Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Arius]

2 questions:

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

Darwin wrote a lot in his book, so I have to ask you; "What do you think that 'I think' Darwin was incorrect on?"

Here is my simple questions about "evolution":

Q. What is the species that is shown as a branch-off, or the 'T' Dawkins is pointing to which he calls the 'Common Ancestor'?

He says: "We both (chimps and humans) descended from a common ancestor
time 0:21

What species is this common ancestor?

Thank you, and God bless you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin wrote a lot in his book, so I have to ask you; "What do you think that 'I think' Darwin was incorrect on?"

Here is my simple questions about "evolution":

Q. What is the species that is shown as a branch-off, or the 'T' Dawkins is pointing to which he calls the 'Common Ancestor'?

He says: "We both (chimps and humans) descended from a common ancestor
time 0:21

What species is this common ancestor?

Thank you, and God bless you.

Could you please answer my questions without the snarkiness, please?

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

 

[Arius]

Do you really want a reasonable discussion? It doesn't sound like it.

We have plenty of examples of hominid fossils although none of these are claimed to be our direct descendants.

Fossil Hominid Skulls

These are creatures that show intermediate morphology between humans and chimps.

Oh my Lord, .. so now you're saying we evolved from chimps?

Besides, .. this is just a bunch of dried up skulls dug up from God knows where, that died from only God knows what birth defects or debilitating disease, placed in a predetermined order to try to prove evolution religious idea that man evolved from, .. umm, .. well Dawkins said gorillas, but now your saying from "chimps"!?

Now you show me a chimp (C)Australopithecus africanus - and a deformed human scull that looks like a chimp (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 ??

Look, all I know is that science is "observing the world around us", .. like the 8 million living species and lining them up and observing them to prove a "scientific theory", not deformed and died of disease bone fragments.

You have this:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My

(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
Which is WHAT? Is it a scull of a dead chimp that was assembled to look a little like a human, OR a dead human that looks like a chimp? I mean without being able to observe this creature in real 'life', the bone fragment could be easily made to look somewhat like a human. No one really knows, nor will say since the Evolution Religion, like all Religions have pulled some crazy stunts in their history to justify their belief, remember Ota Benga and the Aborigines!

(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
And this "Taung child may, or may not be a human (homo) that looks like a chimp, and its classification as Homo has been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s

(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

So may I ask what these questionable human or chimp skulls have to do with science, .. or the "scientific proof" of evolution?

Now I will post this again, Dawkins is an expert in the Evolution Faith, and he said we are not chimps, or did we descend from chimps, so why are you giving me chimp looking sculls? He said we descended from a common ancestor who lived there:

TIME 0:21

So please tell me "what species is that Common ancestor"? Up till you showed me this it was either gorilla or human, but now it may be a chimp? OK fine, let's say the common ancestor is chimp, now tell me how that (population of) chimp speciate/evolve/morph into human?

a) Osmosis?
b) turned human one night?
c) gave birth to humans?

 

[USincognito]

So may I ask what these questionable human or chimp skulls have to do with science, .. or the "scientific proof" of evolution?

There's so much wrong with this post, but I want to concentrate on this bit here.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

 

[Arius]

Could you please answer my questions without the snarkiness, please?

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

Are you asking about to my previous statement this one?

Arius said - Here is a brief view of Darwin's rhetoric something about all the different animals he was watching, obviously you never read this right?

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

Talking about typing much and not saying anything, .. Yawn!

8. Hybridism
Pure species have of course their organs of reproduction in a perfect condition, yet when intercrossed they produce either few or no offspring. Hybrids, on the other hand, have their reproductive organs functionally impotent, as may be clearly seen in the state of the male element in both plants and animals; though the organs themselves are perfect in structure, as far as the microscope reveals. In the first case the two sexual elements which go to form the embryo are perfect; in the second case they are either not at all developed, or are imperfectly developed. This distinction is important, when the cause of the sterility, which is common to the two cases, has to be considered. The distinction has probably been slurred over, owing to the sterility in both cases being looked on as a special endowment, beyond the province of our reasoning powers.

The fertility of varieties, that is of the forms known or believed to have descended from common parents, when intercrossed, and likewise the fertility of their mongrel offspring, is, on my theory, of equal importance with the sterility of species; for it seems to make a broad and clear distinction between varieties and species.

First, for the sterility of species when crossed and of their hybrid offspring. It is impossible to study the several memoirs and works of those two conscientious and admirable observers, Kolreuter and Gartner, who almost devoted their lives to this subject, without being deeply impressed with the high generality of some degree of sterility. Kolreuter makes the rule universal; but then he cuts the knot, for in ten cases in which he found two forms, considered by most authors as distinct species, quite fertile together, he unhesitatingly ranks them as varieties. Gartner, also, makes the rule equally universal; and he disputes the entire fertility of Kolreuter's ten cases. But in these and in many other cases, Gartner is obliged carefully to count the seeds, in order to show that there is any degree of sterility. He always compares the maximum number of seeds produced by two species when crossed and by their hybrid offspring, with the average number produced by both pure parent-species in a state of nature. But a serious cause of error seems to me to be here introduced: a plant to be hybridised must be castrated, and, what is often more important, must be secluded in order to prevent pollen being brought to it by insects from other plants. Nearly all the plants experimentised on by Gartner were potted, and apparently were kept in a chamber in his house. That these processes are often injurious to the fertility of a plant cannot be doubted; for Gartner gives in his table about a score of cases of plants which he castrated, and artificially fertilised with their own pollen, and (excluding all cases such as the Leguminosae, in which there is an acknowledged difficulty in the manipulation) half of these twenty plants had their fertility in some degree impaired. Moreover, as Gartner during several years repeatedly crossed the primrose and cowslip, which we have such good reason to believe to be varieties, and only once or twice succeeded in getting fertile seed; as he found the common red and blue pimpernels (Anagallis arvensis and coerulea), which the best botanists rank as varieties, absolutely sterile together; and as he came to the same conclusion in several other analogous cases; it seems to me that we may well be permitted to doubt whether many other species are really so sterile, when intercrossed, as Gartner believes.
-----------

Yawn, ...

this is just a snippet of all the yapping he does in the book "On the Origin of Species"

and no mention of having observed any speciation of a particular species into another species, or even that he "looked" for species that shown potential after 4 billion years of evolution!?

Fact - Evolutionists all agree that: "No species of any kind has ever speciated from one species into another in their lifetime"

To top that off they say: "If a species would have ever speciated into another species in their lifetime(*) it would of disproven the evolution theory"

So why would ANYONE in their right mind follow such a self-contradicting Religious belief as Evolution, and be allowed to teach it to children as 'science' is beyond me?

(*) includes all surviving and living species within the past four billion years of claimed evolution.

 

[Gene2memE]

pol

Fact - Evolutionists all agree that: "No species of any kind has ever speciated from one species into another in their lifetime"

To top that off they say: "If a species would have ever speciated into another species in their lifetime(*) it would of disproven the evolution theory"

No, not a fact, nor a defeater for evolutionary biology.

For instance, there is this very recent (2017) study on rapid hybrid speciation occurring in finches in the Galapagos. It demonstrates that the combination of hybridisation and reproductive isolation can produce a distinct new species in as few as THREE GENERATIONS.

Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s finches

Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin's finches
Galapagos finches have driven hypotheses of how speciation occurs. Most commonly, it is assumed that natural selection separates species originating from a single population on the basis of variation in traits that confer advantages for survival and reproduction. Lamichhaney et al. document a case where cross-species hybridization established a reproductively isolated lineage, which demonstrates a process known as homoploid hybrid speciation in action... The authors used genetic markers and phenotypic analyses to create a pedigree that revealed how a cross-island migrant bred with a native species to form a self-perpetuating hybrid population that was reproductively isolated from both parental species.

Abstract
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and, despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of generations, can be established in only three.​

This is not the only example of recent and rapid speciation observed, either in nature or in the lab. Not by a long shot.

Observation of speciation events plants goes back to 1905, when a botanist found that some Evening Primrose in his greenhouse had doubled the number of chromosomes (from 14 to 28, via ploidy increase) and could no longer breed with the existing examples with only 14 chromosomes, creating Oenothera gigas.

Creationists try to hand wave this away by claiming that this is not a change in 'kind' - i.e. that a plant is still a plant, a finch is still a finch, ect, ect. This however, is a dishonest attempt to insert a non-scientific blanket term into a debate that uses structured, formal scientific language, to attempt to obscure the fact that evolution has been repeatedly observed, right up to the point of speciation.

 

[Arius]

There's so much wrong with this post, but I want to concentrate on this bit here.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

I mean the length that Evolutionists will go to delude their belief is just mind boggling:

Proof: (definition)
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

See, proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact

Dawkins said right here that "Evolution is a FACT, as proved as any fact we solidly know in science, the earth is billions of years old, and we are cousins of fungi, .. and rats" Time 3:02

 

[USincognito]

I mean the length that Evolutionists will go to delude their belief is just mind boggling:
{snip unrelated stuff}

Did you read the link I provided or not.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.​

Bold mine.

 

[Arius]

pol

No, not a fact, not a defeater for evolutionary biology.

For instance, there is this very recent (2017) study on rapid hybrid speciation occurring in finches in the Galapagos. It demonstrates that the combination of hybridisation and reproductive isolation can produce a distinct new species in as few as THREE GENERATIONS.

Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s finches

Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin's finches
Galapagos finches have driven hypotheses of how speciation occurs. Most commonly, it is assumed that natural selection separates species originating from a single population on the basis of variation in traits that confer advantages for survival and reproduction. Lamichhaney et al. document a case where cross-species hybridization established a reproductively isolated lineage, which demonstrates a process known as homoploid hybrid speciation in action... The authors used genetic markers and phenotypic analyses to create a pedigree that revealed how a cross-island migrant bred with a native species to form a self-perpetuating hybrid population that was reproductively isolated from both parental species.

Abstract
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and, despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of generations, can be established in only three.​

This is not the only example of recent and rapid speciation observed, either in nature or in the lab. Not by a long shot.

Observation of speciation events plants goes back to 1905, when a botanist found that some Evening Primrose in his greenhouse had doubled the number of chromosomes (from 14 to 28, via ploidy increase) and could no longer breed with the existing examples with only 14 chromosomes, creating Oenothera gigas.

Creationists try to hand wave this away by claiming that this is not a change in 'kind' - i.e. that a plant is still a plant, a finch is still a finch, ect, ect. This however, is a dishonest attempt to insert a non-scientific blanket term into a debate that uses structured, formal scientific language, to attempt to obscure the fact that evolution has been repeatedly observed, right up to the point of speciation.

"the fact that evolution has been repeatedly observed, right up to the point of speciation." .. darn it, .. soooo close, right up to that point, but no further right?

Thank you Gene2memE, so please tell me, "how much more time would we need to actually see speciation happen"?

Evolutionist say it happened in the past and teach it in schools. They have millions of transitional fossils, we see over eight million different living species today that evolved from amoeba over the 4.2 Billion years of evolution. So how much more time do we need to be able to actually witness evolution/speciation as it happens?

Are they even watching for speciation to happen, .. I mean like you said, they have been observed right up to that point, right?

So tell me, how do they know that some of those chimps in Africa are not already human? You know, DNA match, building wheels, fire for cooking, moving into caves because they start getting afraid of the dark and invent religion and the gods, .. and so on?

 

[Arius]

Did you read the link I provided or not.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.​

Bold mine.

Yes I did, .. and your {snip unrelated stuff} just proved what you left I said above it: "I mean the length that Evolutionists will go to delude their belief is just mind boggling". .. lol

 

[USincognito]

Yes I did, .. and your {snip unrelated stuff} just proved what you left I said above it: "I mean the length that Evolutionists will go to delude their belief is just mind boggling". .. lol

It's clear that you did not. Because you're still trying to use a common definition instead of the scientific one. Further the fact there is no such thing as scientific proof has nothing to do with evolution or "evolutionists" (whatever those are supposed to be).

One more time.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

And just to hammer this home, here's Creationist Jay Wile's thoughts on the subject.
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.​

 

[Speedwell]

"the fact that evolution has been repeatedly observed, right up to the point of speciation." .. darn it, .. soooo close, right up to that point, but no further right?

Point? There is no "point" after that. Once speciation is seen to occur, the basic elements of the evolutionary process are complete. What happens after that is a continuation of the gradual change which led to speciation in the first place, and a continuing divergence of phenotype.

 

[Gene2memE]

"the fact that evolution has been repeatedly observed, right up to the point of speciation." .. darn it, .. soooo close, right up to that point, but no further right?

Perhaps my wording was poorly chosen. Those two examples I provided were of speciation events. I suspect you didn't really read the information I provided, because then you would have realised that both were detailing rapid speciation events.

Thank you Gene2memE, so please tell me, "how much more time would we need to actually see speciation happen"?

Zero time. Because we've seen it. Multiple times, in multiple different ways.

Evolutionist say it happened in the past and teach it in schools.

"Evolutionist" is not a thing - its a label that creationists apply to people who accept that the Theory of Evolution provides the best supported explanation for the diversity of life.

Yes, the theory of evolution is taught in schools and universities. That's because its an integral part of biology, and any lesson on the history of life on this planet would be incomplete without it.

Speciation happens. Both in the past and in the present. There are species, right now, that are in the process of speciation - for any host of reasons. Some speciation events are gradual requiring thousands or even millions of generations to complete. Others occur suddenly.

Speciation isn't caused by one thing in particular. There are a multitude of causes, and there are a multitude of different types of speciation.

They have millions of transitional fossils,

Millions might be stretching it, more like tens of thousands.

Can I ask you though: How do you define the term transitional fossil? What, in your mind, separates a transitional fossil from a regular fossil?

So tell me, how do they know that some of those chimps in Africa are not already human? You know, DNA match, building wheels, fire for cooking, moving into caves because they start getting afraid of the dark and invent religion and the gods, .. and so on?

This reads like some kind of bizarre creationist parody of the history of recent human evolution.

Even if chimpanzees could do all that you say - manipulate fire for cooking, create complex tools, start seeking shelter in caves - none of that would make them human. That would just make them chimpanzees that can make fire, build a wheel and live in caves.

You don't seem to understand - chimpanzees can never become human. Even if they loose their body hair, start walking upright and become ground dwelling, complex tool users. Taxonomically speaking, its impossible. Their descendants will always be related to their chimpanzee ancestors.

Humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. At some point in out history, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees separated and evolved differently. We now have completely separate evolutionary lineages.

Asking "how do they know that some of those chimps in Africa are not already human?" is like asking "how do they know that some of those cats in Africa are not already dogs?" Even if a cat starts chasing cars, wagging its tail and panting, it will still never be a dog.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you asking about to my previous statement this one?



8. Hybridism
Pure species have of course their organs of reproduction in a perfect condition, yet when intercrossed they produce either few or no offspring. Hybrids, on the other hand, have their reproductive organs functionally impotent, as may be clearly seen in the state of the male element in both plants and animals; though the organs themselves are perfect in structure, as far as the microscope reveals. In the first case the two sexual elements which go to form the embryo are perfect; in the second case they are either not at all developed, or are imperfectly developed. This distinction is important, when the cause of the sterility, which is common to the two cases, has to be considered. The distinction has probably been slurred over, owing to the sterility in both cases being looked on as a special endowment, beyond the province of our reasoning powers.

The fertility of varieties, that is of the forms known or believed to have descended from common parents, when intercrossed, and likewise the fertility of their mongrel offspring, is, on my theory, of equal importance with the sterility of species; for it seems to make a broad and clear distinction between varieties and species.

First, for the sterility of species when crossed and of their hybrid offspring. It is impossible to study the several memoirs and works of those two conscientious and admirable observers, Kolreuter and Gartner, who almost devoted their lives to this subject, without being deeply impressed with the high generality of some degree of sterility. Kolreuter makes the rule universal; but then he cuts the knot, for in ten cases in which he found two forms, considered by most authors as distinct species, quite fertile together, he unhesitatingly ranks them as varieties. Gartner, also, makes the rule equally universal; and he disputes the entire fertility of Kolreuter's ten cases. But in these and in many other cases, Gartner is obliged carefully to count the seeds, in order to show that there is any degree of sterility. He always compares the maximum number of seeds produced by two species when crossed and by their hybrid offspring, with the average number produced by both pure parent-species in a state of nature. But a serious cause of error seems to me to be here introduced: a plant to be hybridised must be castrated, and, what is often more important, must be secluded in order to prevent pollen being brought to it by insects from other plants. Nearly all the plants experimentised on by Gartner were potted, and apparently were kept in a chamber in his house. That these processes are often injurious to the fertility of a plant cannot be doubted; for Gartner gives in his table about a score of cases of plants which he castrated, and artificially fertilised with their own pollen, and (excluding all cases such as the Leguminosae, in which there is an acknowledged difficulty in the manipulation) half of these twenty plants had their fertility in some degree impaired. Moreover, as Gartner during several years repeatedly crossed the primrose and cowslip, which we have such good reason to believe to be varieties, and only once or twice succeeded in getting fertile seed; as he found the common red and blue pimpernels (Anagallis arvensis and coerulea), which the best botanists rank as varieties, absolutely sterile together; and as he came to the same conclusion in several other analogous cases; it seems to me that we may well be permitted to doubt whether many other species are really so sterile, when intercrossed, as Gartner believes.
-----------

Yawn, ...

this is just a snippet of all the yapping he does in the book "On the Origin of Species"

and no mention of having observed any speciation of a particular species into another species, or even that he "looked" for species that shown potential after 4 billion years of evolution!?

Fact - Evolutionists all agree that: "No species of any kind has ever speciated from one species into another in their lifetime"

To top that off they say: "If a species would have ever speciated into another species in their lifetime(*) it would of disproven the evolution theory"

So why would ANYONE in their right mind follow such a self-contradicting Religious belief as Evolution, and be allowed to teach it to children as 'science' is beyond me?

(*) includes all surviving and living species within the past four billion years of claimed evolution.

Could you please answer my questions without the snarkiness, please?

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh my Lord, .. so now you're saying we evolved from chimps?

No, I didn't say that at all, are you creating a deliberate strawman or do you really not understand what I said?

"We have plenty of examples of hominid fossils although none of these are claimed to be our direct descendants....

....These are creatures that show intermediate morphology between humans and chimps."

If you can't understand what that means there is little point in continuing. The rest of your post is an embarrassing mix of hand waving and ignorance so I'm reluctant to pick it apart.

Besides, .. this is just a bunch of dried up skulls dug up from God knows where, that died from only God knows what birth defects or debilitating disease, placed in a predetermined order to try to prove evolution religious idea that man evolved from, .. umm, .. well Dawkins said gorillas, but now your saying from "chimps"!?

Data is available on each of those skulls - and the rest of the fossil skeletons we have "dug up", don't mistake the fact that you know absolutely nothing about them that the rest of us don't.

And those adult specimins died from birth defects? Really?

Dawkins is not saying that we evolved from gorillas and I'm not saying we evolved from chimps, where do you get this garbage?

Look, all I know is that science is "observing the world around us", .. like the 8 million living species and lining them up and observing them to prove a "scientific theory", not deformed and died of disease bone fragments.

What makes you say that the fossil record only contains "deformed and died of disease bone fragments".

Have you ever read any scientific papers on Australopithecus Africanus fossils? Do you know why they display intermediate morphology between humans and chimps?

(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
Which is WHAT? Is it a scull of a dead chimp that was assembled to look a little like a human, OR a dead human that looks like a chimp?

Funny that isn't it? You obviously can't decide which it is. You've just admitted that it displays features of both, well done, you've identified your first transitional fossil!

I mean without being able to observe this creature in real 'life', the bone fragment could be easily made to look somewhat like a human.

By bone fragment do you mean skeleton? And it seems that you underestimate the techniques and methods of modern paleontology. Displaying your ignorance on a topic isn't really helping your "arguments".

(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
And this "Taung child may, or may not be a human (homo) that looks like a chimp, and its classification as Homo has been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s

"Taung Child" isn't an example of Homo Habilis, where are you getting this crap from? How can you expect any one to take your opinion seriously if you can't even get these simple things right?

So may I ask what these questionable human or chimp skulls have to do with science, .. or the "scientific proof" of evolution?

That's the point, the are neither modern human or modern chimp - they display morphology common to both in varying degrees - transitionals if you will.

So please tell me "what species is that Common ancestor"? Up till you showed me this it was either gorilla or human, but now it may be a chimp? OK fine, let's say the common ancestor is chimp, now tell me how that (population of) chimp speciate/evolve/morph into human?

a) Osmosis?
b) turned human one night?
c) gave birth to humans?

You're asking for a common ancestor but it doesn't sound like you even know what that means. And no I won't "say the common ancestor is chimp" because it would be idiotic, if you were asking for the common ancestor of Chimps and humans you might have a valid question.

Looking at your A,B, or C options it's obvious that you are just trolling, I'm not even going to dignify that crap with a response.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I mean the length that Evolutionists will go to delude their belief is just mind boggling:

Proof: (definition)
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

See, proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact

Dawkins said right here that "Evolution is a FACT, as proved as any fact we solidly know in science, the earth is billions of years old, and we are cousins of fungi, .. and rats" Time 3:02

There's a difference between loose colloquial word meanings and their technical meanings (q.v. 'Theory').
The technical definition of proof used in the sciences is definition 1.3 here:

1.3 - A series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.

Example sentences:​

• ‘Nguyen's work is one manifestation of her longstanding love for rigorous and creative mathematical proofs.’
• ‘Euclid changed the proofs of several theorems in this book so that they fitted the new definition of proportion given by Eudoxus.’
• ‘Fermat subsequently died, leaving mathematicians to search for 350 years for a proof of the theorem.’

Evolution is a fact - e.g. we have observed evolution in action. The 'Theory of Evolution' is a well-evidenced and well-tested explanation for the variety of life, based on that fact.

 

[Rivga]

Evolutionist say it happened in the past and teach it in schools. They have millions of transitional fossils, we see over eight million different living species today that evolved from amoeba over the 4.2 Billion years of evolution. So how much more time do we need to be able to actually witness evolution/speciation as it happens?

You do realise that evolution happens over a huge period of time, well that is not entirely true, evolution happens over a huge amount of generations. So all we need is to find something that ticks through generations fast!

Something like say E.coli - an ongoing study in experimental evolution that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual E. Coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.

50,00 generations later and they have witnessed huge changes.

Science has not been around for very long so to suggest that we should have witnessed evolution outside of the rapid generational creatures is simply unrealistic.

The best way of looking at it, we have a snap shot of the evolutionary process at a set point in time. So what can we expect:

1) Related animals that are almost separating as species: We'd expect that they can still mate, as they are technically the same species but those offspring to be a little strange and in some cases genetically weak.
2) Some animals will be at the start of the evolutionary process - so you'll see the start of divergence.
3) Positive mutations exist, that natural selection has not effected yet.

1) Tigers and Lions are able to mate - but there genetic offspring are a strange mix, look up Liger and Tigon. There are a more examples
2) Orca - in different part of the world have started to demonstrate small differences in teeth shape and behaviours that looks like the divergence of there species. (millions of years to go)
3) In human beings we have seen some genetic mutations that give certain people malaria resistance another giving higher bone density.

I'd usually try to give a little more detail, but I need sleep and you all have google.

 

[Arius]

It's clear that you did not. Because you're still trying to use a common definition instead of the scientific one. Further the fact there is no such thing as scientific proof has nothing to do with evolution or "evolutionists" (whatever those are supposed to be).

One more time.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

And just to hammer this home, here's Creationist Jay Wile's thoughts on the subject.
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.​

You really should tell this to Richard Dawkins, that: "it is impossible for science to prove anything", .. because the poor man swears that Evolution/speciation of gorillas to human is a fact, and goes around the world showing off his murdered Aborigine skull to prove it.

But from what you are showing me about science, H2O could be carbon monoxide for all we know!?

All I was asking you guys is: How did a population of gorillas evolve/speciate into a population of humans, .. that's all. "Over a long period of time is not an answer. That just tells me how long it took.

The answer from every one of you (besides stalling and avoiding the question) is that evolution/speciation of gorillas to human NEVER happened, and from what you are telling me now, scientists couldn't prove it even if they witnessed it and documented it because it is impossible for science to prove anything! lol

And not only that, .. but you all including Dawkins is saying that; if evolution/speciation did happen and someone observed and recorded it, that it would prove the "Evolution theory" wrong! ??? So the theory of evolution is nothing but scientific lies?

I agree, it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Speedwell]

You really should tell this to Richard Dawkins, that: "it is impossible for science to prove anything", .. because the poor man swears that Evolution/speciation of gorillas to human is a fact, and goes around the world showing off his murdered Aborigine skull to prove it.

But from what you are showing me about science, H2O could be carbon monoxide for all we know!?

All I was asking you guys is: How did a population of gorillas evolve/speciate into a population of humans, .. that's all. "Over a long period of time is not an answer. That just tells me how long it took.

The answer from every one of you (besides stalling and avoiding the question) is that evolution/speciation of gorillas to human NEVER happened, and from what you are telling me now, scientists couldn't prove it even if they witnessed it and documented it because it is impossible for science to prove anything! lol

And not only that, .. but you all including Dawkins is saying that; if evolution/speciation did happen and someone observed and recorded it, that it would prove the "Evolution theory" wrong! ??? So the theory of evolution is nothing but scientific lies?

I agree, it has nothing to do with science.

And nothing to do with anything we posted or with anything Dawkins ever said.

 

[Arius]

Point? There is no "point" after that. Once speciation is seen to occur, the basic elements of the evolutionary process are complete. What happens after that is a continuation of the gradual change which led to speciation in the first place, and a continuing divergence of phenotype.

YES, .. finally, .. that's what I am asking you, that: "How is speciation seen to occur, and when the basic elements of the evolutionary process are complete!? How does this happen? .. like from your common ancestor the gorilla, into a human? How?
Is it that, after millions and billions of years of slowly evolving, a population of gorilla morph (as in morphology) into human one day, or do they all give birth to human offspring?

I understand that this moment when a gorilla (aka common ancestor) changes to a complete different species takes a long time, and that this happens gradually, but what happens when the gorilla, an entire population of gorillas make that switch?