PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Is my grandpa really an ape?!
       Is there any proof out there to support/disprove??

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am have been reading up on this site, and there isnt much mention of our supposed connection to apes.  I know it sounds weird, im skepticle myself, and when i try to find more information on it, i cant find anything worth listing to disprove it, and the only proof to say the statement is true is that our bones are similar.  Can people from both sides tell me the gist of their side so that i can make a decision for myself?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:45 PM on March 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a couple of thoughts:

1) If we were created in God's perfect image, and we used to be apes, then does God look like an ape?

2) If we started out in Gods PERFECT image, and then we changed wouldnt that be de-evolution?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:18 AM on March 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you one of those people who think that evolution was guided by god?  just a hunch.  All of your questions are assuming that evolution happens, but that god still created us in his image.

1)  He could look like an ape!  And whats wrong with it, i know im probably going to get a lot of thesehardcore chritians coming in and saying that god is a white man, notice that nobody thinks that god is balck, or is a woman, infact, the earliest humans were found in africa, so those could be some of the direct ancestors of adam and eve.  Ill just sit back and wait for the criticism of my comment to roll right in.

2)  Just to tell you, evolution is where somethings genetics change to suit the environment better.  they might have been perfect to god, but not perfect to the landscape which they were put in.  And by the way, there is no De-evolution, evolution always works forward, and if you say that de-evolution is possibal, it would only lead to the extinction of the species, becasue they wouldnt fit their environment, but conflict with it.

Do you have anything else to say that is trying to support the creation side, because i stil dont know, ive heard it from the evolutionists.  Just the devils advicate.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:18 PM on March 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am have been reading up on this site, and there isnt much mention of our supposed connection to apes.  I know it sounds weird, im skepticle myself, and when i try to find more information on it, i cant find anything worth listing to disprove it, and the only proof to say the statement is true is that our bones are similar.


Bones aren't the only link.  Genetics, biology and comparative anatomy are also used.

"We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between morphologically indistinguishable (sibling) species of Drosophila flies (fruit flies)." -E. T. BABINSKI


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:14 PM on March 23, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, sry it took so long, but if there is all of this proof, in genetics, biology, and comparative anatomy, where did you get it (dont give link, just cut and paste major proof)

Thanx
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:46 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I always mention how I think God is metaphoric. Therefore, the fact that we were created in his image may not necessarily mean that we look like him. It could mean we were created to do deeds like (and be as holy as) He is. Which we were...but then, well, the whole thing with Adam and Eve...etc.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:54 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know why it said my name is "guest"...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:55 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have the same problem with it not showing my name.  I found the reason to be if i regertered as Yves, and casualy signed in as yves, it thinks im a different person, try getting the capitols in your name correct.

Thats a differnt way of thinking about it, so would you go far enough to say that god looks like an ape?  If that is even what you were saying, it is kinda vegue.

-Yves
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:23 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd go as far as to say God may not have a physical appearance like we think. I think that God made our minds very limited. Don't take that the wrong way; no doubt we are the smartest creatures on this planet. But, all humans have trouble trying to believe (yes, even Christians and Creationists have their doubts) that something that their impulses are not immediately responsive to can actually exist - and in my opinion, that's why many people who are atheists are just that - because there is no physical evidence.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:46 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, that may be true, but we are getting off topic, i would like to hear your oppinion on waether or not man came from apes, proof for both sides also would be nice.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:12 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
SKRI

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't regard the theory of evolution a scientific theory.  It has not demonstrated any reproducible experiment that validates it.  It has not provided the agency whereby evolution occurs.  Evolutionists keep insisting that evolution happens by natural selection and random mutation, but they can't demonstrate that either or both of those things can make a new species that didn't exist before.  On the contrary, neither natural selection nor random mutation have ever resulted in a buildup of genetic information.

For us to consider a theory scientific, it must provide a demonstration of how it works by reproducible experiment or we must consider it mere speculation.  If you believe that a hyper-intelligence made life, the universe and everything, you have to show me how such a thing happened or I simply cannot consider your case.

Humanity does not have definite knowledge of the origin of life.  The evolution/creation debate most likely has us all barking up the wrong tree.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:34 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
WinAce

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Evidence that apes and humans share a common ancestor comes from many fields. Below will be only a partial list, to give you an idea of just how overwhelming it is.

(1) Fossil intermediates morphologically intermediate between modern apes and modern humans.

Exhibit A, below, taken from the TalkOrigins 29 'Evidences' for Evolution FAQ:



Fossil hominid skulls. The first, A, is a modern chimpanzee. The last, N, is a modern human. Those in-between are some of the more important fossils we've found, arranged in linear order. Notice how the earliest fossils are more and more ape-like, whereas the later ones are more and more human-like. The ones in-between more or less completely blur the line between human and ape, possessing excellent combinations of primitive and derived traits. Especially note the less elongated jawline and increasing brain size from earliest to latest skulls.

The theory of common ancestry imposes very stringent restrictions on what we should find and (and not find!) in the fossil record. Since we see a linear change from less human to more human, the theory is spectacularly corroborated. Since we don't ever see any fossils that are totally prohibited by evolution, such as apes with eagle eyes or other mix-and-match uses of the best designs available, evolution is doubly corroborated.

Both tests (as well as others) are an empirical experiment that tests evolution's validity. It passes with flying colors.

(2) Identical pseudogenes in apes and humans that corroborate the powerful fossil evidence.

Taken from the TalkOrigins Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics FAQ:

Pseudogenes are formerly active genes that have been been the victims of crippling mutations and no longer express protein. Our genomes are littered with them, from the GLO pseudogene that produces vitamin C to dozens that control the olfactory systems in other mammals.

Normally, genes are preserved quite well by natural selection, and individuals with crippled genes are filtered out of the population. Occasionally, however, a gene with no mission-critical function will get deactivated and the organism can get along equally well without it. For example, a gene coding for the production of a protein that's abundant in the animal's diet anyway is irrelevant to its reproductive fitness.

Crippling mutations come in literally dozens of varieties: parts of the gene may become overwritten with another; parts of the gene may be cut out; random detritus can be spliced in, breaking its function; two genes can be merged together; parts of the gene can be shuffled with other parts; etc. We know they occur because we observe them in the lab and can even artificially induce them.

The causes of mutations range from errant cosmic rays to toxins in the environment. The common adage of "no two snowflakes are alike" applies even more here, as the odds of getting the same crippling mutation twice are somewhere in the astronomical range.

This leads us back to the newly formed pseudogene. As long as it bears no selection disadvantage, random genetic drift can establish the damaged gene in a small population. Should that population be successful and displace the others, the gene will be established in the entire species as a molecular vestige.

Any two offshoot species will hence be identifiable as related if they share the same crippled mutations in damaged genes. Does this apply to humans and apes?

The answer is a resounding "Yes!". Examples are listed below.

Primates, unlike all other mammals (with the exception of guinea pigs), cannot synthesize Vitamin C. In days long past, this led to tragic outbreaks of scurvy on seafaring voyages. Using the predictions of evolution, scientists hypothesized that the gene for vitamin C production would be found in humans as well, despite our not being able to produce it.

Lo and behold, a GLO (ascorbic acid pseudogene) was identified in humans at exactly the same spots other mammals have functional vitamin C genes. What's more, the other great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) had an identical broken pseudogene!

The common ancestor of apes and humans lived in a fruit-rich environment and had no need to synthesize their own vitamin C, making the loss of that gene entirely neutral. Guinea pigs also have a damaged GLO pseudogene, but the mutation that crippled it is different, as expected if it was an independent occurence.

Other occurences of shared pseudogenes include the one coding for Urate Oxydase, which make our species vulnerable to gout, and dozens of them that code for powerful smell in other animals but are crippled in humans, but one should suffice for now.

Observations in the area of pseudogenes that would falsify evolution include finding the same pseudogene in humans and dogs but not apes; since apes and humans share a closer ancestry than dogs and humans, any pseudogenes found in dogs and humans MUST be found in humans and apes because they belonged to the common ancestor of the latter. Hence, the theory of evolution passes this series of empirical experiments as well.

(3) Atavisms. Lost traits indicative of our species' history that occasionally resurface in modern individuals and again corroborate hypothesized evolutionary relationships.

Taken from here:



Exhibit B, X-ray image of an atavistic human tail. The subject is a 6-year old girl.

Note: pseudotails are an entirely different phenomenon and unrelated to real human tails. Pseudotails are merely abnormal protrusions of skin and muscle in the sacral region, whereas some real human tails have nerve ganglia, cartilage, additional vertebrae, and can be consciously moved and contracted. In addition, cases have been reported where they've been inherited in families.

Human fetuses are frequently covered in a minute fur (called lanugo) that becomes reabsorbed shortly before birth. Rarely, this feature is retained, resulting in what is known as Werewolf Syndrome by the press - a human covered in thick, animal-like fur.

This evidence more or less speaks for itself, but I'll offer a few additional comments. Atavisms are another empirical test for evolution's validity. The theory predicts only those atavisms that reflect traits in ancestral species will be found. This, for example, means that finding wing atavisms on a human, gills on a whale, fur on a fish, or some such, immediately and uncontrovertably falsifies evolution.

On the other hand, finding excessive fur on a human, developed hind legs in whales or snakes, or other atavisms totally consistent with their hypothesized evolutionary history is a strong confirmation.

(4) Human chromosome 2 is an exact duplicate of two ape chromosomes, but they're fused together. Humans also have 1 less chromosome than apes. Coincidence?

From here:

A rare mutation exists that can fuse two chromosomes into one. It's been observed in the lab and accounts for several cases of chromosome number discrepancy between domestic horses and wild ones, species of mice, and others. While it normally results in infertility and death, occasionally no important DNA is affected by the chromosome fusion and it can be passed on to descendants.

It's long been known that humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes; some have argued this is evidence they are not related, in fact. But biologists hypothesized that the discrepancy was accounted for by a chromosome fusion and made several tantalizing and very unlikely successful predictions as to how our genome should look.



Exhibit C; human, chimp, gorilla and orangutan chromosomes lined up. Notice the banding patterns on human chromosome 2 and how they look identical to 2 different ape chromosomes. Both arrangements work equally well, as location on chromosomes does not affect activity of genes; nevertheless, instead of two different chromosomes or one large one, ours is fused as a perfect evolutionary vestige.

But do mere looks tell us that indeed, this is a genuine fused chromosome from our ape-like ancestor? The conclusion would already be reasonable given the evidence, but the theory of common ancestry predicts yet more observations.

Chromosomes end in what are known as "telomeres" that are identifiable repeats of the same DNA bases. Conversely, they also contain characteristic "centromeres" near the middle. If our chromosome 2 was fused from two ape-like chromosomes, we would expect to find the inverse; telomeres in the middle, where the two old ones met, and centromeres halfway toward each end from the middle, as opposed to the middle itself.

Both predictions are true. Centromeres and telomeres have been identified in human chromosome 2 exactly as evolution told us they would.

This was another experiment to demonstrate the truth of evolution: had humans had no traces of the fusion, we would be hard-pressed to account for the discrepancy without seeing any remnant of the missing one. Not only would hundreds of genes on the chromosome be deleted in the process, almost assuredly rendering the mutant infertile or worse, but mutations that delete entire genes or chromosomes without leaving a trace are spectacularly rare.

Had this been due to deliberate design, we would likely see two different fused human chromosomes. Or one large one, but without the bizarre misplaced centromeres and telomeres that only lead to the conclusion of common ancestry. Both would be falsifications of evolution.

(5) Endogenous retroviral infections from the ancient past and their role in confirming what is already painfully obvious.

Taken from here:

Retroviral infections can occasionally infect a germ line cell. The resulting offspring will have bits and pieces of the virus stuck in every cell in its body. We've observed this very rare process in the lab, and the odds of getting two independent infections to leave the same bit of viral DNA at the same exact locus are astronomically unlikely.

Like pseudogenes, the viral fragments can piggyback on the success of an individual and become established in the species. The chances of any particular viral fragment, even if inserted identically in two seperate cases, becoming established in two seperate populations (a rare event in and of itself) makes this not just improbable, but more or less impossible without divine intervention ;)

Any offshoot species will have the same unlikely and easily identifiable ERV, enabling us to construct accurate phylogenies from an independent line of evidence.



Exhibit D; human endogenous retrovirii insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates. Notice just how well the standard evolutionary phylogeny (humans and chimps closest, then orangutans and gorillas, then gibbons, then old world monkeys, then new world monkeys) is represented by this line of evidence.

ERVs have also been used to reconstruct the relationships between dogs, jackals, wolves and foxes; various breeds of domestic cat and wild cat; and even to establish the shared ancestry of cows and whales. (In the last case, two independent viral infections accounting for the evidence is impossible - whales and cows do not even share the same environment, much less are exposed to the same diseases!)

Needless to say, this offers numerous falsification avenues for evolution. Any ERV shared between organisms farther on the phylogenetic relationship than humans and apes must *also* be found in both. For example, ERVs found in New World Monkeys and chimps MUST be present in humans (aside from a few very rare cases where they've been deleted, but we can tell when a deletion has occured) or evolution is falsified.

An ERV in dogs and humans but not chimps would put the theory on its deathbed; so would a phylogeny reconstructed from these viral fragments if it differed significantly from the accepted phylogeny based on morphological, fossil, pseudogene, anatomical, and other evidence. This is the strongest evidence for evolution I've ever come across; a truly powerful and damning smoking gun.

Conclusion

These 5 lines of evidence (and there are many more) are all not just explained by evolution, but predicted by it. Each one could mean falsification and relegation to the scientific dust bin of history, along with phlogiston and a geocentric earth, or repeated vindication to the point where "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", as stated by Theodore Dobzhansky.

Each is an empirical experiment that most certainly establishes that common descent is not only science, but one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.

Whether one believes in god(s) or not, the evidence is clear - apes and humans share a common ancestor. The origin of that evolutionary process is a seperate question entirely and the scientific facts cannot (as of yet) clue us in on whether deity(ies) were involved, so evolution is not a threat to religious beliefs.

(Edited by WinAce 3/31/2003 at 12:14 AM).


-------
"Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality."
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:11 AM on March 31, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, thats great, but you never mentin creationism, do you believe in that?  If you do, you dissagree with your own words, That there needed to be able to test it again and again and come up with the same results.  Oh, and by the way, that is in experiments, and cannot be used to proove certain things, like the extinction of dinos, and if you find a ways to proov me wrong there, you proov yourself wrong about being unable to proov evolution.  
Does anyone else have a repy or counter argument for skri?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:17 AM on March 31, 2003 | IP
WinAce

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think my post sufficed to demonstrate that evolution (1) can be tested, repeatedly and in myriad ways (2) is scientific and (3) is as likely to be true as relativity, quantum mechanics or germ theory.


-------
"Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality."
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:45 AM on March 31, 2003 | IP
SKRI

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me tell you the difference between the theory of evolution and quantum theory.  Quantum theory permits us to make certain predictions on the behavior of particles, and we can prove quantum theory either wrong or incomplete if we observe unexplained behavior that violates those predictions.  This holds for any scientific theory.  But the theory of evolution states that natural selection and random mutation account for the creation of new species, yet we have never observed natural selection or random mutation generating a new species, and the nature of these mechanisms does not permit the generation of genetic information, necessary to spawn more and more complex species.  This makes the theory of evolution DEAD WRONG in the scientific sense.  We have never seen a mutation add genetic information to any organism.  On the contrary, mutations always reduce genetic information by damaging genes.  Only blind adherance to evolutionist dogma would allow us to insist that all complex organs result from random mutation.  Natural selection, too, does not generate genetic information.  It can cause a species to prefer certain expressions within its genetic range, but it can never make a new species.  For instance, if we assume that the running speed of a certain predator depends mainly on its inherited traits, if a crisis occurs which kills off the slower ones, you will have a statistically faster new generation, but not a new species of predator.

WinAce, you have not shown any test of the theory of evolution, but rather how some fossil and genetic evidence fits in with the evolutionary model.  A creationist can do the same thing with the right creation story.  The evolutionists need to present an acceptable agency which makes evolution happen or else the evolutionary model amounts to nothing more than a house of cards, and you might as well believe that life appeared by magic.  Natural selection and random mutation don't explain it.

Yves, I don't believe in either model and I suggest that you do not get suckered into believing them either.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 02:53 AM on April 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WinAce, you have not shown any test of the theory of evolution, but rather how some fossil and genetic evidence fits in with the evolutionary model.

-True, however, the Theory of Evolution made those predictions before the evidence was accumulated.  Theories are supposed to make predictions, not simply fit the evidence that already exists.

-Speciation is already a confirmed event, so I don't know what you're arguing about.
-Mutation most definitely can add information.  You act as if only a single organism's genetics matter.   The alleles frequencies are considered over a whole population.  If everyone has AB, and a mutation causes one individual to have BB or AA, then there are now 2 variations.   Secondly, there are many more mutation types than simple deletion.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:42 PM on April 1, 2003 | IP
WinAce

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You'll note I posted evidence for shared ancestry, not any particular mechanism that makes that descent with modification come about.

Nice , though. It almost diverts attention from your inability  to address my 5 independent lines of evidence converging on the same explanation.

Any real replies should be posted on the new forum in that topic. I won't be checking back here.

(Edited by WinAce 4/3/2003 at 1:48 PM).


-------
"Atheism isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality."
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 1:46 PM on April 3, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WinAce has made a great logical and evidence based for the fact of evolution and the various THEORIES that explain the obsevered process of Evolution. There is no doubt that we know evolution happened we can see it in the fossil  record of multiple period and eras since 750 million years into the Pre-Cambrian. We have seen groups, classes, orders, families, genera, and thousands of species develop, survive for a time and go extinct. We see parallel forms that survive the great extinctions. We know of about 1000 transitional forms (missing links no longer missing.) We have a textbook of evolution in the human genome as WinAce alluded. We still have genes for gills, a notochord, and a tail. We even have these structures temporarily in our own early embryonic history. In short evolution is an observed phenomenon like an apple falling from a tree showed Newton that Gravity is a fact.

What we should be asking for the fundamentalists who so oppose evolution, what evidence do they have for a process of speciation other than evolution. What is your evidence Creationists? The Bible is not acceptable for many reasons. It is hearsay and full of errors and barmy superstition. I want real evidence, such as all fossils being dated to an exact time 6000 to 10000 years ago, and none older or none developing at multiple different times. There is your challenge.

As to the being made in God's image, that is patently silly. It is obvious that man made God in man's own image. That is why your God has all of mankinds good and bad habits. Your God is jealous, capricious, vindictive, cruel, insecure and needing worship/recognition, given to fits of rage with violence, both love and hate, unmerciful most of the time, only rarely merciful, unjust (inherited guilt). It is clear that your God is just a big, nasty, cosmic sized human with too much power, absolute power. Remember Lord Acton: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I am not attacking God. God is imaginary and the alter-ego of primitive tribal desert shamans who invented him in their image.

FreeAmerican


-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 02:10 AM on April 7, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To get back to topic, "is grandpa an ape."

Actually he is. So are you and I. I feel that the artificial and arbitrary separation of hominid from apes is false. It is not supported by significant anatomic differences or significant genetic differences. Classification is somewhat arbitrary. We know that Sahelanthropus was at or near the junction when a separation of the great apes from line that led to the Chimp/human line. Orangs and Gorillas split off, then hominids and chimps separated some 6 million years ago.

Our ancestor Australopithecus was rather apelike until A. afarensis evolved the upright bipedal gait but did not make tools yet. Australopithecus, a hominid gave rise to four branches A. boisei, A. robustus, A. africanus (gracilis), and Home habilis. H. habilis was not too much different from A. africanus but we named him Homo because he maded tools.

Then he branched into H. habilis and early H. erectus. H. erectus was the first to leave Africa our ancestral home, 1 or 2 million years ago. Meanwhile H. habilis coexisted for a time with  Australopithecus and H. erectus until only erectus survived. Whether he killed off his cousins is not clear or out competed them.

H. erectus went to Europe, Asia and possibly to Australia (still being debated.) He did well for a long time. Then 200,000 years ago erectus evolved to a form of primitive Homo sapiens in Africa. In Southwest Africa, one branch living on the coast was successful and started to migrate north and east. They went to Arabia and the Middle east where they lived for a while, and a side branch Homo neandertalis lived in Europe. Then about 30 thousand years ago seven groups of these people moved into Europe and displaced the dwindling Neandertals. This group are the ancestors of all of us of European lineage. They were classed into 7 groups based on maternal cytoplasmic DNA, that is transmitted only in the female lines. Thus they are called the Seven daughters of Eve. Each line occupies different parts of Europe. They are called Cro-Magnon. Mine has been tested. My maternal DNA comes from the group descended from the metaphorical Tara. That is because we are mostly in the British Isles, and Tara is a great rock in Ireland named after the bride of King Eremon of the invading Celts (Indo-European late comers to Europe).

But if we take our genaeology back to Tara or one of her 6 "sisters", then back through H. erectus, H. habilis, A. africanus, A. afarensis, to Sahelanthropus to proto-apes to an ancestor of apes and old world monkeys, on and on, we get to Ichtheostega the early land walking amphibian, to lobefin fish, to amphioxus with its notochord and a long series back to Pikaea of the Cambrian 500 million years ago in the Burgess Shale. Pikaea had segments like worms and us. It had a primitive eye spot to later become an eye. It had a nervous systeme beyond the simple neural tube, primitive brain. But one important thing is that its defence was to wiggle in C curves reversing and reversing to escape predators. This was because of a mutation. Its brain motor cells sent pathways that crossed the midline. The right brain controlled the muscles on the left side of its body, and the left brain controlled the right side. And we have that same blue print today. If a human as a stroke of the left hemisphere he/she is paralysed on the opposite right side and vice versa.

Think of it. A basic neurological blue print that has lasted 500 million years. We still have those primitive motor tone centers in human brain stems. The Mesencephalon, diencephalon, and cortex (palaeocortex, archaeocortex, and neocortex) were added stepwise over the next 500 million years. I can trace the comparative neuroanatomy in this long series of adapative  mutations leading to us. We did not discard anything. We still have the Pikaea blueprint, the crossed motor and sensory systems plus a notochord of the Amphioxus. In embronic developement we have a notochord that is temporary. It is replaced by our boney spinal column. We still have the fish brain stem, the amphibian brainstem and lower diencephalon, the reptile brainstem diencephalon and small palaeocortex, and the new cerebellum. Mammals and birds added more cortex with humans winning the race for most and most complex cortex.

But occasionally a primitive gene of our Cambrian ancestors is manifested. Our notochord is not recycled. Part remains and becomes a tumour in the clivus of the base of the skull. It is called a Chordoma. It can compress the brainstem. The gene for tail from our ancestor to the proto-ape, an ape-monkey with a tail. Occasionally a human baby is born with a monkey tail. We have gills in the early human embryo stage. These are recycled as ear and laryngeal parts. Again the system is just biological not divinely designed, and a baby is born with what we call a branchial cleft cyst which is a growth of primitive poorly differentiated gill tissue.

In summary, with the tonnes of evidence for evolution, the accurate chronology and the genetic evidence, there is no doubt about the fact of evolution. What is more arbitrary is where we draw the line between humans and apes if there is a line. I don't think there is such a line. I posit that humans are just one genus/species  of the great apes.

FreeAmerican


-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 02:52 AM on April 7, 2003 | IP
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion, I believe the reason out skeletal structures are alike is because we all have the same creator, God...which is what I believe...


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:28 PM on April 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some fossils are also early-humans suffering from acromegly(SP).  Therefore you would get altered skull formations as such listed earlier. Some of the modern day "evidence" has been dashed upon the rocks over and over. "Lucy" seems to be big these days. Why? Because her bones are larger than other money bones... We I guess that measn a Cleidsdale(SP) is evolving into a truck then doesn't it? Her skull was too thuroughly crushed to even identify it. She was a knuckle-walker, They say her hip-bones pointing inward are "proof of evolution", but they fail to mention that tree-dwelling monkeys have inward hip-bones. Does that mean the money crawled up into a tree and became a human? Lucy was found without hands or feet, Lucy's knee bone was found 70meters away(roughly). I'm not really sure how they can consider this "evidence".
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:36 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mentioned acromegly before.. We see this occuring in elderly people mostly. Given the bible information of people living up to 600+ years old, Acromegly would have plenty of time to make early-humans look a little different. However, If we were to go out and take some modern days humans. And x-ray their skulls... I guarrantee we could find somebody that would match each of these skulls.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:39 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I guarrantee we could find somebody that would match each of these skulls."

And I guarantee that if you looked at every human being on Earth you would never find anyone that would match these skulls.  Acromeglia might distort modern human skulls
but the size of the brain case would remain the same.  As we move further and further back in time and look at more distant relatives of modern man, the space to contain their brain gets progressively smaller and smaller. This is rather compelling evidence of human evolution.  So it's not the modern day "evidence that gets dashed upon the rocks over and over, it's your quaint, ignorant claim...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:50 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's not Lucy's knee and it was never claimed to be.  It's a seperate find.  

She is WIDELY held to have been bipedal.  Richard Leakey suggested that australopithicines were knuckle-walkers three years BEFORE Lucy was even found.   Soon after, he retracted his statement.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:20 AM on April 20, 2003 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This may be slightly off topic but no your grandpa isn't an ape.  Evolution happened millions of years ago.  
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 8:08 PM on February 12, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On another thread E-mc2 said:

As for neanderthal, different thread.  Another good topic, but I'm surprised that you still believe neanderthal was a ape-man.  Most evolutionists have abandoned it...again, would love to discuss.


I'm somewhat baffled by this statement since my only comment about it was questioning his inclusion of it in a list of supposed "frauds", and the comment that DNA analysis shows conclusively that they were a distinct species from modern humans.

Sooo, just what is an "ape-man"???



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:25 AM on February 17, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.