[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor
add linkMoon, I do not know why you care about the Neanderthal other than passing interest. Why is he more interesting than Cro Magnon for instance. What interests me is how all the hominids came to be. It's hard to believe we evolved from a lemur.
Here is the interesting topic to me --evolution itself. Since this is your thread you may want it discussed on a separate thread, or you give your denouement of this article.
|
Neanderthals fascinate me because of their humanity, they were as human as us, in some ways they were better than us. It's fascination to think of what happened to them, why they are no longer around and if we might have hybridized with them.
[quote]
Quote:
|
According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
|
No, this is called gradualism, it is now known that evolution can and often does proceed in quick, almost overnight from a geological stand point, steps. While Darwin did indeed think that species were only changed gradually over huge time spans we know know this not the truth and that the process can be fast. thousands of years vs millions of years.
Quote:
|
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
|
A great many of these transitional forms have been found, your source is misleading when it says they have not. The key here is to remember that the odds of an animal being fossilised is very low. I'm not sure about the odds but one in a million wouldn't be too far off the mark. To expect lots of trasitional forms to be fossilized when they don't exist for long periods of time is a little bit unreasonable, even so they do get fossilized.
Quote:
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory":
|
No, gradualism has been refuted so to has your argument.
Quote:
…''Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.40''[>quote]
Darwinism Refuted.com
|
No, gradualism has been refuted so to has your argument.
----------------
Michael
Life is the poetry of the universe.
Love is the poetry of life.
Nuclear is the only real option!
http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx
Over heard from a three year old, "Daddy why do my toes get sticky when I eat strawberry jam?"
Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it
Proud graduate of Wossamotta University!
