RufusAtticus

Unworthyone,

Deb (Ergaster) will give you the best answer with respect to this topic. She is a grad student (currently on hiatus) studying the evolution of man and a Christian to boot. I have notified her of your question and perhaps we'll get an answer this weekend.

Everyone,

Let's keep the emotions in check. UWO appears to be trying to keep it civil. We should too.

-RvFvS

unworthyone

Thank you Rufus. I'm here merely to challenge you and myself. Not to make enemies.

Viti

Of course you are right Rufus and I apologize for being rude. I am glad you found someone who can help this young person.

BTW, here is a good link. It comes from the position that Neanderthals are a sub species of homo sapiens (homo sapiens neanderthalensis). There is some debate as some feel they were a separate but parallel species (homo neanderthalensis).

<a href="http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skulls/h_neanderthalensis.htm" target="_blank">http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skulls/h_neanderthalensis.htm</a>

unworthyone

But I ask again. Please, anybody, show me somewhere I can go they you truely believe is credible that I havent already learned in High School/Some College.

unworthyone

Thanks LadyShea.

Now from what do they draw that any of these skulls are not all human or not all apes?

And then secondly, beyond the skulls of "man" is there any evidence of an in-between being from the basic cell to the oldest known and collected skull?

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Viti

I'm not a scientist...so my answers are from a layperson's understanding based on limited research...is that okay for the sake of conversation?

From what I understand, humans are a species of ape. Neanderthals are not considered any type of "missing link", they are considered humans.

Now, whether they were a subspecies of modern human or a separate species is in debate. Looking within the rest of the ape world, you have Bonobos and Chimpanzees; they are classified as two subspecies of the same species which is a close cousin of other apes including humans.

Your next question is far too broad. There are very specific conditions required for fossilization...it is to be expected that there is not an unbroken line.

unworthyone

Ok cool. Thanks for your first answer.

But I might ask that what makes a "dinosaur bone" for example much more apt to survive then another bone?

I'm seeing dates in excess of billions of years but we can't even find a man beyond a couple million years. Are their bones made up of undecaying matter? I don't know, it just sounds like all guesswork???

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

Viti

Man and dinosaurs did not coexist....man is a far more recent product of evolution.

It is not guesswork at all...if an animal or human dies in the open, exposed to the elements, the body decomposes very fast and there is nothing left to fossilize. If another organism is trapped and covered in some fashion (LaBrea tar pits, volcanic ash, falling through ice, mudslide, etc.) the body is protected and decomposes much more slowly allowing it to be preserved or cause an imprint.

unworthyone

Yeah thats what I mean. It's obvious to an extent they did not co-exist, but the problem is how are they able to find all those dinosaur bones (thousands at that) and not ape bones (for an example) between the dinosaur and the oldest known human ancestor?

Viti

IIRC the consensus is the dinosaurs were wiped out quickly and their extinction involved big time (and fast) natural catastrophe. For instance an 15 mile diameter asteroid striking in the ocean, off say the Yucatan Peninsula would likely cause world wide quakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides etc...burying numerous animals where they stood. The survivors of this catastrophe would be smaller organisms which eventually evolved into humans