I know this was posted in jest, but since the door is open....

I have a question for all you evolution folks out there.

How come we have found plenty of dinosaurs but no actual monkey men?

Science says they came after the dinos.

Did you just fall off the ark??

Ever hear of Richard Leakey??

Peking man?

Neanderthal???

I mean really its ok if you want to exist in a dream....but do not try and drag the rest of us into it!


[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/zinj.jpg[/img]

Did you just fall off the ark??

Ever hear of Richard Leakey??

Peking man?

Neanderthal???

I mean really its ok if you want to exist in a dream....but do not try and drag the rest of us into it!


[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Every single "monkey man" found, has proved to be made from the hind leg of a donkey, etc...................................

I am talking missing link, oh wise and gracious one.

Everysingle one??


Close..

The real answer is ONE!!  Only one has been a fake..

Meanwhile on the other hand I assume you cling to the bible with all its ....ahem...solid evidence!!..

LOL ya right!


Oh BTW

Here is a possible missing link..

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/missinglink_transcript.shtml[/url]

You see as a non creationist....I do not have all the answers and try to twist reality to match it.  I am open to possible explainatinos if given proper evidence.

All have been proven incorrect, or would the monkey man believers print something like this?
[url]http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9812/09/fossil.skeleton/[/url]

Of course this will prove to NOT be a monkey man in the end.

My point is, why so many dinos and the monkey men they find are always disproved, by atheist no less.

Shouldn't we have dozens of them at the very least?

This is pretty easy, see early man was not quite as abundant as the dinos.

You see dinosaurs were here for at least 150 MILLION years before "monkey men" ever showed up.

As a result of being around for well over 150 MILLION years there is quite a fossil record. But I imagine that "found" fossil record probably accounts for less than 1% of all species to ever exist.

In comparrison man has NOT even been around for 5 million years. So there is a "slightly" smaller fossil record left behind. Of that small record only a few have been discovered. The oldest species sometimes only have a single partial fossil record.

Also keep in mind, in the early stages we didn't exactly dominate the planet in the way we do today. We were just another minor player in limited numbers. Remains weren't carefully preserved like the Egyptians did much later. Pretty much, whatever killed us, ate us and crapped us out later. Not a lot of remains.

150 MILLION years from now, if there is anyone still here, I doubt they will have recovered more than 1% of us.

One thing that I thought was interesting is the story of "Piltdown man".  It was a hoaxed conglomurate of bones, but was believed by the evolution community for years.

Another was "Java man".   The discoverer, Eugene DuBois, found a partial skull and a leg bone some distance from one another and concluded that they were from a new species.   He later decided that it was a human skull and a leg bone from a large gibbon ape, however he kept his secret for nearly 30 years!   Why?  Because he also found a whole human skull in the same strata.  The Java man could not be the ancestor of a human who lived at the same time.

Just a couple of examples of what happens when a person's desire to prove something leads to faulty reasoning rather than scientific conclusions.

oh, geez, guys.  not another evolution debate.  i'm kinda sick and need to get to bed.  i can't be up half the night correcting the dumbest assumptions and most illogical conclusions about the "fallacy" of evolution.  besides, we've already played that course.  do a search.  the smarter ones here have done a pretty good job of explaining what evolution is (and what it is not)!

that being said...i always thought that patrick ewing was the missing link.

[img]http://media.nba.com/media/playerfile/patrick_ewing.jpg[/img]

Hey now Arlady , lay off the Ewing , unless your interested in some of his 'monkey love' [;D]!




SIGNED 'Diehard Georgetown Hoya Fan!!'

heehee.  actually, i heard that on a radio show.  the guy said, "patrick ewing is the missing link in a suit."  and when he's in a suit, his "primate" characteristic (primarily his very widely flared, flat nostrils and high forehead) are much more prominent.

besides, he doesn't play for them anymore!  [:D]

[img]http://www.mingers.com/photos/classic/rm_minger259.jpg[/img]

But if indeed we came from the apes, why then have they quit evolving? Shouldn't we see some of this going on in the jungles now?

Well even though this is the sort of shit that got me banned from AW...

WX....evolutionary trends take eons!!  Not a few weeks.

Not to mention the apes have evolved...thats why they are apes...not pre apes..

Man did not evolve FROM Chimps etc.....we evolved in Parallel to them...

Sometime in the extreme past we had common relations.....

Just look at the DNA for example.....at just how close we are related.

Or was god "limited" by the number of genes that could be used??  Perhaps he/she/it was trying to conserve them??



Oh and Noname.......that is proof that there are always some genetic throwbacks to less evolved versions!!!!

we didn't "come from the apes".  we share a common ancestor with modern day apes.  major difference.

and as stormbringer said, you can't view evolution on a human time scale.  so there's no way of knowing whether the modern apes have quit evolving or not (they haven't, animal populations are always evolving).  changes in the molecular biology and physiology of the population account for the vast majority of the evolutionary changes.  of these, only a small percentage are manifest in changes in physical characteristics or behavioral traits.

Point well taken. But if the process takes millions of years and the planet has been around long enough for us to evolve, shouldn't we see the different stages of evolution in evidence now? Or are you saying that the species that we evolved from no longer exists because it became man as we know it?

perhaps.  i dont' think anyone really knows for sure.  well, i know no one knows for sure as we only know a handful of our ancestors, but not the "missing link" between human homonids and primates.

evolution can occur linearly, whereby a single species changes through time, so that, looking backwards in time, you would see that species at point X is completely different from species at point X+1,000,000 years.  or it can branch.  (sometimes it does both) we don't really know the whole story of the branching or the lineage of human evolution.

one thing to remember is that species don't last indefinitely.  all species go extinct.  there isn't a species alive today that existed in the beginning of the earth.  and, conversely, there isn't a species that was alive way back then that exists today.  there are still a lot of unanswered questions and it takes more than just a passing read of an internet article to completely understand evolution.