Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Hi arachnophilia Two actually, see Message 397. One from the fossil morphological data and one from the genetic data.Curiously, they agree.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

There is plenty of fossils found in every state in the U.S. of the Pleisocene large mammals: Saber Tooth, Puma/cougar, American Lion, horse, dire wolf, mammoths, mastodon, Cheetahs, some marsupials, Giant beaver and many more.
They have not found any fossils of gorilla and found very few of chimp fossils but yet have found all the different species of human/ape.

In the US???? Gorilla, chimp, and human/ape (by this I assume you mean what we call transitionals).This is news to me. Please list some of your sources.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What I meant to say that there are no fossils found in Africa for the gorilla and the chimp. Yet the U.S. has many fossils of these large mammals that once existed here.Many of the fossils that represent the human lineage look more like chimp skulls then human.

Actually there are, but not many. The forest is not a good environment for preserving and fossilizing bones. We're lucky we have anything at all from some environments and time periods. Many of these are bones preserved in dry caves or in places like the La Brea Tar Pits. Those have provided a wealth of specimens.These environments are pretty much the opposite of forests.And we are dealing with bone preservation rather than fossilization in most cases. Actually, no. They show a range of features from chimp-like to human-like, and everything in between. I would say that there are more that look human-like than chimp-like. This would include all of the H. erectus specimens. You have to go to the Australopithecus et al. before you start so see many of the chimp-like traits, and those are often not really as prominent in the postcranials as in certain features of the crania.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There are numerous possible reasons they did not survive. In the case of the Neanderthals, it is possible that they couldn't survive the last ice age along with the sapiens, or they may have been simply killed by the sapiens the way some sapiens do today, because they were different. The actual reason may never be known.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

must be some kind of horrible coincidence!

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.

Only when they are creationists.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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

This appears to be more of your 'lying for jesus'.
Why are you avoiding the question?
Is it too difficult for you to understand?

We know that both gorillas and chimps exist, so why don't we have any fossils of them? Could it be that some areas of been searched more thoroughly for fossils than others? It is much easier to scrape away the dirt in the dry savannas of Africa than it is to dig up rainforest in the Congo, for example. Also, could it be that some environments are also better at producing fossils to begin with?

Indeed, they do. However, the pelvis of these species look much more human than chimp. Overall, they have a mixture of modern human and primitive ape features, exactly what you would expect to find if humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps.Here is a nice comparison of an Australopithecus pelvis with the pelvis of modern humans and chimps: The Australipithecus pelvis is squattier and wider. On top of that, the femur starts outside the and angles inwards towards the center line just like in humans. Both of these features are indicative of bipedalism like that seen in humans. Compare this to the chimp pelvis that is taller and skinnier with no inward angle for the femur.

You didn't answer my question. Why don't we see both wooly mammoths and elephants living today?As for a frozen humanoid:Otzi:
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/archaeology/otzi_iceman_2.jpg