quote:Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about “missing links,”
Is it nearly complete or are there missing links?
quote:They have heard about “missing links,” and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates.
How can missing links be 'proof'?
quote:However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented.
Except the ones that have been documented.
quote:The “missing links” are still missing.
That is tautological. The links that are not missing are just links.
quote:Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
150 years ago we didn't know about helium, the germ theory of disease, weather forecasting, Maxwell relations, Rayleigh Scattering, oceanography, Boltzmann equations, the photoconductivity of selenium, thermionic emisisons, Mycobacterium leprae, heroin, DDT, Antarctica, Bacillus anthracis, silent dog whistles, telephone communication, Phobos and Deimos, Iguanadon, scandium, Venn diagrams, piezoelectric effects, the transmission of yellow fever, that squaring the circle is impossible, cathode rays, protons or the function of the pancreas.
quote:Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
An ancestor to orangutans. A view held for like 50 years.
quote:Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Yes, and it would have proven a challenge to the biogeographical evidence for the evolution of humanity. So thank goodness modern science was capable of understanding its true nature.
quote:Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Was not accepted by scientific consensus and was definitively rejected within a few years.
quote:Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Since humans are apes, our ancestors must be very ape-like, or even apes themselves.
Sure, we can quibble over the particulars but for me the point is a pretty obvious trend; that evolution is promoted but then vanquished by later discoveries.
Evolution is still accepted as the explanation for the diversity of apes and hominids. It has not been vanquished.
For all those who will quibble, "link got this fact wrong, link said X is so when it isn't". Yeah...you can do that if you want but still, it's just not a very convincing STORY.
If you want a story, go pick up a story book. In the meantime scientists will continue to attempt to reconstruct natural history.
The Great Apes (Hominidae) appear about 15mya Pierolapithecus and other Homininae appear about 13mya Sahelanthropus and Orrorin and other Hominini at about 6-7mya Australopithecus about 3-4mya, a cousin group of the family Hominidae and potentially part of the group that is ancestral to Homo Kenyanthropus about 3mya, closely related to Australopithecus This is about where the resolution of the record starts to become fuzzy enough to not be definitively clear but about 2.5 mya Homo Habilis appears. Despite what Christian Answers tells you there is no 'growing consensus' that it is an 'invalid taxon'. About 15 years ago some people first proposed this might be the case, but the consensus remains that they are a 'valid' taxon. 1.8 mya - Homo Erectus. It is expected that earlier forms than apes would be smaller than humans, so I'm not sure what CA's point is in saying this as a problem. It is also expected that ancestral forms would start having overlaps with extant humans, although the overlap is very slight (average cranial size about 600 cubic centimetres vs 1200 for humans). Homo ergaster - 1.4mya. Early examples have cranial sizes of up to 900 cubic centimetres, later examples close to 1100. Homo heidelbergensi/Homo antecessor - 700kya. Cranial sizes around 1250 cubic centimetres Homo neanderthalensis - 500kya Homo sapiens - 250kya
We know, given fossil scarcity of hominids, we aren't likely to find direct ancestors which we can be 100% confident are direct ancestors. But we've do have a fair amount of information on how the hominid branch of apes changed over time leading us to the modern extant groups of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans and the explanation for these changes has remained consistent for over 150 years: they evolved.
Our lurkers have seen all these nonsenses many times before plus their rebuttals
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Mike has a history here which we should recognise and not rise to.
Then don't rise to it.
He's a self-confessed troll who needs to be called on it every time he drives by, not treated like a new member genuinely seking intelligent debate.
This has been done. It would be silly to repeat and argue about it, if someone's goal to was to achieve discord and chaos, it would gratify them.
If he mends his ways, fine. But until then don't feed him. It makes us look silly - which is his goal.
Being right doesn't make one look silly. Mike may be making himself look silly. I come here to primarily to practice explaining flaws in notions, this I have done. I am gratified. I have had lurkers thank me, even for rebuttals of PRATTs. This is gratifying. If Mike is gratified by my having composed and posted said rebuttals, it concerns me not. If your goal is to thwart Mike's gratification, I dare say you are in danger of failing.
I don't care what's relevant to Mike. It's relevant to me, and its relevant to others.
He has a different agenda to you.
I don't care about Mike's agenda.
You make yourself look silly by not accepting and recognising that.
I have neither not accepted nor failed to recognize this. You seem to bothered about it, and you are publishing your bother right where he'll go looking for it; according to your theory of Mike you are giving him what he wants - seems counter productive to your goals to me, perhaps you should stop.
So what we have here is two narcissists feeding each other.
No. Practicing rebuttals is useful. Serving other's interests is neither selfish nor self-aggrandizing. That I am happy to practice rebuttals, and that I am satisfied that others seem to find utility in those rebuttals is not narcissistic.
Aren't you clevere than that?
Narcissism and cleverness are not mutually exclusive.
As long as you or anyone else keeps on feeding him, you're correct.
Then stop feeding him by showing the world his actions are bothering you, stop feeding him by engaging in pointless arguments about him. I'll continue to speak truth in the face of misinformation to the benefit of any who mind find utility in them, to hone my skills at constructing and presenting counterarguments. And we'll both be on our way to succeeding at our goals.
I read all those words. Doesn't say anything relevant. Perhaps you can bring the evidence here?
but as evolutionists you have to prove your claim we are apes;
We are large, tailless, tool-using broad-backed barrel-chested primates with large brains, non-webbed feet, a short distance of backbone between spine and pelvis and opposable thumbs from Africa. Since this is, in layman's term, the definition of an ape: we are apes.
So your bare-assertion we are apes, is of little logical worth.
True, but then all biologists agree with me, as you know. So that carries a little weight - and they have all these fancy degrees and reasons with reference to evidence.
Another bare assertion.
Well I accept evolution, and it still holds consensus view among scientists. Are you disputing this?
This type of sophistry only means something to evolutionists, who commonly argue argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum as though this proves something.
So you concur that it wasn't a bare assertion, but one supported by facts. Good.
A neurotic agreement BY evolutionists, that evolution is true, is not impressive.
The agreement is among biologists.
It isn't the best explanation because it is less parsimonious to invoke millions of missing transitions
There is nothing unparsimonious about proposing animals existed who died and were not fossilized. Compared with 'a designer designed and built them', especially. We know animals exist. We know they die. We know their remains regularly degrade without fossilizing, we know we haven't searched every square inch of buried earth, we know that erosion and subduction occurs, I am not proposing any entities which we don't already know actually exist.
for example where are the transitionals for the quadruped progenitors for apes?
We've found some of them, others we haven't. Where is whatever you propose as the explanation, which I understand is some kind of designer you believe personally to be a deity?
That things, "appear" at certain of your dates, doesn't mean it follows they did not exist previously.
Correct, but I'm not claiming that they did not. Indeed, I insist they must have existed previously. Given you seem to believe we'd be awash with transitionals if evolution were true, I detect a contradiction in your complaint here. Either the fossil record accurately preserves fossils and thus the dates are basically correct, or it doesn't and that supports the fossil scarcity explanation. Have your cake or eat it.
You are quite happy to argue missing transitionals existed even though they would be ABUNDANTLY silent, for the missing transitionals are thousands of forms, not the odd hominid.
I'm not sure what the problem is. We have certain evidence, you have the same evidence. There is no contradiction with the evidence and the theory of evolution and evolution makes sense out of it. So what's the problem?
"Pines for a long time did not appear earlier than X date therefore it didn't exist previously"
But then they found a wollemi pine near on 300 fictional millions of years old. They have also now found grass with dinos, and mammals in their bellies.
Are you suggesting that it is a flaw to update one's understanding based on new evidence?
"If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time" "we don't find them together therefore they didn't"
I would prefer "If we find Lystrosaurus with species P then they lived at the same time; we don't find them together therefore we can't say they did".
First of all the posteriori EXCUSE that "fossil scarcity" would mean you wouldn't find the transitionals, is mostly circular reasoning.
No it isn't. We know as a fact most terrestrial animals don't become fossils upon death, so it shouldn't be surprising we don't find many fossils. Hardly circular to point out facts.
Real scientists don't argue proof, and certain conclusions of evolution, but amateur evolutionists really motivated by atheism, like you, on boards like this, do.
I didn't use the word proof in my post, other than once when I was quoting the article you posted.
I have dealt with ALL of the excuses for evolution in this thread;
Bring it here.
The fact is, there is no reasonable argument that can enable you to say that "the expected direct evidence is not there, therefore this other indirect evidence means we evolved anyway".
I haven't said that. I have said we don't expect the evidence you say we should expect and that there is still plenty of evidence that shows that life on earth has changed and the theory of evolution is the best explanation in the opinion of almost every person who has studied the subject formally.
That's INSUFFICIENT. Do you know LITTLE about the burden of proof?
Your strawman representation of my position is insufficient. Do you know little of comprehending what people are saying and representing it faithfully and in its strongest possible terms before attempting to refute it?
Circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence that superman exists, can in no way replace direct evidence, or are you saying you would believe superman existed based on circumstantial evidence, like with this comment that you believe the evidence shows we evolved from apes?
I'm not saying anything about circumstantial evidence and I am saying we are apes. My mother was an ape, my father was an ape, I am an ape - I descended from apes QED.
There are no genuine logically meritorious excuses for the various ad-hoc sophistry of appealing to none-existent gaps in the record
I make no appeals to non-existent gaps. I appeal to the evidence we have, and I can provide explanations for why we don't have a fossilized example of every species that ever lived. You seem to have got carried away in your inventions about what I am saying.
the transitionals if evolution occurred, would so swamp all other forms
How do you know this? On what basis are you making this claim?
Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.
It should be noted too that all the entities proposed to be involved in abiogenesis have been observed.
That's a might bold claim that I am not sure that I believe. Have we really observed non-living chemical replicators and all of the intermediates between them and a living cell?
We have seen chemicals. We have seen replicators. We have even seen replicating chemicals to some extent - such as vesicles. If we had seen all the things in your list, we would have basically witnessed abiogenesis, which we haven't.
However, we have seen all of its components, just not how the process of those components coming together to result in life or near as damn it to life.
Compare and contrast with the essential entities in theogenesis. We've not observed God, let alone shown how God creates life.
We've only seen 'those components' in some generic sense. We have no idea which specific sets of components led to any particular unicellular life, which is yet another step before we can claim to have witnessed abiogenesis.
Sure, but I never claimed anyone had witnessed abiogenesis. I said that entities that go towards abiogenesis had been observed. Lifeless chemicals, chemical reactions and living chemical systems. Putting it miles ahead of theogenesis.
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.
But it's a much stronger hypothesis than theogenesis which has not produced its key proposed entities.