Man Is Not the Product of Evolution: Where Are All the Others?

[Ogner]

I think rhetorical arguments are a waste of time. They often pop up when people debate the origin of the universe. Creationists have a straightforward answer: God created it. Evolutionists, though, get a wide-open road, limited only by their imagination—Big Bang, multiverses, you name it. There’s no way to test any of that. At that level, I don’t see the point in talking—it’s all guesses. But when it comes to abiogenesis—the origin of life—things start getting real. Take James Tour’s five questions about life’s beginnings: chemical specifics that evolutionists can’t answer yet. From there, once life starts, At that point, we can lean on history, archaeology, biology, genetics, logic—natural sciences and the world we actually see. Then, we can zoom in even further to Human history. The narrower the focus, the more solid the discussion. So, with evolutionists, I try to zero in on "human history"—does their theory even describe it right? Arguing from a creationist standpoint here doesn’t make sense; we diverged back at the creation of the universe, and they’ve gone off into multiverse. It’s more practical to use their own perspective, logic, and language of "evolution" and break it down from the inside when it comes to humans.

Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? I don’t think so, and here’s why—I’ve got questions they can’t answer. 
These aren’t rhetorical gotchas—they’re gaps in their model, based on their own logic. Evolutionists claim a smooth progression, but the evidence doesn’t line up. I’m not here to dunk on them with “God did it”; I’m asking them to explain their own story. 

Darwin’s theory of evolution paints humans as the result of gradual selection: from primitive ancestors to Homo sapiens. But if that’s true, where are the millions of skeletons of these ancestors and their living descendants? Where are the transitional forms that should exist alongside us? There’s no answer. All we have is man—an anomaly—and apes—typical animals. The theory falls apart.

Ancestors Without a Trace
According to Darwin, humans evolved from species like Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Erectus lived for 1.8 million years, wielding axes and fire, spreading from Africa to Java. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia for 200,000 years, with brains of 1500 cm³, spears, and even burials. They were stronger than us, smarter than chimps with their 400 cm³, eating meat, fruits, fish. The Earth was vast: 300–50 thousand years ago, all Homo numbered just 1–5 million.

But where’s the evidence? If evolution is a smooth process, we should find millions of complete skeletons of various ancestor species and subspecies worldwide. Yet there’s not even one full skeleton of a single individual! Erectus leaves us skulls and bones, Neanderthals—fragments. Chimps, around for 6 million years, leave more remains. Why are there no bones or living beings to bridge the gap? There’s not a single complete skeleton, when there should be not only millions of complete skeletons but also living representatives of other human species and subspecies. More on this below in "One Species Instead of Many." Could these "ancestors" be just extinct apes, not our forebears? Skulls look similar, but there’s no chain—just scraps. Neanderthals gave us 2–4% of our DNA, but they’re more like "cousins" than direct progenitors.

Why Did They Vanish?
Suppose they were ancestors. Why did they disappear? Erectus faded 110,000 years ago, Neanderthals 40,000 years ago, and sapiens arrived later. Some say: "Sapiens outcompeted them." But there was plenty of land, and no signs of battles have been found. Others claim: "They didn’t find a niche, unlike apes." What niche? Erectus thrived in jungles and plains, Neanderthals hunted in steppes and mountains. Chimps survived in forests with sticks, while these, with fire and tools, didn’t?
Other ideas: "Weak jaws couldn’t eat leaves." They cooked meat and chopped fruits—food wasn’t an issue. "Heavy bodies couldn’t climb trees." Modern tribes walk and outdo apes. "They didn’t escape climate shifts." No trace of catastrophes, yet humans survived with 1–10 thousand individuals 70,000 years ago—why couldn’t ancestors with tens of thousands? There’s no explanation.

One Species Instead of Many
Evolution breeds diversity. Darwin’s finches split into 13 species, adapting beaks to seeds and insects. Wolves in forests and steppes produced subspecies, dogs—breeds. Humans lived for 300,000 years in Amazon jungles, Siberian tundras, and isolated Australian islands for 50,000 years. Varied conditions—heat, cold, forests—should yield subspecies: in height, skin, bones. And if the theory holds, other human species—"cousins" and "distant relatives"—should walk the Earth today, living proof of the journey from apes to sapiens.

But they don’t exist. Differences between races are 0.1% of DNA, less than between dog breeds. Native Americans, isolated for 15,000 years, are still sapiens. Where are the transitional forms with 700 cm³ brains or other traits? There are no subspecies, no species, no "half-humans." Just extremes: apes at the animal level and man beyond it. Why? Some say: "People roamed continents, mixing genes." But for thousands of years, they stayed put—no roads, no mass migrations until 10,000 years ago. Even in isolation, no subspecies emerged.

Animals and Man: Not Darwin’s Way
Animals follow evolution: chimps eat fruit and dig with sticks for 6 million years, birds tweak beaks for food, wolves grow fur in the cold. Their bodies adapt slowly to the world. Not man. Instead of fur—fire, instead of beaks—tools, instead of instincts—cities. Erectus clung to axes for 1.8 million years, Neanderthals to spears. Sapiens leapt from spears to rockets and computers in 300,000 years. This isn’t selection—it’s a break. No animal does this.

Anomaly, Not Evolution
Darwin’s theory doesn’t hold. Supposed ancestors vanished without reason, leaving no complete skeleton when there should be millions and living descendants. No living subspecies, species, or transitional forms exist—just man and apes as opposites. Animals adapt physically; man bends nature to his will. This isn’t gradual—it’s a rupture. Man isn’t the product of evolution but something beyond it. Darwin works for finches, but not for us—we’re not part of his picture.
 

[ayin jade]

Before I respond to your post, I want to clarify my position. I have a college degree in anthropology, among 2 other degrees. I do not agree with evolutionary theory. I was not a Christian at the time, and even then I saw too many assumptions with evolution and hominids. I also question dating methods, having seen errors and assumptions in the field.

Your post contains false assumptions. Skeletal evidence and for that matter archaeological evidence of ancient human cultures, is scarce. Remains require specific conditions to be preserved as fossils. There are few fossils of any species, hominid or animal or plant. Remains of ancient cultures are also difficult to preserve over time. As an example, ancient egyptian dynastic histories are not that well known. I just read this week about a "lost dynasty" that they may or may not have found evidence of. 

 

Btw, you said there were no mass migrations, and then you say native americans were isolated for 15,000 years. But native americans migrated in multiple waves across the bering land bridge up to 23,000 years ago (40,000 if you believe recent evidence that was just published last month.)

Although I believe what the bible says regarding all humanity descending from adam and eve, belief in evolution is not a belief that affects the salvation of an individual. Better to focus on the gospel message.

[Ogner]

4 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Before I respond to your post, I want to clarify my position. I have a college degree in anthropology, among 2 other degrees. I do not agree with evolutionary theory. I was not a Christian at the time, and even then I saw too many assumptions with evolution and hominids. I also question dating methods, having seen errors and assumptions in the field.

Your post contains false assumptions. Skeletal evidence and for that matter archaeological evidence of ancient human cultures, is scarce. Remains require specific conditions to be preserved as fossils. There are few fossils of any species, hominid or animal or plant. Remains of ancient cultures are also difficult to preserve over time. As an example, ancient egyptian dynastic histories are not that well known. I just read this week about a "lost dynasty" that they may or may not have found evidence of.

 

Btw, you said there were no mass migrations, and then you say native americans were isolated for 15,000 years. But native americans migrated in multiple waves across the bering land bridge up to 23,000 years ago (40,000 if you believe recent evidence that was just published last month.)But native americans migrated in multiple waves across the bering land bridge up to 23,000 years ago (40,000 if you believe recent evidence that was just published last month.)

Although I believe what the bible says regarding all humanity descending from adam and eve, belief in evolution is not a belief that affects the salvation of an individual. Better to focus on the gospel message.

The Absence of Human Subspecies, Species, and Complete Ancestral Skeletons
The theory of evolution claims that humans evolved from a shared ancestor with other primates through gradual changes over millions of years. If this is true, we should expect to see numerous transitional forms, species, and subspecies of humans along the way. In other animals, we observe branching "family trees": for example, birds have hundreds of species (sparrows, eagles, penguins) and subspecies that differ in appearance and behavior. Mammals are similar: dogs have wolves, jackals, and coyotes; cats have lions, tigers, and leopards. But what do we see with humans?

Instead of a branching tree of human evolution, we’re often shown a simplified line: on the left, an ape, then a few transitional forms (like Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus), and on the right, modern humans, Homo sapiens. This isn’t a tree—it’s more of a straight line that doesn’t reflect the diversity we’d expect from an evolutionary process. Moreover, we don’t have a single complete skeleton of a supposed human ancestor. We only have fragments—some bones, jaws, teeth—that scientists interpret as ancestral remains. But these fragments can be interpreted in various ways, and they’re not enough to form a complete picture. Scientists often explain the lack of skeletons by saying they didn’t survive due to environmental conditions, but this only highlights that we have very little data. If human evolution spanned millions of years, where are the millions of skeletons? Where is the diversity of species and subspecies?

Even more puzzling is the absence of living representatives of other human species or subspecies. All animals show such diversity: birds, mammals, even fish. But with humans, there’s nothing like that. We’re the only species, Homo sapiens, with no living "relatives." This contradicts what we see in nature, where evolution creates multiple parallel lineages.

Mobility and Migrations: Why This Doesn’t Explain the Lack of Subspecies
One argument often used to defend the theory of evolution is that humans didn’t diverge into subspecies because they were too mobile. Supposedly, mass migrations and population mixing "unified" humanity, preventing subspecies from forming. But this argument doesn’t hold up. First, in ancient times, mass migrations—especially between continents—were rare. Humans lived in isolated groups, and movements between Africa, America, or Australia were infrequent and challenging. Second, let’s look at birds. Birds are some of the most mobile creatures on Earth. They migrate thousands of miles, crossing continents, yet this hasn’t stopped them from diverging into countless species and subspecies. If mobility doesn’t prevent birds from diversifying, why would it prevent humans? This argument doesn’t explain the absence of human subspecies—it only highlights contradictions in the theory of evolution.

Isolation of Native Americans: Why No Changes?
Let’s consider another example: Native Americans. They were isolated from the rest of the world for about 15,000 years after crossing the Bering Strait and settling in the Americas. You mentioned that migrations across the Bering land bridge began earlier—up to 23,000 years ago, or even 40,000 years ago according to recent evidence. I used 15,000 years to refer to the main wave of migration, after which the Bering Strait flooded, leading to more pronounced isolation. The earlier waves you mentioned may have been initial stages of settlement, but the main population still remained isolated after 15,000 years ago. According to the theory of evolution, such a long period of isolation should have led to noticeable changes—perhaps the emergence of a subspecies or at least significant genetic or physical differences. But that didn’t happen. Native Americans, despite their isolation, remained typical humans, with no signs of evolutionary divergence that would make them a subspecies. This raises doubts about the idea that evolution could have created humans from an ape-like ancestor over millions of years, when even 15,000 years of isolation didn’t lead to meaningful changes.

Conclusion
Ayin jade, these questions highlight significant gaps in the theory of evolution when it comes to human origins. The absence of millions of complete ancestral skeletons, living human species or subspecies, and the inadequacy of explanations about mobility and migrations all raise concerns. The example of Native American isolation further fuels doubts: if isolation didn’t lead to changes, how could evolution have created humans from another species? These issues call for deeper analysis and perhaps a reevaluation of how we understand human origins.
 

Edited March 26 by Ogner

[one.opinion]

10 hours ago, Ogner said:

Take James Tour’s five questions about life’s beginnings:

I was in the audience when James Tour gave a talk about his views on the possibility of the chemical evolution of life at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston several years ago. This even was attended by about 200 PhDs, MDs, and graduate students. For the most part, he gave compelling arguments (personally, my beliefs line up here quite well with his). One of the questions at the end of the talk was something to the effect of "Do you accept biological evolution and common ancestry as the best explanations for the diversity of life we see today?" Knowing a little bit about Dr. Tour and his views left me keenly curious about what his response might be, so his reply has stuck with me ever since. He replied "It's the only game in town." It was a rather oblique response, but it also sounded quite a bit like an admission that there is not a viable, competing explanation for the observable biological world.

[Marathoner]

9 hours ago, ayin jade said:

belief in evolution is not a belief that affects the salvation of an individual.

Agreed. This is why I steer clear of topics such as these, for all they accomplish is stirring up strife. 

[timf]

It is difficult to try to "prove" evolution is false. They are very adaptive in their response to criticism. The argument from the fossil record is often explained away using "punctuated equilibrium". This invention describes some magic event where a lot of evolution happens in a sort period while most of the time nothing is observed.

Those who feel the need to cling to a reason to support their rejection of God are usually not interested in questioning or seeking to understand.

[Ogner]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I was in the audience when James Tour gave a talk about his views on the possibility of the chemical evolution of life at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston several years ago. This even was attended by about 200 PhDs, MDs, and graduate students. For the most part, he gave compelling arguments (personally, my beliefs line up here quite well with his). One of the questions at the end of the talk was something to the effect of "Do you accept biological evolution and common ancestry as the best explanations for the diversity of life we see today?" Knowing a little bit about Dr. Tour and his views left me keenly curious about what his response might be, so his reply has stuck with me ever since. He replied "It's the only game in town." It was a rather oblique response, but it also sounded quite a bit like an admission that there is not a viable, competing explanation for the observable biological world.

Your interpretation of James Tour’s words doesn’t answer any of the questions.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Ogner said:

Your interpretation of James Tour’s words doesn’t answer any of the questions.

How open are you to learning?

[Ogner]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

How open are you to learning?

My openness to learning depends on how you address the questions I raised in the topic

[teddyv]

On 3/26/2025 at 11:39 AM, one.opinion said:

I was in the audience when James Tour gave a talk about his views on the possibility of the chemical evolution of life at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston several years ago. This even was attended by about 200 PhDs, MDs, and graduate students. For the most part, he gave compelling arguments (personally, my beliefs line up here quite well with his). One of the questions at the end of the talk was something to the effect of "Do you accept biological evolution and common ancestry as the best explanations for the diversity of life we see today?" Knowing a little bit about Dr. Tour and his views left me keenly curious about what his response might be, so his reply has stuck with me ever since. He replied "It's the only game in town." It was a rather oblique response, but it also sounded quite a bit like an admission that there is not a viable, competing explanation for the observable biological world.

"MR. FARINA! MR. FARINA!"

Dr. Tour seems a bit deranged at times.

Anyway, the question posed to him is about evolution, not abiogenesis, so it's essentially a dodge.