Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???

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.

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 It was published in 1975 making it out of date.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][b]cuz he felt like it.[/QUOTE][/b]Did He make pink elephants to? "Cuz he felt like it" is not an explanation, try again. [QUOTE][b]Also its to create doubt in our faith, probably from satan. [/QUOTE][/b]So any evidence that supports evolution was made by Satan? Is your position falsifiable? Anyway this isn't the first time a Creationist has invoked Satan as an explanation for something, last I heard, evolutionists were still laughing at the poor fellow for saying Satan made craters on the Moon. If you wanted to, you could claim that the world is flat, and that any evidence to the contrary is being created by Satan to created doubt in your faith of the Godly flat earth, it would make no less sense than what you're trying to pass off here. [QUOTE][b]they could just be really really really really really messsed up humans[/QUOTE][/b]We have plenty of messed up humans in Third World countries, but we don't have any neanderthals. How exactly does a human disease provide you with bone structures that just happen to look simian? [QUOTE][b]which would actually fit with natural selection since the bad trait would have been eventually breeded/killed out.[/QUOTE][/b]That implies that God created people with "bad traits" and God's faulty creation was improved by the bad ones dieing off naturally. It does not fit with evolution however because there is no need for "bad" traits to be more common at any particular point in time if natural selection pressure remains about the same. [QUOTE][b]our bone composition may have greatly changed and became more susceptible to whatever eats/destroys bones.[/QUOTE][/b]We're not talking about fossils with damaged bones, we're talking about fossils with simian characteristics; raised eyebrows, foramen magnum at the rear of the skull, sloping forehead, small braincase, do you see what I mean?

Yes Lee is moving the goalposts. He started with "thousands" and he will have to stick with thousands. I actually thought about prodding you by asking him by asking if he would up to "millions" since I demonstrated that there were "thousands" but thought he would be above that anyway. Apparently not. Typical dishonest tactics at work here."Thousands" is a good figure for the reasons I have already given, and that people have only been looking for a few decades now. No, I don't expect there to be hundreds of thousands because of the random nature of fossilization, the remote areas, the short time people have been looking, the probable small sizes of the populations of transitionals, the limited geographical distribution, and the tiny blink of geological time it all happened over. But his challenge was met, next Creationist argument please.

[QUOTE][b]---My challenge was cetainly not met as the alleged "ancestral fossil evidence" you cite is very sparse and subject to broad interpreatation[/QUOTE][/b]Both of your challenges were met. First you claimed there were no transitionals, I gave several. Secondly, you claimed that there should be "thousands" of transitional fossils, I told you where to find four thousand. How exactly are these transitionals subject to "broad interpretation"? Why don't you provide us with one other credible interpretation of these fossils? [QUOTE][b]But let's delve into another sub-issue...Assuming the .... all existed at one time[/QUOTE][/b]Strawman. I never said they all existed at one time, nor should they. They are a progression of simian creatures towards man, they exist in a series, not all at the same time. Yes there should be some overlap, but not all of them coexisting. [QUOTE][b]why havn't any of these ancestral forefathers survived to the current day.[/QUOTE][/b]Small populations, fierce predation, harsh competition with other hominids, and a few ice ages didn't help them. [QUOTE][b]Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction[/QUOTE][/b]It often does when you have a small population, live in unforgiving conditions, and have to compete with newer hominid species living in those unforgiving conditions with you to survive. The only thing I need to point out that the cause of extinction is not your evolution, it is the evolution of some other species. [QUOTE][b]Surely they, like the primates which exist today, could have found a way to adapt for purposes of survival. It doesn't seem in the least bit odd to you that ALL of these alleged "ancestors" between the modern apes, chimps, etc. and todays homo sapien sapien failed to survive to the present day? Not a single one?[/QUOTE][/b]Just because some primates still live in the forest some primates should still live on the savannas? Why? There is no large population of modern chimps or apes living on the savannas of the Great Rift Valley, so why should some ancient population of chimps, apes, or transitionals still live there?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-22-2002]

[QUOTE][b]What I find most amusing is that several of the alleged pre-homo sapien sapien species are predicated upon one, or simply a partial, skeletal finding.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm aware of that. Perhaps you would like to bring your massive knowledge of evolutionary biology and anthropology to assign the find to an existing species? Otherwise I don't see the relevance. Remember what we explained to you about (1) small populations (2) rarity of fossilization and (3) limited manpower in fossil searches? [QUOTE][b]---I never implied nor stated that all of the alleged homo sapien sapien "ancestors" existed at the same time.[/QUOTE][/b]Please proofread for clarity. [QUOTE][b]Ok and why did the apes and other more removed "ancestors" survive through these hypothetical events while our other "ancestors" failed to do so?[/QUOTE][/b]The modern simians that are extant today live in jungles and forests. The homeland of most of the transitionals are the dry savannas of the Great Rift Valley where food is not plentiful and there were other species to contend with as well as predation, an unstable climate, and volcanism. When you come down from the trees, you have to take special care to not be dinner. The rules of the savanna are different from the rules of the cloud forest. It is a simple concept and I'm confused about why you seem to have difficulty grappling with it.By the way, while you were busy plagiarizing somebody on those species being represented by a single find, did you forget to concede that your first two challenges were met?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-22-2002]

Do you find it necessary to include an entire post when you are going to write a three-sentence reply?

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-24-2002]