What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[juvenissun]

Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis cooked. Cooking predates our species.

They are all humans.

 

[Neogaia777]

They are all humans.

Sure doesn't require much inteeligence to cook something on a rock or stick over a fire... other than the ability to have fire, which, someone help me, when did that begin? and I don't think any other lifeform, other than maybe aliens, and if they did visit us long ago, well, still working on that one... Are they angels/demons, good/evil, there might be multiple alien species roaming the galaxy, and at different stages of development, if their all from the same "source/God", then the Father may be older than, and beyond, time itself...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Let's just say that humans are more intelligent than any other species on Earth.

How is that evidence against evolution?

Let's just pretende I didn't already argue this, but isn't it the Hight of Huberus, of us to "assume" "we" are the "wisest", most intelligent highest form of life their is on earth, sea creatures, for example, have no need of fire or cooking their food, they live with balance and harmony in/with their environment, by that standard, we could be lower than roaches, or someone might say, well, they only live in balance with their environment, because that's what makes them animals they cannot build great cities or kingdoms of luster, but whales and dolphins do speak in a language, and probably predate us in language by about oh say, a billion years or so, we've only been using our language for how long? (someone help me)...

God Bless!

 

[Shemjaza]

They are all humans.

Seriously?
These are all humans in your mind:

Nothing non human is as clever as a Homo habilis now... but still.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure doesn't require much inteeligence to cook something on a rock or stick over a fire...

No no. These simple acts take a tremendous amount of intelligence. Otherwise, monkeys would have done it long long time ago. To use fire is only a small application of the whole intellectual ability. Intelligence is not just used for one thing.

 

[juvenissun]

Seriously?
These are all humans in your mind:

Nothing non human is as clever as a Homo habilis now... but still.

I don't know who they are. But I think Neanderthals are humans. (btw, I don't really know who Neanderthals are. I just use information given)

The key idea is that there is a very very sharp boundary between non-human and human. The boundary is given by the intelligence difference, not by the morphological difference. Intelligence can not be measured by morphological parameters.

How smart were dinosaurs? We can never know. Are they smarter than a modern dog?

 

[juvenissun]

Let's just pretende I didn't already argue this, but isn't it the Hight of Huberus, of us to "assume" "we" are the "wisest", most intelligent highest form of life their is on earth, sea creatures, for example, have no need of fire or cooking their food, they live with balance and harmony in/with their environment, by that standard, we could be lower than roaches, or someone might say, well, they only live in balance with their environment, because that's what makes them animals they cannot build great cities or kingdoms of luster, but whales and dolphins do speak in a language, and probably predate us in language by about oh say, a billion years or so, we've only been using our language for how long? (someone help me)...

God Bless!

God makes us to govern the animals. That is the standard.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know who they are. But I think Neanderthals are humans. (btw, I don't really know who Neanderthals are. I just use information given)

The key idea is that there is a very very sharp boundary between non-human and human. The boundary is given by the intelligence difference, not by the morphological difference. Intelligence can not be measured by morphological parameters.

How smart were dinosaurs? We can never know. Are they smarter than a modern dog?

So how can you say that there is a very sharp boundary when you don't know how intelligent early hominids were?

 

[juvenissun]

So how can you say that there is a very sharp boundary when you don't know how intelligent early hominids were?

Because the evolution (gradual change) of intelligence is not possible. The level of human intelligence must appeared suddenly.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know who they are. But I think Neanderthals are humans. (btw, I don't really know who Neanderthals are. I just use information given)

The key idea is that there is a very very sharp boundary between non-human and human. The boundary is given by the intelligence difference, not by the morphological difference. Intelligence can not be measured by morphological parameters.

How smart were dinosaurs? We can never know. Are they smarter than a modern dog?

More stories that you tell without evidence, and in fact against all evidence.

Turns out that the intelligence of a pack hunting primate on the plains of Africa isn't that much away from a nuclear engineer.

We are almost identical to the people who survived with stone tools and camp fires for eons. Technology builds on itself.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because the evolution (gradual change) of intelligence is not possible. The level of human intelligence must appeared suddenly.

How intelligent was Homo Naledi? What about Homo Habilis?

Homo Habilis had approximately half the cranial capacity of modern humans yet managed to use stone tools, how do they rank on your scale of human intelligence vs animal intelligence?

 

[Loudmouth]

They are all humans.

Just as humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all primates.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the evolution (gradual change) of intelligence is not possible. The level of human intelligence must appeared suddenly.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

The key idea is that there is a very very sharp boundary between non-human and human.

Where is the evidence backing this key idea? Or is it just a bare assertion?

 

[juvenissun]

More stories that you tell without evidence, and in fact against all evidence.

Turns out that the intelligence of a pack hunting primate on the plains of Africa isn't that much away from a nuclear engineer.

We are almost identical to the people who survived with stone tools and camp fires for eons. Technology builds on itself.

Where is the technology of any non-human primate? You tell me one and I will shut up.

 

[juvenissun]

How intelligent was Homo Naledi? What about Homo Habilis?

Homo Habilis had approximately half the cranial capacity of modern humans yet managed to use stone tools, how do they rank on your scale of human intelligence vs animal intelligence?

Could the Homo Naledi use fire?
If they could, then they are as intelligent as we are.
If not, then they are a kind of dumb monkey.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's just pretende I didn't already argue this,

The point is that it isn't relevant to the question at hand. The claim has been made that human characteristics could not evolve from a common ancestor shared with other apes. If you consider one of those characteristics a higher intelligence, then so be it. That is not what is being debated.

but isn't it the Hight of Huberus, of us to "assume" "we" are the "wisest", most intelligent highest form of life their is on earth, sea creatures, for example, have no need of fire or cooking their food, they live with balance and harmony in/with their environment, by that standard, we could be lower than roaches, or someone might say, well, they only live in balance with their environment, because that's what makes them animals they cannot build great cities or kingdoms of luster, but whales and dolphins do speak in a language, and probably predate us in language by about oh say, a billion years or so, we've only been using our language for how long? (someone help me)...

God Bless!

The height of hubris is to believe that you were created by a deity that also created the entire universe, and that this deity cares about your day to day struggles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is the technology of any non-human primate? You tell me one and I will shut up.

Why does it matter? If no other primate has something close to human technology, how is that evidence against evolution?

 

[Herman Hedning]

Could the Homo Naledi use fire?
If they could, then they are as intelligent as we are.
If not, then they are a kind of dumb monkey.

How about smart apes then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cabulary-My-lunch-worlds-cleverest-chimp.html

 

[AV1611VET]

How about smart apes then?

Evolution -- because there's just something about teaching your cousin to play with matches.