Which you say are ancestors.
Relatives of ancestors, unlikely we'd find actual direct ancestors - particularly of those closest to us.
A moot point. Darwin said they would be found.
Many have since Darwin said that.
The missing links should not still be missing
Why?
That is true, but 150 years ago evolution-theory existed.
Yes. I don't understand the 'but' here. Darwin's Theory of Evolution didn't propose to give us perfect understanding of fossil reconstruction.
Your claim is that humans are apes, but anatomically we aren't.
Anatomically we are.
but in fact anatomically apes are closer to monkeys
Than what? Humans? No. Quite wrong.
It is the begging-the-question fallacy you commit here.
No it isn't.
To look at the main defining characteristics of monkeys, apes, and humans
Sure let's look at it.
Tail? Apes - No. Humans - No. Monkeys - yes.
and humans please read this opening message here
quote:
Attached File compareee.jpg 161.5KB 1 downloads
Attached File compareeee2.jpg 52.01KB 1 downloads
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?
™ Version 4.2
