Where are the Monkeymen??

[OldBadfish]

If we descended from Monkeys, why isn't there any half monkey half men in transition? By definition evolution doesn't just stop. And natural selection or whatever couldn't have just stopped the progression in its tracks.

 

[Truncate]

We are primates. Very similar to "monkeys," as you put it.

 

[OldBadfish]

I mean shouldn't there be some transitional beings around?

There should be, if we came from monkeys yet there are still monkeys, yet the cro-magnons and other transitional beings are gone, why?

Shouldn't the monkeys be gone too?

Don't you think evolution seems a little far fetched? At least macro-evolution?

 

[OldBadfish]

We are primates. Very similar to "monkeys," as you put it.

Not similar enough, there are the missing beings in transition, where did they go?

 

[Philip]

I mean shouldn't there be some transitional beings around?

There are.

There should be, if we came from monkeys yet there are still monkeys, yet the cro-magnons and other transitional beings are gone, why?

Evolution does not state that we come from monkeys. Rather, it states that we share a common ancestor.

Shouldn't the monkeys be gone too?

Nope.

Don't you think evolution seems a little far fetched? At least macro-evolution?

Nope.

 

[OldBadfish]

Wow, that was insightful Philip, if you're unsure and don't know just say so. I believe you are confused.

Evolution does say that we evolved from monkeys and micro organisms. Particularly hard core evolutionists. There is adaptive evolution, and there is the theory that we EVOLVED from other things like monkeys.

Ok, Philip, wheres the transitional beings? Got any pictures? Proofs? Where are they?

Quite disturbing actually.

 

[Truncate]

No. The common scientific consensus is that we share a common ancestor with what is now known as "monkeys."

And, we are very similar to them, look at DNA strand matching/comparison. Not to mention much smaller things, such as hair being ALL OVER human skin - everywhere. My legs are covered with brown hair...

 

[Philip]

Wow, that was insightful Philip, if you're unsure and don't know just say so. I believe you are confused.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree.

Evolution does say that we evolved from monkeys

Are you certain? Are you sure it doesn't state that we just share a common ancestor. Perhaps you could cite your source.

 

[Truncate]

Got[sic] any pictures of god?

Photos are not the only proof that is acceptable, for many things.

 

[wblastyn]

Wow, that was insightful Philip, if you're unsure and don't know just say so.

Evolution does say that we evolved from monkeys and micro organisms.

No, creationists say evolution says we came from monkeys. Evolution actually says we share a common ancestor with monkeys.

Quite disturbing actually.

That's because it kicks your ego, you don't like the idea of being a "dirty" animal.

 

[EvolvEarth]

Badfish, actually, evolution has nothing to do with man evolving from monkeys. No scientist has ever said that humans evolved from monkeys, however, humans and current day monkeys share a common ancestor together.

Also, chimpanzees share a closer common ancestor with humans than humans with monkeys, and if you didn't know, chimpanzees, gorillas, oragutans, and the such are not monkeys.

How evolution is disturbing is beyond me. I guess people can't get over that we humans are not special. Oh, well. Some people have the mental stability to handle the truth about life, and others do not.

 

[ifriit]

If we descended from Monkeys, why isn't there any half monkey half men in transition? By definition evolution doesn't just stop. And natural selection or whatever couldn't have just stopped the progression in its tracks.

Why would you expect there to be "monkeymen?" It's not as though evolution says there's some sort of preprogrammed procession--ameobas become bugs become monkeys become men--but rather that evolutionary species changes happen in reaction to environmental pressures. If we are expecting monkeymen, then we must have identified some environmental pressures that favor said creatures that we are allegedly inexplicably not seeing. What pressures, pray tell, would those be?

 

[OldBadfish]

Common ancestry says basically the same thing..

Common Ancestors

So I would like Philip, the Christian to show me as a fellow Christian (or another Christian evolutionist) who can show me how mutations millions of years ago is even remotely consistent with Gods word without completely shredding Gods word and dismissing half the bible, it leaves the Christian evolutionist with no ground to stand on, I see they will freely proclaim Christ, but dismiss Gods account of creation.

So what are we going to evolve into? Any additional speculation?

 

[OldBadfish]

That's because it kicks your ego, you don't like the idea of being a "dirty" animal.

I really couldn't care less about that.

Since evolution has to transform slowly, even by mutation or whatever means there should be some transitional beings, we can't have just been monkeys and then whammo we are now humans, mutations take many years and the fact that monkeys and Orangutans are still around, would suggest to me that they are going to mutate, or there should be some in the process of Mutating.

Philip says there are transitional beings, but hasn't elaborated on where they are.

Anyone else?

 

[lucaspa]

If we descended from Monkeys, why isn't there any half monkey half men in transition? By definition evolution doesn't just stop. And natural selection or whatever couldn't have just stopped the progression in its tracks.

At this point humans are already in that ecological niche so any individual primates born with variations that would be transitional to humans would be eliminated by the form of natural selection called purifying selection.

Also, there is no "progression" in evolution. Only change. To have "progression" you have to make a value judgement about which change is "progress" and which is not.

There are studies showing that Andean and Himalayan highlanders have genetic adaptations to living at those high altitudes. There is also evidence that the !Kung in the Kalahari desert are in the first stages of reproductive isolation (speciation). Whether either of these continues depends on how much gene flow -- interbreeding with other human populations -- happens.

In the fossil record there is a set of transitional individuals linking A. afarensis to H. sapiens thru 2 intermediate species.

 

[lucaspa]

I mean shouldn't there be some transitional beings around?

There should be, if we came from monkeys yet there are still monkeys, yet the cro-magnons and other transitional beings are gone, why?

Darwin addressed this. The more adapted species end up driving the intermediate species to extinction. Thus giving the artificial appearance of "gaps".

 

[Truncate]

Trying to showcase the fact that no one knows for SURE what we will (slowly) evolve into next does not disprove evolution. We will not be evolving into another animal, we will evolve to survive "survival of the fittest," as it were.

There is a saying that 'necessity is the mother of invention,' well, 'survival is the mother of evolution,' so to speak. When conditions change, those that can adapt survive and have offspring. Millions of years of this can and has changed animals dramatically.

 

[JohnR7]

If we descended from Monkeys, why isn't there any half monkey half men in transition? By definition evolution doesn't just stop. And natural selection or whatever couldn't have just stopped the progression in its tracks.

Actually, what they have is a bunch of different skeltons that they have found. In a lot of cases they do not know if it is a man or a monkey. There are times when half the so called experts will say it is a monkey or an ape, the other half will say they think it is a man. They think the one with the spearhead in the rib cage was most likely a man.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok, Philip, wheres the transitional beings? Got any pictures? Proofs? Where are they?

Quite disturbing actually.

OK. Transitionals in the human lineage. I've posted this before Badfish.
To you. You ignored it and made the same claims again. Please pay attention this time.

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"

Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features

 

[OldBadfish]

Got[sic] any pictures of god?

Photos are not the only proof that is acceptable, for many things.

So then written eyewitness testimony is acceptable to you?

We do have eyewitness written testimony that is for all intents and purposes contemporary enough to consider, however the theory that we mutated from monkeys (or less advanced primates) 5 million years ago is quite the leap of faith.

And I would think it would be even more confusing for a Christian who believes the word of God, yet embraces this theory.

I guess I am more interested on how the Christians explain their faith in this theory, I can see atheists embracing it, because it is the only plausable alternative.

Did the Spirit confirm to the evolutionist Christians that Gods word is a fallacy and God didn't create Adam as he says? I mean you have to throw all that out the window. In fact might as well throw out the whole OT and believe the lineages are incorrect.

I think a evolutionist Christian would have to believe that God created lesser beings, and then waited until man evolved or mutated from lesser primates, and then put Adam in the Garden, but that doesn't make any sense to me as a Christian, and frankly cannot see how it makes any sense to anyone else who says they are Christian.