I was told this by a paleontologist.  Is it true?  Why?
200894
by primitive and advanced, a paleontologist doesn't mean the same thing as one normally thinks of when you hear 'primitive' or 'advanced'.\n\nPrimitive means closer to the ancestral form, unmodified from that which has been inherited through phylogeny.  A more proper term would be plesiomorphic.  Two groups which share a plesiomorphic trait, such as five fingers, would be synplesiomorphic, suggesting that those lineages inherited the trait from a common ancestor.  For example, bats, humans, tree frogs and monitor lizards would share the synplesiomorphy of five digits on the forelimb.  This trait can be traced back to the Rhipidistian Sarcopterygian fish.  Primitive does not mean inferior, only that it has not been modified from the ancestral state.\n\nAdvanced, derived or synapomorphous traits are ones that have been modified from the ancestral condition.  The two digits of the T. rex are highly derived from the original five digit condition.  So is the two foreclaws possessed by the two-toed sloth.  These traits, although highly derived, so not share a similar phylogenetic origin.  They also are not necessarily superior to five gigits, or 'more evolved', they are simply an adaptation in that lineage that has taken place that is different that the adaptations that earlier organisms in that lineage possessed.\n\nThe reason we (and all tetrapods) have five digits as a primitive trait is due to the fin structure of that first fishie that started wandering out on land and becoming the first amphibian.  Those Sarcopterygians had a number of bony ossicles in their loby fins that helped provide some support to their fleshy fins as they pushed their way onto land.  It just happened that those ossicles were arranged in more or less five rows, and these rows eventually became adapted to become the digits of our ancestral amphibian great-grandparents.  Had we evolved from the Actinopterygians (ray-finned fish), perhaps we'd have thirty or forty fingers.  Who knows?
577412
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
325796
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past! \nBy the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
227955
I believe the (scientific) jury is still out on this one.  From what I have read, many (most) later Neanderthal skulls have been found broken by blunt objects.  Many researchers think they were killed by modern humans.  On the other hand, there was a overlap of time by at least a few thousand years where the did co-exist, apparently peacefully.  Some think that their genes simply were absorbed into the larger gene pool of modern humans, but from what I understand there is little evidence for this.\n\nLet me know if you come up with other info.
451965
It doesn't.  The dinosaurs existed millions of years before mankind. They died off around 65 million years ago.
324699
>>>>are they really the missing link?\n\nNo, and nobody but Christians have claimed that they were for almost 100 years. Scientists know that Neanderthals  and modern humans shared a very recent common ancestor. They were a sister species to our own. They were not ancestral to modern humans.\n\n\n>>>>did they suffer from rickets? Why or why not?\n\nSome of them certainly did suffer from rickets. Before the invention of modern medicine it was normal for a high proportion of people in Northern Europe to suffer from rickets and Neanderthals were not immune.\n\nRickets is a disease of the bones caused by a vitamin deficiency. That vitamin can be manufactured by the body if it has enough sunlight, but in cold climates people wrap themselves up in clothing for months on end and never get any sun exposure. The result is rickets. Rickets can also be avoided by eating fish oil, but people in areas away from the sea never had access to seafood in winter and so commonly suffered the effects of rickets.\n\n>>>>why were they bent over?\n\nThey weren't in any way bent over. Neanderthals walked as upright as you or I. Even the common ancestor of us and the Neanderthals walked perfectly upright. You need to go at least as far back as Homo habilis before humans walked with even a slightly stooped posture.\n\nThe belief that Neanderthals walked with a stooped posture was the result of insufficient data. Nobody but Christian fundamentalists has believed it for the last 60 years\n\nOne of the first Neanderthal skeletons found, dubbed "The Old Man of la Chapel le" was one of those individuals who suffered form rickets, and in the form he had it caused bow legs and a stooped posture. Because it was the only Neanderthal skeleton available it was assumed that all Neanderthals looked like that. Since then hundreds of other Neanderthal skeleton form perfectly healthy individuals have been found. Most were in no way stooped.\n\n>>>What diseases may they have sufered from?\n\nWell, rickets, obviously.\n\nAnother Neanderthal skeleton showed severe signs of a disease called herpevitaminosis A. That is caused by eating the livers of carnivores like bears and dogs and causes the skin to fall off and the bones to grow lumps. Very unpleasant.\n\nNeanderthals also commonly suffered from injuries associated with hunting and broken bones, arthritis and similar stress injuries were common.\n\nAside from those diseases Neanderthals presumably suffered from all the normal Eurasian diseases: influenza, colds, food poisoning, typhoid, giadiarisis and so forth. However such diseases don't leave evidence in bones so we can not know for certain. But Neanderthals were so closely related to us that they probably suffered form most of the same diseases that existed at that time.
455055
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
571085
My grandmother, who is hardcore Southern Baptist, says the dinosaurs did not exist ever, that they were just bones planted by someone to support a fantasy. She also doesn't believe space exists.... I don't ask her questions anymore.
240459
It is a myth....a bedtime story.  The Earth was formed over millions of years.
448024
They were right to, though maybe for the wrong reason\n\nC14 has a half-life of only 5700 years.  Which means that if you are testing anything, more than, say, 100,000 years old, there is not enough C14 for you to assay accurately.  Dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 years ago.  There are other dating methods you can use, but not C14.\n\nSecond, C14 only works on things that were once alive, like bones, or wood.  You would never use it directly on a footprint, though maybe you could test something that you found at the same strata, and therefore had reason to think was the same age as your footprint.\n\nIf you want a good, scientifically accurate article about radiometric dating, the following was put out by an association of scientists who are also Christians.\n\nhttp://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
330106
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
672052
I have studied this topic for nearly 4 years. I believe it is less than 7,000 years. I had trouble with this until I saw how things are dated. Then I knew that there was no "proof" of anything over  about 5500 years old. Every thing over that age, whether 20,000 years or 4.5 billion years is speculation. I have worked in the science industry for about 30 years. I know my way around a lab. I certainly don't know everything, but I know these old dates given to fossils and rocks are speculation. Recent discoveries in DNA and Micro-biology have placed serious doubt in a lot of scientist minds about evolution. I know for a fact that creation is debated by scientists daily. Many can no longer support theories once held by the majority.
305302
If there was a worldwide flood, there should be layers of rock that could be determined to be pre-flood, a layer laid down during the flood, and layers that are post-flood. With all the "Creation Scientists" looking for some type of evidence to support their notions that there was a global flood, not one has found anything remotely close to the sequence I stated.
460635
"Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life."\n\nI assume it is the phrase "largely fortuitous" that Wells objects to. Arguably, this opinion is more philosophical than scientific (though it's also arguable that it isn't). Still, one phrase in one quote in an interview that is peripheral to the main text hardly seems worth getting overexcited about. It doesn't mean that the treatment of evolution, or of human evolution, in that textbook is not accurate.
408560
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
594070
No.\nAlthough,I can't prove that it isn't possible...however,science has it's flaws-millions of years ago certainly does sound extremely distant!
556132
Nope, not a dead issue at all. The few biologists who take the tale seriously theorize that Big Foot could be a surviving species that existed on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. Reconstructions based on the numerous fossils of this creature show it to be a good candidate for Big Foot. The ancient creature was named Gigantopithecus. See this website for more info, plus a great picture of what it looked like (about 1/2 way down the page) -------- http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/comp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html&h=402&w=215&sz=11&tbnid=AYXB1v_DV49rHM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=64&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgigantopithecus&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1