[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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.
---My challenge was cetainly not met as the alleged "ancestral fossil evidence" you cite is very sparse and subject to broad interpreatation (as you should very well know). But let's delve into another sub-issue...Assuming the "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" all existed at one time, why havn't any of these ancestral forefathers survived to the current day. Surely evolution doesn't equate with extinction.
Small populations equate with extinction, though. Any rapid environmental change affects a small population vastly more than a large one. This includes competition with other hominids.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
™ Version 4.2