"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:

"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote:

"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:

"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote:

First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the

terminology
and

in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis

between

modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid

family.

Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes.

many

years there have been reports that the fossil remains of

humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with

artists'

renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary

transitions

between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors?

scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read

expressions

such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape

Became

Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical

of
man

should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their

colleagues
are

not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . .

from

apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The

common

ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in

speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey

defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or

Many

people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort

document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind?

Because

today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea.

mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans

any

animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there

98%

genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50%

match

with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not

link

between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition

science,

man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the

fossil

record would.

Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and

pseudo-genes)
provide

definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In

addition,
fossil

evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.

ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?

Every form is "transitional".
You are the "transition" between your parents and your offspring.

I see. so per defintion, there was only one species of humans since
Lucy,

Sure. Homo sapiens.

I see, lucy was a homo sapiens....

No, she was not.

yet there are other species of same genus of the animal kingdon...

would that be?

Because of genetic drift within the genus {homo}.

[And outside of it, for that matter, since Lucy
is herself not a member of that genus.]

lucy was a human, was she not?

Asked and answered. She was not a member of homo sapiens.

Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they

more

capable of surviving.

Incorrect. There is no "up".

brach out for the better then.. it seems only homonids gor smarter

time

progress, or is this an error as well?

Perhaps.
It's difficult to say if we got "smarter" or "better educated".
Most people confuse the two.

It's also rather difficult for us to gauge the intelligence
of other animals that are living, much less try to guess
from fossil records.

then what good is the fossil record eh?

It is plenty "good" for tracing genetic trees.

It could very well be that today's dolphins are more intelligent
than their ancestral predecessors, for example.

and evidence for this comes from where?
the fossil record?

Evidence that they *could* be more intelligent?
Base logic.

Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence,
but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?

Why bother with "inferior apes"?

why not?

Because if your point were valid, you could go much
further down the evolutionary ladder than that.

do they not share a common ancestor with men?

Sure.

Why not suggest that the amoeba, which are *way*
down on the evolutionary ladder, should be extinct?

You contradict your self.. if there is no "up" there should be no

"down".

I was using _your_ terminology to point out an error
in _your_ approach and logic.

If there *is* an "up" and we should automatically expect all
"lower" lifeforms to be extinct, then amoebas should have been
written of millions of years ago.

[We are, after all, "superior" to them.]

Why not? Because the premise that evolution is a monotonic
and monolithic increasing scale is simply incorrect.

Of course, you already know that.

Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it

likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more

advanced

"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have

extinct, but not the lower apes?

no answer?

None was needed, as the error in your reasoning was covered above.

At any rate, you'll note that all the "links" of chimps
are extinct as well... so perhaps chimps are simply more
"advanced" than some of the ancestors of homo sapiens, eh?

Is there a web link that show the evolution of the chimp?

There are several.
I would, however, suggest that you read a *book*.

"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3f91af9a.4490787@news.gvtc.com...

On 17 Oct 2003 07:02:29 -0700,

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message

news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...

Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)

provide

definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,

fossil

evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.

ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint..

Why the abrupt change of topic? Did you not like the implications of
such artifacts in our genes?

what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving.

No it doesn't. And I must say, if your understanding of evolution is
as poor as this comment would suggest, it's no wonder you have trouble
accepting it.

Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men."

What do you mean we see no ape-men. I *am* an ape-man.

you miss my previous post or the original post...

I could not reply
adequaetly based on incomplete info on your part.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIP

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message

Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message

First of all, Per today science defintion,

Do you mean "definition"?

Men are Ape's

You are using the possessive there. We are ape's what - ancestors?
descendants? cousins? dance partners? Or do you mean we are apes
(plural, rather than possessive)?

Per science and biology Man is an Ape.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIP

freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message

It was the fossil record which demonstrated that we are apes. Other,
more recent data simply affirms that. No 19th century scientist
started off claiming we were related to chimps, therefore we shold go
out and search for the evidence. Of course we have always been very
interested in our own particular origin.

Are you sure? From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum
displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be
abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures.

Is this
really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in
Darwin's day?
Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate
his theory?

freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message

It was the fossil record which demonstrated that we are apes. Other,
more recent data simply affirms that. No 19th century scientist
started off claiming we were related to chimps, therefore we shold go
out and search for the evidence. Of course we have always been very
interested in our own particular origin.

Are you sure? From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum
displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be
abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this
really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in
Darwin's day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate
his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: "The early theories
of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them.
David Pilbeam has described the early theories as 'fossil-free.' That
is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think
would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so
few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there
were no fossils at all. So between man's supposed closest relatives
and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of
nineteenth century scientists." This scientific publication shows why:
"People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this
affected the results of their work."

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is
there of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey stated: "Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions
that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions."
New Scientist commented: "Judged by the amount of evidence upon which
it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a
sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection
is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so
fragmentary and inconclusive."

Similarly, the book Origins admits: "As we move farther along the
path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly
uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence."8 Science
magazine adds: "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small
array of bones from which to construct man's evolutionary history. One
anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the
plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages."

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding "ape-men"? Note the
following. Newsweek: "'You could put all the fossils on the top of a
single desk,' said Elwyn Simons of Duke University." The New York
Times: "The known fossil remains of man's ancestors would fit on a
billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the
mists of the last few million years." Science Digest: "The remarkable
fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can
still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . .
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They
have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern
humans-of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings-is, if we are
to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."