So this happened on /pol/. Hear me out, it didn't devolve into racism suprisingly

trying again...

...

Thank you.

>/pol/75239007
ah, interesting point. reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

Evolution doesn't mean a direct transition, it means one population split off from the rest and adapted for an environment. In that sense, a descsndant can live with an "ancestor"

>descsndant can live with an "ancestor"
And in this case, both chimps and humans continued to evolve after the split, so you can't really call either us or the chimps the "ancestor".

but chimpanzee have features of both and humans have features of both. Did you quote this post because of how stupid it was ?

Forgot to add this. Most experts agree on the idea that our LCA with the chimps was most likely a tree-dwelling biped, Sahelanthropus Tchadensis.

Pssh fuck this thread.

Here's a link for you: click it.

desu evolutionary supported racism is a little bit less retarded than 'i din come from no monkey'

Bump

>Learn 2 Veeky Forums
You should listen to your own advice.

>Piltdown man

>/pol/ is smart enough to reject creationism
>Veeky Forums thinks the moon landings were faked

The real question is why did Humans survive, but the other cousin species did not?
Did we just fuck them into our gene pool, or did we kill them off or what?
What ever happened I'm not buy this "oh, they just randomly stopped existing" nonsense.
So either some mass extinction too place, or we fucked/killed them.
I think the later is likely and it's just taboo to talk about it.

Mainly a mixture of fucking and genocide. Every race has the slightest bit of DNA from different human species.

This was a great documentary series.

You rang?

Bump with Nebraska Man

CHimps aren't our ancestor We've a common ancestor.

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>Richard Darwin
>belief in evolution
>teach the controversey

>Richard Darwin
top fucking kek

>Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist
>evolutionists

I'll be honest, I burst out laughing. This was a joke post after all, r-right?

...

if this pasta was any older, it'd show up in the pleistocene fossil record.

>mfw creationists actually believe this
>mfw I actually used to believe this

You should see how they handled sediba and naledi.

A fellow user on Veeky Forums made the effort to explain that pic (lower half of pic related).

You're welcome.

>people want us to believe
implying anyone gives a shit what you believe

that's a chick tract, the absolute best of christian literature. I've actually had the privilege to see one of these bad boys in the wild. The one making on dungeons and dragons is pure gold:
theescapist.com/darkdungeons.htm

I remember reading one of these at a food drive I was helping at, and another that was given to me by my grandparents. I think it was the one about suicide, and the other was about dinosaurs I think.

>theescapist.com/darkdungeons.htm
Dayum user. Now I am reading a Chick comic about Buddhism. CLEARLY BUDDHISTS ARE EVIL.

answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/australopithecus-sediba/the-problem-with-australopithecus-sediba/
>it's close to a chimp, so it's clearly just a chimp!
>hey guys where are all the missing links haha

>evolutionists haven't reached a consensus so obviously they're wrong!!!

answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-and-australopithecus-sediba/
That was them covering their asses after this.

Bumping with the original "missing link"

"If creationism isn't true, explain this!"

I just had a look at "Dr." Hovinds "phd"-thesis. It really is worth reading it, gives you confidence when you feel down and worthless.
>TFW no pagenumbers
>no table of contents
>not a single reference
>the first line of his work is "Helly, my name is Kent Hoving"
>the last line of his work is "I believe Jesus was right"

did you seriously just try to link to a Veeky Forums thread?

how new are you?

For anyone curious:
a.pomf.cat/smqmhi.pdf

>unaccredited Christian correspondence school

What's the purpose of this?

It's just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals arguing about something. Of course they know evolution works. The children know it too.

this is some good shit right here

But that's wrong, it's just popsci. Based on the environment where Sahelanthrops were living and on other, unrelated fossils, it's probable that characteristics which make it similar to LCA were necessary adaptations to the habitat and could have evolved in several different lineages.

By the way, OP, what's the point of this thread?

Probably technological superiority, especially the use of symbols (it's probable that Neanderthals and even earlier species had language, but only modern humans could use symbols to such an extent). Also remember that we coexisted for tens of thousands of years, it's not "stopped existing", it was slow and gradual process.

I guess what he meant was it could be related to, or at least resemble, Sahelanthropus.

now he's a youtuber.

>quetzalcoatl is a dragon
triggered

I'm not sure if there's any evidence to back this up, but I've always had a suspicion that a lot of dragon myths start with somebody finding a dinosaur skeleton and the rest coming from that

there's a good chunk of it that's like that.
Native American thunderbird myths might have been inspired by pterosaur fossils, and tarbosaurus teeth are still sold as those of dragons in the Chinese black market today.

I think they do that with a lot of fossils. I think Peking Man may have ended up like that, and Gigantopithecus almost ended up like that.

OP here. I think at this point, it's just a creationist bullshit thread.

Some say that the Sioux legend of the thunder horse actually came from finding these fossils after storms.

Because evolution is OBSERVABLE, look at microbes for instance. Beneficial mutations make them stronger, an ideal example being antimicrobial resistance genes. Pathogens that a couple decades ago would have succumbed to simple penicillin are now incredibly hard to kill. Viruses are another instance where this sort of thing is evident, look at Zika, almost no symptoms for humans when it was first discovered 69 years ago. Now, it has a host of rather undesirable effects.

>getting baited this hard with stale bait

Bunch of ad hominem and appeal to authority.

Look. Evolutionary theory IS wrong, but not because of observation or consistency, but because of Platonism.

Survival of the fittest assumes there is a platonic ideal or a force that is knowable a priori for a species to engineer by mutation. This is the Ladder interpretation and brings up all sorts of problems when you change the object from an individual to a species.

An easier explanation is the Sieve interpretation. The Sieve interpretation only looks at whether you died before you could pass on your genes, or alternately looks at the entire line of a lineage as one object that dies. The attraction of the sieve argument is there doesn't have to be a reason anything is here except that it is here!
Then, instead of glorifying reasons something survived, we can look at all the narratives you want why a lineage DIED. OR you can look at nothing at all. No reason necessary for a trait to be there except that its presence or absence hasn't killed it.

Too much of science is fairy tales made up to sell your narrative, just like the sophistry of

>Survival of the fittest assumes there is a platonic ideal or a force that is knowable a priori
I don't agree the theory requires the idealized direction of selective pressures be completely knowable. The theory should actually cast doubt on that notion by its stochastic nature.

>interpretation
This is soundbite pseudoscience

>Too much of science is fairy tales made up to sell your narrative
Now, any amount is too much. But the post you replied to is obviously not a scientific one. It's very easy to sort them out, esp. with good evidence, and it only rarely happens in the physical sciences.

Can anyone tell me if this real or not. I can only find it on an Islamic creationist site. I feel like it was real, but tweaked for the purposes of the subject (that being to show Erectus was just a man).

Anyone?

if what is real or not? the photo?

Yeah, the photo. I think it might be the result of cranial binding, but I don't know for certain

looks like it could be a real person to me. what does it have to do with homo erectus?

The article was trying to say that Homo Erectus was just another race of man, rather than a distinct primitive species. They also positioned the skulls in such a way as to appear normal-ish.

Its fucking possible. I meet a Slav who looked like a fucking Neanderthal. And he was massive like shreek. Big face, big hands big everything.
Look at fucking dogs. They still the same species, didn't they?
also look at fox experiment(Soviet one about fox domestication). It points that when they choose next generations based on their behaviour, they tend to change from their control group in body types.

Was he tall, or short and stocky?

Would this be a better model of hominidae evolution?

Neanderthals aren't our ancestors. This misinformation really gets my blood boiling.

don't a lot of modern humans have some neanderthal blood?

They're more of a close cousin than an ancestor. Certainly much closer than a chimp.

ok, but what does the picture of the person have to do with it?

don't some people classify them as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis instead of a separate species?

It seems to be an attempt to attack the typological conception of species that predominates in paleontology and human origins with the assumption that if variants that define past species still exist in modern populations then those past species must actually have been part of the contemporary/extant species. This is problematic due to the simplistic understanding of species concepts and variation among and within populations.

Basically, "this homo sapien resembles a homo erectus so all homo erectus were actually homo sapiens and evolution never happened." Of course, this ignores the fact that the traits used to distinguish H. erectus from other species of Homo are consistent within known fossil populations but are not widespread amongst other species of Homo....allowing for the typological distinction between the species.

Yes, it's an ongoing debate that involves the basic definition of species. In parts of Europe Neanderthals and "modern" humans interbred. There is Neanderthal DNA in many modern human individuals. On the basis of the biological concept of species the two populations were part of the same species.

However, in paleontology and anthropology the definition of species is generally based upon morphological distinctions rather than the biological concept because we rarely have direct evidence that would allow us to infer interbreeding. Some people stick to the tradition of the typological/morphological distinction while others see interbreeding as cause to lump Neanderthals into H. sapiens as a sub-population that was incorporated into later Paleolithic human populations in part of their range.

>heidelBERG
nice try shlomo

Report/hide. Move on to better threads.

That's a German word, m8, not Hebrew.

Nice try Shnozenstein, but you're not hoodwinking me this time.