...and able to populate the earth faster then the rate of our ancestors.
where are all of our ancestors ? and 'missing links' ?
(1 or 3 bones doesn't count)
2007-09-27 07:40:51 · 32 answers · asked by the shiz 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"They found an entire skeleton of a hominid. Does Lucy ring any bells for you?"
OK......ONE skeleton, and that started the human race ? there would be more then one skeleton...
2007-09-27 07:50:38 · update #1
Okay, here's the thing about the 'first humans'. Biologists make artificial distinctions between groups of organisms, which they call species. When dealing with evolutionary changes over time, there's really no specific point at which the population changes from one species to another. If you were to draw a line somewhere and declare a certain organism as the first human, it would still be as similar genetically to its parents as you are to yours.
So just like you can reproduce with someone born a year before you, so could the 'first human', despite the fact that according to our classification system the organism it reproduces with is not technically human.
And there are plenty of hominid skeletons. The reason there aren't as many hominid fossils as there were hominids is because the conditions required for fossilisation are extremely rare.
2007-09-27 07:55:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are lots of species, not just a few bones. They have 3 million year old Australopithecus that are 85% complete skeletons, including the skull and the entire jaw. There are at least 20 hominid species that we have relatively complete skeletons for. Get over it. They are there if you take a second to look.
2007-09-27 07:46:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yours isn't really a question, however, the first "humans" were probably male and female, considering two is the most efficient number when is comes to reproduction (in complex multi-celled organisms that is)
And we have a pretty complete fossil record to work from now (which is a little more than 1 or 3 bones)
2007-09-27 07:44:59 · answer #3 · answered by johngrobmyer 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Your question in contradictory.
Besides, I've never understood how the Theory of Evolution detracts from the biblical Creation Story. The only true conflict is in the Value/Measurement of a Day. -- If anything, the Theory of Evolution expands on the marvel of Creation. Though it doesn't contain the word, "God", it also does not intuit that there was no omnimpresent, concious, self-aware Be-ing (God) who directed it. It only suggests how dynamic & marvelous the process was. -- For my money, even cooler than the prospect of God just saying "Poof! Here's everything"
2007-09-27 07:52:30 · answer #4 · answered by delsinelu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you arguing for God or evolution? Either way there are so many things wrong with what you're saying....
In reference to your Lucy argument - do you have any idea how old that skeleton is? The only reason we have that one is that she died somewhere that had exactly the right conditions to preserve her - most species alive at her time have decayed and are powering our cars and homes right now.
And I still don't know whether you're arguing for creation or evolution?
Delsinelu - I agree with you 100%, couldnt' have said it better myself:-)
2007-09-27 07:45:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Um, dude, do you not pay attention? They found an entire skeleton of a hominid. Does Lucy ring any bells for you?
EDIT: Well, one skeleton proves a lot. Where's the proof of Adam and Eve? Oh, that's right, there is none.
2007-09-27 07:44:51 · answer #6 · answered by Becca 6 · 9⤊ 2⤋
Lucy and her "husband" didn't always go everywhere together, and didn't die at the same time. So the odds of locating and identifying "Luke" are slim. But we know where humanoids come from anyway. Where are the bones of "Adam" and "Eve", if that matters? (What is it about literal-mindedness that destroys the capacity for abstract thought?)
2007-09-27 08:50:23 · answer #7 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Over three hundred Australopithecine skeletons have been found.
By your reasoning, if we found Eve's skeleton, but not Adam's, the Bible would be disproven.
2007-09-27 07:58:46 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
there have been many many fossils found tracing human evolution. in fact, the fossils supporting human evolution are some of the best identified of all animals.
also, human reproduction is very very slow. in general terms (although not absolute) the more primitive the species are, the faster they reproduce
2007-09-27 07:56:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It isn't odd that the first humans were a male and female because if they weren't then the human race wouldn't of grown.
2007-09-27 09:39:30 · answer #10 · answered by jetthrustpy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋