How did apes evolvle into humans?

[notto]

Ask your teachers about the moon dust level after you read this article.

What should we ask? Why creationists keep using it even after it has been debunked by fellow creationists?

I notice it points to the Answers in Genesis article that concludes like this:

Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists’ case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Those are illogical conclusions on both counts.

No, they aren't. Your errors in understanding have been pointed out and you just propagate the same argument ad nauseum so you must be either uncapable or unwilling to own up to your errors.

Furthermore, your argument is nothing more than based upon a logical fallacy: poisoning the well.

That' s true to the same extent that other supremacist views are true.

It's true, period. It's a basic logical fallacy to poison the well by calling evolution "racist" in order to ignore whether it's actually a valid theory or not.

Whether or not evolution is "racist" has no bearing on its veracity. Its veracity is determined by evidence.

How do you know? Did you personally experience an "emotional knee-jerk reaction" to what you perceived as "loaded language?"

I know because your shameless tactics on this thread are transparent.

I obviously did not have an emotional knee-jerk reaction because I know that your claims are false. However, it's clear that your intention is a smear campaign against evolution by calling it "racist" to provoke emotional reactions to your loaded language. To deny that this is what you are doing is ridiculous. And we all know the only reason you do this is because you have no logical, evidentiary argument, just emotional misrepresentations.

 

[dr.p]

Well the difference is that the modern one is to show the fact that gradual transitions of a slight sort occur and are readily apparent. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the form most closly resembling the common ancestor is one of the ones in the middle, and it splits off both ways. I could be wrong, I don't have the specifics of each fossil.

well the common ancestor bore more morphological similarity to other great apes than it did humans. so what is your point. oh with the skulls, ignoreing #1 which is just there for comparison, how do you think they are ordered?

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm

That was linked to when that picture was first used in P#53 in this thread.

According to the table below the picture, and the last diagram in "The Hominid Transitional Timeline" section, on that page... the order is oldest (B) to most recent (L), with A being a modern chimp skull there for comparisson.

Which makes it look entirely like our "common" ancestor was a chimp, as opposed to something in-between.

 

[JesusQuest]

A lot of people I know say that apes became man. I've read a lot of science books since the time I came to jesus and found that evolution is just a lot of mutations from many of a certain species in one environment. They don't say we were from monkeys but that monkeys and humans have one common ancestor, a half man half monkey guy, and his group got separated into two environments and they adapted to their environment differently. Then they each changed one into man the other into monkeys. Of course I don't believe in any of this anyway though.

 

[john crawford]

Now I am white and Louis isn´t. Yes, according to our hypothesis, we both are descended from a pouplation of extinct Australopithicine apes. And in the same way that your theory of blacks and whites in not racist, our theory of apes and humans is not racist.

Thinking in black and white terms is not going to help you understand the difference between social constructs of race and scientific concepts of species.

 

[john crawford]

Unfortunately there is significant fossil evidence, as has been demonstrated in the post above. interestingly, the creationists cannot make up their minds as to which fossils are human and which are ape[sic]

The human fossils aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that the physical remains of some people became fossilized. Evolutionists have much more difficulty distinguishing human fossils from ape fossils than creationists do. That's why creationists call evolutionist theories of human evolution from apes racist. Evolutionists associate human fossils from Africa with apes.

 

[john crawford]

crawford appears to have forgotten that racism is discriminatory by definition.. I fail to see how saying "Louis armstrong and I have an ancestor that is not human" is racist anymore than saying "some of my ancestors are black and lived in africa" is racist.

Evolutionist theories that claim that some persons ancestors were not human are racist insofar as they deny that that person's ancestors were members of the human race.

 

[CaptainKotatsu]

Evolutionist theories that claim that some persons ancestors were not human are racist insofar as they deny that that person's ancestors were members of the human race.

You're kidding me. This is what the root of your argument is?

 

[nvxplorer]

Evolutionist theories that claim that some persons ancestors were not human are racist insofar as they deny that that person's ancestors were members of the human race.

Evolution claims EVERYONE'S ancestors were not human.

What exactly isn't clicking?

 

[Jet Black]

Which makes it look entirely like our "common" ancestor was a chimp, as opposed to something in-between.

our common ancestor would have been genetically inbetween but morphologically far more similar to a chimp. See our common ancestor with the chimp came from the same environment as the chimp, but what-became-the chimps (more or les morphologically staying the same) stayed in the forest and didn't change much, whereas we ventured out on to the savannah, for whatever reasons (predominantly because the forests were receding at the time and so there wouldn't have been enough room in the forests for all the common ancestors)

 

[Jet Black]

I've read a lot of science books
...........
a half man half monkey guy
..........

no.

 

[Freodin]

Evolutionist theories that claim that some persons ancestors were not human are racist insofar as they deny that that person's ancestors were members of the human race.

It can´t be repeated often enough:

Evolution does not claim that SOME persons ancestors were not human - it claims that ALL persons ancestors were not human.

There is no difference is our far-removed ancestry between you and me and Louis Armsstrong. How can that be racist?

 

[Sphere]

I did not bother to read the answers logged on this post due to lack of time tonight, but I can tell you that EVOLUTION is the greatest lie ever given to man.

If you didn't read any of the posts here, how could you possibly say that evolution is a lie? That would be like me tellings you "I didn't go to medical school, but I can tell you that CPR doesnt make a difference in saving someone's life".

Until you educate yourself on the subject, you can not expect to be taken seriously..especially when your only "Evidence" is a refuted PRATT.

Ask your teachers about the moon dust level after you read this article.

Man was created. Genesis 1:1 is the truth.

I weep for America.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider:

"How exactly is pointing out that I am related to Australopithecus in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as Louis Armstrong racist?"

It is racist to the extent that Louis Armstrong might disagree with your relating him to a subhuman species of Australopithocine apes without his permission. Who are you to tell other people where they come from and who their ancestors are?

"Racism would be saying "Louis Armstrong is MORE closely related to Lucy than I am."

That's why theories of human evolution are racist. They postulate that the first species of people in Africa were more closely related to a species of anthropoid apes than to Louis Armstrong who was an outstanding member of the human race.

 

[Freodin]

That's why theories of human evolution are racist. They postulate that the first species of people in Africa were more closely related to a species of anthropoid apes than to Louis Armstrong who was an outstanding member of the human race.

I can savely assume that I am more closely related to my grandfather - who was also an outstanding member of the human race - than to Louis Armstrong. And I don´t even need my grandfather´s permission or the permission of Louis Armstong to state that.

Is this statement racist too?

 

[nvxplorer]

It is racist to the extent that Louis Armstrong might disagree with your relating him to a subhuman species of Australopithocine apes without his permission. Who are you to tell other people where they come from and who their ancestors are?

Louis Armstrong is dead. Perhaps you should ask Bill Cosby for his opinion.

Seriously, as a heart attack, this is beyond ridiculous.

Ever hear of a paternity test? How dare those child support people tell me I'm the child's ancestor! I'm not the father, and anything to the contrary is racist.

That's why theories of human evolution are racist. They postulate that the first species of people in Africa were more closely related to a species of anthropoid apes than to Louis Armstrong who was an outstanding member of the human race.

This makes so little sense that I can't even think of a sarcastic reply.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider:

"How exactly is pointing out that I am related to Australopithecus in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as Louis Armstrong racist?"

It is racist to the extent that Louis Armstrong might disagree with your relating him to a subhuman species of Australopithocine apes without his permission. Who are you to tell other people where they come from and who their ancestors are?

Not me. The evidence. If I'm pointing out that I as a white person am also and to the same extent related to Australophicus there is no racism.

"Racism would be saying "Louis Armstrong is MORE closely related to Lucy than I am."

That's why theories of human evolution are racist. They postulate that the first species of people in Africa were more closely related to a species of anthropoid apes than to Louis Armstrong who was an outstanding member of the human race.

John, do you not see the disconnect? I point out what would be a racist concept, and that we do not hold it. And you go on to answer as if we did hold the racist concept.

Who exactly are you postulating this "racism" is directed against? Ancient Homo erectus or modern Africans? I think we need to know exactly what you're alleging, because you've confused a lot of people.

 

[ebia]

I think we need to know exactly what you're alleging, because you've confused a lot of people.

You want him to make it easy to refute him, by actually making it clear what he is raving about? Clearly, his best chance of winning the debate is staying incoherient and inconsistant.

 

[dr.p]

our common ancestor would have been genetically inbetween but morphologically far more similar to a chimp. See our common ancestor with the chimp came from the same environment as the chimp, but what-became-the chimps (more or les morphologically staying the same) stayed in the forest and didn't change much, whereas we ventured out on to the savannah, for whatever reasons (predominantly because the forests were receding at the time and so there wouldn't have been enough room in the forests for all the common ancestors)

So you're saying the common ancestor would have looked more like a chimp, and that some chimps evolved; some didn't.

The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) offers an alternative scenario. It suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already different from the apes; that nakedness, bipedalism, and other modifications had begun to evolve much earlier, when the ape and human lines first diverged.

From: http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

I see NO reason for the change in some and not in others. Environment is ruled out as a factor if you say what the above article says (they changed while still in the forest with the other monkeys). Nourishment, etc., would have been the same. So what caused the divergence?

Even if we did change AFTER venturing out, consider the following:
• chimps don't swim, so a life-aquatic would probably be ruled out if the common ancestor was really physically that similar to a chimp
• i doubt a chimp could out run a lion, or similar large predator, so a desert dwelling (or somewhere in the plains) would be doubtful, since they would have few (if any) trees to hide in, depending... and their size alone is enough to get them eaten out there.
• i would assume if they went for a colder climate in the mountains, we would be looking more like Sasquatch due to temperatures... but what would they eat up there?

Yes, I see them drowning, boiling, freezing, or being digested... sorry I'm so skeptical can't help it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So you're saying the common ancestor would have looked more like a chimp, and that some chimps evolved; some didn't.

No. He's saying that some of the common ancestors moved out into the savannahs, and some remained in the jungle. These two populations evolved in different ways, one into humans, the other into chimpanzees.