There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period

the Sunday Telegraph ^ | 9/11/05 | Vij Sodera

[flevit]

Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.

You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.

No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.

However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.

No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.

But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.

[ZULU]

"And why did he create ed asner?"

So we could better appreciate what "loyalty", "patriotism" and love of country mean when presented with an example of their diametrical opposite.

He also wanted to provide us with a living illustration of what "crass" and "depraved" means.

Thats why God allows most Hollyweird actors to survive.

[ZULU]

Can you elaborate the question better? I don't understand what you asking.

Thanks.

[Cinnamon Girl]

A few bone chips are found here and there and right away our grandparents were chimps. It's amazing how many skeletons of tyrannosaurus rex and other dinosaurs have been found.

[BikerNYC]

But with the history of evolution, there is NO WAY to falsify it.

Sure there is. Dig up human bones, dinosaur bones, and other kinds of extinct life forms all in the same layer of sedimentary rock, showing they all lived together at the same time.

[Coyoteman]

A few bone chips are found here and there

Here are a few more of those bone chips...

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406- A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[thomaswest]

You wrote: "Creation should be allowed to be taught as an alternative, but ever-so-tolerant libs have blocked that."

I reply:
What about teaching ID as 'the controversy'? This is a sham for introducing ID as being on an equal basis with real science. ID claims there is a controversy about evolution--a controversy they have contrived, which is peculiarly focused on biology. Let's extend this to all 'controversies' we can imagine:

I do not believe in the Pythagorean Theorem--there are gaps in the proof, I do not accept your proof, and I think triangles can have more than 180 degrees. Obviously God designed triangles, and my belief in God trumps geometry. This 'controversy' will help all students who fail their geometry tests!

I do not believe in gravity. We accept that gravity makes apples on earth fall, but it is angels that push the planets around. Saying otherwise is merely circular reasoning. Teach the controversy!

Why are students required to believe in atoms and molecules? There is not a single mention of them in the Bible, nor in the Declaration of Independence. Electrons and atomic forces promote atheism and moral relativism in the public schools. Teach the controversy!

I've never been confident about airplanes staying up. Some say that it is due to secular engineering. NASA and Boeing engineers are of the elite. Who would believe them? I suspect faeries. Teach the controversy!

Shamanism should be taught in medical schools on an equal basis--after all, there are millions of believers. Teach the controversy.

Education of our kids is a wonderful thing--we pass on the knowledge that we humans have accumulated at great effort over centuries. We are not going to teach every nutsy idea that comes along…. But it is a good idea to teach that there are lots of nutsy ideas, and students should learn how to identify them.

[vimto]

[RightWhale]

you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes

Strawman as devised by a student who never read past the intro of his philosophy textbook. If you go to the used books sale, you will often find such books where there is heavy highlighting of entire paragraphs in the beginning of the book, and the remainder of the book has never even been opened.

[daviscupper]

You may have something there.

All my bosses are liberal Democrats. They eat lots of bananas everyday day and never tire of repeating the nutritional value of this fruit, pound on tables to make a point(sometimes slip up and pound on their chests), they call themselves tree huggers (and I am sure they climb trees on weekends) and I suspect in the privacy of their homes drag their knuckles on the ground.

I would not go so far to say humans descended from apes but I am starting to suspect DemocRATS did.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

Since the argument in this piece evolved from a single straw man, I don't find it hard to believe that we are the product of evolution. We didn't "evolve from apes." We and the apes today share common ancestors.

So in essence, your point is that since the author created a straw man (man evolved from apes) and then knocked it down, he's wrong, because in actuality man evolved from some single cell organism?

The theory of evolution requires things to evolve. Getting from a single cell to humans require millions of baby steps along the way. The only thing discovered so far are various ape-like creatures. For evolution to work, either we evolved from the apes or there is a fork in the road where one side is human and the other ape. Since you are specifically claiming that man did not evolve from ape, they must have shared a father who was neither man nor ape. That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps a more likely scenario is that there are similarities between organisms because a divine being created all of them with man being version 1000000.0

[DannyTN]

In addition to the e valid criticisms the others have made of your parade of skulls the following should be noted.

The Neanderthals had larger craniums than modern humans, but you can't see that from looking at J-l compared to M-N. The modern humans look larger. Which raises the question of whether the skulls are presented to scale or have been sized to fit.

Also skull F (1470) was reconstructed from a skull that had been smashed into over 100 pieces. It was originally constructed to appear flat face but after a Creationist scientists examined it, and similarities to Australopithecus were identified, it was reconstructed having a sloping face and determined to be a large brained Australopithecus.

Skulls C&D also look to be particularly poor specimens.

The Rise and Fall of Skull 1470

[moehoward]

"There is lots of evidence that can be used to support the theory of evolution. None that proves it."

A simple, honest fact. Why do so many seemingly intelligent folks get all worked up denying it?

I have no problem with Evolution and ID being objectively discussed in schools. What I do take issue with is when either is claimed to be THE truth. Example, my daughters (Christian school) Science book states matter-of-factly that "Evolution is a lie".

[flevit]

http://www.onesmallspeck.com/author.html

I bet he finished the book...

[chachachia]

Don't forget Kerry. They are the exceptions from creation.

[add925]

We are not going to teach every nutsy idea that comes along

Ahhhh, there's the rub. Who defines "nutsy"? I would have preferred to have been taught all theories...Guess there wasn't enough time in a day or enough qualified teachers.

[Coyoteman]

I appreciate your comments, but I do not consider answersingenesis.com as a reliable source for information on anything pertaining to evolution.

Have you seen how they stretch science to try to support the global flood?

[DannyTN]

An updated reconstruction of 1470. (from the article in the previous post.

[Joe 6-pack]

Retardation is not proof of evolution.

[TXBSAFH]

LOL

[DannyTN]

I've seen how evolutionists dismiss the evidence of a major worldwide water catastrophe as many isolated events.