did we come from monkeys

[painted wolf]

Actually May most Hominids are based on lots of evidence.
For Australopiticus aferensis for example, we have fossils from more than 300 hundred individuals, making it one of the better known Species. We know what 90% of the skeleton looked like, definitly not an "chimp style ape" but a Hominid.
Australopithicus africanus is known from fewer inidviduals (about 10 or so) and is better than 50% complete, including pelvis, vertebra, skulls (one from a child) and some ribs and a femur.
Homo erectus is known from several hundred individuals and is over 90% complete. We also have thier tools and weapons.
Homo floriensis is known from just three individuals but also is known by 95% complete fossils, including tools as well.
Homo neandertalis is the best known, with individuals ranging from infants to the very elderly. There are thanks the the Neandertals practice of burial thousands of specimins many very complete. Neandertals skeleton is 100% known to science, we have his art, tools, weapons, ritual objects and eaven musical instruments.

Only a handful of species are represented by less than 10 specimins. Most of those have nearly complete or complete skulls.

Rampithicus is an ape, not on the direct liniage of mankind and isn't talked about in referance to human origins as it is an ape not a hominid.

The evidence is not flimsy or based on falcehoods. Most 'ape-men' stand today as proven genuine finds and not as hoaxes. The ONLY hoax on the family tree was Piltdown man.

This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men."

Do you have any evidence of this?
As I said the ONLY specimin to have been was Piltdown.

wa:do

 

[may]

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.
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

 

[painted wolf]

May- you are misquoting Gould (a staunch beleiver in Evolution by the way )
He did not say that humanity appears suddenly, he said and this was the point of the whole book, wich I own and highly suggest to othes to read... that there is no difference between all the races of modern humans in terms of brain size or ability. All Homo sapiens are created equil.

Using Gould to support ID is like using Anton LeVey to support Catholisism.:biglaugh:

Once again I point out that Rampthicus is a known APE not a HOMINID and so yes it is agnolaged by Palontologists and Anthroplogists that Rampithicus is NOT the first member on the human line.
SO WHAT?

I have shown that the other members of the homonid line are not just based on 'fragments'
Australopithicines, H. erectus, H. floriensis, H. ergaster, H. habilis, H. neandertalis are all known from very well preserved and plentiful fossils.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

May- you are misquoting Gould (a staunch beleiver in Evolution by the way

)

Actually I believe May is correctly quoting a website that misquotes Gould.

 

[may]

my point was ,that in the past and even to day , when ape fossils are found they are often made out to be the missing link when in the end they are found to be apes . also when human fossils are found the same thing happens but in the end they are human each according to their kind. but the average person on the street is led to believe that we came from apes, when after all it is only a theory .and i must point out that i did not say that ramapithecus was human i realize that it was an ape . any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that--- apes, or monkeys--- not humans. and fossils of 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.if any australopithecines were found alive today they would be put in the zoos with other apes . no one would call them apemen, 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 chimpanzees

 

[Ceridwen018]

may, stop the madness!

when ape fossils are found they are often made out to be the missing link when in the end they are found to be apes .

No.

led to believe that we came from apes, when after all it is only a theory

No. We did not come from apes. Apes and humans evolved from the same ancestor--big difference.

any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that--- apes, or monkeys--- not humans.

No. May, I don't know if you've compared humans and apes recently, but humans ARE quite ape-like.

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.

Actually may, human kind IS animal kind. What did they teach you in science class when you were little?

There are certain variations within the human species. The only reason why such variations are not considered to be new species, is because they are either not that different, or because they are still able to reproduce with humans. If you had any knowledge of apes, you would recognize that their internal structures greatly resemble those of a human. By your logic, they are simply humans expressing variation.

New Scientist said that Lucy had a skull very like a chimpanzees

Newsflash--so do we.

 

[Draka]

I know I'm new here but just wanted to put in my two cents. There are an extreme amount of similarities between us and the apes/chimpanzees/monkeys, etc...etc... The thing is that some people will look at this and see the scientific theory of evolution proved and while others see it and call it coincidence mainly due to the fact that it interferes with their beliefs. My question then is this, Why is it so hard to imagine that the two (creationism and evolutionism) can be intertwined? Is it so hard to believe that a Divine creator started things in motion and let nature take its course from there? There are no descriptions that I am aware of that perfectly describe the first people in any holy script, so why is it impossible to think that our ancestors were different from us and we have evolved from them? We are STILL evolving...height, weight, strength are all changing generation to generation, we even have organs in our bodies that no longer serve any purpose. If the forces that shaped our earth that are in effect today are the same forces that shaped it in the millions of years prior, then why not the same for us? If we are changing now...is it so hard to believe that we have been changing all along???

 

[Ceridwen018]

Is it so hard to believe that a Divine creator started things in motion and let nature take its course from there?

Not at all.

 

[painted wolf]

gotta' say thats what I think...

anyway getting back to the human/hominid thing.

Yes, May "very like" but she was also "more like" a human. In her legs, vertebra, hips, arms, feet, and features of the skull like... teeth, position of the neck, angle of the face, and so on.

What pray tell is Neandertal, May? Is he an Ape like a glorified chimp or more?
http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/

wa:do

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i think that we started from the archeabacteria in the sea, which is the lowest possible lifeform, and then evolved from lemurs later on

 

[may]

gotta' say thats what I think...

anyway getting back to the human/hominid thing.

Yes, May "very like" but she was also "more like" a human. In her legs, vertebra, hips, arms, feet, and features of the skull like... teeth, position of the neck, angle of the face, and so on.

What pray tell is Neandertal, May? Is he an Ape like a glorified chimp or more?
http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/

wa:do

Yes, this is just what i was refering to ,Neandertal man is a man, but he was at first pictured as bent over, stupid looking,hairy and apelike. now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badley deformed by disease. since then, many neanderthals fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern man. 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.so there we go again , people led to believe that we evolved from apes when after all it is a theory.so the evidence is clear,that belief in apemen is unfounded.Instead , humans have all the earmarks of being created.---seperate and distinct from any animal

 

[Yerda]

i think that we started from the archeabacteria in the sea, which is the lowest possible lifeform, and then evolved from lemurs later on

Archea are the simplest possible life? Lemurs? As in Madagascar?

 

[Valjean]

i think that we started from the archeabacteria in the sea, which is the lowest possible lifeform, and then evolved from lemurs later on

What with the misinterpretation of evolution theory by so many of the general public, perhaps "lowest" is not the best choice of terms, 88. It implies hierarchy, even evolutionary directionality. I'd suggest "simple" or even "primitive."

 

[painted wolf]

ok, so Neandertal is anothe species of Human... God made man twice, once with us and once with Neandertal.

Now what about Homo erectus?
He too made tools, mastered fire, built houses of stone and wood and hide, and explored the world.
Is he Ape(chimp kind) or Man?
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herectus.html

wa:do

 

[may]

ok, so Neandertal is anothe species of Human... God made man twice, once with us and once with Neandertal.

Now what about Homo erectus?
He too made tools, mastered fire, built houses of stone and wood and hide, and explored the world.
Is he Ape(chimp kind) or Man?
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herectus.html

wa:do

yes, 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.as for neanderthal being another species of human again that is only theory

 

[Draka]

Instead , humans have all the earmarks of being created.---seperate and distinct from any animal

Do we not have 2 eyes in the front of our heads? Like other mammals? Upper appendages and lower appendages...like other animals? Do we not have a brain inside our skulls...like other animals? Do we not eat, sleep, breathe, and sexually reproduce...like other animals? There are species besides human that mate for life (even though we don't do that so well nowadays), have sex for pleasure, and protect their young. Are we really THAT different???

 

[painted wolf]

ok, what about Homo floriensis?

Also like H. erectus, a tool user, fire keeper, upright walking being.

wa:do

 

[may]

The​

Greatest Gulf of All


​

Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, "No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care."​

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain "is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe."​

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.—Genesis 1:26.​

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: "Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms."For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: "Special creation."

 

[painted wolf]

So was that a yes on H. floriensis?

other animals such as vervet monkies have the rudiments of speach. They have distincive words for specific things such as Hawk, Snake, Leopard and Safe. Chimps and Orangutans have shown evidence of culture and tradition, each band has disctintive ritualistic greetings and tool use has been shown to be a tradtion passed down from mother to child. As for enormously extended growth and parantal care the Elephant who also shows evidence of rudementarty speach, tradition and culture. Elephants reach sexual maturity at around 18 but don't mate untill at least 20 years old, in humans its is around 12 and varies from there, also like humans Elephants go through menopause and remain vital parts of the society long past thier breeding years. Female elephants reach their menopause at around 55 and can live untill 70.

I'm curious where you draw the line between man and animal.
so far we have..
human: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
human: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laferr.html
human: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
human: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
human: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html

how about these:
human or not? tool users, upright walkers, same general size and brain power of lower end H. Erectus.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
Does brain size matter? here is little H. floriensis with a brain the size of a chimps but who used tools and mastered fire walked upright, and was more like us than any chimp. Is she man or beast?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/4311029a.html

how about these, also same general brain power as lower end H.erectus and the H. rudolphiensis, upright walking, some evidence of tool use.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
What makes this one an animal but the rest above a human?

Where is the line?

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Did H. floriensis make the tools themselves or aquire them from neighboring sapiens?