Evolution

[Ronin]

Where are the fossil records of the animals that we see today? If all living things evolved to something different then how they started, where are their fossils? In museums today there are billions of dinasour bones that we have collected, yet there is not one transitional fossil. For example if we all evovled what did a lion look like before it became what it is today? There should be examples of all the animals that are alive today. And there should be several examples for every animal. Darwin himself admitted if we can't find transitional fossils,for they should be everywhere, then evolution is wrong!
So where are the fossils?

[micatala]

Those who are truly interested in discussing human origins might find the following of interest.

From the Smithsonian.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... _tree.html

Here is another website which those who are truly interested in discussing human origins may find interesting, since it casts serious doubt on the dogmatic claim that aboriginal Australians are descendents of non-human African apes.

"Whether, or not, the original homeland of Australia's sea faring colonists was in mainland, or island Asia, remains unknown. The fossil skeletal materials so far recovered from both sides of the Wallace line do not provide convincing evidence, either of an Asian origin for Australia's founder population, or evolutionary continuity in this region. The question of origins and antiquity of Australia's human settlement will only be answered by future research in the Asian region, particularly in archaeological sites predating Australia's colonisation."
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/AusOrigins.html

Actually, this site does not, as claimed in bold above, cast doubts as advertised.

The site discusses only evidence related to the immediate precursors of Australian aborigines, those who migrated from either Asia or Asiatic islands, or potentially elsewhere, to Australia.

The claim ignores that whatever the immediate source of the populations migrating to Australia, the bulk of evidence shows these populations are ultimately descended from individuals in Africa.

jcrawford's claim is like saying since I can't tell if my grandfather was born in New York or Philadelphia, then it is doubtful that I have any ancestors in Italy, even though I have an Italian name and pictures of my great grandmother both in Italy and on Ellis Island.

[jcrawford]

Fish anyone?

Fish are sub-human. That is why we can eat them.

[Cathar1950]

Fish anyone?

Fish are sub-human. That is why we can eat them.

What are cannibals?

[jcrawford]

Biologists can classify themselves as anything they want, but their peculiar nomenclature and appelations have no bearing on or relationship to, people who were originally created in the image and likeness of God.

Who says so? The relationship is obvious and you feel insulted because you’re an animal. Even the bible says were animals. I guess I will have to find the passage.

I don't mind being classified as an animal as long as Human Beings are also taxonomically classified in the Kingdom of Man, since that which constitutes human nature is far above that of any dumb animal.

Just being able to speak scientifically justifies your taxonomic classification in the Human Kingdom.

Don’t you think you’re just being anti-humanist, over-spiritual and expecting science and biology to compromise in order to not hurt you religious sensitivities?

No, since my taxonomic classification of you in the Human Kingdom is not in violation of scientific principles and practices.

Welcome to the Human Family.

[jcrawford]

Then tell us which ones are human and which are not human since you classify them all as species of apes while taxonomists classify some of them as species of the genus Homo.

Well as I see them all sitting somewhere in an evolutionary tree, I see them all as transitional fossils. Perhaps some like the Neanderthal sit on a different branch, but they are all in that tree somewhere.

Who constructed your genealogical tree for you, and how do you know that you have no Neanderthal genes or blood in you?

If you are asking which are modern human then the answer is obviously limited to ...well...modern humans.

That is circular reasoning. How can you tell which skulls represent modern humans and which do not?

If modern humans could mate with the original owner of them old bones and produce babies then I'd class them as the same species, despite skeletal differences.

Since living humans cannot possibly mate with fossils, how can you possibly show or demonstrate that none of the fossil specimens shown could not reproduce with each other?

If modern humans could not mate with them (which is safe the assumption) then I'd class them as the same genus - because they share common characteristics.

That is the crux of evolutionary theory regarding human reproduction.

Is there any evidence supporting the claim that the human fossils did not reproduce with each other or is that claim just based on the theory of evolution?

However - where the boundaries between ape/hominid/human lie is a false question I think. These categories serve to put some order into the evidence; and all those bones lying in museums around the world are the evidence. If however we possessed the bones of every generation for each branch on the tree of life, then the transitions would appear seamless I suspect, and therefore the categories of human, hominid, ape would be handy approximations indicating where some set of bones rests in that tree. In short: categorization by genus is inherently fuzzy at the edges.

Fuzzy thinking has no place in science.

Anyway JC. I'm not clear where you are coming from. Are you saying humans are an exception, whilst evolutionary theory applies to everything else. Or that evolution is plain false for all species?

I am only concerned with human origins since I can eat all other living species for breakfast if they are available in my local supermarket.

[McCulloch]

Kingdom of Man

What is the biological justification of having a separate Kingdom for humans?

In biology, a kingdom is the top-level, or nearly the top-level, grouping of organisms in scientific classification.

At one time there were two kingdoms defined, Animal and Plant.

Now there are different forms of taxonomy. One has five kingdoms

1. Monera - the most simple living things.
2. Protista - bacteria with only one cell.
3. Fungi - mushrooms, mold and other fungi.
4. Plantae - all plants, such as trees and grass.
5. Animalia - all animals, including people.

We are not sufficiently biologically different from animals to justify a separate kingdom.

Another taxonomy divides life into domains based on cell structure. One of those Domains, Eukaryotic cell structure, includes the kingdoms Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia. Within the Animal kingdom, organisms are divided based on the number of germ layers. We belong in the Triploblast group and within that the Phylum Chordata, etc.

[jcrawford]

Rather than projecting your confusion onto me when it comes to distinguishing African apes from humans, I profess none, since the classification confusion is originally created by biologists who classify themselves as apes to start with.

Biologists can classify themselves as anything they want, but their peculiar nomenclature and appelations have no bearing on or relationship to, people who were originally created in the image and likeness of God.

Your premises are strictly secular, materialistic and humanist and don't necessarily apply to people not of your faith.

Strangely enough both taxonomy and genetics were discovered by catholic monks. I along with taxonomy have no confusion with regards to apes and humans. Humans and apes are both classed as hominids, see how if we use scientific designations we can be much more specific. The more specific we are the less chance there is of a misunderstanding happening, on the other hand you seem to want to inject less understanding in order for you to put forward your own peculiar views on things.
Your last sentence is interesting in that you take a statement taken based on scientific understanding and think that I am making a religious statement. That's the funny thing about science, it's religion free and yet you think it is its own religion.

Well, science is obviously based and premised on certain religious and philosophical beliefs about man's capacity to know anything.

Knowledge itself must be epistomologically accounted for in a rational and reasonable manner before any trust, faith or belief in it may be self-consciously attributed or accredited to it.

Have you no sense or knowledge of human history?

[jcrawford]

I don't invent racial classifications for people or divide them into different species at all, since I respect the right of each individual to establish his or her own unique identity, character and self-definition of themselves, even if evolutionary biologists don't like the idea of individual responsibility and freedom, and would rather impose their own personal prejudices and "scientific" beliefs on everyone else.

Sorry bud, you can't have it both ways.

Neither can you, then.

If you are going to use scientific designations you have to go all the way,

No problem, since I am as much a scientist as you are.

if something is a sub species of what you consider human then they are subhuman in your book.

That is scientifically correct, since your division of human beings into sub-species is nowhere written in my books of knowledge.

It's not our fault that you are stuck on a racist version of the ToE and can't dispose of your very much out of date nomenclature,

Neither can you blame me for your adherence to racial theories of human evolution out of non-human (sub-human) African animals.

you would have done well in nazi germany.

I would have been shot on sight, since I am a Jewish Christian and not a national socialist ape.

[jcrawford]

you would have done well in nazi germany.

Such comments should be avoided. Thanks.

Yea. Christian rationalists have the right to disassociate and distant themselves from anti-Semitic socialists who despise and kill the children of God.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford's claim is like saying since I can't tell if my grandfather was born in New York or Philadelphia, then it is doubtful that I have any ancestors in Italy, even though I have an Italian name and pictures of my great grandmother both in Italy and on Ellis Island.

Do you have photographs of your great grandmother in both Italy and on Ellis Island prior to 1900?