Thanks for providing the extra sources to look at the interesting fossils of our history. A look at our "human evolution"? Ahh more "If I repeat this enough, others might believe it". Insecurity and need to reassure oneself in the process. I believe this is unscientific, as it leaves no room to question or consider otherwise.

The evidence is interpreted differently by those doing the studying/observations and delivery, depending on which side of the origin belief they are on. Even evolutionists can argue on the same fossil, so let's not be too hasty and state that all these things are a product of evolution, or we'd be saying "we know what happened at the very beginning and that all things arose simply and slowly and became what they are today". This has not been proven. Even if a fossil should have characteristics that we could attribute to both man and ape, how do you know (or any of us) that this is not just another species? Rather than a transitional form on it's way to becoming human. Think about it. Races today, as I mentioned, some of which too have the very small cranial capacity, jaw etc, just like the Turkana boy should not be overlooked or dismissed either. They also should not have to put up with such bias and insulting interpretations of those with smaller skull capacities.

Since we observe no such evolutionary process in our own time, nor history, why assume that the process occured before that? No time today or history has evolution been observed to take place. You cannot simply talk about variation and adaption and exaggerate this out of context and claim that one kind of animal, has in fact, become another before we could observe that it ever has. Or ape creature became human. How can you possibly know this? Think about it, you can only study the fossil itself and it's surroundings, you cannot know whether it's a transitional form becoming something else or simply another species.

I doubt this argument will ever be put to rest. Think about the animals and races alive today and consider some of those that have traits that stand out to you as being similar to another. Had they been extinct and we were unable to observe them today, they would have the assumptions drawn up also and been fitted into a transitional form mould also. If you are working from such a belief system, you won't even allow yourself to see through it.



There is nothing wrong with studying any fossils. Whether complete or incomplete, but there is something wrong when you decide to give a complete rundown of an incomplete fossil, when all things need to be taken into account about that fossil to understand how it must have lived. E.g. the creative materials surrounding the Neanderthal seemed to be overlooked or not taken into account...as well as this - (In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old ("Living Neanderthal Man," in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).).

It confuses me why the evolutionist always attempted to depict them as brutish to the public and simplistic, yet this is contradicted by what was found surrounding this famous fossil. These VERY important details were somehow....missed or "omitted" to the public, because it is not how they wanted to portray neanderthal. They already had the vision in their head. It doesn't seem there is any come-back or reprimand if they are proven wrong either. That is what I mean about a deceptive depiction, or incompleteness/inaccuracy.. I don't expect you to agree with this, or be at all bothered by it, as it fits in with evolution. But I am confident that other people who are not so blinkered will (and should) consider those things. They, as all of us have the right to the knowledge of all those aspects, rather than being fed only what the evolutionist decides to feed us.



You talk about the situation being more complex, yet don't seem to see the contradiction when evolutionists only present what they want the public to know, which is what I was stating before. I have already discussed Turkana boy and given examples of races existing today that have the same/similar traits as to the smaller cranium and jaw. To imagine that this is a sign of lesser evolution and intelligence is actually incorrect and has racist connotations. So if you want to go down that avenue, you need to be very cautious. There are people also with larger cranial capacities that may not be anymore intelligent than their less robust counterparts. If that is so, and the skull makes the difference, then explain Neanderthal's larger skull capacity means he was more intelligent and evolved than us? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Linda, you cannot simply claim one thing (apes to men with corresponding head growth and then try and explain away Neanderthal at the sametime. Why does evolution have an answer to everything? It's just evolving it's theory to fit in with any imagined scenario, that way it can never be "falsified" because they won't let it be caught standing still long enough. It's about continual movement, denials and dilution.



Hang on, that's not what I said. What I meant - an extinct animal does not automatically equal a transitional form, simply because it does not exist today or in our observable history, even if the evolutionist says so. You misquoted me on that. Similarities does not equal transitional. It does not mean one thing is becoming another or one thing has become another. Those, once again, are ASSUMPTIONS. Any similarity between one creature or another, doesn't mean it's becoming one or the other. If we can observe the same today (similar traits between kinds), why should you assume it was any different in the past and then make claims that they are in the midst of transitional between ape and man? Can you even consider another species? I have repeated this time and time again, but you simply cannot look outside the box. As I said, this is why origins comes into it. You say we can simpy trace them back. How can you trace them back when you are only digging up the present and assuming an unseen/unobserved past? The only thing you can trace is our human history that has been passed down to all of us, the one that we all have access to learning about. And there is no such evidence that any of us are and were products of evolution within that history. Before that? It simply becomes the area where evolution decides to paint their story. What is there to trace other than the evolutionist filling in the gaps based on what he already believes from our beginnings.



Again, that's not what I said. Try this if you're confused --> If one has set ideas about our beginnings as arising from simplicity, then they are looking for "evidences" to fit in with this belief. Yet....the evidences are very much in the eye of the beholder. Do you see what I'm saying here? I have already gone through this with Turkana boy and we must be open to the differences he has to many races existing today and not assume he's a transitional form, considering there are races that share the same characteristics today as I mentioned and they could hardly be claimed as "less evolved" or "less advanced" and if you think that is the case with him, perhaps you'd like to share the same with them too? Again, it just contradicts the fact that Neanderthal was the opposite. His entire body may have been robust, but so what? Considering how they must have lived too. I'm sure you've seen the studies of Dr Weston Price and the cultures he's studied around the world and their bone structures, their diet, their lifestyle and what happens when a person deviates to a more westernised diet and the deterioration that follows. In fact, even in different races, the same patterns of neglect/malnutrition show up, the same symptoms. Yet the opposite has also occured. Proving that two western white people with typicall crowded teeth from narrow jaws (like many of us may share), changed their entire nutrition, before, during and after conception with their children and managed to produce children who grew up with fully formed facial structure, jaws and perfect teeth. No cavities and no need for braces. The experiment worked. It is amazing what can happen through early and long term alteration of diet and lifestyle to one that is more closer to nature. And vice versa through decline.



What? You're kidding right? I am very surprised you even need to ask this. Seriously! At any rate, here is a source
Brain size and evolution

If you actually believe cranial capacity and brain size corresponds with intellect and evolutionary advancement, then this is an insult to the humans living today that share the same Turkana smaller brain capacity (who show no signs of being less intelligent). Wow. We'll go further than that. Women have smaller brains than men......so do you really wanna go there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Dolphins have similar brain size than humans, yet elephants are five times bigger and whales double that!.....do you really want to go there? And if you consider the animals by body/brain size ratio. And then consider the rat. And you require a link to prove to you that smaller or bigger does not equal dumber of more intelligent? I'm surprised. It is very much to do with the inner workings of the brain itself, which is very much what separates us from the animals and gives us the capacity for organised speech, let alone everything else (flying planes, designing computer systems etc).
Another cute link



For starters, you don't know if the capacity evolved at all. You are telling us this, assuming and expecting we're going to take their and your word for it. As though "it's a done deal". This is part of indoctrination process. Evident by the unwillingness, or inability to consider that all this may not have arisen out of an evolutionary process from simple to complex. You can imagine all you want Linda and make any kind of assumption on any fossil dug up to try and fit in and then claim it as supporting your theory, but don't expect the rest of us to be quite so easily taken in. There is no proof whatsoever there we are in any such "transition" now, just as there isn't for our past. Assuming it, isn't proving it. Being less or more robust is not evidence that all things have arisen from evolution. Environment factors, diet/lifestyle etc can make a difference, even now, but do not have anything to do with ape creature becoming man, or man on his way to becoming further advanced in his "supposed" evolution. In fact, there is a lot of decline and our only hope is advanced technology and medical intervention and further attention to our lifestyles. Not any kind of evolutionary process and magic to hope for. Except to make wiser choices and bring our children up to do the same. As for evolution? that remains very much an imagined and unproven scenario. Digging up fossils you attribute with either/both qualities, it is still not known enough about them to be sure either way, or (as I've repeated so many times now) it' could be another species altogether (rather than one becoming another). Have we seen every species of every animal that has ever existed? Therefore how can we know that any of them were in an earlier stage of evolution? You think that telling this often enough will eventually convince people it happened. Because that is what you keep doing on here.



I hope everybody else is checking out this link you sent me for the skulls, because in almost every case, they are fragmented one way or the other. This is not a very good thing to judge a monkey or human skull on, considering, as I've said before, they are the only animal that mostly resembles a human being. And this is the best examples you've got? I mean come on, surely out of millions of years, evolutionists should be able to get past this by now?

I have looked at the skulls and I'm not overly impressed. A skull top does not help me much either, not sure how the heck I'm supposed to tell just from that exactly what kind of animal it is (human it is). Nor do skulls with missing parts or missing jaws. From what I can see, the top row - left. is very obviously monkey/ape (full skull showing on left). On the right of it, still looks ape, but I don't like to guess on a fragment.[/b]

Second row - again all jaws are missing on each skull. Not a good thing. However, they all appear to me to be ape/monkey kind.

The middle row (Third row) shows a skull top which doesn't help me at all. The next is a drawing of a skull which is complete and recognisable as a human skull and on the right side of it appears (to me) that it maybe an ape skull, due to the fact there seems to be a complete lack to a bridge of a nose (which is typical in all monkey/ape skulls) and the area beneath the nose itself is long and extend outwards.

The fourth row shows another incomplete skull that I am unable to even comment on. A side few fragmented skull does not help make any kind of decision. The skull next to it, to me at least, appears to be an ape skull. The third skull in the same line up appears is recognisably human and the skull following that also looks human. Again they are missing the jaw, except for the drawings. there are many species of ape too, I'd need to make comparisons with all of them and we are not to know what other specis of ape were once existing that we can no longer observe and have died out long before.

So it can be understood therefore that people may get confused over them. This does not prove anything, you can get any skull today Linda and make assumptions between monkeys/apes and men, particulary when bits like a jaw is missing, and you're matching it with a person who has a pronounced jaw and flatter nose. It does not make them any less evolved/advanced than someone with a more prominent bridge to the nose and a smaller jaw. I think one needs, again, to be careful when making assumptions like this in attempting to make monkeys out of human beings. It does also tend toward racism too when you make such generalisations.



How do you figure this quote-mine is honest and the rest you try to blow-off? Is this a judgement call based on which ones make you feel less or more comfortable? So it's just Linda's personal judgement that decides a quote mine. A creationist misquoting or quoting an evolutionist out of context, can very easily get them into trouble if that is the case. Particularly when he's got his name and the name of those he's quoting up there with a source provided. You hate this being done because it's one of those "catch them at it" embarrassing things that evolutionists wish they could sweep under the rug. Quotes bring their statements to the forefront and evolutionists don't like being reminded OR quoted. You've admonished me for doing it, Russ for doing it, anybody for doing it. Then you went and thanked somebody for getting quotes that you wanted on here on another thread sometime ago, which was totally hypocritical. And had nothing to do with you "teaching us a lesson". You just forgot yourself. Again!

RAZD points out alot of things Linda, it's no different that anything else he points out as a way of trying to fit apes into our family tree or any other area of evolution. We have already seen earlier how dishonest these artistic portrayals can be. Just like how they even portrayed Neanderthal as being brutish, which totally contradict the findings above that I provided. It seems they were likely anything BUT brutish. Even the skull of the Neanderthal was nothing less than striking, as was the skeleton. In fact, I was blown away by seeing it. Because of the evolutionary portrayal in a museum of Neanderthal, I was taken aback when I saw the actual skeleton. I wasn't ready and was expecting an ape-like brutish looking form.



Problem is Linda, recent or old, it continues to keep their statements on record, which I've mentioned time and again on here. Unfortunately for you, the attempts to discredit them are not going to work. They'll keep being brought to light. They've been thankfully snapped up and kept by creationists. Evolutionists own words being used against them. Not much you can do against a quote, particularly when source and dates are given. They have also been caught out making contradictory statements within the same interviews. And they will need to be very very careful with their statements in the future, because now that people are becoming further enlightened, the same problem is going to continue for them. As new evidence and awareness comes to light about how we are being deceived, their statements on record will be exposed in the process. That is unfortunate, but if we didn't do this, they would continue to get away with it and leave behind them a seemingly "clean" track-record for those new to the games, or those with bad memories.



I don't see anything wrong in borrowing information from others, so long as the content is credible and agreed upon. And the intentions honest. Copying/repeating what one beliefs is truth is expected, as it's shared around. Just as much as I don't see anything wrong with me borrowing the pictures from his website either, we have to get them from somewhere! Truth shouldn't change from site to site, even if it's presented by the person's unique style. Even if there is a spelling mistake involved, I hardly consider that a great fallacy considering the majority. It's about content and sources too (of which both were provided). The information,just as you said, it's all over the internet anyway. But it's much easier if someone has gotten much of it onto one website as he's done and I think done it extremely professionally set out, with sources also. I know you are looking for ways to discredit him Linda, as you try to do to any creationist or creation website (no surprise), but it seems picking on a spelling mistake and focussing on it or making out that this is proof that he's fobbing the information from other creationist websites is just speculation anyway and even if it were so....where's the issue? Considering evolutionists too would no doubt also borrow or copy information from eachother too I'm sure.



Exactly. And proper/thorough tests should always be done with the inclusion of all aspects, even if they contrast with the evolutionary belief. But unfortunately that is not the case. They clearly test from a viewpoint of indoctrination and bias. See here again for the evolutionist biologist's interview revealing the agenda and pressure there is to continue the evolution push, regardless of what they find in their studies and under their microscopes.
molecular biologist makes private admissions