Tim L asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Why is the 'evidence' for evolution so bogus?

Every time they show a skull of a 'hominid' or transitional form of man, I see...a monkey skull. They are distinctly different.

The Fossil record destroys Evolution, but the evolutionary faithful keep on touting each find as proof of evolution. But proof to whom, those who wish to believe, or those who still question everything and are actually scientific.

If you have no transitional forms between Ape & Man, then how do you come to conclusion that Chromosome #2 in Man is a fussion of Ape Chromosomes taking us from 48 to 46?

The answer - assumption. You cannot prove it, you can only and I quote, "think it may have happened".

22 Answers

Relevance
  • realme
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    another troll who does not understand fossils - how rare they are and how few humans and humanoids exists ever on this planet until some 30000 year ago. And how unlikely it os for them to have survived with bones which we can find a do research on.

    It is very rare that bones of mammals are found. Dinosaurs bones survived better due to mass extinction and huge bone size.

    I am not even all that interested in old bones to prove evolution,

    what has completely revolutionlized evolutionary classification is studies and comparisons of genomes ofvvarious plants, insect and animals. and bacteria

    The fact that we share 95% of our DNA with a fruit fly gives you proof scientifically that evolution by random mutation has happened over hundreds of millions of years

    Scientist have been able to follow mans migration on the planet from Africa to all corners of the planet and determine how the races came about (which race produced another race) - the DNA is the trail and DNA of all races is almost identical. We are almost carbon copies of each other in terms of our DNA as it has evolvedfor the past 100s of thousand of years - for a rather prief period of some 100-200 million years of humanoid and human evolution

    So as we decode more DNA and retrieve DNA from mummified old spefimens, we can study the difference in genes.

    The only difference between you and a monkey are a few minor changes in the DNA - changes which must have evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and humans.

    How else can you explain the changes? Evolution can be proven to happen today, eg. bacteria, fruit flys, so why do you think during a couple of billion years of dramatic earthly events there were no changes to the DNA? DNA mutates constantly. at a predictble arte under various circumstances (radiation, etc increases the rate and early earth had a lot of radiation for the lack of an ozone layer protecting the planet)

    It fails me to understand where people like you get your "education" and opinions from

    I believe God created everything and He had a supremely brilliant solution for how life should grow and adapt to changes on this planet if you don't want to call it evolution you might as well join the Flat Earth Society of your peers.

    If you believe he took some dust and created a man and then took Adam's rib and made a woman how do you account for the DNA matching other similar creations??

    I can just shake my head and worry about the future of this miserable planet of people who are unfilling to learn science..

    Source(s): to vigorous cutting forwskin is not natural selection process and it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution - as little as people cutting their hair or clipping their finger nails - you are in a major need of some education before you start talking nonsense about things you do not understand.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well first let me say that I have a degree in Bio so I am probably biased. But anyways you mention the fact that there are "skulls" which prove or in your mind disprove evolution. While the fossil record is in fact on way to prove evolution. The most famous is the one Darwin used on the Galapagos Island in which he studied beak adaptation on finches. The finches had different beak sizes adapted to eat different nuts and fruits. Over time one species slowly adapted to eating a different nut. Now in Science Evolution is considered a theory...in laymans terms a theory is something that can't be proven...but in Science a theory is something that is substantiated by overwhelming evidence...so much so that all Scientists accept the theory...evolution is completly and totally accepted. While you may see a monkey skull...trained scientists see a direct descendent of the human being. As for your Chromosome answer the chromosomes were reduced over millions of years. In many animals if you look there are fluctuations in gene make-up. This is called random genetic drift...it is proved because over generations individuals have certain discepencies from their parents...this is accepted by all science...eventually our number of chromosomes randomly went down to 23 pair or 46 total. I know this is alot, and for the record I am Christian and fully believe one can integrate their religious and scientific backgrounds together and still make sense of it all. Maybe you should take a class in Biology so that you can understand more fully the depth of Evolution and how widely it has been studied.

    Hope this helps.

    As for the person below me....yes because you can get all your most trustworthy information from youtube...I didn't go to college for four years and than get my masters for no reason...I think I would know...so your right I am not going to go and rely on youtube to give me the answer to something I already know.

  • 1 decade ago

    You are correct, of course, that human skulls and the skulls of other primates are structurally different. However, you fail to say what qualifications you have in paleoanthropology, zoology, or a similar discipline, to be able to identify which is which. Others - who *are* qualified in these areas - have studies many different remains, and can identify when a skull is human, when it is from another primate, and when it is from an organism that shows features of *both*.

    And how, exactly, does the fossil record destroy evolution? You have cited one tiny example from the fossil record - human evolution, which is only ~2 million years. Since life on earth has been around for ~4 billion years, the human evolutionary history consists of ~0.05% of that information. Of course the information available in that fraction is not conclusive!

    The oldest fossils are of simple, bacteria-like organisms. No dinosaurs, no fish, and no humans. Subsequently, more complicated organisms evolved, and appear in the fossil record. This can be mapped out with a fair degree of accuracy by a variety of means - and all the evidence supports evolution. Check out the evolution of the horse, and the *complete* fossil record that supports it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_hors...

    And, of course, fossils are *far* from the only evidence of evolution. For example, the conclusion that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes comes from the fact that chromosome 2 is identical to those two chromosomes, if you fuse them together. Bit of a giveaway, really.

    And to answer Vigorous' utterly ludicrous point:

    >"If the evolution theory was correct then by now we would have Jew and Muslim boys being born circumcised because circumcision has now been practiced continuously from generation to generation in these communities for a very long time indeed."

    All you have said there is "I don't understand evolution, therefore I don't believe in it!"

    What you are describing is *Lamarckian* evolution, which was a precursor to Darwin's ideas on natural selection, and which has been disproven.

  • 1 decade ago

    You provide a *terrific* example of how creationists think. Thank you.

    >"Every time they show a skull of a 'hominid' or transitional form of man, I see...a monkey skull."

    And so for you, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that you know more than all the world's paleontologists, who live, eat, and breathe fossils ... spent a career examining them ... writing and reading papers in dozens of fossil journals ... going to conferences and talking fossils ... have offices littered with them ... who understand fossils the way a hand-surgeon knows hands or a geologist knows rocks. But you, who have seen two or three pictures in National Geographic, who has probably never held a hominid fossil in your hands in your life ... know better.

    >"how do you come to conclusion that Chromosome #2 in Man is a fussion of Ape Chromosomes taking us from 48 to 46?"

    Again believing you know more than the world's geneticists and biochemists ... that they are all idiots. The answer is that the nucleotides match up perfectly ... it's as if the apes have a huge piece of text written on two pieces of paper, and in humans we find the same piece of text, practically letter-for-letter, on a single sheet. That, by itself, is evidence that either two pieces of code got fused, or one piece got broken ... but since all the apes have the split pieces, this is evidence that it's the former, fusion. And there are *dozens* of other reasons that a biochemist can point to (and the papers are there for you to read). But what do they know?

    ... I wonder what troll skulls look like?

    Source(s): Comparison of human and ape chromosomes: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I notice not a single creationist has jumped in to correct the guy who thinks that cutting off the end of people's penises is somehow going to become inheritable, and therefore decides that evolution is false.

    Why are creationists so happy to accept people into their flock who don't even understand the issues? I and every other rational thinker here will take the time to explain an error to someone who thinks he understands and agrees with evolution, but in fact is making a logical error. Truth is the most important thing to me. I can't say, looking at this thread, that the same is true of the other side.

  • Dave
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I don't know much about science but you see signs of evolution every day. You can't really go all the way back over millions of years and say look at this skull compaired to one of now, of coarse they would have looked like a breed of monkey, How else could we have evolved? Magic?

    could someone from 2 or 3 or 5 hundred years ago learn how to use a computer in a few days? of coarse not It took hundreds of years for man to learn the Earth is round.

  • 1 decade ago

    You have posted this before, and all it reveals is your ignorance and arrogance.

    If hominid skulls look like monkey skulls, then you have never studied forensic anthropology or comparative morphology. Because you don't understand the difference between hominid, australopithecine and monkey skulls, does not mean that there are no differences that one educated in the field could detect.

    In any case, molecular genetics does provide forensic evidence for our evolutionary past.

  • 1 decade ago

    Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),

    Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.

    You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.

    Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.

    Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.

    We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it's core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences... yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.

    So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.

  • 1 decade ago

    you are right, you CAN'T PROVE it, but you can't DISprove it.... how do you however explain where humans came from (unless you belive in creationism, which is the wrong kind of debate to get into)? Are you claiming that ever since the planet was created by what ever means, humans instantly existed? are you trying to say that humans magically manifested out of dust and thin air? I seem to think that every living organism must have evolved from something more primitive. For example, if you do not belive in evolution AT ALL then how do you explain a mutation in a common virus? This mutation is the result of a coincidentally sucessful accident.. This in itself is a example of evolution in at work, because micoscopic organisms have a much faster reproductive cycle, therfore allowing for global changes in its own culture and environment... this proves the theory of evolution, so my next question is to you: where do YOU think humans came from?

    and by the way, IF you are a creationist, "why couldnt evolution be GOD's mathematical formula for life?". Is it possible that god makes things happen through a devine process of which many intricacies take place? If God decided that it was in his plan for you to die tomorow, you wouldnt just suddenly die, right? You might get hit by a bus or maybe have a heart attack... Now a heart attack is explainable by science right? OH NO!!! does this mean that science could be gods method of killing you? IMPOSSIBLE!?!?! Science and god could never intertwine in the same sentence right?

    See, people have to be at either end of the spectrum, they can never think twice and maybe think that both sides could hold some kind of truth... Myself: I belive in God, but I also see validity in evolution theories.. I personally think that maybe science is gods moddeling clay that he shapes the universe with....

    Source(s): chew that over for a while, and you will see that it does make sence.
  • 3 years ago

    "every time they instruct a cranium of a 'hominid' or transitional sort of guy, I see...a monkey cranium. they're especially distinctive." How do you comprehend the version between a human and monkey cranium. the place did yhou learn those issues, in church? The Fossil checklist destroys Evolution, however the evolutionary committed save on touting each locate as evidence of evolution. yet evidence to whom... virtually all biologists, jointly with many christian biologists. possibly all of us are deceived by using devil. "the respond - assumption. you are able to no longer instruct it, you are able to purely and that i quote, "think of it ought to have got here approximately"." and you have ironclad evidence the God poofed each little thing here 6k years in the past because of the fact it says so in a e book that replaced into written 3k years in the past and translated hundreds of situations. supply me a ruin!!!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.