Darwinist, Have you seen that of which you speak?

Question

Darwinist love to talk about creation created straw men. While at the same time patting them selves on their backs, drooling over their ‘evidence’. I have been contemplating this issue quite a bit lately in an effort to find the truth. What I found out, was this.

The human fossil record from about 2.5 to 1.0 million years ago is especially sparse — only about 50 individuals are known, many of them represented by only a single tooth or jaw fragment — and the evolutionary connections from australopithecus to homo erectus, including the evolutionary relationships between habilis, ergaster and erectus, are in dire need of clarification.

• Time spans for modern humans, Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens (H. heidelbergensis) have been extended back beyond accepted fossil limits to accommodate recent genetic evidence that the divergence between the Neanderthal and human lines occurred around 500,000 years ago.



Single tooth,? Jaw fragment? Extended time frames to ‘fit’ the evidence?

This is the evidence you base EVERYTHING upon?

At the very least, I would say more research is needed, on both sides. Wouldn’t you?



http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

Answer 1

A single tooth? A bone fragment? This is what the entire case is built upon? Why even bother to look if you are convinced of a lie?

Answer 2

No. In fact, the hominid fossils offer very little evidence for evolution. It is the mounds of other evidence which supports evolution. You take all that other evidence, and show how it supports evolution. So now you are at the point where evolution is the only theory as to how species come about.

So now you know that all species came about from evolution. Then you look at humans, and use the evidence to try to draw conclusions on human evolution. There is very little evidence of human evolution which supports evolution in general. But, after you have accepted that evolution is how species form, you must re-look at the human evolution evidence. And all the evidence supports that humans evolved from a common ancestor to apes. And the evidence is actually pretty good. We know we are related to Neanderthals more through genetics then through fossils.

Answer 3

Remember, you are only talking about HUMAN evolution here.

There is also the evidence from the other 99.9% of life that supports evolution.


Also, you are only talking about a very small portion of the evidence for human evolution. There is a lot more that you have left out.

Remember how we talked about evolution proceeding most rapidly in populations that have small numbers? That is the biggest explanation for the lack of fossils where you've mentioned. (This is supported by genetic theory).


So, I will always agree that research should be continued. But I will never look at only 1% of the evidence for a field and conclude that the entire field is bogus. I'm sure you would agree that wouldn't be very prudent.

Answer 4

Evolution itself has been observed in simple species. There is no doubt in science that evolution occurs and is a fact.

Human fossil records are indeed sparse. It is like playing connect the dots. We are missing some dots but that doesn't mean we can't come up with probably solutions. If future evidence suggests that our current theory of evolution doesn't fit then it will be modified. Darwin's original theory has already been set aside for a better more complete one.

What I can't accept is the idea that I should jump on the wagon of creation with has zero evidence to support it. No fossils, no tools, no proof.

Answer 5

What evidence do you base your "faith" upon? We have a shitload of more evidence for evolution than you do that "an almighty God created everything". How can you base your belifes on a book that was written thousands of years ago and was "revised" and translated so many times that the validity of the whole book is lost. How can you beleive , if we humans are so sinful and poisoned in all of our ways, that through all the times the bible has been translated, that some religious monk didnt change the word of god to fit his liking?

You cant, because you were not there at the beggining of creation, nor us humans, and definitely not the "profits". No one was there, thats why we study the earth and use logic to get our answers. We dont say "oh, god did it" if we did, we would still be those primitive "cavemen" if you would call them that, that beleived in sun gods, water gods, and moon gods to explain why they were there. We have since then denied the existence of those gods through science (obviosly the gods they thought were real were only elements of the earth, H20 for example) The old people in the bible credited everything to their god because they did not have the answers to explain anything.

We on the the other hand, use our smarts to stay on top in this world. Thats our niche, our job, thats why we animals stay on top of the food chain, because we are the superior beings in a world that requires "Survival of The Fittest".

We as humans HAVE evolved already, we have this proof. We started out as primitive beings, and have evolved into a more sophistiacated animal, that uses its knowledge to survive in this world. You stated it yourself, we were neolithic, and now were homosapiens. Soon every homosapien will be smart enough to question god and make the same choice we did LONG ago when we ditched the sun gods and thunder gods. God will be looked back upon as something we used to get through until we evolved to be smart enough to drop him too.

Its called EVOLUTION!!!!!

Answer 6

Vast evidence from across science (eg. molecular evidence) "proves" evolution, and that we evolved from apes. This "sparse" interval of the fossil record needs only to be consistent with that. It is. As the website shows. Look up the fossils yourself - you don't need to be an expert to see the broad picture.

When there is, as you insist, a sparse fossil record, the age-ranges of species are obviously underestimates. And it is obviously good science/logic to extend them (but not shorten them) based on any further evidence.

This is what science does, adjust to "fit" the evidence, ALL the evidence. Hard concept for a creationist to understand, I know.

Answer 7

i don't. that is not something to do with evolution. Evolution is how animals substitute via the years, not the way it began. that is abiogenesis, that still is lined in intensity via fairly some biologists. not one among them mentions a backyard or something, innovations. Edit: i've got not got any hypotheses. i'm hoping you at the instant are not assuming (like maximum of do) that atheists sit down around in white coats playing with attempt tubes continuously. I doubt many on listed under are scientists. whilst the biologists discern it out, i will have an interest to study all approximately it. till finally then, i'm happy to settle for that is statistically impossible for it to all have sprung out of nowhere on the hand of an unsubstantiated somebody in a era of 7 days, and that there is a much extra possibly clarification waiting to be stumbled on. Oh, there is likewise panspermia, the theory spores from outer area drifted to the Earth and seeded it with existence. I basically point out it because of the fact i've got self belief you like somebody to, yet fairly, that basically strikes the priority of the place existence got here from a step extra advantageous back.

Answer 8

You might want to observe the fact that human fossil remains are only a small fragment of all the fossils that have been found.
Also can you explain why all over the earth when they unearth fossils the ones from the more primitive creatures are always found at the deepest levels and the ones from the more advanced creatures such as mammals and primates are always found at the shallowest level? Hmmmm? Got an answer for that one?
Take a few college courses please.

Answer 9

Check out 'The science of God' by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Its more to the point of the 6 days and 15 billion years during the creation period. And that the relativity of time as defined by Einsteins law of relativity, can unify the two schools of thought.

He also has excellent lecture series that can be downloaded where he more specifically talks about the relationships between the impossibility of random chance causing life and the possibility of directed intervention helping it along.

That may not directly answer your question but as a christian and a scientist, I found his views very enlightening.

Answer 10

Evolution is all around and always happening, open your damn eyes. Watch planet earth for an example, the one with caves. These animals have lived in these caves for so long they no longer have skin pigment or eyes, and their lungs are external because of the low oxygen levels. They evolved and adapted to their surrounding. Or you could actually read about the world around you. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/13/evolution.speedup/index.html?section=cnn_latest

And ironically you mock that this evidence is what i base everything on when all you have is a very old book.