Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In order to have an absolutely complete record of recent human evolution you would need to have tens of thousands of generations represented in the fossil record. When you consider the fact that it's actually a rare event when a plant or animal dies in circumstances that are ideal for preserving the remains as a fossil then you can understand that it's often difficult to connect the lineage from one particular ancient fossil to one that's more recent. Nevertheless we do have a substantial fossil record for human beings as well as most other living things so your claim that the theory of evolution is collapsing is completely false. Every year more fossil material is added to the hundreds of thousands that already exist as new excavations and discoveries are made. Journalists do a poor job of explaining this to the public because they tend to use phrases to grab our attention and often exaggerate the importance of a particular discovery before scientists have even had a chance to seriously evaluate it.
It would be wonderful if every single one of my ancestors going back to the beginning of life itself would have been preserved as a fossil because all of our questions would be answered and we could see exactly how life evolved and all of the twists and turns that evolution took before the rise of modern man. Unfortunately we'll never have a complete record but like it or not the evidence for evolution grows stronger all the time as more discoveries are made and your hangup about the phrase "missing link" is really of no importance at all.
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins points out, that with the absence of fossils that would prove evolution, the idea of evolution represents nothing more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Another words, a Fairy Tale
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1985, p.325
"It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrean, for they all (APPEAR FULLY FORMED, WITHOUT INTERMEDIATES CONNECTING ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.")
Another words, life did not evolve, it was (FULLY FORMED FROM THE BEGINNING).
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
"You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived. I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Another words, there are no (substantial fossils) that support evolution.
And this is why Henry Gee of Nature Magazine states, the idea of a missing link is (BUNK).
And I don't have a hang up with missing links, that term came from believers in Evolution, and it is still used today. Henery Gee, and Bernard Wood of George Washington University spoke of missing links just in recent times. Please, don't blame me for their quotes.
I'm sure she doesn't. I seriously doubt any of the anti-evolutioners (made up word. I don't care) could even explain to us what evolution is and how it works if their lives depended on it. Not without using Google.
Saying dumb things like "well why doesn't my dog turn into a cat" is proof of this.
It's funny one of the flat-earthers here is making a pathetic attempt to dismiss eviloution using science.
We don't have to dismiss evolution, your own people are doing it for us. S.M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS)...
Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News. The remarkable complex forms of animals we see today (SUDDENLY APPEARED). He states this all took place during the Cambrian Period.
So many in science today are beginning to put it all together, and the belief that we all evolved, is now being exposed as nonsense.
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N.H. Darwin prophesied that future generations of paleontological research would fill in the gaps by diligent search...
"The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
I would not sweat the dog and cat arguement. I would be more worried about what your own people are now saying.
Then it must be you who is suffering from tunnel vision, because it was Bernard Wood, of George Washington University that stated that the Toumai skull was not a (MISSING LINK).
My point exactly. You believe and trumpet anything that you think supports your position, as ridiculous as that position is.
As has been explained to you time and time again, there is no specific missing link (except possibly you). Subtle changes occur slowly, over time. Not an example of every fossil change has been found or is expected to be found.
BTW, you now support a 15000 year old earth instead of your precious 6000 year old earth. Have you started to realize that your sources (the buybull) are wrong or in your own in-errancy are you trying to change what you consider to be history?
Either way, you continue to make a fool of yourself.
We don't have to dismiss evolution, your own people are doing it for us. S.M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS)...
Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News. The remarkable complex forms of animals we see today (SUDDENLY APPEARED). He states this all took place during the Cambrian Period.
So many in science today are beginning to put it all together, and the belief that we all evolved, is now being exposed as nonsense.
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N.H. Darwin prophesied that future generations of paleontological research would fill in the gaps by diligent search...
"The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
I would not sweat the dog and cat arguement. I would be more worried about what your own people are now saying.
Can you tell me, at a basic level, how evolution works and what triggers it? Yes or no? Go ahead and use Google if you have to. Maybe you'll actually learn something.
Millions of scientist all agree on evolution. It's as close to a scientific fact as gravity. There's only, like, a mountain of evidence that supports it being true, which is more than can be said for your book of fables.
No, scientist aren't doing your work for you.
I'm not even sure you understand any of it, since you can't even seem to show us you have a basic understanding of how evolution works
You're just another poster boy for why religion is bad. Seeing some of the garbage you and some of you fellow ilk post makes me proud to be an atheist
Quote-mining, are we? All the while ignoring the insightful post of GCSTroop? My guess is that you made a google search and are now pillaging a creationist quote-mining website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins points out, that with the absence of fossils that would prove evolution, the idea of evolution represents nothing more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Source? Exact quote in context?
Quote:
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1985, p.325
"It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrean, for they all (APPEAR FULLY FORMED, WITHOUT INTERMEDIATES CONNECTING ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.")
Another words, life did not evolve, it was (FULLY FORMED FROM THE BEGINNING).
Absolutely not. It means that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
"You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived. I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Another words, there are no (substantial fossils) that support evolution.
Wow, therve's a whole article dedicated to this quote mine. He was talking about a very specific kind of fossil, not fossils in general. One thing is certain: fossils supporting evolution certainly do exist. From the same book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
And this is why Henry Gee of Nature Magazine states, the idea of a missing link is (BUNK).
Which is what we were saying all along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
And I don't have a hang up with missing links, that term came from believers in Evolution, and it is still used today. Henery Gee, and Bernard Wood of George Washington University spoke of missing links just in recent times. Please, don't blame me for their quotes.
Source? Exact quote in context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
We don't have to dismiss evolution, your own people are doing it for us. S.M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS)...
Source? Exact quote in context? And did he also say that there is such an absence? Because otherwise, that quote does not support your side at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News. The remarkable complex forms of animals we see today (SUDDENLY APPEARED). He states this all took place during the Cambrian Period.
[Journalist] Well yes, they did suddenly appear. It took 80 million years or so, which is "suddenly" compared to the usual speed of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
So many in science today are beginning to put it all together, and the belief that we all evolved, is now being exposed as nonsense.
Ask any of these scientists whether they doubt that we share a common ancestor with every living thing, and they will laugh in your face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N.H. Darwin prophesied that future generations of paleontological research would fill in the gaps by diligent search...
"The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
Psst, it's Eldredge . No source nor context, of course.
"In fact, says University of Liverpool paleontologist Bernard Wood, whose commentary on the find also appears in Nature: "It looks to me like this is either the common ancestor or damned close to it. I think we're splitting hairs not to call it the 'missing link.' ""
So what you're saying is that a scientist who's views you respect and believe has studied the evidence believes a missing link has been found. Got it, thanks for admitting the idea of a missing link is no longer a valid reason for rejecting evolution.
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins points out, that with the absence of fossils that would prove evolution, the idea of evolution represents nothing more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Another words, a Fairy Tale
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1985, p.325
"It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrean, for they all (APPEAR FULLY FORMED, WITHOUT INTERMEDIATES CONNECTING ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.")
Another words, life did not evolve, it was (FULLY FORMED FROM THE BEGINNING).
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
"You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived. I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Another words, there are no (substantial fossils) that support evolution.
And this is why Henry Gee of Nature Magazine states, the idea of a missing link is (BUNK).
And I don't have a hang up with missing links, that term came from believers in Evolution, and it is still used today. Henery Gee, and Bernard Wood of George Washington University spoke of missing links just in recent times. Please, don't blame me for their quotes.
This highlights the dishonesty of the sites you use...They even do your quote mining for you...Did they all come from BibleTracks? Evidence for Creation: FOSSIL RECORD
This post, as far as I'm concerned does not deserve to be addressed....Too many lies.
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins points out, that with the absence of fossils that would prove evolution, the idea of evolution represents nothing more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Yes, and he also says that the various theories of evolution must account for the "documented episodes of rapid diversification". In other words, unlike you he's familiar with the actual evidence and knows that there is fossil evidence of evolution.
Quote:
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1985, p.325
"It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrean, for they all (APPEAR FULLY FORMED, WITHOUT INTERMEDIATES CONNECTING ONE FORM TO ANOTHER.")
Another words, life did not evolve, it was (FULLY FORMED FROM THE BEGINNING).
So basically you're using evidence of species coming into existence over a 30-50 million year period 500 million years ago as evidence for a single creation event 6000 years ago as described in the Bible.
Oh, and I doubt Futuyma misspelled Cambrian. Which creationist quote-mine did you dig this up from? Can you quote us the paragraph containing this sentence as well as the one before and after it to give us some context?
Quote:
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
"You say I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived. I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
That's an interesting interpretation from someone who wrote things like this -
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
Since you obviously feel that Dr Patterson is a respected source (otherwise you wouldn't have quoted him as an authority) it's good to see that you acknowledge that the professionals who study this believe that fossils demonstrate evolution is true.
And this is why Henry Gee of Nature Magazine states, the idea of a missing link is (BUNK).
Sure, as creationists use it the idea is bunk. Dr. Patterson's quote points out that the only way to think that there are vast holes in the fossil record is to be ignorant of what the data says.
My undergrad degree is in Anthropology. I am currently working on my Archaeology graduate degree--so I am not just some layman surfing the web for information. I studied this fossil (a plaster cast) back in my first undergraduate Biological Anthropology class. This is NOT a new discovery. The skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, or Toumai, was discovered in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert.
Based on faunal studies, it is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old, and more likely in the older part of that range. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc) comparable in size to that of chimpanzees. No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. It would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.
Additionally, this skull exhibits several ape like traits having nothing to do with bipedalism. Prognathism (the jaws protrudes beyond a predetermined imaginary line in the sagittal plane of the skull), a highly pronounced and protruding brow ridge, flattened frontal bones (between the orbitals), flattened zygomatic arches, as well as a well developed nuchal crest.
Many in the field consider Toumai to be a hominid and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps. I think that it is impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.
Where is GCStroop or Montanaguy to help cure creationist ignorance?
I suspect that curing the ignorance of the creationists would count as one of the three miracles necessary for sainthood, and since I am atheist, I have absolutely no interest in becoming a saint, neither would, I suppose, GSCtroop or Montanaguy, although, they are certainly welcome to speak for themselves, they are quite capable in that respect. Besides, one can only teach those who are willing to learn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
. No source nor context, of course.
