I do.You believe all those skulls are from humans?
We do.
Looking at the above picture, can you tell me where "apes" end and "humans" begin?
Where did you get that and is it substantiated?
It is my understanding that many have claimed to find the remains of a missing link and after much study they come to find that it is most likely an extinct ape and not human at all.
New Piece of the puzzle of human evolution revealedBack to the question: which of those skulls are humans and which are apes?
It's a list of various skulls. I'll post the source after you answer the question, because I didn't want it to influence your response: which skulls are "apes" and which are "humans"? Where is the line between them?
Your understanding appears incomplete. The reality is the fossil record of human evolution is quite well documented and there are patterns of transition from pre-humans to modern humans.
Back to the question: which of those skulls are humans and which are apes?
I don’t know I’m no expert on the subject but I did find your chart along with the article saying that 5 skulls all found to be during the same period had significant differences in their structure.
It’s very possible these could’ve been extinct apes or perhaps even extinct humans. Who knows?
That's not the original source.
The original source was a TalkOrigins.org article on evidence for evolution. You can find it here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
When examining the hominid fossil record, there is a clear pattern of change over time. So much so, that you know what really funny? Creationists can't agree on which skulls are human and which are not: Comparison of all skulls
Which is basically what you'd expect if you were dealing with a series of intermediary fossils with no clear dividing line.
Are we supposed to?Creationists can't agree on which skulls are human and which are not:
Your use of the phrase "missing link" and your allusion to finding living "ape-men" today is positively 19th Century in it's understanding of the subject.Well for example many scientists believed we evolved from apes and often depicted what the transformation may have looked like as apes began to evolve into humans. So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between? The absence of these “missing links” indicates that the evolution process either has ceased or never took place to begin with.
Where did you get that and is it substantiated?
It is my understanding that many have claimed to find the remains of a missing link and after much study they come to find that it is most likely an extinct ape and not human at all.
Please don't respond to his posts. I don't want his nonsense polluting my thread.You believe all those skulls are from humans?
These are interesting questions. If any of the following points are unclear please ask me for clarification.Well for example many scientists believed we evolved from apes and often depicted what the transformation may have looked like as apes began to evolve into humans. So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between? The absence of these “missing links” indicates that the evolution process either has ceased or never took place to begin with.
Seriously? Because you were unaware of all the hominid fossils we've found your response is not answer his question, but to question the veracity of the skulls?
Your "understanding" is wrong and I'll explain why in a bit.
Your use of the phrase "missing link" and you allusion finding living "ape-men" today is positively 19th Century in it's understanding of the subject.
These are interesting questions. If any of the following points are unclear please ask me for clarification.
1. From a classification point of view we are apes.
2. The other apes from which we evolved were not the same as the apes that exist today. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gibbons and humans all evolved from an earlier common ape-like ancestor, the proto-ape.
3. The evolution of those distinct species depended mainly upon two things: the specific mutations occurring within particular populations; the characteristics of the environment in which the populations lived. Natural selection then favoured the survival of specific characteristics (some that already existed, some that arose through those mutations) that were beneficial in those environments.
4. Therefore we cannot possibly see the evolution of humans from the other apes occur today because:
If we were to actually see humans evolve from today's apes it would pretty much destroy all of evolutionary theory, apart from the observation that things evolve.
- The other apes from which we evolved are no longer there
- The specific environments in which the evolving populations arose have gone
- The random mutations that occurred in the past either fail to occur, or are occurring within a quite different population or environment
Have you seen any examples of modern day mutation where the mutation was actually beneficial to the host or more efficient than a normal healthy person?
The odds of everything coming together so perfectly just for this planet to be able to support life alone is overwhelmingly improbable.
I'm not sure why you think they had to survive for incredibly long periods. Rather they were likely continually changing throughout the evolution from original common ancestor to present species. Where we place the dividing line between one species and its predecessor, or follower is largely a matter of convenience.The thing that I find hard to believe is that these species had to survive for incredible long periods of time only to become extinct?
"the mutation". I don't know what you mean by "the mutation". It is as though you think one species is distinguished from another by the effect of "one mutation". Nothing could be further from the truth. Multiple mutations, in combination, accumulated over time are what lead to speciation.What triggered the mutation was it purely genetic or was there a catalyst?
One individual has a mutation. If it offers an advantage to the individual that individual is slightly more likely to survive and slightly more likely to leave offspring, some of whom will carry that mutation. The mutation then has a chance to spread throughout the population. Thus, over time, the entire population changes, the individuals without the mutation decrease from generation to generation till none remain. The populations are continuous through time, some genes and their associated features are not.If there was a catylist how did it effect the entire population or did the rest of the population that didn’t mutate all the sudden become extinct despite having survived long enough to mutate into what we are today.
I have no idea what you mean by a structured form. Mutations can be beneficial (in a given environment) neutral (in a given environment) or damaging (in a given environment). As you note, the damaging ones are much less likely to be passed on to offspring. The beneficial ones need only offer a very small advantage to be favoured in an environment and come to dominate in a population, over several generations.Then there’s also the question of how did the mutation process take on such a structured form? Typical virtually every mutation we see today in lifeforms are completely unstructured. Cancer and birth defects for example are two examples of this. There is no structure or design of functionality as we see in lifeforms that are not mutated in these ways.
Certainly. One that springs to mind is a mutation that enables inhabitants of Tibet to better tolerate the low oxygen pressure at high altitudes. A different mutation, that works through a different mutation offers similar benefits to some inhabitants in the Andes. These mutations date back just a few thousand years. (That's modern in genetic terms.)Have you seen any examples of modern day mutation where the mutation was actually beneficial to the host or more efficient than a normal healthy person?
That's an argument from personal incredulity and thus not one that carries any weight with those of us who prefer facts and evidence. Please continue to express your doubts in specific terms and I shall do my best to address them.I think the idea of intelligent design is absolutely plausible no matter how improbable it may seem. The odds of everything coming together so perfectly just for this planet to be able to support life alone is overwhelmingly improbable. Combine all that with the chances of all life and a self replenishing ecosystem being structured with such complexity and balance not to mention the natural instincts needed for all life forms to survive and perpetuate itself is unbelievably improbable without intelligent design. I honestly can see how anyone can look at our world and not see intelligent design. This place is engineered to support life and we are engineered to live.