Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Muffled]

Dear LD, Noah is the "missing link" between Humans (descendants of Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric people). Noah's grandsons married and produced today's Humans with the prehistoric women who were already here, and had been for Millions of years, when the Ark arrived. God Bless you.

I believe the sons of God were actually the sons of the gods and I believe the refeence to them is before Noah.

 

[Muffled]

So, I take it you are not aware of how throughly out of date the missing link card is?

AAre you saying that there is scientific proof that a parent's DNA was significantly different from a childs DNA to say that the child of the ape was human?

 

[Muffled]

We are still evolving

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss

also

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

"
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.


The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.

"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.

If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

Blue eyes is a racial characteristic of the Caucasian race which according to Norse myth came from an alen race not a mutated human race. In my book either explanation is equally possible but having written information that say that it is an alien race trumps the guess that it might be a mutation. The date seem right since 10,000 BCE was supposedly the arrival date of the aliens which is 12,000 year ago just a little outside of the approximated range.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Blue eyes is a racial characteristic of the Caucasian race which according to Norse myth came from an alen race not a mutated human race. In my book either explanation is equally possible but having written information that say that it is an alien race trumps the guess that it might be a mutation. The date seem right since 10,000 BCE was supposedly the arrival date of the aliens which is 12,000 year ago just a little outside of the approximated range.

 

[jonathan180iq]

AAre you saying that there is scientific proof that a parent's DNA was significantly different from a childs DNA to say that the child of the ape was human?

Choose a human skull

 

[Muffled]

Choose a human skull

I like "L." He looks like my brother. What is your point?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I like "L." He looks like my brother. What is your point?

Using your own logic, which of those skulls had a baby that was decidedly human?

You're asking for an individual as a missing link, and that's not how it works.

You chose (L) a 45,000 year old Homo-Sapien Neanderthalensis skull... Are they human in your book? They certainly had the ability to produce art, tools, culture, burial and, subsequently, religion - but they were not the same species as you and I. If you don't consider them humans, then do they not serve as a "missing" link?

Maybe you prefer (M)? I mean it looks soo much like us... It's a 30,000 year old Cro-magnon skull. Again, not us.

(K) looks very similar, just with some sharp edges.
It's a 60,000 year old Neanderthal skull.

What people forget, when talking about human origins, is that we modern Homo Sapien Sapiens weren't even the only brand of human on the planet for a very long time. Not only have we not existed very long, but there were other versions of us, coexisting, just like there are house cats and panthers on the same continent. We completely dominate the game now, but that wasn't always the case. The concept that we, in our modern form, existed just as we do now as far back as god invented us is simply ignorant... We are new, and currently successful - but we certainly weren't the only game in town.

EDIT: For Reference -

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My

• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My

• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My

• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My

• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My

• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My

• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y

• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y

• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y

• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y

• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y

• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

 

[Muffled]

Using your own logic, which of those skulls had a baby that was decidedly human?

You're asking for an individual as a missing link, and that's not how it works.

You chose (L) a 45,000 year old Homo-Sapien Neanderthalensis skull... Are they human in your book? They certainly had the ability to produce art, tools, culture, burial and, subsequently, religion - but they were not the same species as you and I. If you don't consider them humans, then do they not serve as a "missing" link?

Maybe you prefer (M)? I mean it looks soo much like us... It's a 30,000 year old Cro-magnon skull. Again, not us.

(K) looks very similar, just with some sharp edges.
It's a 60,000 year old Neanderthal skull.

What people forget, when talking about human origins, is that we modern Homo Sapien Sapiens weren't even the only brand of human on the planet for a very long time. Not only have we not existed very long, but there were other versions of us, coexisting, just like there are house cats and panthers on the same continent. We completely dominate the game now, but that wasn't always the case. The concept that we, in our modern form, existed just as we do now as far back as god invented us is simply ignorant... We are new, and currently successful - but we certainly weren't the only game in town.

I don't believe one can look at a skull and tell what baby the person had.

Are you saying that humans magically appeared without being born?

According to what I have read they are a different species because the DNA is very different. However it must be a species compatible with man because I have read that some current people have Neanderthal DNA.

I have seen no evidence that they are.

Ignorant of what? Does science have evidence that says Homo Sapiens does not go back to the beginning? or do they jsut have evidence that Homo Sapiens existed at a certain time withoout evidence of previous existence. That would mean a lack of evidence which is not evidence that Homo Sapiens did not pre-exist.

 

[jeager106]

I have no idea if humans evolved from the great apes. Or not so great apes.
I doubt it but I'm a creationist but do subscribe to the notion of evolution.
One thing I'm sure of tho. There is prima facia evidence that mankind did
evolve from the apes. Just reading some of the (rare bad) posts on this wonderful
talk board should be evidence enough of life evolving from pond scum.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I don't believe one can look at a skull and tell what baby the person had.[/QUOTE
We can. Why do you believe we can't?

Are you saying that humans magically appeared without being born?

There has never been a human born from a non-human. Not that humans are not born.

According to what I have read they are a different species because the DNA is very different. However it must be a species compatible with man because I have read that some current people have Neanderthal DNA.

They are our cousins for example. Just as you and a sibling are not the same but both have very similar DNA

I have seen no evidence that they are.

Define the evidence that you would need. There are some people being dunked in the ocean that can deny that they see evidence of it. It doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

Ignorant of what? Does science have evidence that says Homo Sapiens does not go back to the beginning? or do they jsut have evidence that Homo Sapiens existed at a certain time withoout evidence of previous existence. That would mean a lack of evidence which is not evidence that Homo Sapiens did not pre-exist.

I we see human like ancestors that are slowly evolving over time and we see suddenly a plethura of "human" remains in a time period it is more than enough evidence to suggest that the homo sapiens species was not as it is now prior to this.

 

[Muffled]

Midnight Rain said "I we see human like ancestors that are slowly evolving over time and we see suddenly a plethura of "human" remains in a time period it is more than enough evidence to suggest that the homo sapiens species was not as it is now prior to this."

I don't believe you see this I believe you fantasize this.

In other words it is as I stated it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Midnight Rain said "I we see human like ancestors that are slowly evolving over time and we see suddenly a plethura of "human" remains in a time period it is more than enough evidence to suggest that the homo sapiens species was not as it is now prior to this."

I don't believe you see this I believe you fantasize this.

In other words it is as I stated it.

You misunderstand. I have not stated that there was a sudden explosion of population of humans in the fossil record with no previous links. I have stated that there are plenty of human fossils during the time we know humans to exist but zero in times we know they did not exist along with fossils that become more and more "human like" as time progresses.

What exactly do you believe that I fantasize?

 

[Muffled]

You misunderstand. I have not stated that there was a sudden explosion of population of humans in the fossil record with no previous links. I have stated that there are plenty of human fossils during the time we know humans to exist but zero in times we know they did not exist along with fossils that become more and more "human like" as time progresses.

What exactly do you believe that I fantasize?

Show me the money! oops I mean show me the links. Please.

I am wondering how one knows they didn't exist if there is no evidence that they didn't exist. I believe that is what I have stated that you have zero evidence which is not evidence that they did not exist at that time.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Show me the money! oops I mean show me the links. Please.

I am wondering how one knows they didn't exist if there is no evidence that they didn't exist. I believe that is what I have stated that you have zero evidence which is not evidence that they did not exist at that time.

Human Family Tree | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Why would you assume humans existed if there was no evidence that they did but an overwhelming about of evidence hat they evolved?

 

[Muffled]

I have no idea if humans evolved from the great apes. Or not so great apes.
I doubt it but I'm a creationist but do subscribe to the notion of evolution.
One thing I'm sure of tho. There is prima facia evidence that mankind did
evolve from the apes. Just reading some of the (rare bad) posts on this wonderful
talk board should be evidence enough of life evolving from pond scum.

I beleive the correct view is that evoltion is theory based on facts but not fact based on a theory.

 

[Muffled]

Human Family Tree | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Why would you assume humans existed if there was no evidence that they did but an overwhelming about of evidence hat they evolved?

I believe in science one must have proof. If one could actually prove that a human evolved from a hominid that would be different but all one can do about the existence at a particular date and not before that date is speculate as to why that would be the case. Evolutionists speculate that it was due to evolution but I speculate that evidence simply has not been found (and may never be found) that humans pre-existed. However a lack of evidence does not serve as evidence that humans didn't pre-exist. The possibility is still there that they did exist.

I would point out that science keeps finding things that it did not think existed and had to change what they believed about a lack of evidence when that evidence became availabe.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I believe in science one must have proof. If one could actually prove that a human evolved from a hominid that would be different but all one can do about the existence at a particular date and not before that date is speculate as to why that would be the case. Evolutionists speculate that it was due to evolution but I speculate that evidence simply has not been found (and may never be found) that humans pre-existed. However a lack of evidence does not serve as evidence that humans didn't pre-exist. The possibility is still there that they did exist.

But you avoided my question. Why are you so ready to believe that humans did exist with no evidence what so ever but harshly avoid evolution even though it has mountains of evidence? Is it simply personal bias?

I would point out that science keeps finding things that it did not think existed and had to change what they believed about a lack of evidence when that evidence became available.

Exactly. But never have they ever simply said "nope. Evolution is wrong." or "well this wasn't right at all lets go back to the drawing board".

Its all within the context of further understanding of the same concept we already know to be true.

 

[Sapiens]

I believe in science one must have proof.

Then your beliefs are wrong.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." (wiki)

That being said, might I recommend to you: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

If one could actually prove that a human evolved from a hominid that would be different but all one can do about the existence at a particular date and not before that date is speculate as to why that would be the case.

Science does not operate on the basis of speculation (at least as you use the word) and hominid evolution is far from mere speculation. Assuming you read the wiki entry on Scientific evidence that I provided, In now recommend to you the wiki on: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Evolutionists speculate that it was due to evolution but I speculate that evidence simply has not been found (and may never be found) that humans pre-existed. However a lack of evidence does not serve as evidence that humans didn't pre-exist. The possibility is still there that they did exist.

Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely that humans would have, "pre-existed" yet all the evidence, as you now see, fossil, biochemical, genetic, etc. point to evolution of modern man through a series of common ancestors shared with the other apes who are currently extant.

I would point out that science keeps finding things that it did not think existed and had to change what they believed about a lack of evidence when that evidence became availabe.

Yes, science keeps finding out new things, but nothing that has been found contradicts evolution of modern man through a series of common ancestors shared with the other apes who are currently extant. Quite the opposite, everything that is found further confirms that conclusion, the only think that gets changed is the exact position of fossil finds in the family tree.

 

[LuisDantas]

AAre you saying that there is scientific proof that a parent's DNA was significantly different from a childs DNA to say that the child of the ape was human?

More like there is no clear-cut distinction, and that has been known for decades.

The "missing link" is wishful thinking. And outdated wishful thinking at that. It implies a lack of evidence that has not existed for perhaps over a century now.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This stuff is taken almost verbtim from the Kent Hovind school of "Science"

"If I didn't observe it with my own two eyes then it's not real ! " ...Which I've always thought was very strange coming from a person of faith.

How can you protest that something be observable in order to even be considered science and then, in the very same breath, claim that the lack of evidence is sufficient evidence that man has existed since the dawn of time??


What naturalists have posited can be falsified. We've made claims that can be tested - or at least challenged. Go ahead and give it a shot if you're so inclined. If we hadn't already tried to do that, and failed, then we wouldn't maintain these theories... There is no better explanation for human origins available that doesn't involve deities or other such hocus pocus.

What you are suggesting cannot be falsified - therefore it's pretty much just magical wishful thinking.