Archangel, the evidence is not based on just a few fossils. Hundreds of transitional hominid skeletons and skulls have been found, many of them near complete. If you want the evidence, don't start with people with a strong interest in refuting the evidence. They will only give you the strawmen. Start with the authorities who accept it, and then be a skeptic. Take the evidence that people actually accept to the skeptics, and then ask them to explain it. For example, examine this image, because it is a great place to start. Millions of us evos accept this image as representative of the evidence for common descent with other primates. It is from TalkOrigins.org, and the images are collected from the Smithsonian Institution. The letters in the image correspond to the specimens in the list, so you can verify them by clicking on the links in the list.
None of those skulls are the examples you listed, except for the Neanderthal skulls, (J), (K) and (L). Three skulls, not just one. Do a Google search and you will find many more of them. For more details, go to this page at AnswersInCreation.org
La Ferrassie 1
La Chapelle-aux Saints 1
Notice the consistently jutting eyebrow ridges and the protruding mouths. They are the closest human relatives, but they still show those transitional features, from primitive apes, in their skulls. No human alive today has a skull that look remotely like these. And you just can't explain them with arthritis or rickets.
Edited by ApostateAbe, : Missed a few Neanderthals
I marvel that you could suggest that I could be accused of being guilty of Gish Gallup while attempting to frame an argument in light of the widely varied expansion of the debate subject offered by the opposition.
For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings:
The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes?
Can Abe actually say that these APE skulls even belong to the same family/genus of Ape? Because I see no obvious resemblance at all. From the width/shape of the skulls to the protruding of the brow ridges. I mean at every level of rationale I see no way to prove that these skulls represent any true and real connection to human development or evolution. With every piece of evidence you post, you prove my point that no real and verifiable evidence exists which supports your belief in evolution.
Sure, he will place every single fossil skull of a primate found in some manufactured category of human based evolution, but that doesn't mean it is a true or reliable assumption at all. And only if we are able to absolutely prove you wrong will you even consider that an error has been made. And even then, evolutionists will just poo poo it as part of the process of getting to your so called truth. But the truth to evolution is whatever furthers your agenda and doesn't impede the overall fairy tale evolution is promoting.
Archangel, you are right that you are certainly not guilty of the Gish gallop. And I think you have a very good objection to the set of Neanderthal skulls. To be honest, I am not sure why it is that anthropologists think they all belong to the same species. They could be three different species, for all I know.
Here is the important point: THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ACCEPT FOR EVOLUTION. Not the Piltdown Man. Not the Nebraska Man. Not the Orce Man. The skulls that are actually offered to the public as evidence are the skulls that you should be focused on if you want to disprove evolution.
I think you are a very good thinker, and I hope you stay with us. Shake off the condescension and the dismissals and the unjust attacks against you. You are doing good.
There is no genus of apes. Apes occur in a number of Genera, such as Pan, Gorilla & Homo. You, I & everyone else on this forum is an ape.
An "ape" is the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. But, in conventional English, apes are the set of species that includes that superfamily but excludes humans, similar to how the common people use the word, "animal."
NO AA, an Ape is a big monkey which was created by God will all of the other lower animals. It is not related to us in any way which is evidence by the fact that it is still living just as it did on that first day of creation. As for the fossils you attempt to label as our human ancestors, they too were lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist. Most likely because of pressure and over hunting by human beings. Not because we evolved from them in any way over hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.
You must stop expecting me to explain my worldview according to your evolutionist definitions of life and how it came to be as it is.
Archangel, that is perfectly fair. I'll do that. I would like to help you. If you want to convince people like us that evolution is wrong and apes are not related to humans, then start with the evidence that we accept. Do not start with the evidence that creationist authors claim we accept. I am not asking you to believe that apes are related to humans. I am not asking you to believe that the image of the skulls from TalkOrigins.org represents an evolutionary transition. I am asking you to believe that this is the evidence that we accept. Deal?
Archangel, that is an eloquent sermon, and I am afraid that it will fall on deaf ears, in part because you introduced the sermon with a few seeming errors. Firstly, about the Neanderthals. It really should not be difficult to believe that there are signs that Neanderthals shared many qualities with humans, especially from your perspective. That is because the leading creationists say that the "Neanderthal" fossils are of humans. If you don't believe me, look at your own original post, your quote from NWcreation.net. Just as human as us! Secondly, we generally cannot name the scientists who discovered the Neanderthal fossils. At least I can't. I would have to look it up. Quiz an evolutionary biologist (who doesn't specialize in paleoanthropology) about the names of people who discovered of Neanderthal fossils, and he is likely to be slightly embarrassed that he cannot remember any names at all.
Archangel, I know you are trying to do the right thing, and I think to that end that you need to understand us. We take reason and the truth very seriously. To us, quoting a falsehood as if it is correct is no different (or hardly different) from the falsehood emerging from your own mind. Maybe you don't adhere to it, but that is the convention among us. When you quote the arguments used to support your position, then they become your own arguments. I happen to think that NWcreation.net has a better position than you seem to have--if given a choice between human and ape, it is much more likely that "Neanderthal" remains are humans, not apes. So, if we put all that petty nonsense aside, and you start to look at the transitional features of those skulls, then you may understand why we have the position that we do. If you have an objection, then I would be glad to hear it.
Archangel, like I said, I am trying to help you, because I know you are trying to do the right thing. We have different conventions than you do about what counts as deception. I am not going to continue to argue about whether or not it was right for you to do as you did, because it isn't an important point of contention. Now that you know our convention, it may help you so that you avoid doing it again, right or wrong. Regardless, I suggest a better method for you in starting topics: Use the evidence that we ourselves say that we accept, as in the images of the fossil skulls that have been posted. They have names, and you can look them up. For example, do a little research on the specimen La Ferrassie 1. Is it an ape skull? A human skull? A fraud? We need your perspective on this, because it is one of the many skulls that we use to conclude that there were Neanderthals and that we share a common ancestry with modern apes. It is better not to quote from creationist sites in your opening post. The evidence that anti-evolutionists claim that we accept is almost always irrelevant, and it is likely to be a step backward for you making a difference in the way we think.
Archangel, evolutionists have been accused of being dogmatists. This is in part because Darwin said a lot about evolution when he first proposed his theory in The Origin of Species, but almost nothing in the book has changed. It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on. I don't know about you, but that really does strike me as suspicious. I would have more confidence if Darwin's original theory contained more proven falsehoods, like what happens with every other scientific pioneer. That is why it seems a little strange to see you say, "Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs." From my perspective, the problem is more in the reverse. The popular media reports do tend to overblow the significance of every new find, and that seems to mislead people about how conservative the ToE seems to be.