Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If evolution truly has formed the human race (homo sapien sapien) where are all of the proverbial "missing links" or, for lack of a better word, "pre-human" forms? Archaeologists should have found and should presently be finding hundreds, if not thousands, of these skeletal forms yet they do not. Why is that so?"
--I would not expect many at all humans to be present in the geologic column, it is even a thought to consider why there are any, at least in the flood scenario. I totally agree that we should be finding many many of these fossilized specimens of proto-humans. Though mabye thats because were an isolated population, punctuated equillibria right?

​

As for Gene, you assertion that 'without evolution none of the above should exist' seems to be implying that Evolution is the only mechenism explaining these findings. Quite a bold statment, I have found no problem with their existance.

---

Why wouldn't there be millions of fossil modern humans, if all the wicked people of the Earth were killed and buried in the Flood, and if the fossils were all laid down after the Flood?

quote:

---

---But why do NONE of the "lesser advanced" (ie the more primitive "humans" that were minutely different from and say more akin to primates) pre-homo sapiens sapiens exist today? Surely they, like the primates which exist today, could have found a way to adapt for purposes of survival.

---

No, not "surely" at all. [QUOTE]It doesn't seem in the least bit odd to you that ALL of these alleged "ancestors" between the modern apes, chimps, etc. and todays homo sapien sapien failed to survive to the present day? Not a single one?
[/B][/QUOTE]No, it doesn't seem odd to me at all, especially considering how dominant and effective our species became over our environment.None of the precursor species to horses have survived to coexist with modern horses, either. Same with many, many, many other species. Do you see this as implausible as well? Why or why not?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Evolution and extinction ARE intrinsically linked.
If you have 'survival of the fittest' that implies 'extinction of
the less fit'. They are the same thing.
The only reason that there is an incremental change from early
hominids to modern man is that the changes acquired along
the way made the 'newer' kids on the block more able to survive,
and having survived, breed.

​

The current existence of earlier forms would do more to challenge
evolution than the absence of them.

​

---I understand all of the points you raise but that (and the prior posts) is not a sufficient explanation to justify the non-existence of any of the less advanced hominids (under a theory of evolution there must have been hundreds of these incremental, "advancing" specimens which eventually lead to the modern homo sapien sapien). Yet despite the fact that modern apes, chimps, etc found a way to survive to the current day, none, not a one, of the prior sapiens was able to find a way to survive within their environment? It just seems implausible to me.

---

The "Argument from Personal Incredulity" is a weak argument, leekim.What you are saying is, basically, "Because I, leekim, cannot conceive of X, X must not be true."You have not provided any evidence or compelling reasons for your non-acceptance of evidence.I repeat my other example: there are no less-advanced relatives of modern horses which survived to the present time. Equus Callabus is the last of many, some of which coexisted for millions of years. Do you find it odd or inconceivable that there is only Equus Callabus today and not any of the others? Why or why not?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-27-2002]