Evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lemming:
o.k looks at it this way then if we evolved from apes because we have the same genetic make up we are looking at the apes of today not the apes of 1-2 million years ago if we evolved so did they

---

Indeed. Part of the difference in our DNA is our evolution, part is theirs. The smallness of the difference is shown to be even more significant by this observation.

quote:

---

and plus why would a ape suddenly change its life style and jump of of a tree and pick up a tool and start working and evolving into a human if it was already living healthy lives in trees it wouldn't unless something was coming up the trees to hunt them and had similar abilities of the ape so my theory is this the apes 4-5 million years ago evolved into the ape of today and the reason the humans force the apes at that time out the trees and minor evolution change them to what they are today

---

The start of human evolution seems to coincide with the period when the Rift Valley opened, and the climate and flora changed from forest to open plains. That's why we left the trees - the trees were gone. [b][quote]i don't belive in the theory of evolution on a large scale [/b][/quote]Or in punctuation, either.... [b][quote]lets look at something else to support what i am trying to sayNeandertals Early Man became extinct are 28-30000BC now for some reason these was around for a long time before that of modern Humans now this was humans of some sort now if they noticed a danger to there way of life they would try and take out that danger just like the modern human if evolution is true the neandertals would have noticed a change in the ape behavier and would have started killing and hunting apes to protect there way of life long before the modern man came about so why didn't they [/b][/quote]Could you restate this in English sentences because I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. [b][quote]reason mans pressence on this planet came about very fast not over a long period of time this puts evolution into doubt[Karl inserts the paragraph break that might make sense of this....](I) also would like to make another theory about the pyramids this time about the way modern man said they was built the pyramids was built by 100.000 men but if you look at the popluation in egypt at the time where would they find 100.000 men a how would they be able to support 100.000 men over quiet some time with food and water theory they wouldn't meaning the pyramids was proberley built by a small number of men over the same period of time lets say 10,000 men with the technology of today has you can now see this supports a theory of a more advanced life form then that of now and even if my theory is totally wrong and the pyramids was built by 100.000 men then they would still be more advanced then today so evolution has been put into doubt twice so could there be devolution at work here because basic if we did evolve at some stage we devolved because its clear to see that early man was clever then we are now also if we evolved over a long period stop us from evolve and made us de-evolve ????[/b][/quote]What you are trying to say appears to be that you don't understand how a pre-industrial society built the pyramids - is that right? I'm not an expert on Egyptology, so I suggest you research the subject and find out. [b][quote]there are a bunch of facts that need to be looked at i feel some of you are looking at only half of the facts that are pressent
anyway waiting on a reply[/B][/QUOTE]No. It'll surprise you to learn that the majority of scientists are intelligent people who have actually dedicated their life's work to answering just these sort of questions. The way some anti-evolutionists speak, you'd imagine that they expect the scientists to turn round and say "Ooooh! I never thought of that! Doh!"

No, Lemming, your second attempt was as inpenetrable as the first. Try using paragraphs, full stops, commas, capital letters, that sort of thing. It might help if you knew the difference between "this" and "these" as well. I'm not trying to be picky, but I really am having the greatest difficulty understanding you. Birmingham's only 80 miles away; communication shouldn't be impossible....About 'apemen' - the fact is we do have fossil bones from the period you describe. Have you heard of Lucy? Would you like to explain why she isn't the transitional you say doesn't exist?[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-14-2002]

It was Lemmy. Formally of Hawkwind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lemming:
England was colonized a relatively short time ago, and only by modern humans. i agree but you can still find human bones all over the place from burial grounds to out in open fields

​

what makes the Rift valley and Apes/Humans/Apemen different from that of england ?

---

They are not anatomically modern. The people who colonised Britain were.

quote:

---

why is it harder to find Apeman bones,because they have been around longer in that part of the world ?, longer then the occupation of england by Humans but bones of Humans in England are easier to find,

---

Population size. Actually, skeletons older than a few hundred years are pretty rare. You find the odd Roman one, but usually they've crumbled to nothing. What does that tell you about the likelihood of finding very ancient skeletons?

quote:

---

doesn't make sence

---

I know, but we try to understand you.And on to Lucy - I did not mention Lucy because she's the only hominid found, just a usefully famous example. She is considered a transitional between our common ape ancestor (it's a matter of definition whether you consider our common ancestor an ape or not) because she has so many features that are transitional between a knuckle-walking, tree dwelling creature and us. If you take the time to research her (which you will if you are interested in learning rather than irritating beligerance) you will learn what those features are. This link Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution would be a good start.