Yes, we evolved from Apes.
No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.
Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.
"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
> Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <
There is no fossils that would even give anybody idea of ape turning into a human and ape. All fossils (and humans are supposed too be the ‘’last product’’ of evolution) show that there always have been humans and apes. There are a lot of fossils of dinosaurs but no fossils of the later species that would give such an idea.
’All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago while a recent discovery suggests that another species, Homo floresiensis, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.
A minority of zoologists consider that the two species of chimpanzees , and maybe the gorillas should also be included in the genus based on genetic similarities. Most scientists argue that chimpanzees and gorillas have too many anatomical differences between themselves and humans to be part of Homo. Given the large number of morphological similarities exhibited, Homo is closely related to several extinct hominin genera, most notably Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus and Australopithecus. As of 2007, there is no universally accepted recognition of which taxa Homo radiated from.’’
Let me bring to your attention to the term” “radiated’’. You have 45 sec to find a word that can be more vague than “radiated’’.
You have read it – have you checked what does ’taxa‘‘ mean?
Note in evolution it is always maybe, may, suggests - it is a fact or it is maybe a fact?
1.” Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, ‘’
Neanderthal DNA illuminates split with humans - life - 11 October 2006 - New Scientist
“The first comparison of human and Neanderthal DNA shows that …Neanderthals may have had more DNA in common with chimps than with modern humans.
“Were there Neanderthals in our lineage? All of the genetics seems to be going in the direction that there weren’t,” says Richard Potts, head of the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program in Washington DC, US.RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SKULL FROM FOOT PRINTS:
Australopithecus afarensis : ‘’Laetoli is a site in Tanzania, dated to the Plio-Pleistocene and famous for its hominid footprints, preserved in volcanic ash (Site G).
A line of hominid fossil footprints, discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey, Richard Hay, Tim White and their team, is preserved in powdery volcanic ash from an eruption of the 20 km distant Sadiman Volcano.’’
[do you understand - no fossils, none, just footprints (justone)]
But: Footprints to Fill: Scientific American
‘’For their part, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton note that a new reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot(prints)built exclusively from A. afarensis remains is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. As for identifying the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.’’
Is evolution a fact or a mystery? A mystery is a fact in evolution!
QUITE A RECONSTRUCTION!:
Now we all way down to famous Lucy:
These are a few bones but together by imagination: File:Lucy Mexico.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the next result of the wild imagination: File:Lucy Skeleton.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One has to have quite an imagination to reconstruct such a beauty … out of nothing… such an intellectual forehead out of piece of jar bone if to imagine that the piece is a piece of jar bone …
‘’Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths”
Yoel Rak*, , Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen
‘’Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans… The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee’’
Do you know what is Mandibular ramus… the best available ‘’evidence’’ for reconstructions?
A jawbone reconstruction serves as a template for footprint reconstruction… Woodoo science…
In order to reconstruct Lucy a real scientist would demand to have a number of intact Lucies as a template, otherwise even if you had a something besides Mandibular ramus, you would be reconstructing towards a man if your template is a man, or towards a wolf if your template is a wolf. You can make no reconstruction that wouldn’t be a bias guess if you don’t have a template/reference. Even Lucy can understand that, but not an evolutionist. And then the jar still matches gorilla’s jar, according to the Israeli scientists, it LOOKS (=morphology)to them like that.
Evolution breaks its Mandibular ramus at its own child Australopithecus.
There are no fossils, but just wild uncontrolled imagination of evolutionists.
Remember if an evolutionist states something it is either false or makes no sense.
It is not from what I or anybody says about the Theory of Relativity.
It is a part of Einstein’s proof in the text of the Theory of Relativity itself.
I hardly can make out meaning of your post especially in the relation with the quote.
I am asking politely, please, clarify.
Please, explain what is your disagreement with Einstein?
Where, how does Einstein go wrong in his Theory of Relativity?
Have you read my response yet?
Obviously not, because that's self-explanatory.
Flatly, it's was silly of Al to write that nothing much had come of Relativity such a short time after he'd published it, and certainly when a large part of that time was consumed by ....umm....everyone fighting WWI. As I pointed out....well, I pointed it out, you can read it for yourself, I don't have to re-write it.
Oh, and you clearly wish to change my words into your words.
Quote my post were I said Relativity was wrong, or retract your statement.
The Bible is wrong, that's plain enough. No one can expect to be taken seriously if they claim it isn't.
Relativity has survived every test tossed it's way.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 04-29-09 at 12:11 PM.
What is incorrect about it?
Scarecrow, what justone is trying to say is that what you quoted and commented on was not justone's statement, it was Einstein's.
The above comes from Einstein himself."up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead".
The complete quote is:
In other words, you are disagreeing with Einstein.We have another instance of far-reaching agreement between the deductions from two theories in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead, and this despite the profound difference in the fundamental assumptions of the two theories. In what follows, we shall again consider these important deductions, and we shall also discuss the empirical evidence appertaining to them which has hitherto been obtained.
Here is a full text of Appendix III from Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Appendix 3. The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory where the quote being discussed can be found.
P.S. To justone: I forgot that you had asked for a source for my Einstein quotes from way back and just remembered while I was posting this. They come from Einstein's Eulogy to Isaac Newton in the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1927.
To me, its still a theory of evolution, there are far too many unanswered questions..Questions that no man can answer...
Its more logical that we may well have evolved from a common species rather than from apes.
Respectful people do not laugh at those with a difference of opinion....but then maybe this disrespect proves that they are still closer to apes instead of man...