PBS show- Dawn of humanity Homo Naledi

[UCDavis]

Listen to the commentator at 0:36. "But the bones of our ancestors are few and far between."
Pretty much saying the evidence for the "missing link" is non existent. Haha


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html

 

[HitchSlap]

Listen to the commentator at 0:36. "But the bones of our ancestors are few and far between."
Pretty much saying the evidence for the "missing link" is non existent. Haha


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html

Nailed it!

 

[UCDavis]

Lol

 

[essentialsaltes]

Albino bats are few and far between.

Pretty much saying the evidence for them is nonexistent.





Not.

 

[Gracchus]

Listen to the commentator at 0:36. "But the bones of our ancestors are few and far between."
Pretty much saying the evidence for the "missing link" is non existent. Haha


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html

Pretty much saying that the links we have found aren't missing.

 

[UCDavis]

Few and far between is actually sarcastic taunt for no real evidence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Few and far between is actually sarcastic taunt for no real evidence.

You think the commentator was taunting sarcastically?

Or do you think by you repeating it using your sarcasm voice makes the evidence go away?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Here's a qustion: How many links do we need to make it clear enough how we evolved from our ancestors? Do we need every tiny link in the chain, or is the evidence we have now enough to give a clear overall view of the picture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a qustion: How many links do we need to make it clear enough how we evolved from our ancestors?

None.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

So you don't need any links.

Just convince a player to be willing to accept the line drawn between the dots and you've accomplished your task.

Draw a fish in the ocean, draw a man on the shore, draw a line connecting the fish to the man, and bingo!

You just taught evolution.

I believe one poster here said it best:

Even if we had no fossils at all, evolution would still stand on its own merits.

 

[Gracchus]

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

The picture on your monitor, or your TV screen is composed of pixels, dots. The more dots there are the clearer the picture, the higher the resolution, and the more certain you can be about what information is being conveyed.

Draw a fish in the ocean, draw a man on the shore, draw a line connecting the fish to the man, and bingo! You just taught evolution.

No, fish-line-man does not teach evolution. You just taught how to catch a fish. But you did leave out a few dots, some necessary elements, such as bait, hook, and human intelligence. I suppose that you have to be excused for leaving out that last.

I believe one poster here said it best: Even if we had no fossils at all, evolution would still stand on its own merits.

And that is true.
Darwin did not resort to fossils in his initial presentation. He presented arguments based on selection in animal and plant breeding, observation of natural variation within species, and Malthusian theory. We now have evidence from genetics, biochemistry, and developmental biology, as well as much more fossil evidence, than Darwin was ever aware of. All of those fields of dots produce the same picture, and every new dot makes that picture clearer.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of those fields of dots produce the same picture, and every new dot makes that picture clearer.

I like your analogy of dot pitch.

It think it's a good one.

But I'm going to have to disagree with its application.

If you look at evolution as a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle, you're only working with about 5 pieces or less.

(I'm sure someone could do the math. How many common ancestors are there in existence?)

 

[Gracchus]

If you look at evolution as a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle, you're only working with about 5 pieces or less.

Could you show us your calculation? Your figures seem ... problematic.
For instance, if we have a 5 billion piece jigsaw puzzle we might have 5 million pieces, and those pieces would probably be clustered near us (in time) allowing for a fairly complete picture of the immediate neighborhood.

(I'm sure someone could do the math.

You are the one making the claim. It is your responsibility to provide the math.

How many common ancestors are there in existence?)

Well, how many of your ancestors are in existence out of the seven billion or so people alive today? (Actually, of course, your question makes no sense, since it is based on ignorance and a misapprehension of biology.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Few and far between is actually sarcastic taunt for no real evidence.

The entire program is about the very real existence of a new hominid transitional species.

 

[The Cadet]

Here's a qustion: How many links do we need to make it clear enough how we evolved from our ancestors? Do we need every tiny link in the chain, or is the evidence we have now enough to give a clear overall view of the picture?

 

[ecco]

Listen to the commentator at 0:36. "But the bones of our ancestors are few and far between."
Pretty much saying the evidence for the "missing link" is non existent. Haha


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html

The appearances of Halley's comet are few and far between.

Pretty much saying the evidence for Halley's comet is non existent.

 

[Cearbhall]

Listen to the commentator at 0:36. "But the bones of our ancestors are few and far between."
Pretty much saying the evidence for the "missing link" is non existent. Haha

To what species are you referring when you say "missing link?" Though, I suppose, if you had an idea, it wouldn't be a "missing" species...