But I just told you that there are many fossils of human ancestor species. Go and look on the web. Go to a museum, or get yourself a biology textbook. The evidence is there. Just go and look at it!
I have looked , thats why it is a problem, the transitional ones are not there. You would have to find the errors, the mistakes, the limbs etc that would not be useful. Scientists say there would be many slight variations not necessarily big jumps. So these would not kill an animal at birth. Mothers look after the young until they are old enough to survive on their own . Even if the slightly mutated animal died then , that would be in the fossil record. There really should be a lot of these. But none are found.
Yes, because all animals are related.
We are all made from the same materials, some have scales and others have feathers , some have skin other fur etc, but we are all made from the instructions from DNA. I could paint all the pictures in the world with four different colors. Just like DNA can make all the animals and plants in the world. In this way they are related. But the painting were created, so is the life we see.
The evidence for evolution isn't only the fossil record. There are many different lines of evidence that all support the theory of evolution. But evolution doesn't rely on gaps in the fossil record. Every fossil that is found MUST be consistent with the theory, or the theory would have to be tossed out. And ALL the fossils that have ever been found only support the theory of evolution. We see exactly the kinds of fossils that the theory tells us to expect to see.
Compare creationism again. The creationist explanation of the fossil record is Noah's flood. But creationism can't even explain why we don't find fossils of animals from all different eras mixed up in the same layers. Why are there no fossilized rabbits in Precambrian strata? Creationism can't explain that. Evolution does.
This is true there are other evidences that support how all life got here. Yet if you are looking for the answer of 'evolution' before you even find the evidence, you are going to come up with the same conclusion , that you went into with. For example, the 'missing links' many have been found, and then after scrutiny , set aside as, it didn't work out. This tells you the purpose is to prove 'evolution' , but further work on thee finds tells you once again , they don't fit.
When it comes to Noah,s flood there are evidence of that, scientist have found all sorts of animals washed into areas all piled up, there have been sea bed fossils found on tops of mountains, they also have found Mammoths, with food in it's mouth and frozen very quickly, even at the poles of this earth. Also showing that at one just before the flood, the condition at the poles was more tropical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
At one time, "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" rock samples became popular imagery in debates about the validity of the theory of evolution and the scientific field of evolutionary biology. The images are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory and the field of study. Many of his statements about his scientific research were popularized in his lifetime.
Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by any empirical evidence. This followed an assertion by philosopher, Karl Popper, who had proposed that falsifiability is an essential feature of a scientific theory.
Popper also expressed doubts about the scientific status of evolutionary theory, although he later concluded that the field of study was genuinely scientific.
Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian.
Contents
[hide]
This shows there was great controversy about this going from one side to the other. Scientists will still look at this from now on. Could be changed again. Lets wait 50 years and see what happens then.
Thousands of years? Millions of years? Billions? What's your best guess at the age of the Earth?
The creation accounts don't tell us how old the earth is .We rely on the scientists to do that. Though I am not totally convinced, scientist have some dating method that is prefect. But there is no time period from the creation accounts that says the earth could not be billions or millions or thousands of years old. So my guess is pretty much the same as scientists guess. Though I do feel most comfortable withe the speed of light, measurement. But even that is questioned, concerning the universe.
This is loose talk, as spidergoat said. Lucy is, however, the kind of animal that we must have evolved from.
That is only if you assume we 'evolved'. Here again though there are not fossils that show all the little changes that would happen if we were direct descendants of this. Scientists again have no evidence. But for humans , special creation is what there is evidence for.
There's no way to know. Mutations are random.
Scientists come across mutation all the time. We have twins that are joined, we have a girl with 2 heads, we have non developed limbs, etc there all sorts of mutations , that are random.
So what are we 'evolving' into now? What are we going to become next, when we are no longer human?
I think this is false. If Lucy had "matched" a chimpanzee, then scientists would have classified her as a chimpanzee.
Scientists change their evaluation of these finds all the time , when reexamined.
It doesn't matter, because Lucy is not the only example of Australopithecus afarensis. Other, more complete, examples have been found since.
Yes and that was why they don't think Lucy, is part of this now.
With scientists there had been many of these , over time they fall by the wayside.
A single species of cells.
Then let scientists prove it.
Correct. You share a large portion of your DNA with daffodils, like I said earlier.
It must be many years of 'education' to come up with an idea like that. There must be a lot marijuana in the scientists DNA.
