APE- MEN. Where are they? who are they?

Question

What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

Answer 1

'All' data re; Ape evolving into Man is pure assumption, and all the blue lines ( wikopedia and the likes) which supporters of the view put up as proof is absolute c**p. There has 'never' been any inbetween skeletal remains found 'ever', and there never will be because there are none to be found.

There is much more proof for the biblical story, and if I was forced to get my ar's off the fence this would get my vote, but I keep an open mind.

Answer 2

Humans ARE apes, a particular species of ape.

My, you certainly like to quote really old sources, don't you? We've learned a bit since then.

Ever watch shows like Bones, for instance? They can take a skelaton, and, by analyzing it in detail, see how and where the muscles attached, and can now do a much better job of saying what the face was like.

It's no longer just guesswork or whimsy, but there are people who've done some pretty solidly-based reconstructions. Of course, we can't know EXACTLY what various peoples looked like on their way to becoming humans.

I don't know if current school textbooks use the "guesswork" drawings, or the better drawings.

Yes, texts present evolution as fact, because it IS fact. That we don't know exactly what people looked like is irrelevant to the basic concept.

The question of the origin of the species HAS been settled, in pretty good, though not complete detail; they're still working on it.

If you were interested in understanding evolution, here's some web sites that talk about it:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bein...

There are also a lot of books ont he subject.

Answer 3

unfortunately, many in the scientific community have fallen for Darwins lie that man evolved from apes, this is not true! man was created by God roughly 10,000 years ago. we did not evolve from some primordial soup that just happened to appear on earth. it is truely a shame to see how far man has fallen that we would accept that we just happened to turn out this way and that we were not created in this amazing form. it really makes you think how stupid the scientific community really is!

Answer 4

Your argument is entirely one sided, that they depict "ape-men" as more apish.  In fact they probably err on the more human appearance than the other way around.  You are biased by completely superficial differences.   We get their basic form from fossils but fill in the gaps about behavior and superficial things like skin color and amount of hair.  There is a bias in paleontology to make "ape-men" more like modern humans.  It increases their value to be human ancestors rather than just bipedal "apes" like the Australopithecines would be perceived by most people.  Even though the exact human lineage is uncertain, because of scarce fossils, the farther back you go, the less humanlike all the hominin fossils are.  Then you are left with the undeniable close relative Chimps, which aren't humans but like humans are also apes.

Answer 5

ape_men were made so that people can believe that humans evolved and that there is no god so they don't have to feel that they have a responsibility to act right towards god