Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate

New Scientist ^ | 7/1/04 | Will Knight

[R. Scott]

If humans evolved from apes ... why didn't the apes evolve ?

The only people who claim that humans evolved from apes are the preachers and anti-science journalists of the 19th Century.
Nowhere else have I read that theory.
Evolutionary Science has humans and apes evolving from a common ancestor.

[R. Scott]

Too bad the premise of an evolutionist is that God doesn't exist…

??? Where does that come from???

[R. Scott]

Show me the proof of this statement.

If it requires indisputable proof, show me the proof that a Supreme Being created everything from nothing.
It this can not be done to my satisfaction, then it in it’s self must be proof of the fallacy of creationism.

[Dimensio]

Since you are so bright (and I admittedly am not) which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

The egg.

[sawmill trash]

Since you are so bright (and I admittedly am not) which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

The egg.

So where did the egg come from ?

[sawmill trash]

If it requires indisputable proof, show me the proof that a Supreme Being created everything from nothing.

Proof is not required...only Faith is required.

[R. Scott]

Proof is not required...only Faith is required

Very true, and that is my point.
For the religionist, only faith is required to believe that God created all that there is - but at the same time the religionist requires absolute proof of science. If there is any perceived crack in the proof, than they claim that science is wrong and religion is right.

[GadareneDemoniac]

Darwin said it,
I believe it,
and that settles it!

[Modernman]

If humans evolved from apes ... why didn't the apes evolve ?

If the USA was formed by splitting off from England, why is England still around?

[Modernman]

Do you really think creationists will actually bother to read the article?

[Modernman]

They DID!

They got's thumbs on their FEET!

The other apes have certainly evolved since our species went their separate ways. They haven't evolved into humans, but so what?

[Modernman]

Perhaps us HUMANS de-volved them feet thumbs.

There's no such thing as "de-evolution."

[Modernman]

Since you are so bright (and I admittedly am not) which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

The reptile came first.

[Dimensio]

So where did the egg come from ?

It came from whatever pre-chicken life-form laid it.

[Ichneumon]

Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

Then you're not much of a scientist. The rest of us require supporting evidence, not just someone's word. I "believe it" because there *is* a mountain of overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Okay. First, humans didn't "evolve from apes". Humans and apes share a common ancestor.

The last common ancestor of chimps and humans would definitely be considered an ape. It wouldn't exactly be a chimp or any other modern species of ape, but it would have looked rather more like a chimp than like us.

For that matter, if you could take time machine voyage and trace our line far enough, you would arrive at something which would be classed as a monkey, because that's the pre-existing stock from which apes arose. It wouldn't be any modern monkey species, but you'd admit it to be a monkey.

If you go back farther yet, way back this time, there's nothing "more advanced" (in the human-like direction) than fish. Go back to the Vendian and there aren't even any fish. Nevertheless, our ancestry would be there, in some primitive form.

[Elsie]

There's no such thing as "de-evolution."

Oh...?

You have this on some authority???

---

I seem recall that ALL of the fishy stuff that was BEFORE mammals seems to have devolved away....

(t least that's what my MIRROR tells me...)

[Well, in the winter, my HANDS do become a bit scaly...]

[Central Scrutiniser]

Put me on the ping list. Looks like this is gonna be another fun one from the crevos. Its no fair really, the evolutionists have to actually use facts and data, the crevos just say "its a miracle!"

[Dimensio]

You have this on some authority???

How about the fact that there's no defined process for "biological devolution" or "biological de-evolution"?

Or are you going to insist that you're right unless we can absolutely prove that every biologist out there disagrees with you?

[sawmill trash]

Very true, and that is my point.
For the religionist, only faith is required to believe that God created all that there is - but at the same time the religionist requires absolute proof of science. If there is any perceived crack in the proof, than they claim that science is wrong and religion is right.


I do believe that God created it all.

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.