Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are
It is
not chimp to homo sapiens. The chimp skull is present only as a reference, not as a point on the progression.
OK So we did not descend from primates now? My apparently retarded ass is just reaching, is it? And the primate skull (the one that belonged to a chimp) in the primate to human progression photographs is just a reference point.. OTAY BUHWHEET!
- But highly dependent on visual aides to help the layman to somehow see a constant in change and growth. However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink..
As they would if you took two modern day humans and compared their skulls side by side.
Of course they would- I am not retarded. I pointed out the differences in the skulls development and change- not just size..
The point is the overall progression of traits, not that each and every step is a perfect linear transition between the one directly before and the one directly after. Evolution doesn't work that way and neither does the fossilization process. We work with whatever representative individual of the time period happened to get fossilized. Maybe the guy had a big head. Maybe he had a small nose. That's not the point.
The overall progression of traits in the picture you used is crap, then- because overall, there are far too many discrepancies in the
shape and
curve of the skulls themselves. You can chalk this up to whatever you want- the first skull looks as similar to the last skull as the "I" skull does to it. Its a damned primate SKULL, for chrissakes.. And since not all primates are related, I would venture a guess (same as everyone elses) that some of the skulls pictured are not an exact match to the primate or homo whatever that it claims.. My only contention with you is
not that evolution from primate to human is impossible- just that we need more evidence of skeletal similarities to prove such a thing. Right now, there lacks evidence to be capable of credibly proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think we are still primates- essentially. We are animals, after all. To say that humans are above animals is just ridiculous. I also believe that part of the bible has been falsely taught- The bible says that humans are to "rule over" the animals, not that we are above them, or even have more rights than the animals do. God accepted both animals AND sacrificed humans as gift offerings, apparently, at least for a time. Therefore, whatever you are trying to convey to me about evolution (Again, I BELIEVE in evolution- just believe it was Gods plan) is not really going to take me anywhere, besides going in circles about primate to human metamorphasis, which may or may not even be the case. Even if it IS true- that humans ascended from ancient primates (I choose now to say ascended, since evolution relies heavily on natural selection/ and nature relies heavily on survival of the fittest- meaning we have gone from dumbass "neanderthals" to almost equally dumb "wise men".. LOL although we at least know a few more things than before- like we have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics, allowing for the exploration of creating automated technological aides.. However, as we all know by our cruddy cell phones, our service providers, what happens when lightning strikes and the power fails for hours, or sometimes days or weeks on end, if there be another element mixed in, like a flood, or whatever, etc.. that even this has not been exacted.. But really, Lets move on.. haha
I was hardly relying only on one picture. There were six posts there. They were somewhat lengthy. There's a section in one of them on the lack of vitamin C synthesis in primates you may have missed. And the next post I make will be expanding more on the genetic links. There is effectively ZERO question we share common ancestry with primates (and everything else) scientifically speaking. It's as close to proven as science ever gets to proving anything.
When I said a picture- I meant the group of skulls condensed into one image. I also agree,that it is close.. But as those pictures go (in that image) there are so many clear differences in development that may go one way, and in a different direction in "I" and then come back to the changes that were already in place in "H". I realize that a hundred million years were between these, but I do NOT see this as a means to prove that we
necessarily came from primates, as you say.. But again and again, I reiterate- even if if we did not come from primates, that is also not proof that evolution is a facade either.. Evolution is a certainty- but the real question that will take another million years to prove is whether EVERY species has evolved in any way.. That right there- The fact that we cannot even get perfect the proof that humans ascended from primates, knowing full well that humans have almost always been record keepers of sorts (not always with writings, but in other ways that you and I cannot even begin to fathom because our distinct perception is of record keeping being in the form of visual art/ drawings/ and writings..)
I thought your point was we needed more evidence to establish human common ancestry with primates. But maybe that's because you said:
"Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this.. "
The universe was surely not formed by Evolution.. And a big bang is a fine explanation for the origin of life- but not the universe itself, simply because you cant get something from nothing. What banged?
Of course it wasnt formed "by evolution". Evolution is a biological process, how the hell would the universe be formed by evolution and who in the world has ever argued it was?
That one was for Ralph in response to something he said about the bible not having scripture on evolution.. and you.. in response to your own response, I believe, to this quotesplosion- and the thread is about creation (origins based) versus evolution (not origins based) ... oh and correct me if I was wrong about who wrote what- in any event, I was responding to this, I believe I made at least that much clear enough:
Evolution is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the form of propagated (transmitted) DIVINE TRUTH
neither is the internet. nor antibiotics. and yet these things exist, and are true.
^^^ His post was an attempt to discredit a deity for causing this chain reaction to begin.. and I am just letting him know that Evolution (again) is not about origins. Ralph is just a little confused about that part, apparently, or at least his comment suggested such. As did your own, lol..
As for what went "bang"... depends which theory is right. There's some argument over it right now. If Steinhardt and his faction are correct then it was a couple extra-spatial dimensional membranes coliding with quantum fluctuations in their flatness at collision being responsible for the non-uniform distribution of matter that resulted. If Linde and his faction are right it was some kind of quantum singularity going 'boom'.
A couple of somethings SIMPLY (I say again) can
not come from complete nothingness.
Some kind of SOMETHING doing SOMETHING, which somethings tend to do, and not just creating a something FROM an absolute nothing. ;-)
Or new evidence could send them all off in a third direction. Who knows. They're still waiting on more evidence to come in to show which one is closer and arguing over it in the meantime. At least last I checked, which was admittedly a few years ago. At that time I was personally of the opinion that Steinhardt's theory had more promise but we need way more data.
I think that "Who Knows", is kind of the point of this thead, dear..
I also believe that the OP's intent with this thread was to try and see how many of us were open minded enough to see that something can be created and then evolve. To that effect, I am also fairly interested in learning how many people are open minded to an alternate truth than one they have been previously committed.
As long as the alternative "truth" has evidence it's true, entirely openminded.
Touche... If you apply that same logic to yourself, and admit that the evidence is empirical on both sides..
Don't forget- Anything you read in a science book is subject to you actually believing it's findings.. which makes science text fundamentally not much different than the bible..
Why should I believe a fairy tale. I don't believe in kissing frogs and turning them into princes.
