I understand the theory to this point, even with it's lack of absolute proof. so please don't patronize me?


i thought i had expressed my approach and what questions i have concerning the "evolution" of man. the "leap" i guess you could say from neanderthal to homo sapien sapien...why did some evolve and others died, becoming extinct? Have they found a transitional...biped yet, or just bits and pieces close enough to assume however educated the assumption?



i've explained what method of evolution i'm using to support my opinion.
i do not agree with the "darwinism" theory of evolution being portrayed as absolute, when it is not absolute. What supporting evidence, less then fifty percent bone fragments gathered, biased statements versus the biased documentation?

I have a fondness for the term monkey, a personal association i guess you could say. Once again this is absolute proof you are refering to here?



I'll try to be more materialistic with my thinking, i find you amusing.

Hey asd, if our evolutionary lineage gives evidence of ancestral apes why is it that genetically we have more in common with pigs?

I wasn't patronizing. If you were aware of of the above points it wasn't apparent in your posts. Now, as for you question concerning absolute proof. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science; science is inductive which means the conclusion that something is a fact does not follow absolutely from the evidence that supports it, but with varying degrees of probability. Evolution is not called a fact because it's absolutely true, no conclusion based on experiential evidence is, but because in the opinion of the mainstream scientific community, the evidence is so overwhelming, it would be irrational to believe otherwise. To require that a scientific theory be absolutely proven is impractical. Otherwise, we wouldn't accept gravity since the theory of gravity is not entirely complete and there's no way to know for sure that things won't start to fall upwards in the future.

The problem as I've said is that your arguing against a biological definition of evolution but using a definition that is more like anthropological assesment of human culture. To do so is to commit equivocation.

Have they found a transition of what?

All hominid species has what is called a type specimen which consist of entire skulls and nearly complete skeletons. And what evidence of bias do you have?

Most current evolutionist don't believe in strictly Darwinian evolution, since evolution is propelled by mechanisms other than mutation and natural selection, such as genetic drift. And it is not portrayed as absolute, but as the most probable explanation of the evidence.

Fondness or not, it is entirely incorrect. For you own sake, you should stop using it as such.

No, since I don't believe in absolute proof through induction. But it certainly is evidence.

It might help.

Now who's being patronizing? That's okay, I feel the same about you. Trying to topple a scientific theory all by yourself; it's cute really.

Could you provide a source for this claim. I did some google searches and couldn't find any scientific articles on it.

The reason we may have more in common with pigs is the same reason a lot of animals have more in common with other living ancestors rather than thier extinct ancestors we can't of course study geneticaly. Genetics is a poor thing to staticize as the understanding of those statistics to anyone who doesn't understand how genetics works will not make sense for example we are more or less 50% Banana. However it must be pointed out that when you say 50% here it is like saying 50% of the sun...half the sun being quite large as you can imagine.

In genetics even a 2% difference between animals means those animals could be two totaly different species or two sexes of the same species depending on which genes are different.

Jordyn I really hate to make bold statements about people based upon what little I can ascertain from reading thier posts but the fact is that though you don't like to be patronized you will always feel this way when making general sweeping statements to a scientificly minded person. Here you say "There are no inbetween bi peds"...you make it clear with this statement how little you have read about evolution.

Mans evolution was at times violent and relatively fast one..it happened so fast that most of the time we measure changes by what tools were used e.g the stone age and the iron age. The process of fossilization and preservation of hominid remains of fairly modern species will be incomplete because fossils take a long time to build up..the dinosaurs were around for a long long time and left us only a few complete skeletons from thier millions of years of existance. Our ancestors however were only around for a few hundred thousand years that sounds like a long time but isn't long for many to die in the perfect circumstances for preservation to occur.

The records however of the gradual shift of ape-like man to more modern man is very well catalogued. There is even evidence from a few sites that some species of hominid lived very close to each other and may very well have interacted..some species became extinct which suggests that the competition was too great for thier survival (especialy when the iceage came and wiped out all the species that weren't intelligent or furry enough to survive).

I don't get my information just from dusty old books (no matter how old they are they aren't as dusty as the idea of creation) I proactively seek new findings both through scientific journals and my own research.

Absolute proof belongs in the closed mind of a religious zealot not in the always questioning mind of a true scientist.

i'll agree that it's not absolute, that is what i was most irritated with concerning evolution, it's presented in a way as to suggest it's absolute proven truth, rather than just being bases on some skulls that are close enough to be related, but different enough to stay subjective.



I'm not denying that i'm not approaching this from a more philosophical, idealist approach, i've made my own observations from the information presented, and still have not been convinced of it's accuracy.

the actual transition from ape to man

evidence can be prove incorrect and corrupted even in the matter of law, people who have been convicted of crimes have been proven by evidence that contradicted that which convicted them....so evidence is just suggestion that it's correct, i'll agree that there are no absolutes

and i wasn't being patronizing, i was being complimentry, few amuse me on here, and you've actually impressed me with your tenacity and verocity in presenting your proof without me seeing you as being a pompous egotist more concerned with proving yourself as being a greater person, rather than just proving your point...i am impressed!

i am enjoying this debate to a point of having a bit of a desire to continue on strictly for selfish purposes, , however by you stating nothing is absolute, i'll concede at this point, otherwise it'll spiral downward to redundant quotes and over used examples...and i would hate to be guilty of that

You must be getting this presentation from lay-evolutionists and over-zealous teachers, because the one of the first thing scientists learn is the self-correcting nature of science.

If you want to use that definition, that's fine. But you can only use that definition to argue for or against that definition, not a biological one.

Strawman. The fossil record is based on more that "some skulls"; remember the type specimens I mentioned? Lucy is a neary complete skeleton. And, of course, evolution is based on a lot more than fossil evidence.

What does "different enough to stay subjective" mean?

I can't believe you're stilling asking this question after all this time. There are 18 transitional species currently known seperating man and ancestral ape with thousands of fossils among them. Just click on that hominid fossil link I gave you.

Yes, induction works on probabilites, the more evidence the higher probability. The fact of gravity is based on observational evidence, but I wouldn't say that it merely "suggests" it.

Before the discussion can continue, some points, I think, should be addressed:

You were of the position that the evolutionary is flawed. When a scientific theory is flawed it means that it makes a conclusion that is contrary to the evidence; it doesn't not mean that there are questions it cannot yet explain, since no theory is entirely complete. No one has yet been able to show a flaw in evolutionary theory.

You were also of the position that science could not explain certain advancements, or leaps in human culture. The evolution of increased brain size explains human's ability to develop more complex societies, and a bipedal posture allowed for greater dexterity of the hands leading to the formation of tools; there have also been countless anthropological books written about early human civilization, how it progressed, how it evolved. What is your definition of an explanation, and why aren't these explanations in you opinion?

that those who observe it are able to deduce what it means from their own experience, rather than being able to say that they know for a fact...the only way people can know if it is indeed, no matter the species is to have witnessed it themself...i make the same arguement for religion too...how can anyone say that is how it was when they are able to only interpret what they find on the subject. Logical conclusion i guess you could say



I have an looked at others, and the most questionable part is neanderthal to man, it would seem a neanderthals brain was larger than ours, yet it was homosapien that survived...there was a period where neanderthal man existed alongside homo sapiens...if it was strictly evolution then as it was done with previous "transitions" where one species ended and another began...what happened that decided which of the neanderthals continue on in a more advanced state of existance, rather than stay neanderthal and become extinct?

but gravity is something i can see, i can feel and that i don't have to rely on the observations of others to see how it works.

Before the discussion can continue, some points, I think, should be addressed:
(i'd already conceded the point)

except the flaw that it's portrayed as being complete...you have made it clear that not all evolutionists have such a "firm" stance in it's absolution. Until it is a complete study with unquestionable proof it is always open to the possibility of being wrong. It's happened before! Why isn't evolution still happening among the primate families? Was it decided we were good enough and left it there?

there had to have been a catalyst that inspired the newly formed homo sapiens to see more besides a bigger brain...at this point it does tend to get more philosophical dealing with the point that man began to have cultures spring up across the globe...so can we st save that for another discussion?

an explanation to me is an answer that eliminates all doubt from my mind, after this discussion i have a bit more of an understanding concerning the fact versus myth of evolutionary theory...it is a bit more comprehensable...however i still stand by my concept that there is more than just scientific specutlation based on archeological discoveries of human like bones,extinct primates and "logical reasoning" to explain the rise of intelligence, there are a few creatures whose brains are larger than ours, why is it we walk the earth, and they are often times just dinner?

I heard somewhere that an accumulation of particles together with an ionizing bolt of loightning created the first bacteria. Mary Shelly may not be too far off... Eep.

It wasn't a claim it was a question. Reasonably normal person here...I don't have a link for everything I think. I could be totally off track but I have seen and heard through different sources that I can't recall that pigs are used for human transplants. Due to their genetics being closer to humans there is less likelihood of rejection. As you seem to be somewhat the expert on the subject I thought you could fill me in.


Thanks Tent... I understand what you're saying and see the relevance. It seems just more evidence that we are all part of everything.

They do know for a fact. Fact doesn't mean something that is known with absolute certainty; fact means someting that is so supported by the evidence that it would by irrational to believe otherwise. When the fossil record shows a gradual change in anatomy from the body type of one species to the body type of another all correlating to the ages of the sediment beds in which the fossils are found, the only logical conclusion is descent with modification.

To only accept knowledge obtainable from personal observation is not only impractical, but it will ultimately leave you ignorant of most of what can be known about the world. You have to trust the research of others. The trick is being wise about whom you trust.

That would be a flaw in its representation, not in the theory itself.

Evolution is still occuring among primate species. The problem is that the length of each generation is so long that most scientists won't even live long enough to observe dramatic changes. That's why evolutionist rely on the fossil record: it provides millions of years of evidence that can be observed simultaneously; that's also way most occurances of speciation in the lab is with quickly reproducing organisms like bacteria and insects. One instance of recent human evolution I can think of off the top of my head is the high rate of sickle-cell anemia among those of african descent that was an adaptation against malaria.

Neanderthals larger brain size (about 100ccs on average, which is not very much) most likely accounts for their larger bulk. The ratio between brain size and body size is a better gauge for intellegence than brain size alone.

See above. Also realize that intellegence is neither the only relevent advantage, or always an advantage. Large brains are costly energy-wise which could be a detriment in environments where food is very scarce.

On what do you base this judgement?

A mind free of all doubt is a religious mind. Scientists always allow for doubt.

i've never said i had a scientific mind...

Then on what grounds do you dispute evolution? Do you use a method of obtaining and appraising knowledge other than science that you feel is more sound?

it doesn't make sense to me, and maybe a little vanity that i refuse to accept that my great ancestors were apes...

Well that ends that debate then..emotions always win against thought.

Homo Sapiens (modern man) is thought to have originated in Africa 100,000 years ago.

Neanderthal Man originatred around 150,000 years ago.

Homo Erectus originated around 1.5 million years ago.

Australopithicus, the first to walk upright. Around 5 million years ago.

Pliopithicus, an ape-like being, was amoung man's earliest relatives, around 25 million years ago.

This primitive hand-ax is the most advanced tool we would expect to find in 2 million year old strata.

We are now in the forbidden zone of archeology. This mortar and pestle was found in rock strata 55 million years old. At this early period in earth's history human beings did not exist.

This metallic tube is impossible according to the accepted views of archeology. Found in chalk beds dated to 65 million years, it is of obvious intelligent design, yet dates to a time before humans existed.

This artifact has never been recorded in a college textbook. Modern human bones were found in an Illinois coal deposit dated at 320 million years. Does this mean that man lived at the time of the dinosaurs?

Perhaps the oldest artifacts ever discovered are these metallic spheres found in Klerksdorp, So. Africa. Over 150 of the mysterious balls were found deep in Pre-Cambrian strata dated at an astounding 2.8 billion years old. At this time in earth's history, only simple forms of algae were thought to exist.

what do you make of this mr asd?