|This site is in constant flux due to inflowing information - please be aware that changes occur constantly and some pages may not be finished even though they are partially displayed. 2/25/2015 is the date I started compiling these data.|
-- When did we cut our tails
-- This may be the answer
-- There will not be a "planet of the apes" anytime soon
-- Geology_or_faith -- Why not both
-- Was it the Red sea or the Reed Sea
original question "when did we loose our tails" led me to the more
important question - when did we loose our hair.
For instance I have read that humans have more body hair than gorillas but because it is so fine it is hardly noticeable.
If you notice in all the wildlife documentaries of hominids the babies are hanging onto the mothers with hands and feet, sometimes hanging upside down as she walks on all fours. It is known that bi-pedal walking started 3-7 million years ago based on fossil foot bones which shows the opposed toe has moved to the walking position as opposed to the grappling position of tree dwellers. So rather than the tail question the real question might need to be Ė when did our ancestors loose their hair so that babies had to be carried in their arms or they figured out how to design a carrier for them.
I ask the tail question facetiously because according to some anthropologist and especially Darwin, a species can modify itself just by wanting to - in all the digging done around the globe they have never found an indication that those at the root of our tree had tails, so when did the ancestors decide that we did not need a tail? It must have been when they decided to modify their skeletons so they could walk upright, and modified their feet and hips to make walking and running more efficient, and modify the skull so it fits directly over the spine which allows a good upright posture.
If you note a bit of skepticism in my comment that's because I am very skeptical of such illogical statements. Folks it turns out that our species of Primates which include chimps, gorillas and orangutans never had tails. It is as if JC's Father already had our design planed. So even though we think we are at the top of the food chain now, I have this idea that we are still in flux and only God knows where we are headed.
Man has wanted to fly since observing birds so if modification could be done when wanted then I think we would all have wings, flying would surely be preferable to walking around on the ground being eaten from ambush, and flying is much faster; and shouldn't we see like a cat at night to help prevent sneak attacks -- yes I do think that supposition is total nonsense.
We are even told that some of our early
cousins had larger brains than we do today. Uh-huh,
and after 8 million years trying here we are, without wings, can't
see in the dark and have no claws or saber teeth.
But our ancestors were tenacious, we are here, so smile because
walking isn't so bad and we do have fire and lights for the dark and
airplanes to fly in and guns for protection. Folks
modification is all in the DNA and can't be willed to change, if it
were so then I would be in perfect health today and might decide to
live at least 2,000 years longer because given the industrial changes of the last
1,000 years, perhaps by that time we might be traveling the stars.
Concerning everything in the following commentary: I have just
learned that it was in the Miocene that apes evolved without tails.
In one video I watched the narrator suggest that it was in this
period that upright walking developed.
To learn more search for the "Miocene epoch" lots of images of the Fauna. The Miocene is dated from 23.03 to 5.333 myr.
Primate fossils are common from the Miocene. However, not all primates are equally represented in the fossil record. Apes apparently [presumed to have] evolved from monkeys early in this epoch. Fossil monkeys and prosimians are comparatively rare from most of the Miocene, but apes are common. It appears that apes at that time occupied some ecological niches that would later be filled by monkeys. One of the earliest of the monkey to ape transitional primates was Proconsul. It lived in African forests 21-14 million years ago.
Among the numerous Miocene primate species were the ancestors of all modern apes and humans. By 14 million years ago, the group of apes that included our ancestors was apparently in the process of adapting to life on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe. They were very likely members of the genus Dryopithecus, which were generally similar in appearance to modern African apes. These apes evolved mostly during a relatively short global heat wave that began around 15 million years ago. This caused enough polar ice to melt so that sea levels once again rose 80-130 feet.
Toward the end of the Miocene, less hospitable cooler conditions in the northern hemisphere once again caused many primate species to become extinct while some survived by migrating south into Africa and South Asia where the weather remained relatively warm. About 8-9 million years ago, the descendants of the dryopithecines in Africa diverged into two lines -- one that led to gorillas and another to humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos. Around 7 million years ago, a further divergence occurred which separated the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and bonobos from the early hominines (human-like primates) that were our direct ancestors.
Even though science has declared all primate DNA to be
"close", nature itself has declared that we are not the same and
there will be no mixing of DNA - thank goodness there will not be a
"planet of the apes" anytime soon.
This all may seem like a contradiction to
Christian scripture but I personally do not doubt Christian
Scripture that God made man in His image, but how many design did He
toss out before our latest version and when and even where. Scripture
says He used a rib from Adam to Make Adam's help mate Eve, but there
is no hint at what He started with when He made Adam.
Some believe the flood was a correction by God because He was
exasperated with His first design.
I am caught between geology-archeology, and the statements
In my own way I will try to connect the question of faith and
geology for this site does not
question faith, but I hope to reconcile the relation between faith and that which appears logical to a mere
For instance geology and logic tells us that it took billions of years for the physical conditions that we see to have formed. We were in Washington State when Mt. St. Helens blew its top, we witnessed the massive mud flow away from the mountain and the news has shown us the changes of the resulting aftermath. So I conclude for myself that the statement from the bible ("one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" 2 Peter 3:8) has been interpreted literally by many, yet I accept that God, being capable of manipulating the universe by a thought is obviously capable of every feat, that He made earth and all living things on earth in 7 days per the text, yet no where is there stated an explicit ratio of human time to Godís time, since God is infinite, the passage might just as well have read "a million or even a billion human years". Therefore, the Bible provides reason why both the Bible and the geologist are correct and as far as we humans know He may still be making the earth and things on it.
Therefore, I contend a thousand was a huge number for people who counted their flocks by a few tens, and had not yet fathomed the concept of a million and certainly not a billion, they had no need to understand such a large count. Therefore, in a time when man had not yet invented the wheel, a thousand was chosen because it was understood by all, so it was wise for the writer to use the value of a thousand while trying to explain an unfathomable number. Our ancestors certainly were looking at the night sky but they must have realized that understanding it was beyond comprehension, we certainly can't admonish them because for one we still can't control gravity, and neither do we have a star gate.
Sea - a mistranslation:
As an example, for 400 years to present we were taught, in the truest sincerity, the story of Moses parting the "RED SEA" - it turns out that this was translated from Greek which was translated from Hebrew, but a re-translation of the original Hebrew gives a corrected translation of "REED SEA". The Reed Sea is/was a tidal marsh near the Mouth of the Nile, and when the tide is out it can be walked across. Pharaoh's forces were probably crossing when the tide came in and Moses no doubt knew this all along, setting a trap for Pharaoh's troops. There is no description of Moses - no one knows his actual likeness.
To the contrary, there is even controversy concerning the translation of Yum Suph for the word Yum is also spelled Yam. In any case there is no consensus on the translation and there is also much controversy on the location of the nearby cities, so that tracing the exodus route has been and will probably remain an unknown. It is possible that in the final analysis it will be Red Sea. It is the curse of science to endeavor to render the physical understandable to our inadequate human capability. Even scientist tend to render themselves inadequate when pride and ego is involved.
Find a factual error or make a comment please