Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

6 million years is a short period of time?coyote arachnophelia stated, The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end. This is the same scenario that has gone on through all types of living things, some species survive, some don't.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

So what is the common ancestor of humans and chimps?

But we most certainly don't "still have" living examples of all the primates - only a fraction of all great apes that are known from fossils are still around. You've been shown pictures of skulls of a selection of the extinct ones about fifty times on this forum, dawn.

Barbara, the last common ancestor is some critter sort of like Orrorin tugenensis. That's a question for a different thread, like one over at EvC Forum: Human Origins and Evolution

As of now there has not been found a fossil that can be regarded as the concestor of the humans & chimps. Possibly do to the fact that chimps evolved in the forests & humans in the savannahs. Also the line from concestor to chimp has yet to be found, whereas the human line has a number of finds.
According to Richard Dawkins's

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Not trying to be funny here, just trying to get this straight. So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humansShouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Lets be real here, there are some but ugly people out there, not these guys of courseSo where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by nowWhy are they still just monkeys. I mean youve seen what these guys do in the zoo, while your staring at them through the glass

Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human?Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and manIf so, what are the examples of the ancestory of Apes and Gorrillas, that are not quite monkey and not quite man. I hope that makes senseMy earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not. Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the waysideMine is not an argument one way or the other, simply an observation, that it seems that atleast a few examples of those supposed intermidiates would have survived, since we have so many examples of monkey looking primates, if indeed that is what we are actually looking at in your examples, some form of something not quite monkey and not quite man.I know thats not the right terminology, but you get the ideaDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi DB, Really? Are you sure you're not trying to be funny? Hmm. Okay, I believe you. That certainly wasn't amusing. On to more substantive points. What? No! Neanderthals are not the ancestors of chimps. Neanderthals are a comparatively recent species, part of the Homo group. Chimps, Neanderthals and humans all share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor of Neanderthals and chimps would be the same as the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. Leaving aside the fact that gorillas, humans chimps and Neanderthals are all apes, they have evolved into what they are; apes. Humans are human, gorillas are gorilla. We need not speculate about what they should have become. We know what they have become. We can just look. They are not monkeys. Monkeys have tails amongst other things.But to answer what I take to be your underlying question, the chimps and gorillas are still forest dwelling simians (as opposed to having evolved into human-like forms) because that is the way their evolution happened to go. They never evolved in the direction that humanity did. Either the necessary mutations never arose or, if they did, they were not favoured by selection. Remember, evolution is not about "progress" or "improvement". It has no prearranged goal. It is only about meeting the needs of the environment. Chimps are more similar to their common ancestor simply because we changed more than they did.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

So where are Gorrillas, Apes and Orangatanges in this process (no funny shots here either)and why did thier kind survive and no examples of these other nutty looking guysShouldnt those other things that you provided as examples have survived in some small way, if indeed they actually existed? Shouldnt they just keep going along side the whole Evo process even if changes were taking place?Dawn Bertot

I often hear that Humans are more intelligent than the Gorilla.But one:

• never seems in a hurry.
• spends his day eating and playing with the kids.
• has his women folk about him.
• takes a nap every day.
• never worries about what to wear.
• never worries about budgets or taxes.
• has never gone to war.
• doesn't much care what the neighbors think.
• is never late for work.
• has never heard kids asking "What's for dinner"?
• doesn't have to block out channels on the remote.

I have a feeling that just maybe, when they were handing out intelligence, the Gorillas and Humans flipped a coin.We lost.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Where did I say anything about neanderthals? The point is all the intermediates between the common ancestor and the 2 living lines, the chimps & humans, are no longer alive, they either became extinct or still remain as the end products. Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Why? Seriously, why should they? No. The other Homo species, Australopithecines, etc., they are intermediate between (a) the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps and (b) humans. Of course, not all the extinct hominids are the direct ancestors of humanity, only some. I'm not sure it does. Can you rephrase that? What makes you think they should be extinct? Be specific. Yes. What strikes you as odd about this?You seem to be assuming that human-like species somehow ought to survive. There is no special reason why this ought to be the case.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Yes and this is why this was my original inquiry. If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived.But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answerFor the creationist its not so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashionSince there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains that you put forward, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil recordwhere are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments and things pieced together, where literally thousands of examples should be presentthis should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct.I mean dinos were what, 60 to 100 million years ago and we have no problem finding the OVERWHELMING evidence we need to confirm thier actual existenceNot so with these fellows and they are only six million years removedEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Examples of extinctions when there are "millions of these things" are abundant. Check out the details on the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon. From Wiki:

The Passenger Pigeon or Wild Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) was an extinct bird, which existed in North America. It lived in enormous migratory flockssometimes containing more than two billion birdsthat could stretch one mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long across the sky, sometimes taking several hours to pass.

​

Some estimate that there were three billion to five billion Passenger Pigeons in the United States when Europeans arrived in North America. Others argue that the species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, but their numbers grew when devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases led to reduced competition for food.

​

The species went from being one of the most abundant birds in the world during the 19th century to extinction early in the 20th century.

Where are the mass graves of Passenger Pigeons? They existed in the billions.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why does that seem odd? When looking at the fossil record and the history of life on Earth, extinction is the rule, not the exception. When something dies it usually dies on the surface where it is scavenged and disarticulated. Frankly, we are lucky to have the pieces we do have. And we have no problem finding overwhelming evidence of transitional hominid species. Your point?