Our Chimp Ancestry - Frans Lanting and Christine Eckstrom

[rugbyboy198127]

@websnarf so you think of cro-magnon as the pinnicle of human evolution or? its the typical white supremacist notion that rather than cro-magnon being just the european adaptation to environment of similar complexity to that of other adaptations around the globe, they always tried to hold up cro-magnon as of specific importance, as though it somehow represents an importent change to mankind, unique and the next step in evolution - total biggoted rubbish i cant believe this is still going on man!

[websnarf]

@rugbyboy198127: Why you would project white supremacy upon me is beyond my comprehension. There is a *literature* on Cromagnon man regarding our early research into the evolution of humans. There is no pinnacle of evolution for any organism; evolution doesn't have an end point.

How would you propose someone quickly Google for the Neolithic and Mesolithic cultural shifts as they pertain to human evolution? The single term "Cromagnon" will suffice.

[rugbyboy198127]

@websnarf i agree with your comments 100% regarding evolution, however you listed homonid species then added 'then finally cro-magnon' - you refer to all homo-sapian as cro-magnon or you believe cro-magnon is a step on of as relative magnitude as the steps in your list (ie: you list them together)... as far as i am aware that is inappropriate and wildly our of context, placing such emphasis on cro-magnon... didn't say you were white supremacist i said much of the work regarding it has an agenda!

[aliveinsd]

Try lacing the fruit with capsicum. It will make for a far more interesting view. I've had enough 10:45.

[BaaBaaRaa]

I love this couple. They are doing great things for wildlife and conservation, locally and internationally. I attended their show yesterday in their hometown of Santa Cruz, a fundraiser for the local marine station. Dead on brilliant. and very good folks who are DOING something. Hint: Look for people's actions... not intentions or words.

[LucienZakhaev]

Stop arguing with ignortant people and look at the cute baby chimps

[Baxion5]

Fasinating!

How long does it take to go from one step to the next? Say from the last step to human?

Are we talking thousands of years, ten thousand, hundreds of thousands, etc?

Do any of these transitions play a part in current races? i.e. Asian, African, Europian

[rugbyboy198127]

@Baxion5 well it was ofcourse once thought that all hu,mans on the planet today are 100% homo-sapian - since the completion of the neanderthal genome project some startling revelations have come to be, firstly all peoples whom are not ancient sub-saharan african have 1-4% dna shared with that of neanderthal - not that we evolved from neanderthal or that we share recent ansestry but that we INTER-BRED with neanderthal in the past - the chinese have long argued that they are seporate branch, cont.

[rugbyboy198127]

@Baxion5 they argued until very recently that they were completely seporate branch of the human family, of human evolution, they insisted that they had evolved from homo-erectus whom had left africa before homo-sapian, while clearly this is wrong as genetics have proven we are all more or less the same, it wouldn't suprise me if genetics showed that the chinese (mongoloid) we're not only 1-4% neanderthal but also share dna with hoom-erectus to some degree - as you say this may account for 3races

[websnarf]

That spear thing is crazy -- you can see how its an elaboration of the termite fishing. Amazing.

It makes you wonder -- if you gave chimps enough time, would they not simply evolve an abstract intelligence (thresholded, perhaps by language) akin to our own?

[trickmastermonkey]

FACT: Chimps are distant cousins of ours.

The End.

[011EviL]

LOL...give a whole new meaning to... Monkey see, Monkey do.

[FkyGGGG]

Question for you Darwinist (Doorknobs)....

Where do and how do "GAYS" fit in the evolution theory...

what is AND is the benefit of being "GAY" (1million years ago threw today) and how does this contribute to the evolution Process when evolving threw procreation and selection for procreation are the very bases for evolution?!

By the wayif mere similarities were a science.you Fakes would be up for a

Carnegie.

[StevoDog21]

FkyGGGG- As for how 'Gays' fit in with evolution; well nobody's saying you people don't have a right to exist, so chill out.

[FkyGGGG]

Hey Stevo...the question wasnt for the defense of me...

the "Question is to disprove two things...

1. Evolution.

2. Homosexuality as a Normalcy

[TheDoubtingApproach]

FkyGGGG,

The same scientific process that has lead to chemotherapy, blood transfusions, the plane, and the internet is the same scientific process that advocates Evolution by Natural Selection.

The only reason you reject Evolution is because you have a religious bias. That's not science.

Evolution is a scientific matter so the best people to make a judgement on the matter are scientists (right?). The vast vast majority of scientists, and the best qualified, advocate Evolution.

[FkyGGGG]

you speak of evolution like many of you like its a fact...there is no dout about

microevolution its the macro you cant connect..

[Krumbz2003]

Wrong. The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is its scale... but both are known to be facts.

Theories are known facts. If you only knew how grueling it was for scientists to get their idea published in ONE journal you would be blown away. These ideas get torn apart from every direction by scientists who want to prove them wrong at all costs.

Only those ideas that defy years and years of scrutiny become Theories.

Like the Theory of Gravity.

These things are FACTS.

[FkyGGGG]

WRONG!

What kind of Science or Scientist take a POLL to call it fact..

Thats NOT Science!!! Lmao!

Its the same error and argument the Global Dopes make..

We have a bunch of scientist that believe this.whit no proofso we agree it must be true..

Science is not a censes my friendby the mere definition..

[TheDoubtingApproach]

You believe in Creationism because of your prior complete certainty in your religion; not because the numerical most and best qualified advocate it - because they dont.

Theres no difference in your belief in creationism than a scientologists belief that thetans cause suffering - both are unsupported, both are unscientific, and both go against what has been conclusively tested and supported by evidence.

[FkyGGGG]

I agree it take faith to believe what I believe and thats not religion by the way.

But it takes much more faith to believe and accept what you believe (I guess your religion) more that it does mineDesign

[TheDoubtingApproach]

"But it takes much more faith to believe and accept what you believe"

Really? Does it take faith to believe that gravity exists? Does it take faith to believe that cancer can kill people? Does it take faith to disbelieve in bigfoot? Does it take faith to disbelieve in leprechauns?

Apply that same logic to creationism.

[TheDoubtingApproach]

If your mother got sick, you would take her to the hospital - because you accept the logic and soundness of the scientific method. Yet, ironically, its the SAME science that leads to evolution.

In these situations, you wouldn't accept the bible's decree that "if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven" (Matt 18:19) - rather, you would trust in science.

Well, scientific consensus advocates Evolution by Natural Selection.

[FkyGGGG]

you speak as if you "theroy" is Science..you know..."soundness of the scientific method"

You/no one has ever found "the missing link."

Correct, you do take your sick mother to a doctor...sometimes for a real cure but sometimes for experimental. The experimental must be proven or rejected if not proven. correct..

[TheDoubtingApproach]

"you speak as if you "theroy" [sic.] is Science"

Would you say the same about 'The Theory of Gravity' (Newton), or 'The Theory of Relativity (Einstein)? Clearly you're highly ignorant in science - the term "theory of..." is the highest accolade a scientific term can acheieve. Before that it's a hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has been conclusively predicted, observed, demonstrated, and supported by thousands of scientists in scientific conditions.

Understand?

[TheDoubtingApproach]

"You/no one has ever found "the missing link.""

Really? Go and research these:

Actinopterygii, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax, Echinochimaeria, Similihari, Heterodontus, Chlamydoselache, Teleostei (higher and lower), Sarcopterygii, Neoceratodus, Lepidosiren, Crossopterygians, Acanthodians, Palaeoisconoids, Cheirolepis, Mimia, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, Leptolepis, Elopomorphs, Diplomystus, Portheus, Protocanthopterygians,

[TheDoubtingApproach]

"You/no one has ever found "the missing link.""

Would you like some more transitional fossils?

Spenodon, Cotylosaur, Pelycosaur synapsids, Therapsids, Dimetrodon, Cynodont theriodonts, Cynognathus, Morganucodon, Eupantotheres, Archaeopteryx, Sinornis Santensis. Ambulocetus natans.

Do you want me to go on? Each of these examples has characteristics of, say, reptile AND bird and lived in a transitional timeline - exactly what a transitional fossil demands.

[FkyGGGG]

also DoubtingApproach...you should try sticking the the question and facts i argue. debate them.

Discounting me on what or who I believe in isnt making your point.

This discussion is about your theory not my G-d/Our G-d.

But I guess thats all a Darwinist can do. You cannot argue facts or show Proof

Theory...NOT a Fact!

[Krumbz2003]

You can believe whatever you wish to believe in.

We just happen to have 150 years of Scientific evidence, nearly unaminous support from the scientific community, as well as the support from fields such as biology, physics, palentology, medical physicians, quantum mechanics, cosmology and many MANY MANY others.

We have evidence for our claims.

Could you provide us with empirical evidence for yours?

*The Bible cannot be included as evidence for many many reasons so other than the Bible please.

[TheDoubtingApproach]

"This discussion is about your theory not my G-d"

When your alternative (creationism) is to say "God did it" it is about your God. Clearly logic is not one of your strong points.

"You cannot argue facts or show Proof"

Clearly you haven't educated yourself. I suggest you watch DonExodus2's videos (he's a christian, by the way). I suggest you read 'My Inner Fish' (Shubin) or the thousands of other scientific books on the matter.

"Theory...NOT a Fact!"

Is Gravity a fact? If so, evolution is also.

[shadetail]

Why don't you respond to his list of transitional fossils?

lol at your usage of theory and fact.

[FkyGGGG]

Shadetail...Why cant you or anyone show me the fossil(s) that connect us to Ape or chimps?

[shadetail]

Homo erectus? Australopithecus africanus? Ardipithecus kadabba? Paranthropus boisei? There are lots more and for the most part, several examples of each of them in the fossil record.

I think you also need to pay attention to the transitional fossils of other groups of animals as well when you consider how supported the theory is.

Its not only the fossil record that supports evolution either.

[TheDoubtingApproach]

FkyGGGG,

You are an ape.

I'm not joking. Go to any scientific definition of the word "ape" (or its more technical term "Hominidae") and you will find that homo sapiens are in the same biological family as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. The overriding name is "Great Ape".

Wikipedia: "Hominidae"

It's science. The same science that you trust in when going to the hospital to do blood tests or cancer treatment. If you don't accept evolution, then step away from hospitals.

[websnarf]

@FkyGGGG: I wonder, do you have the courage to consider that you might be wrong?

Go to Wikipedia and look up evolution. Then look up the evolution of man. Then look up "transitional fossils". Then, as shadetail suggests, look up Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, then finally Cromagnon. Its pretty close to a straight line. (I don't know the chimp side, but clearly they a very close to Australopithecus.)

[rugbyboy198127]

@websnarf you skip homo-sapian and jump straight to cro-magnon? cro magnon is not a genetic difference comparable to that of the difference between say homo-erectus/homo-sapian/neand­erthal - and it is quite controversial to suggest it - if anything cro-magnon represents a cultural shift in human behaviour, driven by environment - if a particular population group (ie race) develops specific traits ie tallness, is doesn't make them a new sub species of human - much smaller change than that mate...

[websnarf]

@rugbyboy198127: I am well aware of the technical problems with even referring to someone as a "Cromagnon". The point is that in researching it FkyGGGG would learn something about the development of Homo sapiens. If you just look up Homo sapiens directly, you aren't necessarily going to learn anything about Human evolution.

[CondorDM]

no god

[Krumbz2003]

If I showed you a dozen animals who were "gay" would you recant your views on how gays fit into the Theory of Evolution?

I'm betting that you wouldn't. Prove me wrong.

Do you even realize how many homosexual animals exist on our planet RIGHT NOW? Do you have any idea or do you just not know?

[FkyGGGG]

Idiots....you can study them 100yrs and never prove or make the connection that humans came from apes...Fools...my extened family...LMAO!..

i will admit these CHIMPS are brighter than you Dopes...

"imagine" is RIGHT! lol....Morons...

[StevoDog21]

FkyGGGG- And even if you're a gay ape, you're still an ape, so deal with it.

[FkyGGGG]

i think you are the Gay one Freak!

Read my Comments again Dork!

[quinn2469]

We didn't come from apes but all primates share a common ancestor. We can prove this through retroviral DNA. You can only get your retroviral DNA from your ancestors. Humans and all primates share many common retroviral DNA. Thus, since we have similar retroviral DNA and you can only get your retroviral DNA from ancestors, humans and all other primates have a common ancestor.

[FkyGGGG]

Or by creation or design...

with respect quinn2469..

Proof substantiates

and again if mere similarities were a science

[websnarf]

Its a *virus* FkyGGGG -- there is no *DESIGN* about it. Its a random marker defect in our DNA. It has structure corresponding exactly to the theory of evolution and no other theory.

Claiming it was design is like saying Michael Jordan can't shoot a basketball; the balls are just rigged with some internal mechanism that drops it into the basket for him. Its an unaccountable fantasy that isn't checked against anything, while the idea that Jordan trains a lot and has talent is makes sense.

[isegoria1]

5/5

[chopin65]

Wonderful video. My roots go deep.

[ubuibiok]

*****