I see a lot of crap posted here. The lineage of hominids is a branching structure on which several of the so called ancestors of man were on the planet at the same time. If they were here at the same time how can they also be our ancestors?
2007-02-17 23:37:04 · 6 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The oder skull are always presented as the evolution of man is a blatant lie. It is not linear in time. The skulls that supposedly show progression are actually skulls of creature that shared the same time period. Now tell me why present evidence in a false way?
2007-02-17 23:48:27 · update #1
That would be order not oder.
2007-02-17 23:49:11 · update #2
Branching, branching, branching.
That is one of THE most fundamental things to understand about evolution. Nine times out of ten, the glaring misunderstandings of evolution presented by creationists are due to the simple error of thinking of evolution as a linear chain, instead of as a branching TREE. That's the error behind such silly questions as "why are there still monkeys?" or "where is the missing link?" (the word 'link' comes from that concept of a linear 'chain'.) People who are unable to understand the basic concept that species arise through a splitting or BRANCHING of one species into two, will always make the same fundamental errors. These are the people who say that evolution "makes no sense" or "is nonsense" ... evolution IS nonsense if you only think of it as a linear chain.
(Aside: This is why people should avoid that awful picture of the "marching man" ... with the monkey or chimp on the left, marching through a couple of stages (including Neanderthal) to the proudly striding "modern man" on the right. That's the CARTOON version of evolution that many creationists seem to be stuck on ... and it is hopelessly wrong.)
Scientists often talk about various branches of hominids but do NOT refer to them all as "ancestors." For example, paleontologists are in general agreement that Neanderthal was not an ancestor of modern man, but a separate branch that co-existed with early Homo sapiens, but eventually went extinct (as recently as only 24,000 years ago).
...
In additional details you wrote: "The [order of] skull are always presented as the evolution of man is a blatant lie." (Can you point to an example of such a "blatant lie"?) You need to read the *text* accompanying the picture. Sometimes they are showing a selection or comparisons between skulls of different species ... some of which lived in the same time periods ... and are NOT claiming that they are all ancestors or that it is a linear progression. But sometimes they are showing a progression of ancestors ... in which case they will include skulls along our branch only. You need to read the text in order to understand the purpose of the picture.
Don't just look at pictures.
2007-02-17 23:44:54 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because too many people are looking for the "missing link", and like things to be kept nice and tidy. Evolution is far more complex than most of us think.
2007-02-17 23:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they were on an offshoot, they weren't ancestors. Simple enough.
Neanderthal would fit into this category, or H. Floresiensis.
2007-02-17 23:42:17 · answer #3 · answered by marbledog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
branching structures, yes. Geographical isolation. Different selection pressures in different areas. Immense amounts of time.
Ever considered reading Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker? I read your bible...
2007-02-17 23:40:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obviously, the termination branches, such as Neanderthal, are not.
Now, is that so complicated??
2007-02-17 23:42:31 · answer #5 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a mystery that only God can prove!
2007-02-17 23:43:24 · answer #6 · answered by michael m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋