Immortal4life

While this is true, it is not only individuals which display certain ideas, preferences, trends, etc. You will find that people can be similar to each other depending on geographic location, culture, generation, etc. So it is not only individual humans that have their own karma, but nations, generations, and even genetic races of people.

Another article talking about Human Origins- http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ktmanual/kt-sons2.htm

No one person made it. Over time, as human civilization made more and more progress, and understood more things about Nature, it just came to be understood in the general population.

I like your perspective. A lot of people don't want to distiguish between micro and macro evolution. They just brush it off and say "it's just the same thing on a different scale, there is no macro or micro evolution, it's all just evolution". I can't just brush off this distinction though. People knew about breeding long before Darwin. Changes in Micro evolution can be observed and seen by anyone. The best example I can think of at the moment is a Wolf compared to a Chihuahua. Obviously genetic changes can cause change in structure and appearance. However, a Chihuahua is still a dog. So I am certainly not convinced that genetic mutations, or breeding, combined with Natural Selection are an adequate explanation of all the different lifeforms on Earth, and how they all fit into the Circle of Life perfectly with each other. There has to be something more to it, something scientists have not identified.

Pineal Gland- So the way the Third Eye works and is constructed is definitely a good way to distinguish a human from an animal. Animals, usually have elongated skulls, and often have brow ridges. One theory is that the brow ridges are not optimal for humans, and could prevent opening of the Third Eye center to the highest levels. Although, that is not to say that animals don't have any third eye abilities. I definitelely believe our current form has to do with the functioning of the Chakras and Energy centers.

It's just bonus material, extras. Also, many threads end up going off the main subject a little bit and into related areas. So what becomes apparent, is that all these fossils that were at one time claimed to be ancestors of humans, have ultimately proven to not be.

Some of the arguments being made here are going too far, and contribute to the phenomena in science that is known as the Knowledge Filter bias. What happens when a theory becomes too prominent is that the researchers get tunnel vision and they end up discarding evidence against their theory out of hand, simply labeling it "anamolous evidence" and ignoring it or explaining it away with frivilous superficial arguments and excuses. In the end they end up ignoring almost as much "Anomalous Evidence" as they have evidence to support whatever particular theory they subscribe to.

I bet if I wrote it you would spend a long time researching it, trying to find any source which might disagree with me. lol jk

Safe bets are never fun....so we will see.

Often when a specific peice of evidence is said to support a particual theory, what really happened was that the piece of evidence failed to falsify the particular theory it allegedly concerns. Often scientists say a theory is supported, because it hasn't been able to have been falsified or disproven.

I am sure there will be more relation between some religions than there are between Humans and Apes.

Here's the thing. In science you can never prove anything for 100% sure. You can support a theory, but you can't prove. You can however, disprove, or falsify something beyond any doubt.

The connections between various beliefs and religions is something to look into, to discuss at some point.

Technically Islam is an Abrahamic religion and therefore the same concept and Deity as Christianity, Judaism, and possibly any other religion in the world that speaks of a "One God".

Regardless of the existence of a specific philosophy called "Social Darwinism", Darwinism itself always has social implications. Don't be naive.

I think there was a Chimp who ripped a person's jaw off

Domination theory? If Evolution is true than one of the main purposes of Human life is to dominate on other Humans, and to dominate Nature. The goal of life is to dominate, be an alpha human, use others for personal gain, pleasure, and gaining power. Survival of the strong, destruction of the weak.

Certainly Human beings have many capabilities, abilities, and freedoms. It is an interesting subject to think about the mechanics of movement or running, etc. I'm not sure I would say Humans are built to run. Perhaps built to be able to run. If what you are talking about is the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Evolution Myth though, that is not true. The Man the hunter evolution myth was already completely debunked by the 1990s. Even evolutionists themselves have abandoned the theory that humans evolved to be long distance runners on the African plains throwing spears around and slaughtering animals. It in no way explains human intelligence nor does it explain how Human Beings could have derived from Apes. Also, think about it, red meat generally has many drawbacks and potential to damage health in humans too. Not someting humans would have evolved to eat as a primary food source, or something that could make their brans triple in size in a relatively tiny amount of time. That is ridiculous. Humans are simply a versatile being designed to be able to take in as many things as possible, but only as a last resort if necessary.

Evolution means change over time in the most general sense and most basic dictionary definition. The "Theory of Evolution", and the Neo-Darwinian view of Evolution is another matter. Evolution theory claims that Genetic Mutations combined with the so-called natural selection can make one animal become another animal. I do not believe the evidence supports this as an adequate explanation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FriFgkPUq08&feature=related

Even if a graph is based on some sort of supposed data, that still does not mean you can argue for the authenticity of the graph based on the formation of the graph. The graph still can not be used as it's own validation.

No, the research cited in the Jerusalem Post is the same research cited in this thread. It rules out A. Aferensis and A. Africanus as human ancestors. They are just extinct Apes.

No it doesn't. You can't use the evolutionist's conclusion as support for their conclusion. That's circular logic. The fact that they created a chart, doesn't make the chart necessarily true. The existence of the chart can't be used as evidence supporting the chart.

I have pointed out several differences in Anatomy distinguishing Human Beings from Apes. You can classify different alleged "lineages" any way you want. You can say that monkeys are a "different" line than apes. But it's meaningless because if you go back far enough, evolutionists claim all species are of the same line eventually. So you can say that Monkeys and Apes are different so called "branches". I will say that Humans and Apes are different "branches".