If Darwinism is true, there ought to be specimens of that in-between species between ape and human...

[BULLDOG]

Where are they?

You must have been home schooled to have not seen this chart.

 

[cnm]

Just a thought

Thoughtless...

 

[justinacolmena]

Who cares about the bible? It's just another one of many sacred texts that include origin myths.

Why do you believe Darwin's theories are so sacred?

 

[Votto]

Who cares about the bible? It's just another one of many sacred texts that include origin myths.

Why do you believe Darwin's theories are so sacred?

Because he is a racist

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”
-Charles Darwin

 

[fncceo]

Where are they?

Actually, that's not how human evolution works. Apes are one branch of an evolutionary tree, humans are another. At one point, where the branches join, we both had a common ancestor.

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

Konrad Lorenz: "Das 'missing link' zwischen Affen und Menschen? Das sind wir!"

Translation: "The 'missing link' between monkeys and human beings? This is Blackrook and all others!"

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

You must have been home schooled to have not seen this chart.
View attachment 485764

This is a wonderful scheme. The only problem: cross-links. I remember when I said the first time that I think genes from the homo Neanderthaliensis are still existing, because I see with my own eyes from time to time some genes from them walking in the streets. I was called an idiot because this is impossible and I misinterpret the bandwidth of human genetic. Meanwhile it's clear that human beings from Europe and Asia also own some genes from the homo neanderthaliensis. And another thing had happened: Someone found bones from a group of human beings, which were so different, that it normally would had been three or four different species, if they would had been found seperated from each other. But all of them were just simple homi erecti. So some homo species are perhaps not a species but only variations of the same species.

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

What makes no sense? Human beings learn. What we learn has not a lot to do with our genetics. Your Italian would be perfect, if you would had been grown up in Italy for example. And to speak the language of a country in which somone lives is better for the "fitness". But a special language is not determined with genetics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since we invented DNA testing it has become possible to infer when various species branched off from earlier forms. Fossils are great but they no longer tell the whole story.

infer means guess it may be a good guess but still a guess.

 

[cnm]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

The point is to arrive at the best explanation for the available evidence. When the evidence changes the explanation changes.

 

[Hollie]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

As usual, your comments are entirely, “... because I say so”.

You seem stuck on this idea that unless millions of transitional forms are identified, that somehow supports your argument for gods.

Further, you seem to hold that quaint, 1940’s notion of some “missing link” waiting to be found. There is no single "missing link" that if discovered would solve some evolutionary puzzle.That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

I suspect you don’t understand the basic definition of evolutionary biology which is, paraphrasing, changes to populations over time.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fossil record in terms of a 6,000 year old planet?

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

 

[Turtlesoup]

Who cares about the bible? It's just another one of many sacred texts that include origin myths.

Why do you believe Darwin's theories are so sacred?

Because they are provable...
he simply applied selective breeding on farms to selective breeding in nature as the cause of evolution. Where man would chose what animals to breed to get certain characteristics--Darwin (well his uncle and others initially) theorized that natures survival of the fittest also accomplished the same thing to certain characteristics. Darwin simply proved what others had already theorized. AND YES iq is genetic and one of those things that both nature and man did or could breed for.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

As usual, your comments are entirely, “... because I say so”.

You seem stuck on this idea that unless millions of transitional forms are identified, that somehow supports your argument for gods.

Further, you seem to hold that quaint, 1940’s notion of some “missing link” waiting to be found. There is no single "missing link" that if discovered would solve some evolutionary puzzle.That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

I suspect you don’t understand the basic definition of evolutionary biology which is, paraphrasing, changes to populations over time.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fossil record in terms of a 6,000 year old planet?

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

before we go any farther very few people believe the earth is 6000 years old so you can drop that attempt to marginalize my points. I realize you WANT to believe millions and millions of Christians are that dumb but it simply isn't true.

you can not link to the supposed first appearance of the human like ape proclaimed by science with a complete family tree. I have asked for it several times. what you have are different species that are not connected by anything other then guesses and opinion. You can also drop the missing link bullshit too. All I have ask for is a family tree clearly linking each supposed evolution to the one before it and after it.

You can not do it.

in your above examples are the words like possibly and a supposition that a great break is some how linked with no actual evidence it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where are they?

They post on USMB as Progressives and Biden supporters

 

[Hollie]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

As usual, your comments are entirely, “... because I say so”.

You seem stuck on this idea that unless millions of transitional forms are identified, that somehow supports your argument for gods.

Further, you seem to hold that quaint, 1940’s notion of some “missing link” waiting to be found. There is no single "missing link" that if discovered would solve some evolutionary puzzle.That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

I suspect you don’t understand the basic definition of evolutionary biology which is, paraphrasing, changes to populations over time.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fossil record in terms of a 6,000 year old planet?

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

before we go any farther very few people believe the earth is 6000 years old so you can drop that attempt to marginalize my points. I realize you WANT to believe millions and millions of Christians are that dumb but it simply isn't true.

you can not link to the supposed first appearance of the human like ape proclaimed by science with a complete family tree. I have asked for it several times. what you have are different species that are not connected by anything other then guesses and opinion. You can also drop the missing link bullshit too. All I have ask for is a family tree clearly linking each supposed evolution to the one before it and after it.

You can not do it.

in your above examples are the words like possibly and a supposition that a great break is some how linked with no actual evidence it is.

Your “... all I ask”, comment is right out of the ID creationer playbook. The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates. It’s formula. It’s an attempt by the science deniers to calm an emotional requirement that biological evolution must be false because every fossil over the last hundreds of thousands of years is not perfectly preserved.

If, on the other hand, ID creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. However, that isn’t the case. This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurredDo you find it curious that the gods “designed” species that are basically indistinguishable from apes and humans? It seems the gods have a very strange sense of humor.

The substantial fossil evidence exists. You choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

So, the burden of proof for your gods now falls on you. Link to your gods. Identify the hierarchy of designer gods who created your designer gods and from there you can link to some evidence supporting your gods. From there, you can link to the first humans in the garden of eden. From there, I will need a complete family tree with evidentiary support of the offspring of the first two humans from that wondrous garden of eden 6,000 years ago.

Fossil evidence of Adam and Eve is required as well as a complete fossil history of their offspring.

Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

As usual, your comments are entirely, “... because I say so”.

You seem stuck on this idea that unless millions of transitional forms are identified, that somehow supports your argument for gods.

Further, you seem to hold that quaint, 1940’s notion of some “missing link” waiting to be found. There is no single "missing link" that if discovered would solve some evolutionary puzzle.That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

I suspect you don’t understand the basic definition of evolutionary biology which is, paraphrasing, changes to populations over time.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fossil record in terms of a 6,000 year old planet?

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

before we go any farther very few people believe the earth is 6000 years old so you can drop that attempt to marginalize my points. I realize you WANT to believe millions and millions of Christians are that dumb but it simply isn't true.

you can not link to the supposed first appearance of the human like ape proclaimed by science with a complete family tree. I have asked for it several times. what you have are different species that are not connected by anything other then guesses and opinion. You can also drop the missing link bullshit too. All I have ask for is a family tree clearly linking each supposed evolution to the one before it and after it.

You can not do it.

in your above examples are the words like possibly and a supposition that a great break is some how linked with no actual evidence it is.

Your “... all I ask”, comment is right out of the ID creationer playbook. The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates. It’s formula. It’s an attempt by the science deniers to calm an emotional requirement that biological evolution must be false because every fossil over the last hundreds of thousands of years is not perfectly preserved.

If, on the other hand, ID creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. However, that isn’t the case. This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurredDo you find it curious that the gods “designed” species that are basically indistinguishable from apes and humans? It seems the gods have a very strange sense of humor.

The substantial fossil evidence exists. You choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

So, the burden of proof for your gods now falls on you. Link to your gods. Identify the hierarchy of designer gods who created your designer gods and from there you can link to some evidence supporting your gods. From there, you can link to the first humans in the garden of eden. From there, I will need a complete family tree with evidentiary support of the offspring of the first two humans from that wondrous garden of eden 6,000 years ago.

Fossil evidence of Adam and Eve is required as well as a complete fossil history of their offspring.

Thanks.

again with the false claim of 6000 years which proves you are a lying moron and a bigot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where are they?

it officially is an ape like creature and the claim is that a group of ape like creatures slowly began walking on 2 legs and did not use their arms. the problem is there is no direct link between this mythical first species and modern man. the supposed link has several breaks in it and several places where the supposed link is not linked to the previous species or the next species,

As usual, your comments are entirely, “... because I say so”.

You seem stuck on this idea that unless millions of transitional forms are identified, that somehow supports your argument for gods.

Further, you seem to hold that quaint, 1940’s notion of some “missing link” waiting to be found. There is no single "missing link" that if discovered would solve some evolutionary puzzle.That is silly. There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

I suspect you don’t understand the basic definition of evolutionary biology which is, paraphrasing, changes to populations over time.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fossil record in terms of a 6,000 year old planet?

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

before we go any farther very few people believe the earth is 6000 years old so you can drop that attempt to marginalize my points. I realize you WANT to believe millions and millions of Christians are that dumb but it simply isn't true.

you can not link to the supposed first appearance of the human like ape proclaimed by science with a complete family tree. I have asked for it several times. what you have are different species that are not connected by anything other then guesses and opinion. You can also drop the missing link bullshit too. All I have ask for is a family tree clearly linking each supposed evolution to the one before it and after it.

You can not do it.

in your above examples are the words like possibly and a supposition that a great break is some how linked with no actual evidence it is.

Your “... all I ask”, comment is right out of the ID creationer playbook. The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates. It’s formula. It’s an attempt by the science deniers to calm an emotional requirement that biological evolution must be false because every fossil over the last hundreds of thousands of years is not perfectly preserved.

If, on the other hand, ID creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. However, that isn’t the case. This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurredDo you find it curious that the gods “designed” species that are basically indistinguishable from apes and humans? It seems the gods have a very strange sense of humor.

The substantial fossil evidence exists. You choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

So, the burden of proof for your gods now falls on you. Link to your gods. Identify the hierarchy of designer gods who created your designer gods and from there you can link to some evidence supporting your gods. From there, you can link to the first humans in the garden of eden. From there, I will need a complete family tree with evidentiary support of the offspring of the first two humans from that wondrous garden of eden 6,000 years ago.

Fossil evidence of Adam and Eve is required as well as a complete fossil history of their offspring.

Thanks.

it is not my problem that you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim and that when you try it clearly states it is an assumption or guess.