sometimes a fellow gets tired of arguing...

My intent when I started this thread was to look at the evidence surrounding origins from all different angles. I'm trying to put aside, for a moment, my own personal beliefs and trying to evaluate all evidence as objectively as I can. I'm not trying to either prove or disprove evolution here.

I welcome any source that has a serious viewpoint on this issue and the Watchtower qualifies. Just because they publish religious material does not disqualify them from commenting on evolution.

I'm not so insecure in myself to refuse to consider the viewpoints of others.