Is there evidence that Man has evolved from a sub-ape creature?

Question

OK I have done some research here are the BIGGEST "so called" evidences
1-- Heidelbergman, found 1907(supposed to be ape-man link) turned out to be 100% human
2-- Nebraska man, found 1922(supposed to be ape-man link) a HUGE stretch from a STRANGE LOOKING TOOTH---turned out to be a pigs tooth
3--Piltdown man, found 1912(supposed to be ape-man link) 100% FRAUD...built from the jawborn of an ape, filed down teeth, and a mans skull
4--Peking man, found after WW1(supposed to be ape-man link) presumed to be baboon bones---also found at this site were REAL HUMAN BONES
5--Neanderthal man---turned out to be an old man who was stooped over because he had ARTHRITIS
6--Crow-magnon man, cave inscriptions where this man was found reveal that crow-mangon man wore pants, shirts and shoes....LOL
7--Colorado man---another fraud, built from a SINGLE TOOTH FROM A HORSE
8--Java man (homo erectus)--built form a skull cap of an ape and a thigh bone from a man they found 50 YEARS LATTER

9--Pithecantropus, 1926(thought to be missing link) was just a knee bone of an elephant
10--Ramapithecus (1932)--built from teeth and jawbone FRAGMENTS that scientist now say are most likely from baboons or orangutans...INTERESTINGLY enough is that this is considered one of the best evidences for evolution.
10--Australopithecus-- Richard Leaky has shown this to be just an ape
11--Ocre man--skull cap was declared of an old transitional ape-man form found in Europe--turned out to be from a 6 month old Donkey....

OOOH Come on...Is this what they show in the Evolution Museums???

Answer 1

There is not one scientific fact which supports evolution - not one! There is only a continual restatement of assumtion.

Answer 2

The theory of evolution continues to evolve, because it is a theory. This is how science works--you state a hypothesis and then look for objective evidence. If you don't have evidence, the theory gets thrown out, or the hypothesis gets revised. This is the difference between science and dogma.

I know you want to believe that there are scientists stubbornly sticking with evolution as if it WERE dogma, but this is not the mission of a scientist. Science celebrates the truth. How many major scientific advances made previous scientists look very foolish? The fact that evolution is still around and being studied means there is more to that theory than any of the others.

There is certainly no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old and people lived with dinosaurs. To whoever opposes it, I just ask, "What have you got? What fossil record can you provide that conclusively disproves evolution?"

They can't, they just point out the loopholes in the evolution theory. It's easy to pick on someone else's work and research, much harder to offer an alternative that is reasonable and has the same track record of good, if not perfect, evidence.

(From the cited source: "The story of human evolution has not yet been [told]," said Kenya Museum director Farah Idle. "There are many missing links. The more discoveries you make, the more questions you raise.")

Answer 3

Wow, you've really been plowing through the creationist propaganda sites, haven't you?

Here's a list of the actual members discovered so far of the human family tree:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens

Would you care to update your question, this time addressing the actual family tree?

And your comment on Neandertals is just ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many Neandertal fossils have been recovered? I'll let you do some research. Hint: it is more than 100. I guess arthritis was quite common at one time, and it used to cause larger overall dimensions and prominent brow ridges?

And if australopithecus afarensis was declared by Leaky to be *just* an ape (another deliberate deception. It was fully ape, but as Leaky points out if you cared to read, so are we), could you explain why it walked fully upright, as evidenced by its hip and leg structure?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in constant ecstasy.

Answer 4

OK - you have left out the really persuasive example - Homo Erectus (no, I'm not being rude - check it out). One of your examples may actually be known as Homo Erectus, I'm unclear on this.

However homo erectus was a mean, strong predator, part-way between monkey and man. He was relatively smart and figures on our family tree. Try reading A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It covers this really well, amongst other things, and explains why it is a runaway, number one best seller. Everything you wanted to know about how science explains us, our universe, our bodies and history is in this book. It is up to date and really well written (I'll wager you laugh at many parts of it). It will explain everything you have above, and much more. If yo only buy 1 book this year, make it this. You will not regret it.

Answer 5

Man didn't evolve from apes and monkeys. Humans, apes, and monkeys share a common ancestor that no longer exists. Those are two very different concepts. Learn a little about evolution before you question it.

Answer 6

Just like everything in this earth we were all created in our own elements. Those experts that determined whose bones came from what species can distinguish a pigs teeth and a human skull and an apes jaw, that is because they are all different. It boggles me to think that some people can actually believe that one species evolved into another or in the big bang theory. If you take the time and look around the world, there is too much evidence that Man was not evolved from apes even though there are similarities between certain species.

Answer 7

Piltdown man was actually excellent evidence FOR Evolution.

It was identified and dismissed as a hoax precisely because it didn't fit with what the Theory of Evolution predicted it should be like.

One of the ways a theory can be validated is that existing evidence can be used to predict future discoveries--exactly what happened here.

Answer 8

well, there is genetic evidence that modern humans evolved from a very small group of humans about 60-70,000 years ago. It is a very interesting story, and is an on-going study. The difference between modern man and earlier man is the use of tools. Anyway, this article could tell it better than I can.

On another note. If you want to learn, you have to open yourself to learn. God will show you the reason for everything, but you have to understand that we are very finite beings. That is not to say that we cannot explore the world around us. God gave this world to us, and He allows us to come to understanding about it because He is, amoung other things, very intelligent. Truth is learned with humility, not pride.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009121.shtml
(we are all African)
here is an excerpt:
"Dr Wells says that homo erectus, the master toolmaker of the era, had a much bigger brain than his ancestors and developed many of the elements of modern human behaviour, probably including the use of fire and some form of rudimentary language. He even seems to have wandered out of Africa around 1.8m years ago - Java Man and Peking Man were both part of the Homo erectus family. He didn't stray far from the tropics, though (particularly when the world cooled down during the periodic ice ages), and was already on his way to extinction around 100,000 years ago."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2975862.stm
(humans close to extinction)
here is an excerpt:
"Little diversity

Unlike our close genetic relatives - chimps - all humans have virtually identical DNA. In fact, one group of chimps can have more genetic diversity than all of the six billion humans alive today.

It is thought we spilt from a common ancestor with chimps 5-6 million years ago, more than enough time for substantial genetic differences to develop.

The absence of those differences suggests to some researchers that the human gene pool was reduced to a small size in the recent past, thereby wiping out genetic variation between current populations. "

Answer 9

Iv'e read these findings and out of all the findings not only here but around the world you have one of the most important things missising to link Ape to Man and that is the right side of the brain. Man as the full part of the right side of his brain where as with APES it is competely missising, with no traces that it ever existed.

Well what's so important about the right side of you brain ? this piece is called
the "Frontle Lob. It give us a sence of who we are. It also gives us a sence of awareness, awarness as to what's going on around us. such as. We know the son is going to come up and at what time. We know who we are speaking to either face to face or on the phone. We are aware the we can die and can be killed by certain elements. We are aware of a GOD We are awaer that man is the most advaned species on the earth and the list goes on. No other creature on the face of the earth are aware of these things. So if the Ape had a Frontle Lob what happen to it. the Ape should have gotten smarter not dummer.

And even if two creature could produce another different typ of creature, such asthe donkey and the horse you always end up with a hybrid , they can't reproduce themselves. they don't become more intelligent they become more stupid like the mule.

You would be surprised what scientist keep from the common people to keep them in ignorance, so this researech can still go on and make these people rich teaching false lies.

Answer 10

Oh dear.

"Neanderthal man" is not a single individual with arthritis (bones from about 400 Neanderthal individuals of varying ages and both sexes have been found so far).

Piltdown man was a hoax.

Nebraska man was an error quickly corrected - by the guy who made it. Scientists are like that.

I'd love to see your references to support your claims that:

-Heidelberg man is 100% (modern) human (news to anthropologists)
-Peking man was baboon (China is a long way from the baboon's normal territory)

Cro Magnon man almost certainly wore clothes, although probably not Prada - Cro Magnon were modern humans, living in the cool climate of Europe 10,000 to 40,000 years ago. There is evidence from their tools that they made woven textiles. Interesting, but not LOL territory.

Answer 11

It is obvious that you went to a creationist site to find this "evidence." Why bother looking at all? Any of you, name me one major University, anywhere in the world, that professes creationism or intelligent design in their biology departments. There aren't any. The only people in the world who challenge evolution, (and most of them are embarrassingly enough in the United States), are people who do so for utterly unscientific reasons. Their motives are purely religious. They are the ones who have not one shred of evidence. They are the ones whose claims are contradictory to virtual mountains of physical evidence. The biblical story of creation is the antithesis of reason, science, and rational investigation.

Ski, you people are in direct contradiction of the consensus of the ENTIRE scientific community with the exception of those dozen or so who have made careers of science so they could use it as a platform for their religious beliefs. No matter how loudly you shout it, it is an absolute lie. Lie and yell all you want. Nature will speak the truth and you will have only the option of whether or not you are going to continue making fools of yourselves in front of the world and future generations of your descendents.

But, unfortunately, there are many who will not bother to check it out from a truly scientific/academic/legitimate source, like our questioner here. All you know about natural history is contained in two pages of an archaic, multiply transcribed document. At least it's easy, isn't it, Kyle and Ski.

Try the talk.origins web site and go from there, if you dare to discover the facts instead of deliberately looking up fundie religious propaganda.

No, horny puss, he is an ape, just like you and I. Just a little technicality.

Naners, state one, just ONE piece of evidence which indicates that man did not evolve from ape. It will be bogus, because there IS NONE. You just lied. Probably because somebody else who can't believe in evolution because of his ridiculous adherence to biblical literalism, told you this nonsense. Just like the person who wrote the question and the guy who made that incorrect AND pointless statement about ape and human brains.

And after you state your one creationist propaganda lie, I will tell you a dozen solid examples of evidence for evolution. Well, you probably already know some of them, don't you? But you just stick your head in the hole and pretend none of it is there. Ignorance on parade, folks! And they put on a big show and make lots of noise. Darn proud of their lies and misrepresentations.

Anise, they really haven't found any loopholes. They lie, as you can see from these posts. They deliberately twist and distort and take out of context everything they can find. They even said Steven J. Gould doubted evolution! What next, Richard Dawkins?