Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???

If evolution truly has formed the human race (homo sapien sapien) where are all of the proverbial "missing links" or, for lack of a better word, "pre-human" forms? Archaeologists should have found and should presently be finding hundreds, if not thousands, of these skeletal forms yet they do not. Why is that so?

Ardipithecus ramidis , Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Kenyanthropus platyops ,
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus,
Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis aren't missing links? Oh sure they're probably not all grandparents, there are going to be some cousins in that list too, but without evolution none of the above should exist.

"If evolution truly has formed the human race (homo sapien sapien) where are all of the proverbial "missing links" or, for lack of a better word, "pre-human" forms? Archaeologists should have found and should presently be finding hundreds, if not thousands, of these skeletal forms yet they do not. Why is that so?"
--I would not expect many at all humans to be present in the geologic column, it is even a thought to consider why there are any, at least in the flood scenario. I totally agree that we should be finding many many of these fossilized specimens of proto-humans. Though mabye thats because were an isolated population, punctuated equillibria right?As for Gene, you assertion that 'without evolution none of the above should exist' seems to be implying that Evolution is the only mechenism explaining these findings. Quite a bold statment, I have found no problem with their existance.-------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Ardipithecus ramidis , Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Kenyanthropus platyops ,
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus,
Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis aren't missing links? Oh sure they're probably not all grandparents, there are going to be some cousins in that list too, but without evolution none of the above should exist.
---An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?

TC, why did God make half-human, half-simian creatures? Is your position even falsifiable?

[QUOTE][b]An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?[/QUOTE][/b]A lot considering most are coming from savannas around the Great Rift Valley, a lousy area for fossils to be preserved, and especially considering most are not cosmopolitan with large population bases.Did you realize that the British Museum's Catalogue of Fossil Hominids consists of three volumes with around four thousand entries? It was published in 1975 making it out of date. The number of known fossils continues to increase.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-21-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?[/QUOTE][/b]A lot considering most are coming from savannas around the Great Rift Valley, a lousy area for fossils to be preserved, and especially considering most are not cosmopolitan with large population bases.Did you realize that the British Museum's Catalogue of Fossil Hominids consists of three volumes with around four thousand entries? It was published in 1975 making it out of date. The number of known fossils continues to increase.
---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would not expect many at all humans to be present in the geologic column, it is even a thought to consider why there are any, at least in the flood scenario. I totally agree that we should be finding many many of these fossilized specimens of proto-humans.

---

I'm curious as to the distinction you make - why would you expect to find few modern humans but many hominids?Perhaps this should read "I would not expect many modern humans to be present in the geologic column in the flood scenario. We should be finding many many fossilized proto humans in an evolutionary scenario."However if this is the case it still doesn't make a lot of sense, at least in this terse form.Why would you not expect many humans fossilized in the flood scenario? What differentiates them from other drowned species?Why would you expect to find many many fossilized "proto humans"?

quote:

---

As for Gene, you assertion that 'without evolution none of the above should exist' seems to be implying that Evolution is the only mechenism explaining these findings. Quite a bold statment, I have found no problem with their existance.

---

As it stands this sentence says as much about your reasoning as about the evidence: it is fair of you to let us draw our own conclusions.Also fair is your precise wording: "Evolution is the only mechenism [sic] explaining these findings. (My italics).Evolution is indeed the only mechanism explaining them at present. No doubt there are other possible theories which could explain them, but there are none except evolution which explain them at the moment with an acceptable level of internal consistency, logic, and consistency with known natural processes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:

An impressive list of Latin grammar...yet how many indisputable skeletons / fossil data exists to support these alleged "grandfathers"?

​

A lot considering most are coming from savannas around the Great Rift Valley, a lousy area for fossils to be preserved, and especially considering most are not cosmopolitan with large population bases.

​

Did you realize that the British Museum's Catalogue of Fossil Hominids consists of three volumes with around four thousand entries? It was published in 1975 making it out of date. The number of known fossils continues to increase.

​

---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

​

---

Leekim,I would be very interested in how you mathematically arrive at "hundreds of thousands" of hominid fossils. Since this seems to be your falsification of human evolution you must be able to present this calculation....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:
---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

---

Why on earth do you think there should be hundreds of thousands of fossilized ancestors?Having worked on the excavation of burial sites ranging from < 1000 years old to > 5000 years old, I can assure you that even given protected conditions the survival of human and animal remains is very much a hit and miss affair.In fact, I was for a while slightly suspicious of the sheer volume of hominid remains recovered in Africa and I had doubts as to whether there was wishful taxonomic thinking involved or some circumstances resulting in selective preservation. In fact, neither seems likely. The remarkable quality of the human fossil record is a result of the most painstaking fieldwork imaginable, a rigourous attention to detail in taxonomy and dating techiques, and the most aggressive and sedulous peer reviewing in most any field of science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leekim:

Did you realize that the British Museum's Catalogue of Fossil Hominids consists of three volumes with around four thousand entries? It was published in 1975 making it out of date. The number of known fossils continues to increase.
---Wow, four thousand (or slightly more)...considering there should be hundreds of thousands of these "ancestors". The matter is quite perplexing?

​

---

Earlier in this thread, you said there should be hundreds, or even thousands. Now that you've been presented with thousands, you claim there should be hundreds of thousands. Why didn't you say so in the first place? It looks to me like you're moving the goalposts.

"TC, why did God make half-human, half-simian creatures? Is your position even falsifiable?"
--Oh no, hehe, I just guess that some people would not consider a lone person suffering from pegets disease or a form of arthritis as a real human.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, why did God make half-human, half-simian creatures? Is your position even falsifiable?"
--Oh no, hehe, I just guess that some people would not consider a lone person suffering from pegets disease or a form of arthritis as a real human.

​

---

So all fossil hominids are diseased humans?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"So all fossil hominids are diseased humans?"
--No, they aren't all. Some of them are though, they each have a different explination, usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes. I am not too big on human ancestory, I am more into the geology and a little bit of biology, sooner or later some cosmology. Leekim seems to be a creationist, he may have more of an interest in such homonids and its alleged perspects. He may have some input on a specific homonid.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So all fossil hominids are diseased humans?"
--No, they aren't all. Some of them are though, they each have a different explination, usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes.

---

Firstly - are you suggesting that palaeontologists mistake diseased humans for transitionals? If so, have you any examples or evidence that this happens. The pathology of serious bone conditions is well understood and extensively employed in archaeology and palaeoanthropology because it gives excellent information on the conditions of living. Have you read any detailed excavation and analysis reports on fossil hominids - or even archaeological reports detailing bone pathologies?As for your second point "usually the supposed closer relatives are the humans and the older ones are the apes" - it seems you really don't get the whole common ancestor thing at all, even in theory.