Imagining that humans evolved from apelike creatures is quite a stretch – I’ve always thought so, at least. But now researchers are claiming that the pretty picture most of us have grown up with of a hunched-over apelike being morphing into a man with a briefcase isn’t accurate, either.
According to this news article, researchers found surprising fossils in Africa that seem to tell a different story about “our evolution.” The fossil found by paleontoloigst Maeve Leakey indicates that humans, Homo sapiens, could not have evolved from our first and oldest ancestor, Homo habilis.
A scientist quoted in the story says that the “old evolutionary cartoon…keeps getting proven wrong.”
Must I interject an obvious comment here? Perhaps we should look to the Source and Creator of ALL life for the truth about our origin (shall I say, back to Genesis?) instead of relying on fallible researchers and scientists who just can’t figure out what the real story is.
Does it not take even more FAITH to believe that we have evolved from a common ancestor that looked and behaved like an ape, yet the same species of apes from which we are claimed to share ancestry continue to live on the earth today? When will those apes evolve into more sophisticated beings? Or am I missing something here about evolution?
Amen!! I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I had never given thought to the last part of your post about the apes that are currently here evolving into humans. Thanks for helping me to look deeper. Blessings!
No one ever said human evolved from apes. That is a horribly common misconception which no one that actually understands the Theory of Evolution would ever say.
Instead, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
There is a huge world of difference between the two.
thanks matt for the correction. i made some changes above to reflect my newfound understanding of the belief system of evolution. however, i’m a bit confused. so humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor…how does that work if apes are now quite different than humans? and why haven’t apes evolved into more sophisticated beings but humans did?
by the way, i did some additional research and found that according to the theory of evolution, humans evolved from an ancestor that was more apelike in nature, behavior and appearance than humanlike. so, for all intensive purposes, humans have evolved from an ancestor that looks like an ape, which in my opinion, is still crazy.
[...] Fancied Freedom – The evolution of human beings continue to evolve [...]
To be fair, the famous parade purportedly showing human evolution has been known to be fiction since at least 2000.
In the journal, Nature (403 [27 January 2000]:363), J.J. Hublin wrote:
The ‘parade’ first appeared in the Time-Life Nature Library series Early Man, I used to have the book, I don’t know what happened to it.
But like newspaper retractions, seldom does the scientific establishment proclaim with equal aplomb when a previously held view is debunked.
A case in point would be the recombinationof mtDNA, which has long been believed only to pass down from the mother. This from a paper published in the the journal Science(286[24 December 1999]:2524-2525),
In fact one of the paper’s authors respected biologist John Maynard Smith, “is frustrated but not surprised that the establishment chooses to ignore these findings.” New Scientist (178 [14 July 2000] 48).
Another paper appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (347 [22 August 2002] 576-579) titled “Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA” which states,
It seems that Maynard Smith was correct in his frustration, and one has to wonder why the establishment has not really accepted mt DNA recombination? Could it be because of the impact it might have on the studies which are based on the ASSUMPTION that mtDNA is only inherited from the mother?
What else are they not telling us?
Don’t they still use that evolution parade still in some secular textbooks?
I haven’t had the chance to look this up, but I heard that Darwin said something along the lines that evolution would be disproved if scientists found processes that were codependent upon each other so that they would have had to evolve at the same time (or something like that). When he was alive, they had no idea of the complexity of all the organisms out there, or processes like DNA. You would think that DNA itself would have met Darwin’s criteria for disproving evolution.
We definately were created by God and ofcourse in his image, scientist just twist the truth insteda of telling the truth plainly as it is expected. If we evolved from apes then why are apes not changing their looks to better and human . This is fiction.
DNA actually helps as evidence for Evolution in various ways, especially in the gradual changes in DNA have been measured between remains and transitional forms.
As for that last comment, which displays a distinct lack of knowledge about the Theory of Evolution, various things could be said.
Humans, for example, are constantly changing and evolving. Look at the change in the human lower jaw, for example, or the increase in height and weight over the past few centuries for what is perhaps one of the more obvious examples.
Apes are well suited to their current environment, therefore the imperative to evolve is not as great as it might be on another species who is facing certain other hardships.
For example, Zebras have their distinctive patterns because it helps them hide from predators. Apes have no such predators as part of their daily lives so such a change really wouldn’t benefit them at all. Apes changing to be more ‘human-like’ certainly would not help them in their natural environment – they’d lose a lot of the advantages they already have (tougher skin, higher levels of strength, fur, etc).
Science isn’t a bad thing. It is an investigation of our world in a method that is reproducible.
Science is observation taken to a high level of vigor. Granted it’s attitude has been focused on very physical world quantitative research, but it’s still worth while.
Just because they are stumped right now doesn’t mean they’ll be stumped forever.
Science is organic because it changes and adapts to new information. It is constantly redefining reality as it observes new phenomena. We will never know everything, thus we will always be shifting our perspectives to adapt to the changes in our understandings.
Just like you can’t prove or disprove God, the same can be said about evolution as a way of thinking.
In my opinion the wisest of people will not simply accept one way of understanding and freeze their development there. Truly alive and organic intellectuals will recognize the wisdom in pondering both the existence of God AND evolution. Imagine a world in which they conflict AND coexist.
Ultimately do you HAVE to make a choice? Is it really THAT vital to decide what is “true”
why must you CHOOSE what to believe. Why must we commit to something? why can’t we admit that we are human and couldn’t possibly know it all? Can’t we accept that just as a child must learn as he grows up, thus changing his understanding in the world, adults must do the same.
Just because you’re comfortable in your routine, and you are established with a family and a career and environment that matches your decision about what you choose to believe, doesn’t mean you can’t still grow and learn new things.
To profess lifelong support of anything is unrealistic. We are human, and we are wavering and changing.
You can’t prove or disprove God with science. Just like you can’t prove or disprove God with religion or any religious texts.
We have to understand that if we look objectively, the Bible does not stand as any stronger or weaker evidence for or against the possibility of God, than anything else.
Why would a team of current investigators with special interests and a small background of diversity be able to prove through specific physical world experimentation whether God exists or not?
Why would an ancient text claiming to be the word of a metaphysical presence that is known as God be any more true?
At some point you must say: “I wish to believe that the bible was written by God”
or
“I wish to believe that the bible was written by men”
How can you condemn anybody for choosing either?
In my opinion, the most functional version of God, would be the version in which mankind was incapable of proving or disproving his existence.
If he does truly exist, and is all wise and all powerful, than what do you think he wishes of the imperfect beings he has created?
I would sooner believe that he doesn’t want us to know he exists, so that our behavior is more genuine to his fundamental design, like animal behavior. Natural.
So that he will get a wider variation of life experience.
And in that theory, there is definitely still room for people who wish to devote themselves, but not in the necessary heaven or hell sense in my opinion.
An all wise God would not have to forgive us for his own designs. There is no offending God. If God is truly all knowing and all powerful than why would he create us? For company? For experience? For egocentric control?
I would sooner believe that we are all extensions of God that have been fragmented for the purpose of specialized and unique/individual experience and interaction.
A fraction of God, for the sake of experience.
I could keep guessing and wondering with the free will and mind that perhaps God gave me.
I cannot find true life and an organic experience through a decision to inherit an un-changing pre-existing belief system that shows patterns of mind control.
Having a mind I should flex it and imagine and think and change and grow.
Not decide I believe in a religious system that organizes thought.
“Thought police” is not a positive phrase in my opinion.
Theory of Evolution can be correct. But who made the milky way. What is the cause for Big Bang theory..if we keep on asking ,,who made elements, who made space,,,etc..etc..There may one power of Source….It may be called Allah, or Father / Soul which the christians or Whatever Torah says,,or Power of Soul by Budhha, or One supreme power source as told by Hindu religion of India….
Regards,
Suresh Kumar V.C ,India
well we all die and i’m in nz in nz i ‘m in chch