I have already pointed out that evolutionists disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.
Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.
This was a fairly simple but excellent summation of the evidence in relation to the creation/evolution controversy. Quite clearly ToE wins. I was convinced for 5 seconds then questioned just how much do skulls and fossils tell us. However, rather than believe me or anyone else go learn yourself. As academic and overwhelming the field of genetics and all the arguments are on RF it really isn’t that hard to get a basic grasp and see what‘s going on and what evidence is really there.
The other convincing argument for ToE is that all living creatures share DNA, less as they go down the evolutionary chart, as ToE predicts. Modern humans are around 99.9% similar, humans are 99.5% similar to Neanderthal, 98.6% similar to a chimpanzee (our closest relative), humans share 70% of their genes with a sea sponge. This is proof we all came from common decent, not just humans but all life. However, lately there is debate about just how important genes are and that gene expression, RNA, is what’s important. Think of an chimp, think of a human…there’s a huge difference expressed by that 1.6% difference.
A good place to start is on Wikipedia - Neanderthal. See for yourself all the debate. Then just keep questioning. Some whole creatures are built from a few bones. There are lots of Neanderthal bones. See how apish he looks.The apish picture is what scientists came up with prior to genetic testing. These days he is depicted as any other human. Scientists found some DNA in well preserved Neanderthal bones and tested it. It took recent advances in genetic testing to change the look of the face…same bones though.
This one example illustrates how science brainwashes the general uninformed public. I thought the sketches were made with scientific knowledge. This is what the public is lead to believe. Quite obviously they are sketched to fit in with ToE, and scientists have no idea.
　
In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that are relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel (the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have thicker enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic in man.
The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that some living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be ancestors of man. Some species of modern baboons, for example, have relatively small canines and incisors and relatively large molars. While most apes do have thin enamel, some apes, such as the orangutans, have relatively thick enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most commonly cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid. Many fossils are put together from pieces. Don't forget there was cohabitation amongst the various species. Also look up the 'species problem'. This is another way the public can be fed conflicting information that apparently makes sence. Look up Mitochondrial Eve, and try to understand the myth that ensued to explain her. ALL females alive at Eve's time MUST have had lineages that ALL ended up in only males or no children. Yet scientists have no problem accepting this claim. This fits with ToE. Similarly look up "Y chromosomal Adam".
Then there’s radiometric dating. Look into it and the preconditions that must be around for it to give valid dates. I have a few examples of this method giving inaccurate dates. However if the dating does not fit ToE it is disregarded as an anomoly Here’s just one example-
"A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of homosapiens "Erectus" was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years, a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
-Leslie Kaufman, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (Dec. 23,1996), p. 52.
I’ve looked at just a couple of little points here. If someone refutes me. That's OK. You go look up their information but look at more sites. Don’t just use a biology book. You won’t find the latest info in them. Look at the internet, Science daily, google topics to see opposing opinions. Look at RF forums and the refutes and go look it up for yourself. That’s the best thing to do. Scientists refute each other…and they are often equally credentialed. Then others provide a scientific refute to that, then there’s a refute of the refute. It may not be as clear as what you believe. Honestly…go see!
In the end I am not trying to say that ToE is a lie, I just don’t believe it is a fact. My personal view…One cannot be surprised that there are sceptics. You need to learn and make up your own mind.
