If Primates Evolved into Humans?

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Mirage, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I have a problem with the theory of evolution. Here are a few arguments that I have yet to see debunked. Feel free to do so if I am missing something here.

    1. If primates evolved into humans, then why are monkeys and other primates still around?

    2. If monkeys and other primates are still around, then why aren't the rest of the "missing links" still around as well?

    3. If the rest of the "missing links" are gone completely without a trace, then the argument would be that they were inferior and died off. Correct?

    4. If the "missing links" were inferior and died off then how are there humans today? The process supposedly took thousands of years so the species in-between primates and humans would have had to each survive for very long periods of time. Clearly the species evolved into a stable species, so wouldn't it be safe to say that the inbetween links would each be stronger and more prone to survive than the last? How is every last one gone without a trace?

    5. If the in-between links were each stronger and more prone to survive than the last then I ask you again, how is it that the weakest of the primate/human transition (monkeys, primates, etc) are still around, and not ANY of the more human-like more stable species that they supposedly evolved into has ever been found?

    6. If the "missing links" are all gone completely due to them being inferior species, then how did they survive long enough to allow the process of evolution to get to where it is today, and then every single link disappeared except for the original primates? The argument can't be made that they all finished evolving to humans in one lifetime. You'd think even one missing link fossil would be found, if not millions.

    7. If we can find dinosaur skeletons/fossils from 135 million years ago then why can't we find any fossils of other stages of evolution (particularly human) that supposedly ALL took place well after the dinosaurs were completely gone? (Nothing can be found from the past 10,000 years and yet we can find plenty from 135 million years ago.....?)

    Last edited: Apr 2, 2009

  2. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think your fundamental error is in assuming they "died off" because they were "inferior species". Evolution, as you said, is a gradual process. It's not as if one day there was Australopithecus and the next day there was Homo habilis. Evolution is about adaptation, changes over many generations at the genetic level.

    For example, people whose ancestors came from northern climates have lighter skin because lighter skin absorbs more sunlight for vitamin D synthesis. Those changes occurred at the genetic level. People whose ancestors came from warmer climates have darker skin because less sunlight needs to be absorbed by those who live in the tropics.

    Plenty of transitional fossils (e.g. the so-called "missing link") have been found. The fossil record clearly and absolutely supports the theory of evolution. Anyone who doubts it has never studied anthropology.
    Crouton likes this.
  3. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    This is because, far as I know, to say "Humans evolved from monkeys" is a completely inaccurate portrayal.

    A better description would be "Humans used to be shorter, hairier, and stupider... But still technically humans." :-/

    Humans evolved from early humans, and monkeys evolved from early monkeys --> It's likely there is a common ancestor somewhere in there, but not necessarily so.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2009
  4. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    P.C. is right, I was just about to add: it's more accurate to say that humans evolved from earlier primates, rather than primates evolved into humans.

    The ancestral link between Homo sapien and other primates goes back to about 65 million years ago.
  5. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Still doesn't answer any of the questions I posed...

    Evolution states that they were once one in the same.. Early monkeys evolved into later monkeys, which then evolved into homo erectus (cavemen type humans):


    And neanderthals:


    I mean.. it's pretty commonly taught in evolution that primates/monkeys evolved into what is now modern day humans.


    I think my questions are valid.
  6. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    Evolution Simulator-Java

    I post this program all over the place, because it was watching this program that really got me to finally comprehend what the theory of evolution was trying to say.

    First of all, the individuals are created randomly, and the rules are all arbitrary (which means the program isn't rigged) --> An individual eats food, and once they eat enough food within a certain amount of time, they'll reproduce asexually. The offspring inherits the parent's genetic code, with a random mutation once in a while here and there. The amount of reproduction that occurs depends on how much food can be eaten within a lifetime.

    You'll notice that one or two species quickly become dominant but "survival of the fittest" is not necessarily the rule (in this case), and many weaker species continue to survive. Eventually if you leave it long enough, you'll be surprised at how efficient the little buggers can become, just through minute random mutations.
  7. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    But I'm not debating the theory of evolution directly.. I'm simply looking for the individual questions I posted to be debunked one by one.
  8. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    If the rules are arbitrary, then no single species is required to live or die. It's just determined by basic survivability, intelligence, and pure, asinine luck.

    See answer number 1.

    Yes, but not necessarily so. See answer number 1.

    Do you suppose that humans as we know them today will exist 64 million years from now? Or even 10,000 years from now?

    Do you suppose there will be any trace of humans as we know them today 10,000 years from now? (Well... There will be in plastic... :lol:)

    It's likely that every creature on Earth looked and acted at least slightly different 10,000 years ago. Though it's a common presumption that things all looked the same back then, it's not necessarily the case.

    See answer number 1.

    Furthermore, humans are, and always have been, a terribly territorial race, and it wouldn't be surprising at all to find out that the more efficient fighters killed off the less adaptive species, where the ancestors of the modern primate probably avoided human contact at all costs.

    As far as I knew, the reason so many dinosaur fossils were fossilized was because of a cataclysmic event that prevented them from decaying, or turned them instantly into stone --> Given that the times since then have been supposedly much more moderate, most skeletal structures get a chance to decay, and don't survive for any real length of time.

    "The span of recorded history altogether is roughly 5,000 – 5,500 years, with Sumerian cuneiform being the oldest form of writing discovered so far."


    I'd say that it's actually quite likely your "missing links" existed at some point within this time frame, and I've heard accounts (nothing I can source right now) of earlier man existing as late as something like 1100 AD; the peoples of the time would have just taken them to be tribal barbarians, and would have actively killed them off when they were able.

    The reason you don't find skeletons from 100,000 BC is the same reason you don't find a million modern corpses in your back yard; they all decomposed into dirt.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2009
    wooly and Jeanie like this.
  9. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    You answered a couple of your questions yourself. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal. Are they not a link between modern humans and primates? Is there not any evidence that they existed?
  10. Malificus

    Malificus Likes snow

    Neanderthals aren't. They were a separate branch

Share This Page