http://www.onesmallspeck.com/chapter%2010%20human%20fossils.html
I would certainly, like to read the who chapter.
the evidence you show are skulls of various forms...
the explination of which shows a timeline of change/relative-ness...above is an alternative explination.
the explination of which shows a timeline of change/relative-ness...above is an alternative explination.
I studied the evidence for evolution in grad school, several courses and seminars as well as for the Ph.D. exams, so I am not impressed with most of the sites creationists send me to.
But for your reading pleasure:
From an NSF abstract:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
There's crazy amounts of evidence. Sodera is lying about that by pretending he can't see or believe it. Above and beyond the fossil evidence, there's biochemical evidence in the DNA of apes and humans that just doesn't make sense except as common descent. I specifically exclude common design, unless you'd like to be the first to explain why a designer is putting retroviral infection scars in the DNA of his creations.But wasn't the evidence valid when it was supposedly missing?
- Tap-Dancing Science-Denier declares that the fossil record lacks instances of things changing in an orderly series from some Thing A to Thing Z. As this kind of evidence is to be expected, the lack of it must weigh against evolution having happened. By the very statement of this objection we are invited to believe the Tap-Dancing Science-Denier would accept such evidence IF ONLY IT EXISTED but the thing is it doesn't exist.
- Someone who disagrees demonstrates many instances well known in the literature of fossil series intermediate in form and time between some Thing A and some Thing Z.
- The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?