many fossils are missing for a long time period. so even if we will find a 70my human fossil we can always claim that his population was too small to leave any fossil between say the last 3-70 my. like in the coelacanth case. very simple. since we are both disagree- lets leave this for readers to judge because i want to move on...
You are always free to leave the debate, but it's not on me if you do. I am not satisfied in the slightest. The fact that you continue, even now, not to acknowledge that the simple fact that the fossil record for members of the genus Homo is extremely complete and depicts origins of the genus within less than 10 million years demonstrates that your claim that a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil could just be hand waved away is incorrect. You have yet to demonstrate any actually comparable event in which something on that scale was handwaved despite a very complete fossil record. All examples provided either pertain to organisms which do not have a very complete fossil record, significantly less amount of time adjusted, or both. In fact, all the ones I recall have both.
In the case of coelacanths, it was assumed that they went extinct, not that they originated 70 million years earlier than all other fossil evidence suggests. Modern coelacanths are not the same as those ancient species either, they just retain many of the ancient traits. Lazarus taxa are the OPPOSITE situation to finding a human fossil that is 70 million years old, and the fact that you bring them up just makes me think that you understand your own claims even less.
look again in my alx3 example: its indeed completely lost. so here you go.
In 3 organisms. In order for the loss of the gene to mimic the claims you have made, which are that evolution supporters could wave away two independent lineages independently developing identical genes by claiming that those two lineages are the only ones that retained said gene and that deletions occurred in all other relevant lineages, those 3 organisms being the only ones that HAVE the gene would match the claim better, though not precisely. That only 3 lost it doesn't allow for your claim at all.
Again, in order for gene loss to give the illusion that two distant lineages independently developed identical genes, every single lineage more closely related to them than each other would have to lack the gene. You have never given an example of this occurring. Not some lacking the gene, ALL. Some doesn't provide evidence for your claim, so stop presenting examples of it.
Not only that, but for your original claim that mammals could have evolved independently rather than from shared ancestry, identical genes arising in separate lineages should be extremely common, to the point that your kid could be born with a random cat gene not seen in any other humans. It should be happening so frequently, yet you struggle to find any examples which even vaguely seem to match your claims from your personal perspective.
