What i can't understand about evolution....

Lots of theories here. Still no evidence. Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago? Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils (naming them would be nice) it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spellcheckEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fluffed up formatting a bit.

thanks for your reply.However you didnt answer my questions.Im grateful that someone of your obvious intellect has taken the time out to make a post of that length.Address my first point please regarding the organism that man originated from.I know that man didnt spring fully formed from this single celled organism,yet there must of been a starting point.Whats the name of it and where has this organism been discovered.It would be a very interesting creature.

so you cant name it then.Its actually relevant to a beginner like myself because if i was the sceptical sort i could possibly think you have arrived at a conclusion without providing any evidence whatsoever.Since we are going to make things up i have made a name off the top of my head for this organism that you cant provide proof for.Ill call it "magic yeast to human" or M.Y.T.H.What say you?

im very happy you are providing insight for me at this time.2nd question regards how many animals it would take for M.Y.T.H to progress to being human.I see you have provided a clue that long extinct primates were our ancestors.However they are missing some links.How many links are we missing here and how many different types or kinds of animals did the human race progress through?

feel free to educate me.

Point out where ive declared myself the winner rahvin.Ive made my posts short so it should be easy for you to identify where.Also i understand that you have answered point 1.You dont need proof and your great grandad is an example of single celled organisms turning into humans.I have merely expressed my dissatisfaction and made a lame joke.Point 2 remains unanswered however.I havent seen it answered in this thread and it surely wouldnt take long for either of your esteemed scientific minds to guide me in the right direction.How many missing links are we talking here?Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spelling like a chimp

i appreciate your honesty.Can you give me a ballpark figure?Surely you have some idea.After all evolution is fact.And i have never accused anyone of not knowing anything?!?Whats with the putting words in my mouth?Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : eating banana

right, i understand where you are coming from.You have no idea yet felt obliged due to your faith being questioned to non answer me.Anybody else wanna try? thanks for your time "dr".Please i dont deal too well with blind followers.So anyone who has some idea can try.thanks.

hi fallacycop.Can you answer how many differing transitional forms it took from the single celled organism to us please?Please dont say the fossil record shows no proof of this gradual rise.Namecalling is the domain of the fanatic and i apologise if i disrespected your single celled origin.Forgive me.Kinda unusual you guys cant seem to plot mankinds rise.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : xtra thoughtEdited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

sure can i went from baby to child to preteen to teen to young adult to adult while remaining human.So you admit theres no proof in the fossil record to plot mankinds rise from single celled organism?.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spelling.

ive basically been me fallacycop.Just grown up.Now im confused as to how this supports the gradual change from single celled to humans spanning over billions? of years.Im glad you assert theres overwhelming proof in the fossil record.We werent human all the time tho were we?We were something else and before that we were something else and before that we were something else.So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

better let someone else try mate.Been nice talking to you i admire people who can speak more than 1 language.

walk me through mankinds gradual rise.For the purpose of this discussion i will accept that bacteria was the original starting point.I know a previous poster claims this to be true yet i have a real hard time believing that since nothing in the existing natural world or anything in a science lab supports this yet ill concede in order to learn more.Plus it was conceded by a previous poster that it doesnt exist in the fossil record.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

thanks for that,now im going to pull it apart. Just briefly, you have listed homo erectus as a direct ancestor when scientists have placed erectus as a contemporary.Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links.Ill get to the apes sometime tommorrow.

Thanks for your replies everyone.I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.You dont have to test either.For the sake of maybe getting to the truth of the matter im just going to concentrate on huntards list for the meantime.Feel free to help me,next thing im going to ask as in regards to homo habilus.How many fossils of habilus have been found??.