quote:We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.
Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “prehuman” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.
Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.
Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.
Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.
Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.
Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”
Fingernails and Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals.
Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.
Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)
Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.
Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.
Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)
Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.
Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?
Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.
Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these.
Source: The Literal Creation of Mankind At the Hands of You-Know-What By Lloyd Pye
quote:p.s. Any document that uses phrases like: "...which only the black race has achieved." immediately sets off alarm bells.
I dont see what that has to do with anything. Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes? Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?
quote:What you appear to be missing is that populations of organisms evolve to fit their enviroment.
Therefor, pondscum is far more evolved than we are for surviving in ponds.
Often, people think that evolution is directed with humans as the end point of evolution.
We are very well adapted by evolution for tool use, distance running and selective abstraction but terribly adapted by evolution for flying, or metabolising arsnic.
I understand what you mean that everything is evolved for its own purposes and needs, but how can humans not be more evolved? Does pond scum have science and a civilisation like humans? Humans have dominion over the earth and dare I say, one day we will evolve into Gods.
My point is that there is plenty of evolution in human affairs, more so than pond scum.
One thing I notice about human ape research is that every year it is proclaimed that the missing link has been found. What happened to the one they found last year?
quote:"MISSING LINK" MISSING THE POINT? by Lloyd Pye
In April 2010 the journal "Science" broke a story that a new "Missing Link" had been found in mainstream science's endless quest to prove human evolution from primates. As I've said in my "Bytes of Pye" newsletter, these are regularly trundled out because mainstream science never actually HAS the missing links they claim to have, so they seem to think that by regular repetition of the claim people will fall asleep at the wheel and assume they actually have something of consequence.
There can be only ONE legitimate "missing link" between apelike "pre"-humans and humans, and that would be an intermediate type of human found between Neanderthals, which are far more primate than human, and Cro-Magnons, which are far more human than primate. And both species overlap for 200,000 years! So everything else about missing links is part of a smoke-and-mirror campaign mainstream science uses to keep the mass of people in a state of perpetual ignorance about the true facts of human origins. There is no other way to put it.
The two partial skeletons found in a South African cave are a previously unknown species the discovery team has named Australopithecus Sediba. The discoverers claim they contain elements of both the apelike hominids from which man is believed to be descended, known as Australopithecus, and early modern humans. One of the fossils is of a male child, eight or nine years old, while the other is of an adult female in her late 20s or early 30s. They are dated between 1.95 million and 1.78 million years old, and reveal a species with long legs and a sophisticated hip bone, making them able to walk and stride like humans. But they also still had the strong hands and long arms more reminiscent of primates.
Both were just over four feet tall, with the female weighing in around 70 pounds and the child around 55 pounds. Although small, their brains appear to have been more advanced than other similar species. This combination of human and ape traits always leads to the "official" conclusion that the creatures in question have to be "prehuman" because they walk upright. To me it makes just as much sense to claim they were upright walking primates. Why? Because the exact same type of creatures are found in the fossil record for millions of years, to well beyond Lucy at 3.2 million years ago.
Upright walking primates are judged to be "prehumans" because for mainstream science to allow even the possibility of bipedal apes would be to tacitly accept the glaring reality of modern hominoids (bigfoot, yeti, etc.). This is something all scientists everywhere have to fend off as long as possible to avoid the day when they have to face the obvious conclusion that humans did not evolve here, and are in fact a very recent addition (200,000 years ago according to mitochondrial DNA research) to the flow chart of life on Earth.
quote:Humans ARE apes. Get it tattooed on your face.
If the missing link between humans and apes has been found, there would be no need to proclaim it every year. As Lloyd Pye says "these are regularly trundled out because mainstream science never actually HAS the missing links they claim to have, so they seem to think that by regular repetition of the claim people will fall asleep at the wheel and assume they actually have something of consequence."
quote:The team says the newly discovered fossils are a no-longer-missing link between early and later forms of Australopithecus and to a more primitive hominid known as Ardipithecus.
quote:[This skull] shows the continuity of the evolutionary record, so in that sense it is a link [between Homo erectus and modern humans]," said Scott Simpson, a paleontologist from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.
quote:"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said