Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A link showing clear evolution of a human being

  1. Sep 27, 2010 #1
    My friend who thinks we were "created" keeps telling me that there's no link of a human evolving from a previous species..

    Now I keep telling that there's tons of evidence in museums & whatnot, but is there any good links online that can clearly show him?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 27, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A mind changed against its will
    Is of the same opinion still.
  4. Sep 27, 2010 #3
    You could show him a lineup of humans skulls going back a few million years and he'd look at each of them saying "human, human, human, human", then when he reaches one that's too different from humans to be called human, "monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey". And if he sees the tiniest detail about evolution that he doesn't understand, suddenly the entire theory is shot.
    It's his job to search for something before blindly claiming it doesn't exist. There's no shortage of evidence, he's just never bothered to look.
  5. Sep 27, 2010 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You can't argue with a person that already has their mind closed.

    Feel free to look at the many threads here explaining evolution. No need to keep repeating this once a week.

    There is plenty of information here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2010
  6. Sep 28, 2010 #5
    Tell him about the human chromosome "2" is a result of the fusion between ancestral chromosomes "2a" and "2b". This is proof of humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor (as well as splitting off from that ancestor too).

  7. Sep 28, 2010 #6

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thread pruned and reopened. Please be respectful in your comments or this will be locked for good.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  8. Sep 28, 2010 #7
    I think inquisitive creationists ought be encouraged to puzzle over "why so many experts have adopted a viewpoint contrary to creationism" (even with an initial aim of finding an approach to persuade scientists of creation). That way, they'll be trying to ponder the evidence and arguments from both perspectives for themselves, and be less actively opposed to changing their minds if appropriate. Surely few would insist harm could come of this?

    (Really, the OP implies a kind of a funny place to put the goal posts, though probably not uncommon. Does it mean this friend believes that plants and animals and even other chimpanzees all evolved, but having retreated so far, still holds out that humans are too special to have come from the same process? If so, then having contravened so much literalism already, surely it is a small step to say that perhaps human evolution was divinely guided? Otherwise how does the timeline work: is every human skull younger than 4000BC? Are there so few human genes as could all be traced back to only 92 chromosomes with so little opportunity for mutations, or is it allowable for viruses to insert monkey-genes in Adam and Eve's children? But anyway, I think lisab's quote is valuable.)
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  9. Sep 28, 2010 #8
    fossils=simple, living species=complex

    is really all the evidence you need o_o
  10. Sep 29, 2010 #9
    A simple way - would be to use in present day is to discuss why do resistant bacteria occur or why insects that were once susceptible to chemicals are now resistant. Or as recently as a year back the virus epidemic like H1N1.
  11. Sep 30, 2010 #10
    just tell him to have a little faith.
    After all, if god can evolve, so can humans.
  12. Nov 27, 2010 #11
    Ouabache started a topic about Neanderthals in “Social Sciences” that I participated in, mentioning there I would place in the “Biology” section information about them.:smile: I think this might be the best topic to present it. The National Human Genome Research Institute on May 2010: Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced- DNA Signatures Found in Present-Day Europeans and Asians, But Not In Africans.

    Enjoy the weekend everyone!

    That is silly nonsense! This is a science board. In the future please leave 'god" out of science discussions. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2010
  13. Nov 27, 2010 #12
    Creationists, following Lubenow in the creationist tirade Bones of Contention, tend to dismiss any talk of H. Neanderthalensis as "merely humans with rickets". However, the signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in many ways: people with rickets are often have weak bones due to calcium-deficiency, whereas the bones of Neanderthals are around 50% or so thicker than the average human. Rickets also tend to cause a sideways curvature of the femur, whereas Neanderthal femurs bend backward.

    The false notion that Neanderthals was "merely humans with rickets" probably came from creationists quoting Virchow out of context. Virchow merely stated that a particular Neanderthal fossil seemed to have had rickets as an early childhood (and other conditions such as arthritis in old age).
  14. Nov 27, 2010 #13
    The creationist "answer" to why so many scientists accept evolution has already been "provided" to them by "prominent" creationists such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham: scientists are predominantly atheists who need to come up with a way to explain away the existence of divine creator. In fact, many creationists argue, evolution was not first postulated by Darwin (it wasn't, Darwin was among the first to propose the mechanism of natural selection), but by the serpent, interpreted as Satan, in the Garden of Eden.

    According to Genesis 3:1-5 (KJV): Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    According to Hovind, the first word out of the mouth of the serpent was a question, a way to question and undermine the word and authority of the biblical god. Hovind continues and asserts that evolution states that humans started as slime, then became bigger, better, stronger and faster and that, and as Satan said, become like gods (compare this with the Aristotelian great chain of being). Since creationists think that evolution is incompatible with their faith, they can apparently draw no other conclusion than that evolution was invented by Satan in the Garden of Eden to tempt man to disobey the divine creator of all things.

    If a creationist has this perspective, then encouraging him or her to study the evidence may be felt like a temptation to disobey and sinning against the divine creator, who, according to biblical creationism, will judge every human at the end of life. Needless to say, this may provide some difficulties with your project. Furthermore, due to the strong cognitive biases inherent in creationism, chances are that the data that seems to the creationist to support creationism will be embraced, whereas the data that is inconsistent with creationism will be forgotten.
  15. Nov 28, 2010 #14
    RE: "That is silly nonsense! This is a science board. In the future please leave 'god" out of science discussions. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter."

    Maybe, in your science library, you have a dictionary. Look up the word..Sarcasm. Besides that, your sensitivity to this little quip reminds me of how much science and religion have in common...to the detriment of both. For example:

    A dogmatic belief in it's ultimate "rightness".

    The facts/beliefs are always right, until they change.

    We give you the questions, then we give you the answers.

    Prophecy and hypothesis are about the same, trying to predict the future, and when it's predicted wrong, we must have mis read the data/scripture.

    Dissenting views are punished until they are proven right, like the guy who proposed plate tectonics, or Darwin.

    So please, don't rag on me for being a skeptic, facts are facts...until they're proven wrong, and God is almighty...until you open a Bible.

    Now, back to your alter lackey!(please note: more sarcasm.)
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook