"
Theorizing that the first people on earth (Africans) originated from non-human ancestors of African monkeys and apes is based on what evidence? The human fossil record shows no evidence in support of such racist beliefs."
Since you contend that the bones are a matter of contention, then let's stick with other evidence. I pick genetics.
Now we have a whole thread here
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html
where I present the genetic evidence that we share a common ancestry with the other apes.
Now I know that you have see nthe thread because you popped in several times with such stinging zingers as "
Genetic BALONEY!"
Now what you never actually did was give us a competing theory.
That thread presents data from dozens and dozens of different genes and other types of genetic material. When you look at the distribution of the material and the mutations within that material, you consistently get essentially the same set of phylogenic trees.
One reference talks about retroviral DNA inserts. The author makes the statement that because the insertion of such segments is completely random, that if two species share the same insert and the same location they MUST be related through common ancestry.
Humans share many such insertions with the other apes. In addition, the pattern of mutations in the inserts matches all of the other phylogenic trees.
Now you can spout off all of the nonsense phrases that you want. You can call names. You can refer us back to Lub and his excellent book which seems to have no actual claims or references that you can share with us. (I have this mental image of Lub repeating the word "racist" for 400 pages.)
But what you nor any other YEer or IDer can do is to give us some other reason than common descent why we should observe what we do in the genetics of humans and the other apes.
All of the various kinds of shared genetic material with its pattern of accumulated mutations leads to only one conclusion, IMHO. Do you have another explantion? Is it testable? Is it falsifiable? Can you give one that is not ad hoc? Can you give one that is not arbitrary? Can you give one that is not specious? Can you give one that is not capricious?
I'll answer for you.
No, No, No, No, No, No and No.
There is no other logical answer than common descent. NONE. If there were, someone would have suggested it by now.
You have been playing your games, repeating the same catch phrases, making the same assertions and never backing up anything for months now. Do you have an answer to real data or will you just keep parroting the same junk here (and how many other places you do this I hate to venture a guess -
http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html ).
A real answer? A real debate? Real data? Or just the same old stuff?
I'll make a prediction. There is no YE answer to the genetic record so you'll be forced to keep parrotting the same old tired lines and assertions without ever giving us facts and references to support them.
). I've skimmed through the first few chapters and am not especially impressed. Right now he's trying to say that the Neanderthals were actually human, despite the fact that they used only the most rudimentary of tools throughout their existence and don't have the type of culture that is seen in even the most primitive human societies. He seems to be proposing that their unusual skull structure is a function of using their jaws as a tool to hold objects while manipulating them, saying that tooth damage seen in Neanderthals is similar to that seen in Eskimos who use their teeth similarly. Unfortunately, you don't manage to reshape your entire face and skull by using your teeth as a clamp--you just get bad teeth.