[Kasu]

Evolution is already proven. It's the simple observation that all life changes over time. This elaborates the evolution of the primate.

[Suska]

Evolution is already proven.

some things never get full proof. some people think that there's a consciousness behind the workings of nature and fate, that does'n't rule out the gradual developments described by evolution. To me the question is not a matter of how, natural selection is a pretty elegant explanation, but if there is some call to suggest that there is a single or multiple organized and sentient agents making choices on the matter of our development.

[Nets]

Someone find me the actual missing link, that definitive proof that a species can transform naturally into another species (by definition of species) through the process understood generally as "evolutionary theory".

I can tell you already from my schooling, no such "link" exists.

So your assertion that something seems to be like a link between primates and humans is ridiculous when we cannot even prove that a species can evolve into another species.

Yes, 99.7% of Biologists are Lying to you.

Evangelicism, you know how there is a different flu strain every year? What do you think that is?

[Galoredk]

Evangelicism, you know how there is a different flu strain every year? What do you think that is?

Magic teapot must have done it!

[Michaeluj]

It is very clear that organisms have the capability to have minor features alter over the generations, but I guess some just think that there just wasn't enough time for it: 6000 years.

[Huntster]

Evolution is already proven.

Bullshit. At least as you posit.

It's the simple observation that all life changes over time.

No shit?

Damn! Your a fucking genius!

[Nets: Huntster, please remain courteous in this forum.]

[Platypus]

In order to prove primates evolved into humans you would need fossils records which demonstrate every intermediary form between primates and humans. Based on the fact that evolution occurs as small changes over thousands of years there would be thousands of intermediary forms in order to change from a quadrupedal organism to a bipedal organism. So until you find this evidence (which should be easily found if this transformation did in fact occur) you have nothing.

[Galoredk]

In order to prove primates evolved into humans you would need fossils records which demonstrate every intermediary form between primates and humans. Based on the fact that evolution occurs as small changes over thousands of years there would be thousands of intermediary forms in order to change from a quadrupedal organism to a bipedal organism. So until you find this evidence (which should be easily found if this transformation did in fact occur) you have nothing.

Which demonstrates exactly why so many ignorant folks believe in mumbo jumbo like the bible.

There are plenty of trasitions, but no matter how many people like yourself are shown, you will always go back to the same argument: "But you have not shown me every single transition in natures 3.4 Billion year history, thus I can keep believing in what my parents told me" And lets face it shall we. You believe in God and not evolution because your freakin parents told you to, nothing more or less. So you want to believe your parents over the entire scientific community, fair enough. Just admit that the only reason to believe in God, is because........your parents taught you to, and other have since told you to as well. NOONE have put forth any sort of empirical evidence of why you should believe their story, you have just been taught to and refuse to change your mind. I just do not understand.

[dudekebm]

In order to prove primates evolved into humans you would need fossils records which demonstrate every intermediary form between primates and humans. Based on the fact that evolution occurs as small changes over thousands of years there would be thousands of intermediary forms in order to change from a quadrupedal organism to a bipedal organism. So until you find this evidence (which should be easily found if this transformation did in fact occur) you have nothing.

One thing creationists tend to forget (or more accurately choose to conveniently ignore when arguing against evolution) is the nature of fossils to begin with and how they are formed.

Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. Now fossilization is a rare occurrence relatively. The right set of circumstances have to be present in order for a fossil to be preserved since after death, thanks to our wonderful ecosystem, formerly-living things tend to decompose rapidly. When you're talking about the higher vertebrates it is even more rare to find a fully intact fossil (i.e. complete skeleton). It's almost the luck of the draw that an animal had died in a certain way and the way the remains had been preserved.

However, new fossils are always being discovered, so transitional fossils are being discovered all the time, perhaps not all in relation to primate evolution. The recent discovery of Darwinius masillae is the most recent transitional fossil and perhaps we'll have a fairly complete record of evolutionary taxonomy.

[Huntster]

...i don't understand why this is the link and all the others aren't...

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

[dudekebm]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

Not really a hushed silence like they're hiding anything. They have one partial fossil. There is a controversy whether it's actually a new species or whether its part of population of homo erectus (or one of the descendant species) which experienced odd environmental influences or whether its an isolated find of an anomaly. I'm guessing until they find more (or it's published that they find more) fossil evidence then there's really nothing to report. It's not really a transitional fossil (i.e. any sort of 'missing link') so there's really no added incentive for further research into the nature of Homo floresiensis until more fossil evidence is uncovered. Just my take on things.

[Spotacus]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

I was unaware of such a hushed silence within the 'science industry' (Are they with the Jews and masons this sinister 'science industry' BTW?) however I suspect that this is a rhetorical question and thus can hardly wait for you to fill us in with the answer that will be self evidently true to all reasonable god fearing people when revealed.

[Huntster]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

I was unaware of such a hushed silence within the 'science industry' (Are they with the Jews and masons this sinister 'science industry' BTW?)

I'm not much for conspiracy theories. I'm just amazed they aren't all over this.

3' tall "people" with brains smaller than chimpanzees, utilizing tools, and 13,000 to 94,000 years ago? This is as important as Neanderthal Man, and Neanderthals are widely discussed.

however I suspect that this is a rhetorical question and thus can hardly wait for you to fill us in with the answer that will be self evidently true to all reasonable god fearing people when revealed.

You obviously must be a scientist. You don't have any answers, but you have plenty of smart ass comments, and you want somebody else to give you answers so you can pooh pooh them.

I guess I should have known better than ask a simple question with regard to "The Descent of Man". I'd only get "dissension".

[Huck]

It is common to depict the evolution of Homo sapiens as a straight sequence in which ape-like beings turn into upright, big-brained humans, a linear march that suggests humans were an inevitable biological outcome once apes had begun to walk on two feet. But the notion is misleading, say experts. As palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould once pointed out, we should not confuse evolution with progress: "Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress."
In other words, our evolution was not a business in which one apeman species was replaced every so often by a new, improved version until, eventually, Homo sapiens appeared on the scene. It was a process of experimentation in which our hominid ancestors evolved in several different directions. Thus for the past 5m years there were usually several different types of hominid species competing with each other.

The above can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3?gusrc=rss&feed=science followed by a discussion of the different competing hominids, including the proverbial Flores Man.

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

The science industry is made up of the people who make microscopes and test tubes and such. If it doesn't have to do with selling beakers, why would they discuss it?

[Godstud]

There have been species of moths that have changed their camouflage pattern over years to take into account changes in tree colour due to pollution. Evolution has been proven.

[Huntster]

Can somebody please explain to me the hushed silence within the science industry regarding Flores Man?

The science industry is made up of the people who make microscopes and test tubes and such.

Are you trying to say that scientists, and paleoanthropologists in particular, don't make up an industry?

If it doesn't have to do with selling beakers, why would they discuss it?

With regard to the paleoanthropology industry, Flores Man is a huge discovery.

[Huntster]

Evolution has been proven.

But the evolution of the human spirit, and the lack of spirituality in other biological entities on Earth, has not been addressed well at all by the science community, especially in the light of the Creation/Evolution ideological wars.

[Godstud]

But the evolution of the human spirit, and the lack of spirituality in other biological entities on Earth, has not been addressed well at all by the science community, especially in the light of the Creation/Evolution ideological wars.

That's like asking for faith to be scientifically proven.
Spirituality can be attributed to intelligence. Man clearly has no equal (that we've discovered) on earth and so the "lack of spirituality in other biological entities" is not something that can be compared or studied to any degree as nothing is as capable of this.

Ideological wars have nothing to do with science.

Ideological- to have to do with ideology.
Ideology
- the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
- such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
- Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
- theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

[Huntster]

But the evolution of the human spirit, and the lack of spirituality in other biological entities on Earth, has not been addressed well at all by the science community, especially in the light of the Creation/Evolution ideological wars.

That's like asking for faith to be scientifically proven.

Close. It's something that science simply can't do, despite the near religious love so many have for it. Science is simply limited to that which is observable, empirical, and measurable.

Spirituality can be attributed to intelligence. Man clearly has no equal (that we've discovered) on earth and so the "lack of spirituality in other biological entities" is not something that can be compared or studied to any degree as nothing is as capable of this.

Quite correct. Man is the only biological entity on Earth "created in the image and likeness of God".

Ideological wars have nothing to do with science.

The struggle between Creationists and Evolutionists is an ideological war.

Ideological- to have to do with ideology.
Ideology
- the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
- such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

Thank you very much. I absolutely love quoting the dictionary to establish my position.

[Suska]

Creationists and Evolutionists is an ideological war.

the dispute has little effect on the state of science, evolution and creationism are processed equally with a scientific method, there is no idea behind it other than the scientific method. What offends people is the denial of what is plain and verifiable. If creationists insist on a war it won't be between God and Darwin's Legend, it will be between people and I'd put my money on the people who routinely crack open atoms just to see what's inside. i don't have a problem seeing the value of science. It is just what it says it is. I don't have a problem discussing theology either when the discussion is just what it claims; but you can't shoot truth into someone with the force of petulance.

cultivating faith in people is not much different from cultivating a crop; there are steps to take and the rest is patience.

Science is simply limited to that which is observable, empirical, and measurable.

People dig up some strange things, they name it and talk about it - what's your point?