Evolution evidence: the truth


#1

Human Ancestral Frauds

Lucy: Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3ft chimpanzee.

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: Was scientifically built up from one single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922. Later, it was identified as being the tooth of an extinct pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)


#2

[quote=Chris LaRock]Human Ancestral Frauds

Lucy: Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3ft chimpanzee.

[/quote]

Could you provide a source for this statement?


#3

I copied this from my copy of ‘the evidence bible’, which includes the evolutionary chart along with explainations of what the so-called evidence is all about.


#4

Does the Bible says God created man out of dirt? If it does we had to be born out of dirt like evolved from dirt/micros right?


#5

[quote=Ricardo Gomez]Does the Bible says God created man out of dirt? If it does we had to be born out of dirt like evolved from dirt/micros right?
[/quote]

No. that’s not what Genisis says at all. From the dirt, God created Adam and breathed into his nostrails the breath of life and Adam became a living being. Evolution, if it were true, would be spoken of in Genisis and wouldn’t rely upon fraudulant information to convince people it’s true.


#6

(FROM THE DIRT, GOD CREATED ADAM)
To me this is real simple, from dirt God created Adam. There was a process in which God created us. Could we, through science, repeat the process? Of course. How long would it take us to achieve the same divine power? Thousands and thousands of years.


#7

read the “Doonsbury” cartoon in the Sun Dec 18 newspaper. Just for some perspective.

cheddar


#8

Found the link to the cartoon here:
uclick.com/client/adv/db/2005/12/18/index.html


From what I see in the first post, there are alot of dishonest people, trying to invent early man, to get famous, and I have seen some of this on the Science Channel on Dish Network.

I do believe in a modified evolution with GOD bringing in the creatures at certain times in history, and the creation may have been excellerated quite a bit to get things prepared faster, but still I think that the Earth has been around the sun many more times than what is indicated in the Bible. If evolution was fully true than I would not exist beyond death.


#9

[quote=Ricardo Gomez](FROM THE DIRT, GOD CREATED ADAM)
To me this is real simple, from dirt God created Adam. There was a process in which God created us. **Could we, through science, repeat the process? Of course. ** How long would it take us to achieve the same divine power? Thousands and thousands of years.
[/quote]

I see we are now gods. Our scientist are gods. That is my largest problems with evolution we are nothing but animals and our scientist are gods. Why couldn’t we evolved within the our own speicises. Like it says in Genesis each to it own kind.


#10

[quote=Ricardo Gomez](FROM THE DIRT, GOD CREATED ADAM)
To me this is real simple, from dirt God created Adam. There was a process in which God created us. Could we, through science, repeat the process? Of course. How long would it take us to achieve the same divine power? Thousands and thousands of years.
[/quote]

It’s Mormonism, among other faiths, that teach the lie that man can achieve godhood. This is a lie straight from the mouth of satan.

“The day that you eat thereof, you will be like God…”

Don’t be fooled. Man cannot, as you put it, “achieve the same divine power” as God. Even if MILLIONS of years passed, we could never duplicate God’s creation.


#11

[quote=Geocacher]Found the link to the cartoon here:
uclick.com/client/adv/db/2005/12/18/index.html


From what I see in the first post, there are alot of dishonest people, trying to invent early man, to get famous, and I have seen some of this on the Science Channel on Dish Network.

I do believe in a modified evolution with GOD bringing in the creatures at certain times in history, and the creation may have been excellerated quite a bit to get things prepared faster, but still I think that the Earth has been around the sun many more times than what is indicated in the Bible. If evolution was fully true than I would not exist beyond death.
[/quote]

Much of the work of these dishonest people is being blindly accepted by the scientific community, and taught to young people. Evolution is used to justify and spread atheism. Both atheism and evolution cheapen the worth of human life, convincing us we are just accidents, and animals that randomly appeared from nothing. No wonder there’s a culture of death. We have allowed science to devalue us.

Macro evolution: one species into another. (Darwinian fiction)

Micro evolution: variations within any given species. (what Geocacher was talking about)

True Darwin evolution isn’t being taught, since Mr. Darwin held the belief that women are less evolved than men and whites are more evolved than darker skinned people. True Darwin evolution is both sexist and racist. (my source: The way of the master episode #21)


#12

Oh dear, here we do again. The usual mix of old or irrelevant creationist stuff that has already been refuted oh so many times before. Can’t you people come up with some new arguments that we have not seen already?

Part 1

[quote=Chris LaRock (post #1)]Lucy: Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3ft chimpanzee.
[/quote]

This is not a fraud. Have a look at Lucy’s skeleton. Have a look at her legs. See how long they are compared to her torso. Have a look at a chimpanzee. See how short its legs are compared to its torso. Lucy was definitely not a chimpanzee. Experts will be able to see even more differences. Your source was wrong about this. Lucy is good evidence for human evolution.

[quote=Chris LaRock]Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man - until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later.
[/quote]

Piltdown was indeed a forgery. It was once considered important because it was one of only a few ‘early’ fossils available at the time. Once the early hominids from Africa began to be discovered in the thirties it quickly became less important, usually relegated to a footnote because it didn’t fit with the others. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Piltdown Man.

[quote=Chris LaRock]Nebraska man: Was scientifically built up from one single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922. Later, it was identified as being the tooth of an extinct pig.
[/quote]

This is not a fraud. The re-identification as a pig was done in 1927 only five years later. Nebraska man was not around long enough to have any real effect. Remember that in 1922 the evidence from Africa had not yet been found so it was not unreasonable to have an early human in America. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Nebraska Man.

Part 2 to follow.

rossum


#13

Part 2

[quote=Chris LaRock]Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”).
[/quote]

This is not a fraud. The femur was probably a modern human, the teeth were possibly from an Orangutan. The skull cap is Homo erectus. Homo Erectus, as found in Java, is a well established species with remains found in a lot of other places as well as Java. See more here. Homo erectus is good evidence for human evolution.

Your source is wrong on two counts about the Wadjak skulls, they were found 65km away, hardly “very close”, and Dubois published them in 1890 and 1892. Another error in your source.

[quote=Chris LaRock]Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey.
[/quote]

This is not a fraud. Yes, scientists can make mistakes. Note also that the mistakes are corrected as soon as they are discovered - see Nebraska Man above. This is part of science, every result is checked and rechecked just to try to avoid perpetuating mistakes. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Orce Man.

[quote=Chris LaRock]Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow.
[/quote]

This is not a fraud. Neanderthals were more advanced than some initial studies indicated. They were not Homo sapiens but were a different species from ourselves. This has been shown by studies of Neanderthal’s Mitochondrial DNA. Neanderthal Man is good evidence for human evolution.

Of six supposed frauds you have only actually shown one. Not very good, the others were just the normal self-correcting action of science detecting mistakes and rectifying them. Your own source has two errors, so it is doing worse than evolution so far. How do you expect to refute evolution with a source which has more uncorrected errors in it than you can show in evolution?

Just because some evidence for something was fraudulent does not mean that all the evidence is fraudulent. For example I could forge some evidence for the existence of Jesus. That would not mean that all the evidence for the existence of Jesus is fraudulent. You have to show that all the evidence for evolution is fraudulent, not just part of it.

rossum


#14

So, lets have some more evidence for Human evolution.

Lets start with the fossils. Here are some fossil skulls. The first is a modern chimp, the last is a modern human, the rest are in chronological order. None of them is Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man or Orce Man. Skull G is Homo erectus and is similar to Java Man. Skulls J to L are Neanderthals with their flatter craniums, lower foreheads and heavy ridges over the eyes. The skulls have been scaled to make the comparison easier.

How about DNA evidence? We all have mistakes in our DNA. For example we cannot make vitamin C beause we have a mistake in a gene for Vitamin C synthesis. All other primates, including the African apes, have exactly the same mistake in their gene for Vitamin C synthesis. Not only do we share many genes with African apes we also share the same mistakes in our genes. For more details see here.

What about now? Are humans evolving now? Of course we are. For one example see this webpage. There are other examples such as sickle cell anaemia as a reaction to the presence of malaria. Humans are evolving now.

Chris LaRock’s opening post only provided one fraud out of six attempts with three of them: Lucy, Java Man and Neanderthals providing evidence for human evolution. In his OP he is losing 3-1. I have provided three more lines of evidence for evolution so he is now losing 6-1. He is going to have to do a lot better than this if he wants to convince me.

rossum


#15

[quote=rossum]Oh dear, here we do again. The usual mix of old or irrelevant creationist stuff that has already been refuted oh so many times before. Can’t you people come up with some new arguments that we have not seen already?

Part 1

This is not a fraud. Have a look at Lucy’s skeleton. Have a look at her legs. See how long they are compared to her torso. Have a look at a chimpanzee. See how short its legs are compared to its torso. Lucy was definitely not a chimpanzee. Experts will be able to see even more differences. Your source was wrong about this. Lucy is good evidence for human evolution.

Piltdown was indeed a forgery. It was once considered important because it was one of only a few ‘early’ fossils available at the time. Once the early hominids from Africa began to be discovered in the thirties it quickly became less important, usually relegated to a footnote because it didn’t fit with the others. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Piltdown Man.

This is not a fraud. The re-identification as a pig was done in 1927 only five years later. Nebraska man was not around long enough to have any real effect. Remember that in 1922 the evidence from Africa had not yet been found so it was not unreasonable to have an early human in America. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Nebraska Man.

Part 2 to follow.

rossum
[/quote]

Why can’t YOU come up with any new arguments? Take a look at what the evangelists’ of the sciences had to say on the matter:

“Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We beleive it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith

“I beleive Darwin’s mechanism for evolution doesn’t explain much of what is seen under the microscope. Cells are simply too too complex to have evolved ramdomly. Intelligence was required to to produce them.” Michael J. Behe

“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.” Charles darwin

I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone, the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." George Gallup


#16

[quote=rossum]Chris LaRock’s opening post only provided one fraud out of six attempts with three of them: Lucy, Java Man and Neanderthals providing evidence for human evolution. In his OP he is losing 3-1. I have provided three more lines of evidence for evolution so he is now losing 6-1. He is going to have to do a lot better than this if he wants to convince me. rossum
[/quote]

You don’t think that taking the tooth from an extinct pig, designing a human-like body to go with it, and teaching it proves evolution is an act of fraud?

The fact remains that Neanderthal man was nothing more than an old man who had arthritus, and NOT a less evolved human. Fraud, or mistake? Does it matter, as long as it’s used to spread a lie?

Piltdown man was the skull of a man with the jawbone of an ape jury-rigged to it.

Sir Arthur Keith accidentally let out the main secret of evolutionists’. The only reason you beleive in evolution is because you refuse to beleive in special creation, and Darwin’s theory gives you an excuse.


#17

[quote=Chris LaRock]It’s Mormonism, among other faiths, that teach the lie that man can achieve godhood. This is a lie straight from the mouth of satan.

“The day that you eat thereof, you will be like God…”

Don’t be fooled. Man cannot, as you put it, “achieve the same divine power” as God. Even if MILLIONS of years passed, we could never duplicate God’s creation.
[/quote]

   After the first class of history 101 at the local community college where the concept of the Mitochondria or the mother cell is briefly address; followed by the content of the Davinci Code written by Dan Brown, the theory of Evolution really made sence and helped me to better understand divine intervention. 

  According to Brown, the modern icons for male and female are not the original. Instead, ancient astrologist identified he rudimentary phallus, or the blade, with manhood; there for, the symbol is currently use to grade the ranks of each officer in terms of military/law enforcement instruction. The woman, however, is the total opposite and is symbolized by a chalice. The two symbols together from the start of David, which identify the roots of Christianity. 

 The concept of the mother-mitochondria cell on the other hand, implies the ability of the mother cell to fertilize itself, and brings to light the fact that the mother cell does not need the male sperm to reproduce it self. The mother cells are in the human body by hte milions. In direct connection is the point Bennet argues in his book Before the May Flower: the firs human been on earth was black. 

 According to science the first human on earth was black, but the works of art of the Renaissance identified the creation through white people. Does that mean white people are the product of creation, and non-whites were born out of Evoution? Or could it be not the Mother cell, but Mother Science trying to make fanatics out of ourselves? Perhaps, Mr. Brown could give us some insight into the subject. 

THE BLADE ND THE CHALICE FUSED AS ONE FORM THE START OF DAVID........THE PERFECT UNION OF MALE AND FEMALE......SOLOMON'S SEAL......MARKING THE HOY OF HOLIES, WHERE THE MALE AND FEMALE DEITIES-YAWEH AND SHEKINAH-WERE THOUGHT TO DWELL (pg 446).

 The start of David symbolizes the perfect union, and in ancient times people believed in the harmony between Venus and Mars as requirement to have peace and progress on earth. Of course the two planets represent the man and woman working in harmony. The mitochondria cell represents the woman, while the blade represents Man-hood or God, but according to Mr. Brown they need to be in harmony. 

 In conclusion, this is not about black against white nor Evolution vs. Creation, but the harmony between the two. I am a non-white Mexican, but I don't close my understanding with the believe of Creation, and I allow meditation to the information given by Mr. Darwin. Where definitely I don't dare to dig is in doctrines of fanatics. 

Honestly (my source is at the local library), and the mode of transportation, (at my own expense). :eek:


#18

[quote=Chris LaRock]Why can’t YOU come up with any new arguments?
[/quote]

Certainly, how about mitochondrial DNA from mammoths showing that mammoths are evolved from a common ancestor with Asian rather than African elephants, the split happening about five and a half million years ago. That news item is dated 18 December 2005. Now it is your turn to produce a new argument.

[quote=Chris LaRock]“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.” Charles darwin
[/quote]

Another old argument and an inaccurate quote as well. You do not give the full context of the quote. Darwin is speaking rhetorically here and he goes on to show how the eye could evolve:To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species Chapter 6)
Did you read the original context before you posted this? Did you fail to see that your quote was strictly incorrect? Why did you fail to see that Darwin had answered his own doubt? Could it be that your unreliable sources are letting you down yet again? Even your fellow creationists at Answers in Genesis think that taking this quote of Darwin out of context is bad:Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step

(from Arguments we think creationists should NOT use)
If this argument does not convince AiG how on earth do you think it will convince me? Please do more research before you regurgipost these creationist claims. You are not doing your cause any good by using erroneous sources that even other creationists think are wrong.

Quote-mining is not the way to conduct a scientific argument. I can also quote-mine, but I don’t think that you will find it very convincing:

Sheep have souls:
“one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep.” [KJV - Numbers 31:28]

Jesus was a sheep:
“John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God…’” [John 1:29]

Jesus only saves Israeli sheep:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]

These sheep are all atheists:
“There is no God” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]

They eat mutton:
“he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” [John 6:54]

But they can’t eat lobsters:
“But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales … is an abomination to you” [Leviticus 11:10]

It is quite amazing what you can “prove” with out of context and misinterpreted quotes. Either that or a lot of humans are following a religion originally intended for a different species entirely. :slight_smile:

In a scientific argument it is best to stick to the facts.

rossum


#19

[quote=Chris LaRock]You don’t think that taking the tooth from an extinct pig, designing a human-like body to go with it, and teaching it proves evolution is an act of fraud?
[/quote]

I see fraud as a deliberate attempt to decieve. You have posted an inaccurate quote from Darwin. Was that fraud? I don’t think so since I strongly suspect that it was a mistake rather than deliberate. Nebraska Man was also a mistake, not a fraud. The person who made the error admitted his mistake when he realised it. Nebraska Man was only around for five years - not long enough to make it into the school curriculum. If you can provide a reference to a school textbook that used Nebraska Man to teach evolution then I will allow you some validity in this point.

[quote=Chris LaRock]The fact remains that Neanderthal man was nothing more than an old man who had arthritus, and NOT a less evolved human. Fraud, or mistake?
[/quote]

Your source is wrong again here. Arthritis does not flatten the skull, lengthen it, increase brain capacity (the average Neanderthal brain was larger than ours), cause brow ridges to grow or change the shape of the nose. Have a look at the Neanderthal skulls in the picture I referenced earlier to see these differences. Neanderthals had different mitochondrial DNA to us, as I showed in the reference I gave in an earlier post. Do you have evidence that arthritis changes mitochondrial DNA? There are many Neanderthal skeletons, some are female and others are children. They are certainly not all old men with arthritis. Neither fraud nor mistake. You really do need to find some better sources.

[quote=Chris LaRock]The only reason you beleive in evolution is because you refuse to beleive in special creation, and Darwin’s theory gives you an excuse.
[/quote]

False. Your mind reading powers have let you down. I have seen a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for special creation. I accept evolution because it has the scientific evidence on its side. I reject special creation because it has no evidence in its favour. As you have shown, all that creationists can do is to try to pick holes in evolution because they have no positive evidence of their own.

Where is your evidence of special creation? According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see your evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

Two points in conclusion:

1 Your creationist sources are not inerrant. I have repeatedly shown that they have errors in them. Please check things first before you post them here. I am sure that you would not want to inadvertently give incorrect information.

2 Please show us some positive evidence for creationism rather than just adopt the negative attitude of trying to pick holes in evolution.

rossum


#20

[quote=Chris LaRock]the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908.
[/quote]

The first Neanderthal remains were found 1856 by Johann Carl Fuhlrott in Neanderthal in Germany. That’s why they are called Neanderthal.
If your sources do not even get that right, should we really bother about the rest?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.