Early Man

[Saxman]

They didn't, and
why not?

To clarify what Lusche is saying: Humans didn't involve from gorillas, or chimpanzees, or orangutangs. They evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR of those groups, and were a different branch on the same evolutionary path.

As Scholz posted, evolution is NOT:

A > B > C > D

It's more like:

1885 ----------- 1955 ----------- 1985
                            \
                             \___________1985A

Great Apes still exist because humans did NOT evolve from them, but evolved ALONGSIDE them after an earlier split further in the past.

[Motherland]

I don't believe we did.  Just putting the theory to the test.

If evolving is improving out of necessity or for some natural advantage, then how come the inferior species A. didn't evolve and B. still exists?  Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to always apply if we did come from them. 

You're right, that doesn't make sense. But that's not how evolution works. That's a lie someone told you so that you wouldn't understand evolution and just give up on it.

Also, there's no such thing as an inferior species, there are just species specialized for different environments.

the prediction of base elements is an easier exercise in logic than the evolution of a species. the number of variables is finite unlike the variables of the evolutionary process.

Maybe in hindsight, maybe with the complete periodic table. But with a very incomplete table? At a time when no one even considered it?
Especially when we had practically no idea the structure of matter at time. There certainly was no finite number of variables, because people didn't even know that the elements were governed by anything. In fact, I would say that it was even less obvious than evolution- which can be exemplified by the fact that Mendeleev's first periodic table was published a full 10 years after Darwin's Origin of Species.

there has been a lot of generous extrapolation to fill in the picture due to the lack of full fledged evidence. a single jaw bone or finger bone does not make a species nor does it show the evolution of that species to its end point. the amount of pure conjecture that has been used (and readily accepted) to explain the evolution of humans is astounding.

There are full skeletons, and lots of full skulls that show predicted properties of pre-homo sapiens species at various points throughout the past four million years or so, so I'm not sure what point your point actually is here. We don't just have 'jaw bones and finger bones', of 'random isolated animals' but you can pretend that if it fits in better with your world view. There is quite a big fossil record for Australopithecus, just for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

[Saxman]

Also, keep in mind that there's a LOT that experts can tell from a piece of jaw bone or finger bone by comparing it to similar species to be able to extrapolate a guess about the complete animal with a reasonable margin for error.

Megalodon is a good example of this: The only parts that are preserved tend to be the jaws and teeth, but the structure is sufficiently of those remains is sufficiently similar to the modern Great White, that it's generally safe to reconstruct it with a similar body plan.

[gyrene81]

There are full skeletons, and lots of full skulls that show predicted properties of pre-homo sapiens so I'm not sure what point your point actually is here. We don't just have 'jaw bones and finger bones', but you can pretend that if it fits in better with your world view. There is a pretty big fossil record for Australopithecus for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

that is where you're wrong...you should read your own reference.


Sahelanthropus

Existing fossils include a relatively small cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features.

Orrorin

The 20 specimens found as of 2007 include: the posterior part of a mandible in two pieces; a symphysis and several isolated teeth; three fragments of femora; a partial humerus; a proximal phalanx; and a distal thumb phalanx.

Ardipithecus

It is still a matter of debate what was the relation of this genus to human ancestors, and whether it is a hominin, or not.

In 1992–1993 a research team headed by Tim White discovered the first A. ramidus fossils—seventeen fragments including skull, mandible, teeth and arm bones—from the Afar Depression in the Middle Awash river valley of Ethiopia. More fragments were recovered in 1994, amounting to 45% of the total skeleton.

Laetoli

Although much debated upon, it has been determined that Australopithecus afarensis is the species of the three hominins who made the footprints at Laetoli. This conclusion is based on the reconstruction of the foot skeleton of a female A. afrarensis hominin by anthropologists Tim White and Gen Suwa of the University of California.

amazing what can be extrapolated by some fossilized footprints when even footprints of supposed sasquatch in fresh soil are claimed to be nonsense...

LH 4 or Laetoli Hominid 4[1] is the catalogue number of a fossilized mandible which was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1974 from Laetoli, Tanzania

in modern science genetic anomalies among modern humans are not classified as separate species but fossils of what could be nothing more than genetic anomalies are...excellent science.

[Motherland]

that is where you're wrong...you should read your own reference.


Sahelanthropus
Orrorin
Ardipithecus
Laetoliamazing what can be extrapolated by some fossilized footprints when even footprints of supposed sasquatch in fresh soil are claimed to be nonsense...



in modern science genetic anomalies among modern humans are not classified as separate species but fossils of what could be nothing more than genetic anomalies are...excellent science.

our skeletons are symmetrical down our spines, there is a lot of other stuff that can be filled in or is largely inconsequential. It's not like this kind of stuff isn't savagely picked apart when it's found.

if you don't find something like this



or this



or this "fragment of a jaw"



significant then you will never accept anything, even if the past 4 million years are flashed past you and you get to watch human evolution in person

[Vulcan]

Where's all the funny "you know you're a redneck if..." pictures?

[Bear76]

Perhaps some day we will evolve to the point we quit arguing over things none of "us" can prove with absolute certainty and just respect others beliefs.


























I know, that would be a big leap 

[NatCigg]

animals dont evolve. they live and die. Change happens through reproduction. Then the newborn lives and dies. This is evolution.  If you want some changes.  Isolate a population, apply a constant pressure that challenges the ability to survive.  Wait about 1000 generations.  For a human this would be about 18,000 years. and check back and see how different the species is.  You will not find a missing link.  all you will see is a new species.

Anyone ever look inside another mammal? or reptile? or fish?  All the parts are almost the exact same as ours.  This is a big clue to me that we are all related.  Surly if there was a grand creator he was quite dull and lazy.

[GScholz]

Finding the actual fossil remains of a "transitional form" is immensely improbable; they exist for such a short time. We are lucky to find a single piece of a fossil of a species at some point during its entire existence. Nature is very efficient in destroying any trace of a being's existence. Finding a transitional form would be like finding the wreck of a 109F prototype, one of the transitional forms between 109E and 109F, only on an almost incomprehensible order of magnitude more difficult.

[Arlo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5ovSpS2GU#t=37

[GScholz]

same way i would explain the existence of the platypus...there is a reason they don't exist all over the planet. when you find a way for inter species mating to work, you will have your monkey man. pretty sure you could find a couple of volunteers in these forums that want to try some monkey tail...

What's wrong with the Platypus?

Interspecies mating does work in a few cases where the two species are closely related. Like with horses and donkeys for example. However the offspring is not always fertile (like the mule hybrid for example).

[Saxman]

What's wrong with the Platypus?

Interspecies mating does work in a few cases where the two species are closely related. Like with horses and donkeys for example. However the offspring is not always fertile (like the mule hybrid for example).

You also have interbreeding between H. neanderthalensis and modern H. sapiens which, considering modern humans still possess Neanderthal genetic material, DID lead to fertile offspring.

[Slate]

  How can people believe intelligent design caused Evolution? 

 

[BreakingBad]

I don't think belief in science and having religious faith have to be mutually exclusive.   

[GScholz]

I doesn't. I know several scientists who are Muslims...