Other reports:
New Fossil May Be Closest Yet To Ancestor Of All Great Apes
From BBC Science
The primary article is here (must have subscription to read full article):
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a New Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain, by Moyà-Solà et al.
Science 19 November 2004: 1339-1344
Photo of Skeleton from the Science article:
This is not what I asked for ...I asked for the fossil evidence that links Australopithecines to humans...try again
Now why would there have to be " thousands of intermedicates between the orginal mammal and the completely evolved bat"? I don't see anything "logical" about that unevidenced ASSERTION. There ARE transitional fossils.
Because your theory requires thousands of accidental mutations....every heard of Dawkin's "Me thinks like a Weasel" thing?....those mutations are of mere nucleotides...how many nucleotides do you think it takes to turn a mouse into a whale? I rest my case.
Now where did you get these numbers for the fossils?
Care to give me another, updated number?
BTW, Neanderthals ARE NOT considered to be in the human lineage.
They buried their dead, used tools, used fire, interbred with "modern" humans etc....what do you want? This is just a case of evolutinists dreaming something up because there is no way that neanderthals could have evolved into humans via RM + NS (not enough time) so they just KILL THEM OFF!!!
Half-a-billion creatures? Now HOW did you arrive at that number?
Simple....many references in the past. Care to point me to something that says otherwise? Talk origins says 1 per million -- but they are counting ALL mutations -- not just the so-called beneficial ones.
Nothing but another ASSERTION on your part. Let's assume you are right about the number, you imply that we would need "half-a-billion" fossils as evidence? That you don't have a clue as to what epistasis actually means is abundant from your previous exchanges with rmwilliamsll and jwu.
Is that your arguement then? That I don't understand epistasis, therefore it doesn't exist? I've gave you the link. You're a big person -- read it.....it's not pretty for neo-darwinism.
So you have an article document the transplantation of an eye-forming gene from a fly to a cat? It really would be a treat to see that (if it exists). Let's assume that such an experiment was conducted, I don't see how that's a problem for evolution.
What we have found out is that it's not a matter of gene numbers, but of how they are used, i.e., DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION.
So you don't believe me -- yet you admit that it's possible. And so if evolution is merely how genes are expressed, then what is the need for cumulative selection (please answer this.)
But again, no evolutionist claims that monkeys ever bred with humans, but do keep beating that creationist strawman.
the human and chimp supposedly had a common ancestor....this creature was not a human....thus it had to breed humans.
The fact is that it's not chromosome number that always poses a barrier. Here's some discussions on this subject:
Something else you can't answer.
Yet another creationist strawmen==>The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of DNA.
Not for a lack of trying with all their might.
That's the perview of abiogenesis. There's a really good case to be made that life,
hence DNA and life itself is nothing more than than emergent property of NON-LIVING chemistry as I explain in the following post:
There's a good case of nothing.
Post #39-Life As An Emergent Property of Non-Living Chemistry
As far as I'm concerned, DNA may simply have been donated to us by a virus, like the Mimivirus (the world's largest virus)
sigh....and where did the virus get the DNA?
The origin of the universe is the province of cosmologists (got a really good theory supported by the evidence, i.e., the Big Bang for that..what have you got? )
How does the big bang explode from nothing?
We know a lot about such things as the evolution of smell and sex, but that's another post. Let's assume we knew absolutely nothing.
I do already.
"What is described in the Bible is the only way it could have happened"? Really, then you've got a real problem, starting with Adam and Eve (per your INTERPRETATION of what the Bible "says"). The scientific evidence disproves their existence
Eve (per your INTERPRETATION of what the Bible "says"). The scientific evidence disproves their existence (among other things). Again...
No it doesn't
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
