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.

[caffe]

"EVEN IF YOU COULD PRODUCE A LIVE ACTION FILM showing evolution occuring over the time span of millions of years, these people would still refute what was unfolding before their eyes."


I think that has already been done: it's called FICTION!

(gee, some people probably believe King Kong really exists)

[ShadowAce]

condensing all that water vapor would release so much heat that the oceans would boil!

Wrong assumption. First of all, it says in Gen 7:11--

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. emphasis mine

Not all of the water from the Flood came from rain.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So you think Pierolapithecus catalaunicusi is a living animal. Interesting...

[connectthedots]

Stupid title. NOBODY who knows anything about evolution has EVER asserted that humanity evolved from apes.

Read post #7.

[flevit]

no, I wondering why you think NG, is anti-science...it refers to an ancient APE as a common ancestor. this whole sound and fury signifing nothing, is a silly semantic game.

[Coyoteman]

Stupid title. NOBODY who knows anything about evolution has EVER asserted that humanity evolved from apes.

You tried that already. Post #7 shows a chimp skull in the top left corner for comparison. Nobody who knows anything about evolution would think it was claiming humans descended from the chimp.

[connectthedots]

Actually he's saying that we descended from the same organisms that apes did. This is always so confusing to the anti-science crowd.

Actually, his post was a response to exactly that point. Go back and read the post to which he was responding.

This is always so confusing to the anti-English grammar crowd.

[CharlesWayneCT]

But that is a silly argument. Because we don't FIND lots of comingled remains in a single spot, even of creatures that we KNOW lived at the same time period.

So while I suppose finding them all together might prove something, you would never expect to find them all together. I will however have to admit that, in fact, should it happen it would disprove evolution.

Except that now that I think of it, an evolutionist could argue that a forced mixing occured after-the-fact, like they were in different strata, but then something happened to "free them" from their strata, after which they all washed together and were re-buried.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

...this whole sound and fury signifing nothing, is a silly semantic game.

Then why bring your complaint to me? I didn't post to you.

If you want to believe that fossils are just rocks, I don't really care. If you think nothing you see is real I don't know how you can believe in anything.

Maybe you're just psychic.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Your friend flevit, contradicts you.

[GSlob]

"If apes evolved into man, why is there still apes?"
Only some, more successful, apes evolved. Not everybody makes it into the middle class or higher, either. So why is there still the underclass?

[BikerNYC]

Because we don't FIND lots of comingled remains in a single spot, even of creatures that we KNOW lived at the same time period.

How about just one. One dinosaur and one human together. One ancient species and a dog together.

Except that now that I think of it, an evolutionist could argue that a forced mixing occured after-the-fact, like they were in different strata, but then something happened to "free them" from their strata, after which they all washed together and were re-buried.

People can argue whatever they like. If we begin to find ancient and recent species together, and that happens over and over, the argument you claim an evolutionist might make will have less force.

Non-evolutionists have to explain why we don't see all kinds of animals and plants together in all time periods. They can say that all animals and plants were not "created" at the same time, that some were plopped on Earth later than others, but I don't think they really want to say that.

[thomaswest]

"Not all of the water from the Flood came from rain."

Reply: But a lot of it did, maybe half? 40 days and 40 nights is a LOT of rain! But the part that came from rain is essential to the argument that there are flood deposits created by rushing water. Think for a minute: if you have a lake, and add water to it from the bottom, the level merely rises covering more and more land and creating very little erosion. So the 'fountains of the deep' argument 'explains' almost nothing.

There are numerous other problems from physics. Rearranging so much mass would change the earth's moment of inertia, which in turn, would change the rate of rotation. The earth's rotation rate has been slowing down owing to frictional forces from the moon interaction slowly, but no spectacular change took place 4000 years ago.

[ShadowAce]

I was just showing that the oceans would not boil away, as you claimed they would.

[Deut28]

Are you suggesting that a deity must follow the laws of physics when performing miracles?

If God had the power to flood the earth (not to mention creating it to begin with), why would you then claim that he would follow the laws of physics?

It's an illogical point. No one is claiming the flood was an entirely natural event. The entire claim is that it was an act of God.

[flevit]

nonsense, both Coyoteman by reponse #7 and NG claimed APE was a common ancestor (despite the clever attempted by coyoteman at a bait and swich from APE to "CHIMP")

silly semantic game...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/photogalleries/ape_ancestor/

[rlmorel]

LOL...I was wondering why I got pinged to this thread...I KNOW I wouldn't have posted in here...I tend to steer clear of some threads...with my dyslexia, it gets way too confusing when I see someone state definitively "There is no proof that we evolved from peas..."

I have always thought that SOME people evolved from peas, or at least their brains did...:)

(If someone who really has dyslexia reads this post, I am in trouble...they are REALLY going to be confused...)

[antiRepublicrat]

Except that now that I think of it, an evolutionist could argue that a forced mixing occured after-the-fact, like they were in different strata, but then something happened to "free them" from their strata

That's sort of already happened with thrust faults, but then that's a well-known geological phenomenon. Well, well-known except to the creationists who continually bring up fossils in thrust faults that are supposedly in the wrong strata.

[Coyoteman]

nonsense, both Coyoteman by reponse #7 and NG claimed APE was a common ancestor (despite the clever attempted by coyoteman at a bait and swich from APE to "CHIMP")

The entire text of my #7; make all the hay you can:

There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period

Evidence (if you want proof, try mathematics, photography, or a fine Scotch):

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern