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

[one.opinion]

11 hours ago, Ogner said:

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

Fair enough, let's try one out.

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

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.

There is a lot of evidence for human evolution (https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils), but I'm not sure where you have set your expectations on finding millions of complete skeltons. You are probably aware that fossilization only occurs under a very special set of circumstances (https://home.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/how-fossils-form.htm), typically rapid burial in sediment. What leads you to believe that there should millions of complete fossil skeletons? Just as a point of interest, there is a remarkable fossil specimen estimated to be 3.6 million years old that you can read more about here - https://www.sciencealert.com/little-foot-australopithecus-hominid-oldest-most-complete-south-africa.

[one.opinion]

28 minutes ago, teddyv said:

"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.

I've spent a bit of time with him and he certainly has been somewhat eccentric in our encounters.

[teddyv]

47 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I've spent a bit of time with him and he certainly has been somewhat eccentric in our encounters.

That's interesting that you know him, at least probably better than most. That "debate" with Professor Dave was not at all a good look for Dr. Tour. I can accept someone being passionate about their subject, but his behaviour was way over the top.

[Ogner]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Fair enough, let's try one out.

There is a lot of evidence for human evolution (https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils), but I'm not sure where you have set your expectations on finding millions of complete skeltons. You are probably aware that fossilization only occurs under a very special set of circumstances (https://home.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/how-fossils-form.htm), typically rapid burial in sediment. What leads you to believe that there should millions of complete fossil skeletons? Just as a point of interest, there is a remarkable fossil specimen estimated to be 3.6 million years old that you can read more about here - https://www.sciencealert.com/little-foot-australopithecus-hominid-oldest-most-complete-south-africa.

I looked at your links—found nothing new. You didn’t answer any of my questions. 

Evolutionists claim humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, like Australopithecus or Homo habilis, over millions of years of change. They portray these ancestors as less adapted to the wild and dumber than modern humans: they were weaker, slower, less intelligent, and that’s why they went extinct while humans survived. But I believe this is wrong. These supposed ancestors weren’t "underdeveloped apes"—they were the "golden mean" between apes and humans. And if so, they should have survived and still exist today.

What does "golden mean" mean? These were beings that combined the best of apes and humans. They had strong bodies like apes to survive in the wild: they could climb trees, run fast, hide from predators. But they also had the beginnings of human intelligence: they could think, make simple tools, communicate with each other. If they were like this, why did they go extinct? Evolutionists say humans were "better" and outcompeted them. But that doesn’t make sense. The "golden mean" is the perfect balance: they were better adapted to the wild than humans, who now depend on technology, houses, and medicine. They weren’t "dumber"—their minds were developed enough to survive and adapt.

If these ancestors were the "golden mean," they should not only have survived but also given rise to new species. In nature, well-adapted species don’t disappear—they continue to exist and evolve. Why did the "golden mean" disappear? 
Evolutionists can’t explain this. If evolution were true, we should not only find their skeletons but also live with them now. Where are these living transitional forms? Where are the creatures that still walk like Australopithecus or think like Homo habilis? They don’t exist. This shows there was no evolution.

I believe the Creator made humans separately, not through evolution. The similarity between species is his "template," like an author writing different books in the same style. If evolution were true, we’d see millions of skeletons of these "golden means" and live with them today. But we don’t, because humans are a separate creation of the Creator.

[BeyondET]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:04 AM, Ogner said:

Animals follow evolution: chimps eat fruit and dig with sticks for 6 million years,
 

Chimps are omnivores

[BeyondET]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:04 AM, Ogner said:

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.
 

For something to be preserved fossilized, the conditions have to be just right. Finding a fossil is a rare thing. Because very few become fossilized most turn to dust.

Edited March 28 by BeyondET

[one.opinion]

On 3/28/2025 at 2:48 AM, Ogner said:

I looked at your links—found nothing new. You didn’t answer any of my questions.

You asked why there aren’t millions of intact transitional human fossilized skeletons. The quick answer is that isn’t a reasonable question.

I asked a question, too. What made you expect to see millions of intact transitional human fossilized skeletons?

Do you believe dinosaurs were real? Do you wonder why we don’t have millions of intact dinosaur fossils? If not, why not?

[The Barbarian]

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

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.

Since evolutionary theory is not about the origin of the universe, pretty much anything is OK.      But (for example) the Big Bang involves a number of predictions, which can be checked to see if the theory can be confirmed.

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

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.

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life, either.    Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.    If God had magically poofed living things into being, instead of using natural processes, evolution would still world exactly as we see it working now.

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

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?

Here's a list of some of the more significant ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Way too long to list here, but feel free to count.   Or if you get tired of counting, I might be able to find an actual number for you.

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

Yet there’s not even one full skeleton of a single individual! Erectus leaves us skulls and bones, Neanderthals—fragments.

Well, let's take a look...   H. erectus:

Neanderthal.

Pretty good.   And yes, we have hand and foot bones from other H. erectus skeletons.

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

Where are the transitional forms with 700 cm³ brains or other traits?

Homo rudolfensis

On 3/26/2025 at 3:04 AM, Ogner said:

Darwin’s theory doesn’t hold.

Let's test that assumption.   There are 4 points to Darwin's theory.   Which of them have been refuted?     If you don't know what Darwin's theory is, ask and I'll list the points for you.   Will that be necessary?   As you likely realize, your assumptions are not consistent with the evidence.  

 

[Marathoner]

On 3/28/2025 at 10:40 AM, BeyondET said:

Chimps are omnivores

Indeed. They have been filmed hunting colobus monkeys for food. The chimpanzees hunt as a group. 

Edited March 31 by Marathoner

[The Barbarian]

On 3/28/2025 at 2:48 AM, Ogner said:

Evolutionists claim humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, like Australopithecus or Homo habilis, over millions of years of change. They portray these ancestors as less adapted to the wild and dumber than modern humans: they were weaker, slower, less intelligent, and that’s why they went extinct while humans survived.

They weren't weaker; probably stronger.    The human myostatin gene seems to have been positively selected for:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1698719/

However, they seem to have been less intelligent than anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals.    Intelligence seems to have been a very useful trait, with larger brains and smaller faces being favored (possibly allometric change as D'Arcy Thompson's studies indicate)

Also, the mutualistic cooperation between hominids and canids seems to have been a major cause of H. sapiens replacing other hominids in all parts of the world.    While genes of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and one other unidenified human species persist in the human genome, anatomically modern humans seem to have replaced all those other subspecies/species.