For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links.
Here's an inspector of police interrogating the suspect of a murder:
Inspector: "Where were you between 10 and 12pm on New Year's Eve, the night of the murder?" Suspect: "I was at a party celebrating the new year. I arrived at 11pm, witnesses can attest to that." Inspector: "Ah! But where were you between 10 an 11pm, pray tell?" Suspect: "At 10.30pm I was in a taxi, on my way to the party. The taxidriver will confirm it." Inspector: "Then where were you between 10 and 10.30pm, eh? Eh? Well?" Suspect: {sigh} ... . . . Inspector: "And where were you between 10pm and the next ten nanoseconds? Can't tell me, eh? Thought so! Gotcha!"
You are like that inspector, Seeking. It seems you will only accept a complete list of each and every individual creature between you and your ancestral bacterium. It's preposterous, it can't be done, and you know it. But it's also completely irrelevant. Because the fact that we cannot produce such a list does not in the least invalidate the theory of evolution. There are lots of other forms of evidence, if only you'd care to consider them.
The best thing for you to do would be to read Richard Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale". It provides roughly what you're asking for. Dawkins even gives approximate figures for the number of ancestors between us and our forebears. It's a good read and it'll keep you busy for a while.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
I'm a biologist (a current PhD student, actually) and I speak Mandarian Chinese and can use classical Latin competently in addition to my native English. Am I qualified to speak with you?
SFTK writes:
So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?
You've got that wrong.
Please explain to me the exact, “real easy” method that we would use to identify our first common ancestor. Science is fucking hard, dude: you don’t just read it in a book, like you do with religion. Just because evolution hasn’t constructed a detailed mythos and pantheon doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have meaningful things to say. We're behind the game because we're putting more effort into it!
Someday, maybe some brilliant scientist will be able to answer your question. But, inability to answer all questions right now is not an indication of impotence. Science can only exist where there are still questions to be answered, and, as you’ve correctly pointed out, there will still be science to do for thousands of years to come.
Remember, with evolution, we’re working backwards, starting with stuff we have available to us today and trying to find out what happened to get that stuff where it is now. If you think it’s possible for us to get it perfect, than you’ve got entirely too high an opinion of us. While I’m flattered, I’d prefer you remain realistic.
The use of the Theory of Evolution to describe the past is called “natural history.” “Natural history” relies on ToE, not vice-versa. ToE is just “change between generations,” not “all things arising from a single common ancestor over billions of years” (that’s natural history, which can be proven wrong without effectingToE in the slightest). You are free to disagree with evolutionary natural history, if you want, but don’t do so because it has failed to provide you some specific thing that you want. Rather, evaluate its utility in terms of what it does provide you. There are thousands, probably even millions, of papers written about evolution and related topics: a wealth of information for you to peruse on your own. I think you’ll find that the pieces of the puzzle we’ve uncovered so far have really painted a robust picture, even though there are still many, many pieces missing.
-----
Furthermore, as EvC forum member Lyx2no said very well here:
lyx2no writes:
Today, I picked up a cabbage in the produce department of my local supermarket and put it into a plastic bag. Next, I brought it over to the scale to weigh it out for a price sticker. It weighed out at 2.47 lb. at $1.29 per lb. for a total cost of $3.19. I placed the price sticker on the bag I had put the cabbage into and carried it up to the . Wait . let me start over. I forgot to tell you how I got into the supermarket.
Just in case that was too oblique for you, it means that you don’t have to start at the very beginning of time to tell a meaningful story. That would get really tiresome in everyday conversations, yeah?
-----
By the way, you know what happens when you try to cram words into a pre-decided acronym? You make a mistake that makes you look irreconcilably stupid, and reveal to everyone that you care more about slandering your opponent than making a good argument. Yeast are eukaryotes, which are orders of magnitude more complex than bacteria (and even have symbiotic bacteria living within their cells!), and certainly are not direct ancestors of humans, either.
Thanks for your replies everyone.I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.You dont have to test either.For the sake of maybe getting to the truth of the matter im just going to concentrate on huntards list for the meantime.Feel free to help me,next thing im going to ask as in regards to homo habilus.How many fossils of habilus have been found??.
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.
Wrong.
Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.
Wrong, there are mountains of observable evidence.
You dont have to test either.
Wrong. There are many experiments that show evolution happening.
For the sake of maybe getting to the truth of the matter im just going to concentrate on huntards list for the meantime.
Ok, but please provide evidence for your claims.
Feel free to help me
I have a feeling that's not going to matter much.
next thing im going to ask as in regards to homo habilus.How many fossils of habilus have been found??.
For the second time, it Habilis, with an I not a U. I don;t know how many are found, but I'm sure someone else here can answer that question.
Are you now going to play the "since you don't know everything then you know nothing" bullshit that you seem to be leading up to or is that still a couple of questions away?
seekingfirstthekingdom writes:
And i have never accused anyone of not knowing anything?!?Whats with the putting words in my mouth?
(Several people provide information, including Huntard who presents an outline of transitional fossils, but not a complete list of every transitional firm from A to z.)
seekingfirstthekingdom writes:
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.
So, we see that the good Doctor wasn't so much putting words in your mouth as accurately predicting where your predictable argument was going.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.You dont have to test either.
You're going to make me cry.
How do you come to these completely innane conclusions?
You asked one question, and, because we admittedly don't have an answer for it, you conclude that we don't have any evidence at all for anything that we say and that we don't feel we have to run tests?
I have a counter-challenge for you:
Can you tell me, specifically, when God made fungus and bacteria?
If you can't answer this question with real evidence, it will prove that the entire creationist point of view is without evidence and completely invalid.
Does this help you understand why everyone's pissed off at you?
You're welcome. We try to provide information when people ask. The problem I am seeing is that it doesn't appear that you really want answers, you want to play gotcha games.
I'll pick up here, seeing as you have not progressed beyond repeating your first post other than to brush aside other replies.
You did not reply to my first reply, Message 131. I understand that it is difficult to reply to so many, but you complained about not getting an answer to your question about the first human ancestor. Perhaps you did not understand my reply:
quote:The evidence points to some single-cell organisms somewhat similar to modern cyanobacteria some 3.5 billion years ago as the first known life in the fossil record.
These fossil organisms do have names, they have several names, "cyanobacteria" is one.
You also asked for the transitions from that first organism to man, and this too was answered:
quote:All fossils are transitional, as they are intermediate between those organisms that are their ancestors and those organisms that are their offspring. This is what transitional means in science: if you have a different definition, then you need to define what you are talking about.
As there are several million fossils, naming all of them would be rather tedious, and I suspect that you are not really interested in that information.
If you don't understand what these answers mean, I will be happy to explain them, if you are willing to learn.
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.
Curiously, we have no idea whether links exist or not. We can hypothesis, but without actual evidence it is just a guess. It's a guess tempered by a rather extensive knowledge of how life operates and how evolution occurs, but it is a guess. It is also a guess based on the information we do have -- the fossils.
What we have is the natural history of this planet preserved a handful at a time in often incomplete fossils. What science tries to do is understand what happened before our recorded existence.
Whether what we hypothesis is true or not, those fossils are still the evidence of the past life on this planet, they are facts.
Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.
Strangely, evolution is based on many observations of evidence all around us. It was this evidence that first led Darwin to his conclusion that life underwent descent with modification.
You dont have to test either.
Interestingly, matching the fossil record to a pattern of common ancestry and descent with modification is only one of many independent tests of the theory of evolution.
For the sake of maybe getting to the truth of the matter im just going to concentrate on huntards list for the meantime.Feel free to help me,next thing im going to ask as in regards to homo habilus.How many fossils of habilus have been found??.
Do you realize that you are not really asking about the theory of evolution, nor about the process of evolution, you are only asking about the fossil record: this is just the evidence of the natural history of life on earth.
A theory explains evidence, but it isn't the evidence itself.
Currently the of descent with modification from common ancestors is the best explanation for the distribution and variety of fossils found.
Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.
Would you care to present your evidence, the detailed comparison of physical traits for every bone and tooth, lengths, proportions, muscle attachments, and your cladistic analysis complete with out-group.
Baring that, please provide a citation of a paper you have published in a technical journal discussing this analysis, so we can look it up.
quote:Wrong, there are mountains of observable evidence.
Great!Point me to the organism that all life sprang from.Demonstrate to me how this amazing organism can spring forth the multitudes of different life that we see today.I have noticed though that other posters have conceded that this isnt possible,but because you are claiming theres enormous evidence,i guess you are the man! Also id like to thank you for at least attempting to answer my question regarding how many different forms it took from our yeasty ancestor to us.It seems you have the best comprehension of english yet its not your first language.
dont worry about it if you cant.Because noone else can.Secondly its been conceded by another poster that due to fossils being somewhat brittle in nature,that the actual fossil record doesnt support the fact of evolution.Would you agree or disagree with this statement made by rahvin?
I certainly am very ignorant regarding the mystical properties of this yeast that is able to transform itself into other lifeforms razd.Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?Thanks in advance.
If you can't honestly attempt to pay attention and learn something then at least stop opening your mouth and demonstrating how utterly ignorant you are.
If you continue as you have been you will be asked to not post to this thread again.
™ Version 4.2