Fundies:Does this show you proof of our own evolution?

Question

Here is a list of 10, count 'em 10 'missing links' that have been found to be our ancestors.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/top10_missinglinks.html

The 'Lucy is a hoax' thing is just an outright lie. Jaime, you should really seek out your education in school, not church.

If this was such a hoax, then why is it on display (and currently touring) as one of the greatest hominid fossils ever discovered? You fundies will believe anything as long as it agrees w/ the buybull.

Answer 1

seriously, what's a fundie?

Answer 2

Frankly, I still don't think it explains the very origins of humans, just an evolution from a point in time. How did humans come about? That starts off with a basic humuniod.

Though, I liked this part.
If P. bosei and its relatives weren’t such picky eaters, we might not be here to wonder about them. They split from the line leading to modern human some 2 million years ago and lived alongside our ancestors for millions of years, but died out after failing to adapt their diets.

Sounds like a bunch of super model dieters.

Answer 3

There are still missing parts here or there, but for the most part evolution is indeed more scientifically sound than just poping up here due to a creator of sorts. Although this is not irrefutable evidence that evolution happened, it's a step in the right direction of eventually proving it.

But then, there are a lot of theories that we use in math, physics etc. that are still only classified as theories. It's hard to prove what happened in the past when there was no one around smart enough to write it down and protect that information for us.

Oh and fundie= fundamentalist, which I can only imagine they meant Fundamentalist Christians and others who adhere to their creation stories.

Answer 4

I went to the site. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed. I'm a creationist by choice. I don't think evolution is out of the question. But half the pictures displayed on the site look like they could have belonged to my dog as opposed to "missing links". Plus, I think basing an entire system of evolution off of a handful of fossils is a little ridiculous.

Answer 5

If 2 books had ninety 9.9% comparable wording, ought to you ascertain that they the two had the comparable authors? i've got heard that there is fungus with strikingly comparable DNA to people. The creature that easily has this variety of close proportion of DNA is an extremely small creature, yet no longer even people have ninety 9.9% DNA in undemanding with different people. you're patently exaggerating. a baby would flow right into a library and by lots learn come to the top that books are pertaining to to a minimum of one yet another as a results of their comparable wording. The alphabet ought to be interpreted the comparable way that DNA is interpreted. the baby would envision a small e book evolving right into a bigger e book by a preponderance of printing errors. This comes from our organic sense of order and the thought small issues advance bigger. regrettably it somewhat is only no longer how books finally end up. i think of it somewhat is basically stupid to think of the comparable way approximately existence, yet Evolutionists easily think of this way. somewhat of questioning that one author wrote each and each creature's DNA to be a special volume, they % to think of that it fell mutually a manner or the different, as though a million monkeys banking at typewriters would create literary masterpieces. it somewhat is their religious concept. So what makes you think of that a e book proves that a million monkeys typed it, while in fact, a million monkey banging at typewriters has in no way reproduced even one artwork of Shakespeare? Evolution is a fallacy and a faith. this is all.

Answer 6

The list is actually much, MUCH longer, however the sad truth is the only way for a fundy creationist to accept the truth would be for god himself to come down and tell them that, yes, evolution is right. And we both know how likely that is to happen...

Answer 7

If you dig a little further you will discover that lucy is a human skeleton with ape feet attached. It's a hoax

Number 9 proves nothing, Science states that certain parts of the human skull never stop growing as long as one is alive, the forehead, jaw and the back of the head. That is just simply a cave man skull, that's all.

number 8 all they have is a skull and yet they say it walked on 2 legs. That's an awful lot to say without a skeleton isn't it?

the rest are skulls, you want to prove evolution with skulls? You can't prove evolution, it's a hoax.

Moses, Elijah, and all the ot people looked like those skulls. So what?

Answer 8

If you really read these answers, they pathetically don't give any credit to scientists. They question all the scientists who study these fossils and come up with reasons why they don't know anything. According to some of these people, scientists who study these fossils have barley enough knowledge to not piss themselves. Scientists have given us amazing technological advances. the scientists who invest cell phones have don't a pretty good job with that. Why wouldn't you believe scientists who study fossils wouldn't be just as smart?

Answer 9

Perhaps their will never be a 100% proof for one or the other evolution theory but one think can be said very clear, all these theories make more sense than the one described in the bible.

Answer 10

Check Wikipedia for an even longer list of Transitional Fossils...

And remember my last reponse - they will simply insist you fill the gaps between THOSE fossils with yet more fossils, creating yet more gaps, etc etc etc.....

Here in lies the rub: In Science, when new evidence is uncovered, the theory changes or is found to not work. But in faith, with new evidence comes fingers in the ears and LA A LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA until you go away.

Answer 11

1. Australopithecus Afarensis,better known as "Lucy", was believed to walk upright,and to "prove" this theory,scientists needed a knee-joint,which they "happened" to find more than 200 feet in the earth and more than 2 miles away from "Lucy". How could it be possible that the knee-joint was "Lucy's" when it was found so far away from her? Did it by chance fall off while she was walking? I think not. Johanson,the man who found and put her together,admits from the neck up,"Lucy" was ape.She had the jaws,teeth,face,and brain of an ape.
2. Australopithecus Africanus was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby. As a matter of fact,all 4 of the Austalopithecus types were studied for 15 years by Dr. Solly Zuckerman and his team. they determined that the Australopithecus did NOT walk upright ,and that they were not intermediate between ape and man.They also concluded that they were not the same as any modern ape living today,but they were,nevertheless,nothing more than apes.
Many hominids at the website you have provided are simply either all man,or all ape/monkey,but nothing in between.
Homo Erectus,for example,is an actual human being and nothing less.Homo Erectus was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small.It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.
Neanderthal Man was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
Cro-Magnon Man is indistinguishable from a modern human being.It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.
There is absolutely no proof that we evolved from monkeys. Like I said before, all evidence points to all of these to be only human or only ape/monkey,and nothing in between.And don't even get me started on all the hoaxes the science world tried to use to deceive the public.Oh sorry.I forgot. Those hoaxes DID deceive many,and they still continue to believe all the nonsense the sciece world throws at them.