Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

just quick question here, dont mean to interupt. if these are the changes from the Chimpanzees to humans and chimpanzees are still here, where did all these intermediate types go? Is it possible that all of them went extinct? Shouldnt there be atleast one example of them still in existence if we still have all types and examples of primatesi mean it just seems impossible that every example of these intermidiate types should go extinct, in such a short period of timeNow ive seen a few people that could pass for one of those primortial goomers, but then i said, ahh noJust a thought. any suggestions?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not trying to be funny here, just trying to get this straight. So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humansShouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Lets be real here, there are some but ugly people out there, not these guys of courseSo where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by nowWhy are they still just monkeys. I mean youve seen what these guys do in the zoo, while your staring at them through the glass

Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human?Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and manIf so, what are the examples of the ancestory of Apes and Gorrillas, that are not quite monkey and not quite man. I hope that makes senseMy earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not. Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the waysideMine is not an argument one way or the other, simply an observation, that it seems that atleast a few examples of those supposed intermidiates would have survived, since we have so many examples of monkey looking primates, if indeed that is what we are actually looking at in your examples, some form of something not quite monkey and not quite man.I know thats not the right terminology, but you get the ideaDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So where are Gorrillas, Apes and Orangatanges in this process (no funny shots here either)and why did thier kind survive and no examples of these other nutty looking guysShouldnt those other things that you provided as examples have survived in some small way, if indeed they actually existed? Shouldnt they just keep going along side the whole Evo process even if changes were taking place?Dawn Bertot

Yes and this is why this was my original inquiry. If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived.But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answerFor the creationist its not so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashionSince there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains that you put forward, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil recordwhere are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments and things pieced together, where literally thousands of examples should be presentthis should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct.I mean dinos were what, 60 to 100 million years ago and we have no problem finding the OVERWHELMING evidence we need to confirm thier actual existenceNot so with these fellows and they are only six million years removedEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How do you conclude these facts if there is little or no fossil remains. If there are enough fossil remains wouldnt that confirm it, atleast for the pigeons? if there is not how did you or he decide all these facts Firstly I would say that birds can fly, therefore they can avoid the natural disasters that would befall one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding about that last part thereFly my young bird fly to safetyI would admit in this instance that these would have been immediately eaten due to size and the nature of thier existence as prey or decaded rapidly. Probably not so with primative manBut this follows whether there was enough fossil evidence to begin with.Like I said before mine is a simple observation, Im not pretending to have knowledge of such things. the information provided by RAZD and others assist in providing possible explanations to that observationDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Once gain you fail to understand, which is not surprising since most of your posts are an attack of a personal nature on creationist and that is mostly what they consist ofmany qualified people that DO understand all the "science" disagree with the tenets and conclusions reached by evolutionists As usual you do not understand even the obvious points. Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism. Creation is not dependent upon whether evo is true or not. they are two different things and established in a different mannerIf evo was true it would not affect creationism. Your personal attacks on creationist are worthless because you do not understand simple points of reasoningThe title of the website notwithstanding, creation and evolution are not at odds with one anotherEvolution is an explanation of the nature of things, creation is an explanation of the existence of thingsIf evolution were true it would not affect the validity of the scriptures or that which is contained there.But more specifically it would not affect the tenets of creation/ism because these are not established by the scriptures by but simple logic applied to the existing worldDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Havent we actually found one of these intact frozen in the ice? I suppose when you can produce an intact hommonid frozen in the ice, you will immediately get my attentionDawn Bertot

But I did answer your question with a question. Did we or did we not find an intact Mammoth frozen in the ice?as i indicated before, atleast indirectly this type of evidence certainly lends support for any creatures previous existenceIm not saying directly your hommonids didnt exist, I am simply saying the evidence should be a bit more obvious if we are talking about centuries of living and dying by these creaturessecondly, are you saying this is an example of a frozen Hommonid or a frozen humanoid, in the picture?Do you have any other pictures of this same individual that would help to confirm his Hommonid status, if that is the correct terminologyOn a side note, he would not have been in that mess had he simply carried his cell phone with him.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again it is a common mistake to assume that everyone that rejects evolution does it on religious grounds. its a common mistake to assume that Evo has anything to do with the question of creation, it does notBertot writes taq writes A well set out, sound argument, the likes of which would say that creation/ism is a self-contradiction. this argument would of course need to pit itself against physical realitesdawn bertot

Know alot about God do you Panda, where did you get these details about God? Oh yes from the same book you revile constantlyAs I said before your nothing but a sick disturbed little man with an agenda against GodDawn Bertot

No one one is question the extinction of animals or supposed homminids. I am questioning why there isnt more evidence, that doesnt have to rely on skant parts pieced together from here or therethere simply should be more evidence if what you say existed, actually exsisted the lack of evidence that is characteristic in humanoid existence is what I am questioning. Your "evidence" may be sufficient for you but it is not for me The frozen example was simply an example to a point. it was an illustration that could apply to any scenerio where such could have been preserved

Bertot writesTaq writesSurely you understand you dont need to be a biologist to know that from an evidential standpoint one does not have to agree or see the concept of Macro-evolution in the fossil record.Since the fossil record does not prove absolutely evolution, it would follow that an observation in the opposite direction is more than plausiblethe sharp distinctions and trail of the fossil record do not show a clear cut evolution of every species on earth.i dont need religious reasons to know that is a factthat is how i was making the statementDawn BertotDawn Bertot

IMV, absolutely nothing could be found that would affect the tenets of creationism, unless you are thinking of something that could affect its principles. In which case i would say present itDawn Bertot

Well I cant really ackowledge or disavow the existence of something where there seems to where there seems to be not enough evidence, now can iSecondly, my query has to do with the way the "evidence" is gathered, a piece of something here or there, with the composition of a whole creature simply from a small bone, or the such likeDidnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that?If there were millions then certainly we should be able to find numerous examples in tact to help support the cause, corrrect. i mean millions upon million over 100s of thousands of years and all we can come up with is, here a piece there a pieceDinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tactBTW, I have no problem or hestitations believing in Dinos, because the evidence is overwhelming. Not so with your monkey boys Werent your mokey boys found in different locations as in China and other areas that would have provided fossilization and examples that I am looking forI was not aware that they were all relegated to Africa, werent they discovered in many places all over the world?Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would helpDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.