Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?

Question

Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus

There are no missing links. God created man in His own image. As for animals, He created each after it's own kind. No missing links, no evolution.

And no evidence to the contrary.

Answer 1

No concrete evidence whatsoever, only theory.

Answer 2

Yes. Humans are closer to chimps genetically than chimps are to orangutans.

Your list ignores discoveries like Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, and makes assertions contradicted by anatomy.

Numerous anatomic features distinguish H. neanderthalensis from modern humans. This is based in numerous highly intact finds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy
There are numerous example of H. erectus and the fact that several regional populations have been reconciled as one group does not erase the evidence. This species was successful enough to expand broadly.
Eliminating Australopithecus africanus does not Eliminate Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Answer 3

You are mistaken about Neanderthals. They were a seperate species from the other humans at the time. How do they know you may ask? Because they have Neanderthal DNA to prove it. We all have mutochonrial DNA which comes from our mothers. Every race of humanity has this DNA. They can trace back where your ancestors came from using mitochondrial DNA. They have traced the ancestry of the entire human race down to one small group of humans in Africa about 150,000 years ago. Now here is where you must pay attention. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA does not match any group of Homosapien DNA. Hence they were not our ancestors but a seperate human species.

Neanderthal were not Homosapiens as you state. Why the hell don't you Christians do some studying before you make assinine statements like this?

Answer 4

maybe i missed it, but why do you think homo eretcus is not a human ancestor?

now of course, this is a very silly objection. scientists are trying to work out which of several similar looking fossil specimens could be human ancestors. while the details may be difficult to work out, there is little doubt that they are all quite closely related. it's like doing a jigsaw puzzle where the picture is of ocean or sky - quite hard to tell the pieces apart but they're obviously different to that piece over there with rock in it.

quite apart from fossil evidence which you've given a sparse and biased overview of, there is also genetic and morphological evidence to be found in comparing humans with the other modern apes. for example human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are still separate in the other apes. this makes sense in the context of common descent, but in terms of special creation i don't see any alternative but the whim of the god that it be so... and why? so we'd think it was due to common descent? does not compute.

"symbiotic association"

huh? why do you think that this is a problem? what do you think is the origin of eukaryotic mitochondria and chloroplasts?

Answer 5

It does look contradictory that an sensible being might 'refuse to think approximately the info'... info ends up in actuality and accepting truths is a factor of what it takes to be an sensible individual. there isn't something incorrect in having person-friendly ancestory with apes... it in simple terms potential that people are the end results of the progressed ape species. we are extra sensible than apes, yet they at the instant are not so stupid the two... so i don't see why the suggestion that we've progressed from apes is insulting. It takes an sensible individual to envision info and info and nicely known that there replaced into existence on earth earlier the human race and that people are in simple terms a small area of the earth's biosphere... we at the instant are not on the centre of the universe... different species are in simple terms as important as we are.

Answer 6

No. Evolution (common descent) is a faith supported by weak facts and an even weaker interpretations of these facts. This is why in the last century, with all of our technology, this "theory" is no more accepted by most people; this is also why they are so aggressive to fight intelligent design. Atheist have to believe in this otherwise they no choice but to believe in God. The scientific community at large also has little choice since anyone with opposing views is quickly attacked and black listed. A friend of ours from church is a biologist and she has testified from first hand experience what it is like to oppose this fairy tale among the secular scientific community. The word of God has not been affected in 2000 years but the wisdom of men continues to look stupid when attempting to discredit God. The hoaxes will continue and they will continue to create disclaimers (Punctuated equilibrium, RNA world theory, Clay theory) when they are backed up against the wall. If all fails then they will just break the glass and say our DNA was implanted by aliens. You will notice that the same idiots that believe this junk also believe in UFOs. Evidence and reasoning is not an obstacle so don't try to understand.

Answer 7

Take and anthropology class. Man and the apes still in existence all evolved from common ancestors that are now extinct. "Missing links" are not a good argument against the evolution of man. Just because there are some species not yet discovered, it is not damaging to the argument for evolution. This is called the worship of gaps. You just insert God for what is unexplained.

X has not yet been discovered. Therefore, God exists and created man.

This is terrible logic.

Answer 8

No, Evolution experts will go to extremes to prove their theory that is not based on fact. God created man in his own image and all Thur out the bible he refers to himself as a man, not a animal, ape. If God created a ape then we wouldn't have any apes on earth because evolution says that the whole species have to evolve, then why are they still here? This is another gimmick to discredit God and his wonderful works.

Answer 9

Honey, if you insist on getting your information about the theory of evolution from creationism websites, I am really not going to bother explaining it to you again. You have asked several similar questions and gotten information on transitional fossils which have been found. The fact that you choose to dismiss them and hold on to your assumptions is fine with me. You see, I do not care if you believe in evolution any more than I care if you believe in gravity. The truth is your disbelief in neither does not negate their existence.
Oh and *DRINK*
Now go be a good sheep and give the best answers to one of your other identities like you usually do.

Answer 10

Evolution does not say man descended from apes. Evolution PROVES that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. If you paid attention in school, you would know that.

Answer 11

I have two words for those of you who believe in evolution------symbiotic association

Any of about 15,000 species of small, colourful, scaly plants that consist of a symbiotic association of algae (usually green) and fungi (see fungus). These extremely hardy, slow growers often are pioneer species in sparse environments such as mountaintops and the far North. Fungal cells, anchored to the substrate with hairlike growths (rhizines), form the base. In the body (thallus), numerous algal cells are distributed among fewer fungal cells. Through photosynthesis the algal cells provide simple sugars and vitamins for both partners in this symbiotic association.