How do you explain the cave men if you think they ever existed?

In what era did they live?

what do you mean by this? historcial era’s?

Preflood era if historical in my opinion.

Well they weren’t actually cavemen. For most of the earliest parts of human evolution they did not live in caves. What makes them ape-men were differences in the way their feet and legs were structured, the area where their spines connected to the heads were at a different angle, they had larger canines like apes, generally longer arms. These are just some of the things that make them ancestors of us, not the places in which they lived.

Most of them were extict apes please lolz.

Yes apes that used weapons, walked upright and liked their food cooked…

Australopithecine had none of these traits.

And I agree with you, a lot of them were extinct apes. The rest turned in to humans.

And when you get to the later species’ in the Homo group?

If your talking about the homo species then you will find they buried their dead and played muscial instruments sound human to me.

I’m not talking about Homo Sapien, I am talking about Homo erectus, homo habilus etc.

Did you know that the nobel prize winner in 1926 had a brain near the average size(slightly above) showing that a bigger brain does not mean a smarter one(slightly off topic)

Actually it may of been 1922 not sure.

No I did not know that. But brain size is one of many differences between ape-men and modern humans, as I mentioned before.

that begs the question, why did selective evolution processes select a bigger brain to a smaller brain if there was no real increase in IQ.

“Physical anthropologist John Relethford acknowledges that ‘Although their brain size was somewhat smaller than ours today, Homo erectus had an essentially human skeleton from the neck down, made sophisticated stone tools, and possibly used fire.’55 The ability to make sophisticated stone tools indicates that a smaller brain size was no barrier to erectus possessing human intelligence. It should be remembered that Anatole France, who had a brain size of about 1,000 cm3, only fractionally above the erectus average, won the 1921 Nobel Prize for Literature.56 Hence, why would evolution (if it could) bother developing a larger brain, at great cost, when it would provide no obvious extra benefit to that of a smaller brain? Evolution is supposedly all about adaptive value of new novelties (a minute few of which may confer some benefit) that are believed to be randomly generated by freakishly improbable genetic mutations. Hence, if a larger brain has no apparent adaptive value, then clearly it could not evolve even if evolution was possible.”Here’s the article about him creation.com.

Generally species with larger brains in relation to body size are smarter. Just because the difference between individuals within a species does not relate to brain size that much, differences between species is a good indicator of intelligence.

The above quote and research shows that if every person had their brain weighed are results would be all over the place because of are inheirtence of traits and loss of infomation in the geneome contary to we evolved I thought everyone would of had an increased brain size If it had apparent value. This is not the case.

Firstly evolution is not driven by mutations. Go read The Origin of Species please! The mutation theory of evolution was disproved a long time ago.

There are also other benefits of having a larger brain. For instance a larger brain can handle damage better. Our brains often have the ability to do something even after that part of the brain was damaged. What was once done by one part is then done by another part.

By explaining how there were never such thing as cavemen. This was made up by evolutionists who claimed that we learned intelligence as humans. The whole living in caves, wielding a big club, clothed in jaguar fur is a myth.

“Firstly evolution is not driven by mutations. Go read The Origin of Species please!”Search evolution, scroll down and you will see wikipedia click scroll down again you will see mutations as a sub heading.

wow I accidentallyliked, lol.

I like the fact that you changed Wikipedia’s info from 30% having mutations to freakishly small chances of there being mutations.

But the mutations I am speaking of is like this. Both siblings have exactly the same parents, yet one sibling is naturally healthier due to better genes. No major mutations or anything. Simply luck. Without modern medicines the one survives and the other doesn’t. That is what its about.

“yet one sibling is naturally healthier due to better genes” Why is he healtheir? is it because he did not have a mutation and his brother did? lol.

OK have to go, need to sleep and prepare for science test.

Sri, what is it about cave men that you’d like to have explained?

That could be part of the reason. A part of our evolution was less mutation. Other animals did better by more mutations, like viruses.

Nice way of avoiding my statement by the way…

neanderthals did exist and they say that us homo sapiens still have some neanderthal genes. i work, bring back food and women cook. sound familiar? :p

they lived in ice age europe so 120,000 odd years ago..

neanderthals were the fist i think they say moden human so i think this is what you mean and they needed weapons, sticks and clubs to catch and kill their food.

it was on a documentary i watched.

Just to add to Matts answer. You can prove Neanderthals are true as they’ve found skeletons to say how much the human body has changed since then. they’ve been found all over European countries like this picture which compares a “modern human” to a “neanderthal” skull http://funadvice.com/r/14si4g15pv8

The thing is that mutations are the driving dorce of evolution and natural selection is thought force of evolution if this above statement is true then the whole theory actually dies.

It’s funny because that was an reconstruction of a skull that was damaged and not in full.

I wonder why? lolzzzzzzzzzz

Did they really exist? And why religion is so hard denying it if science can prove it so clearly?

Ok this is what I keep trying to explain to kids, this is why history is so important. Read up on Copernicus and why he was put in ja.il. Religion attempting to deny scientific fact goes back centuries. People refusing to see truth right in front of them also goes back centuries.

it does not mean that the proof is not relevant.

Actually it does because the skull was not in whole, sometimes even they can do recontructions with only one bone to work with.After all it could of been an nomal human with a back problem or a rare disease.

Logicalreasoning, Were Adam and Eve black like african, white like european, yellow like Chinese or Brown like India? When actually their grand grand grand children separated into 4 or more colours?

I don’t think there is any scriptural evdence for knowing adam and eve’s skin colour but Ham was black so I’m guessing adam and eve were mixed.

I know ham is back from his name meaning in hebrew and it’s connections.

Sorry, LR, but Ham’s name does not tell us his skin color. It simply means warm, or hot. Sometimes the sun is called by that same name.

logicalreasoning, it does not matter what colour they were. The fact is now there are a variety of different colours.

‘logicalreasoning, it does not matter what colour they were. The fact is now there are a variety of different colours.’What? I was answering her question, in fact the follwing question. “Were Adam and Eve black like african, white like european, yellow like Chinese or Brown like India?”

“Sorry, LR, but Ham’s name does not tell us his skin color. It simply means warm, or hot. Sometimes the sun is called by that same name.”I’m not great with orgins of words and the manner they used them but I was just offering my opinion for this question.

I think that for at least a few hundred years we humans have been struggling to reconcile two different ways that we experience and understand ourselves and our world: spiritually and materially. Some people think the two are incompatible, and so they choose either anti-religious science or anti-scientific religion. I think both those choices are wrong, because our collective experience really does include both aspects, so we must be able to include both in our worldview.

LR, I do not seek for opinion, I want factual answer. Thanks for trying though.

“LR, I do not seek for opinion, I want factual answer. Thanks for trying though.”It’s an opinion based fact.

Belief is a very powerful thing in us humans and most of the time we believe in lies that men want us to believe in. Radio Carbon dating and other dating tools of man are only as good as man is. Men aren’t even good enough to know what happened ten years ago let alone 150,000 years ago. That’s easily seen by the 9/11 attacks in New York and the Pentagon. No one seems to know the truth about it so how are men going to know the truth about things that are older than ten years ago?