In light of contemporary trends they need to think about altering this name.
With this kind of constant, drastic "evolution" of theory you have to admire those who continue to place all of their faith in science. God bless 'em!
Sorry, I'm convinced we evolved from aardvarks.
LOL!
The truth is humans ALWAYS walked on two feet regardless of their head size. I often feel sorry for evolutionists. They always have to spin a new theory as more objective evidence emerges that distracts from their hilarious theories.
Other "Missing Links"
"Missing Links" are vital to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself admitted that without the existence of "missing links" his theory would be proven false. Let's take a look at some of those missing links.
Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish. After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish. All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface.
Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics. And besides, it has modern flight feathers and hollow bones, evidence of a true bird.
The "horse series" is probably one of the worst attempts to prove evolution. Ribs woulod magicaly disappear and reappear and is based on a rabbit. Talk about desperation.
Now, to the Hominid Fossils.
Piltdown Man was discovered in a gravel pit not far from Piltdown, England. It was found with crude tools, and bones belonging to humans and apes. But, what was overlooked was the obvious file markings and chemical residue, making the jaw and other bones look ancient and sub-human.
Nebraska Man was constructed from a single tooth, later discovered to belong to an extinct pig.
Ramapithecus was constructed from a heavy jawbone, some teeth, and skull fragments, and was speculated to have walked upright, though a hipbone was never found. But, a full skeleton of Ramapithecus was found, and it resembles modern orangutans.
Ausralopithecus was supposed to be the first in the line of human descent. It was a small ape skull, and regarded as unmistakable evidence, until an adult Australopithecus was found, and declared an extinct ape by evolutionists
Homo habilis was argued to be classified as a type of australopithecine. Later skeletons of homo habilus discovered would reveal though that it was not humanlike at all. And any evidence of H. habilus that would suggest it is human is because human bones were mixed by "scientists" with ape bones.
Homo erectus, known as "Java Man" and "Peking Man", discovered by Eugene Bubois, was considered a link. Heavy brow ridges and femur bones, similar to modern humans, was considered to be proof of the evolution of man. But, Dubois exaggerated the skull, and failed to report that he found a complete human skeleton in the same strata.
Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person. And some tools that have been unearthed reveal that they may have been smarter than humans of today. That sounds like a regression, and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse. In any event, they were later clasified as true humans.
Cro-magnon man, like "Neanderthal man" was a more powerful and had superior intelligence. They just lived in caves and hunted bison, like some of the Indians (or, to be politicaly correct Native Americans) do. Even evolutionists classify them as modern humans.
The impossibility of transition
In order for evolution to take place, the creature has to be fully functional while undergoing the change. Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?
I still say this guy is the victim of a dwarf-tossing gone horribly wrong.
Ping
If humans evolved from apes ... why didn't the apes evolve ?
bump
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||