The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Starise]

In this thread I wanted to discuss why men never came from Apes. We have ample proof, or maybe more accurately, adherents to  Ape to man evolution don't have any proof.

Here are a few facts to examine. From the book, Creation of an Evolutionist,by Jobe Martin:

"When studied at the level of molecules,cells,or fossil bones, the evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-man or man-like-apes) are not to be found. In spite of this, elaborate attempts are made to "prove"than man evolved from early primates. When considering Ramapithecines in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote their belief that the jaw of Ramapithecines was that of a true ape ( Nature, Vol. 244,1973, p. 313)

In the late sixties, and early seventies, much of the scientific community ruled Ramapithecus ( an ape like creature)ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of it's original position as ancestral to humans, yet in 1982, the son of Louise and Mary Leakey,  world famous pioneers in the study of " prehistoric" man, stated- Ramapithecines are thought to be the group from which our ancestors evolved.

Further instances of hoax and quackery-

Piltdown Man- Shown to be a hoax in 1953. Piltdown's filed teeth and bone had been stained to appear to make it look ancient, yet fourteen years after these findings, Harvard University published a lengthy quote in support of Piltdown man. As late as 1967, Harvard was STILL promoting Piltdown man.

Nebraska Man- Nebraska man was formed from a single tooth found in 1922. In 1924, the skull was found and the toothe fit perfectly in the empty socket. It was a pig's tooth.

Neaderthal and Cro-Magnon Man- These are now believed to be normal European Homosapiens. Some of these 'prehistoric men' have a larger brain cavity than modern man.

Donald Johnson, one of the world's most recognized experts on "fossil man" writes.

Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he was the same species as ourselves...

 I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit and turning him loose in the subway. It is true, one could do it, and he would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier boned than people of today, more primitive in a few facial features., but he was a man. His brain was as big as a moddern man's, but shaped in a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a token. He certainly could.

 Peking Man-Had been categorized as Homo erectus. He disappreaed during WW2 There is not a single bone left of Peking man.The bones that had been available were only a few fragments.

Java Man- Dr. Eugene Dubios discovered another creature in the "Homo Erectus" category, which he called Java Man. Java Man was a skull cap and leg-bone. By the end of his life Dubois recanted. He believed the leg bone belonged to Homo sapiens and the skullcap of a giant ape or gibbon.

Heidelberg Man-Was named Homo heidelbergensis. His finder recognized that he was a man and, thus belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to put him in a species of his own. Hiedelberg man consists of a single fossil- a lower jaw with teeth. Hiedelbreg man is imagination built around a jaw bone.

Lucy and the Astralopithecenes-The star of this "human ancestor"  is Donald Johanson's 3 1/2 ft. tall "Lucy". Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feet, instead of four feet, like other apes did ( and still do ). Lucy resembles Homo sapiens in three ways (theoretically): her knee, arm length, and pelvic bone. She has a humanlike knee joint, but this knee joint was found 60 to 80 meters deeper in the rock strata, and almost a mile away from the rest of the skeleton. To claim that this knee joint belonged to a partial skeleton found about a mile away is as logical as saying a chicken drumstick bone found in the parking lot of a local Kentucy Fried Chicken establishment was originally the leg of a chicken whose partial skeleton was found in your back yard.

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic bone. This bone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright. The problem is that this bones does not prove upright walking. Johanson believes the bone has been distorted by some means. And yet, there is no other pelvic bone with which to compare it. The bone, as it stands, more likely shows Lucy to have walked on all fours. DR. Solly Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone and he concluded that this telltail bone corresponded in one type of measurement to monkeys and baboons. Other scientists believe Australopithecus walked in a fashion similar to a chimpanzee.

NONE of this adds up to any proof for an ape to man evolutionary sequence.

 

[FJK]

Why would people think that Man evolved from apes instead of apes devolving from man?

Moving from higher complexity to lower complexity as time progresses seems to be that nature of the universe and everything in it.

[Starise]

20 hours ago, FJK said:

Why would people think that Man evolved from apes instead of apes devolving from man?

Moving from higher complexity to lower complexity as time progresses seems to be that nature of the universe and everything in it.

This is what is taught as factual in most schools today, that we came from apes.

I agree, our universe is declining, winding down, so it's absurd on several counts really.

[teddyv]

On 8/31/2023 at 10:03 AM, Starise said:

In this thread I wanted to discuss why men never came from Apes. We have ample proof, or maybe more accurately, adherents to  Ape to man evolution don't have any proof.

Here are a few facts to examine. From the book, Creation of an Evolutionist,by Jobe Martin:

"When studied at the level of molecules,cells,or fossil bones, the evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-man or man-like-apes) are not to be found. In spite of this, elaborate attempts are made to "prove"than man evolved from early primates. When considering Ramapithecines in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote their belief that the jaw of Ramapithecines was that of a true ape ( Nature, Vol. 244,1973, p. 313)

In the late sixties, and early seventies, much of the scientific community ruled Ramapithecus ( an ape like creature)ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of it's original position as ancestral to humans, yet in 1982, the son of Louise and Mary Leakey,  world famous pioneers in the study of " prehistoric" man, stated- Ramapithecines are thought to be the group from which our ancestors evolved.

Further instances of hoax and quackery-

Piltdown Man- Shown to be a hoax in 1953. Piltdown's filed teeth and bone had been stained to appear to make it look ancient, yet fourteen years after these findings, Harvard University published a lengthy quote in support of Piltdown man. As late as 1967, Harvard was STILL promoting Piltdown man.

Nebraska Man- Nebraska man was formed from a single tooth found in 1922. In 1924, the skull was found and the toothe fit perfectly in the empty socket. It was a pig's tooth.

Neaderthal and Cro-Magnon Man- These are now believed to be normal European Homosapiens. Some of these 'prehistoric men' have a larger brain cavity than modern man.

Donald Johnson, one of the world's most recognized experts on "fossil man" writes.

Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he was the same species as ourselves...

 I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit and turning him loose in the subway. It is true, one could do it, and he would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier boned than people of today, more primitive in a few facial features., but he was a man. His brain was as big as a moddern man's, but shaped in a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a token. He certainly could.

 Peking Man-Had been categorized as Homo erectus. He disappreaed during WW2 There is not a single bone left of Peking man.The bones that had been available were only a few fragments.

Java Man- Dr. Eugene Dubios discovered another creature in the "Homo Erectus" category, which he called Java Man. Java Man was a skull cap and leg-bone. By the end of his life Dubois recanted. He believed the leg bone belonged to Homo sapiens and the skullcap of a giant ape or gibbon.

Heidelberg Man-Was named Homo heidelbergensis. His finder recognized that he was a man and, thus belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to put him in a species of his own. Hiedelberg man consists of a single fossil- a lower jaw with teeth. Hiedelbreg man is imagination built around a jaw bone.

Lucy and the Astralopithecenes-The star of this "human ancestor"  is Donald Johanson's 3 1/2 ft. tall "Lucy". Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feet, instead of four feet, like other apes did ( and still do ). Lucy resembles Homo sapiens in three ways (theoretically): her knee, arm length, and pelvic bone. She has a humanlike knee joint, but this knee joint was found 60 to 80 meters deeper in the rock strata, and almost a mile away from the rest of the skeleton. To claim that this knee joint belonged to a partial skeleton found about a mile away is as logical as saying a chicken drumstick bone found in the parking lot of a local Kentucy Fried Chicken establishment was originally the leg of a chicken whose partial skeleton was found in your back yard.

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic bone. This bone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright. The problem is that this bones does not prove upright walking. Johanson believes the bone has been distorted by some means. And yet, there is no other pelvic bone with which to compare it. The bone, as it stands, more likely shows Lucy to have walked on all fours. DR. Solly Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone and he concluded that this telltail bone corresponded in one type of measurement to monkeys and baboons. Other scientists believe Australopithecus walked in a fashion similar to a chimpanzee.

NONE of this adds up to any proof for an ape to man evolutionary sequence.

 

This is all rather horrifically out of date. You would do well to look into the more recent evidence to date.

Also, to note, Piltdown man was a hoax, but the hoax was discovered by the scientists who study this stuff and realized there was a problem.

[Marathoner]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:03 AM, Starise said:

In this thread I wanted to discuss why men never came from Apes. We have ample proof, or maybe more accurately, adherents to  Ape to man evolution don't have any proof.

Here are a few facts to examine. From the book, Creation of an Evolutionist,by Jobe Martin:

"When studied at the level of molecules,cells,or fossil bones, the evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-man or man-like-apes) are not to be found. In spite of this, elaborate attempts are made to "prove"than man evolved from early primates. When considering Ramapithecines in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote their belief that the jaw of Ramapithecines was that of a true ape ( Nature, Vol. 244,1973, p. 313)

In the late sixties, and early seventies, much of the scientific community ruled Ramapithecus ( an ape like creature)ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of it's original position as ancestral to humans, yet in 1982, the son of Louise and Mary Leakey,  world famous pioneers in the study of " prehistoric" man, stated- Ramapithecines are thought to be the group from which our ancestors evolved.

Further instances of hoax and quackery-

Piltdown Man- Shown to be a hoax in 1953. Piltdown's filed teeth and bone had been stained to appear to make it look ancient, yet fourteen years after these findings, Harvard University published a lengthy quote in support of Piltdown man. As late as 1967, Harvard was STILL promoting Piltdown man.

Nebraska Man- Nebraska man was formed from a single tooth found in 1922. In 1924, the skull was found and the toothe fit perfectly in the empty socket. It was a pig's tooth.

Neaderthal and Cro-Magnon Man- These are now believed to be normal European Homosapiens. Some of these 'prehistoric men' have a larger brain cavity than modern man.

Donald Johnson, one of the world's most recognized experts on "fossil man" writes.

Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he was the same species as ourselves...

 I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit and turning him loose in the subway. It is true, one could do it, and he would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier boned than people of today, more primitive in a few facial features., but he was a man. His brain was as big as a moddern man's, but shaped in a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a token. He certainly could.

 Peking Man-Had been categorized as Homo erectus. He disappreaed during WW2 There is not a single bone left of Peking man.The bones that had been available were only a few fragments.

Java Man- Dr. Eugene Dubios discovered another creature in the "Homo Erectus" category, which he called Java Man. Java Man was a skull cap and leg-bone. By the end of his life Dubois recanted. He believed the leg bone belonged to Homo sapiens and the skullcap of a giant ape or gibbon.

Heidelberg Man-Was named Homo heidelbergensis. His finder recognized that he was a man and, thus belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to put him in a species of his own. Hiedelberg man consists of a single fossil- a lower jaw with teeth. Hiedelbreg man is imagination built around a jaw bone.

Lucy and the Astralopithecenes-The star of this "human ancestor"  is Donald Johanson's 3 1/2 ft. tall "Lucy". Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feet, instead of four feet, like other apes did ( and still do ). Lucy resembles Homo sapiens in three ways (theoretically): her knee, arm length, and pelvic bone. She has a humanlike knee joint, but this knee joint was found 60 to 80 meters deeper in the rock strata, and almost a mile away from the rest of the skeleton. To claim that this knee joint belonged to a partial skeleton found about a mile away is as logical as saying a chicken drumstick bone found in the parking lot of a local Kentucy Fried Chicken establishment was originally the leg of a chicken whose partial skeleton was found in your back yard.

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic bone. This bone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright. The problem is that this bones does not prove upright walking. Johanson believes the bone has been distorted by some means. And yet, there is no other pelvic bone with which to compare it. The bone, as it stands, more likely shows Lucy to have walked on all fours. DR. Solly Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone and he concluded that this telltail bone corresponded in one type of measurement to monkeys and baboons. Other scientists believe Australopithecus walked in a fashion similar to a chimpanzee.

NONE of this adds up to any proof for an ape to man evolutionary sequence.

 

To be fair, that's a gross misrepresentation of modern theory as a whole. Mind you, I'm not supporting anything but rather, if we seek to speak truth, then we ought to strive to accurately portray what we're speaking against.

What is modern theory in a nutshell? Man didn't "evolve" from apes, for apes are man's contemporaries. Man is very closely related to apes (that's a demonstrable fact), so those who subscribe to modern theory assert that man and apes share a common ancestor. 

Genetic analysis is what sets the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution apart from the past, brother. To be properly informed is to be well-armed. 

[Marathoner]

29 minutes ago, teddyv said:

This is all rather horrifically out of date. You would do well to look into the more recent evidence to date.

Also, to note, Piltdown man was a hoax, but the hoax was discovered by the scientists who study this stuff and realized there was a problem.

Quite. That's an issue to be sure. If we seek to counteract something, accurately understanding what we're up against is important. 

Spreading outdated data doesn't help. 

[Starise]

18 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

To be fair, that's a gross misrepresentation of modern theory as a whole. Mind you, I'm not supporting anything but rather, if we seek to speak truth, then we ought to strive to accurately portray what we're speaking against.

What is modern theory in a nutshell? Man didn't "evolve" from apes, for apes are man's contemporaries. Man is very closely related to apes (that's a demonstrable fact), so those who subscribe to modern theory assert that man and apes share a common ancestor. 

Genetic analysis is what sets the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution apart from the past, brother. To be properly informed is to be well-armed. 

I’m all ears. Fill us in.

[Starise]

34 minutes ago, teddyv said:

This is all rather horrifically out of date. You would do well to look into the more recent evidence to date.

Also, to note, Piltdown man was a hoax, but the hoax was discovered by the scientists who study this stuff and realized there was a problem.

So far you’ve only affirmed one hoax. There were others.Old data isn’t bad data unless it was disproven.

[Marathoner]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I’m all ears. Fill us in.

You have your homework cut out for you. I recommend that you head into "enemy" territory to learn the basics. I don't furnish links in my posts, but you can use a search engine to find these pages easily enough.

Suggested websites:

pnas.org has an introduction to modern theory ("Genetics and the origin of species: an introduction")

evolution.berkeley.edu has quite a few pages. Samples to check out:

"Starting the Modern Synthesis: Theodosius Dobzhansky"

"DNA, the language of evolution"

 "Evolution 101"

plantlet.org has a page titled "Synthetic Theory of Evolution"

Becoming familiar with modern theory is best accomplished by going to the sources yourself. That is, if you wish to be prepared to understand what proponents of Evolution throw at you. Understanding it aids in answering it. 

After becoming familiar with the basics, you'll know what to look for with regard to sound rebuttal. Forget Piltdown Man, monkeys, and all that. That's 75 years ago. 

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Also, to note, Piltdown man was a hoax, but the hoax was discovered by the scientists who study this stuff and realized there was a problem.

Hey Teddyv,

I think the bigger "problem", and the main implication of the Piltdown man hoax, is that "the scientists who study this stuff" didn't realize "there was a problem" for 40 years - despite the fact that most of the evidence used to discredit the hoax was available to these "scientists" from the time of discovery.

This demonstrates that the "the scientists who study this stuff" were operating under the influence of a confirmation bias - which had them accept this evidence without the requisite due diligence - because it agreed with their worldview and narrative. This, in turn, demonstrates methodologically that facts are not simply followed to their natural conclusion (as is commonly, erroneously claimed), but rather interpreted according to the interpreter's worldview and presuppositions.

Such implications are important when it comes to giving objective consideration of opposing positions.

 

9 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Man didn't "evolve" from apes, for apes are man's contemporaries. ... , so those who subscribe to modern theory assert that man and apes share a common ancestor.

Hi Marathoner,

These are largely semantic issues. The original definition of "ape" was a non-human, higher primate. Going by the secular description of the shared ancestor between humans and higher primates, the candidate would certainly qualify as an "ape".

Since no-one is really characterizing the position as claiming humans evolved from modern "apes", this is an empty non-issue.

 

9 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Man is very closely related to apes (that's a demonstrable fact)

This is inaccurate.

The "fact" is that humans share more in common (genetically and morphologically) with apes than we do with any other creatures.

However, the necessary association of 'similarity' with 'relatedness' is a matter of worldview; namely, the presupposition that all life is "related" - back to a common ancestor. That is, the interpretation that 'more similar' means 'more related' is founded in bias - presupposing the conclusion that all life is "related", and subsequently bringing that conclusion to the interpretation process.