[Coyoteman]

Amazing how Huxley used the "language of science" to provide evidence for evolution, but failed (as did Darwin) to provide any actual evidence of evolution. Also amazing is how Darwin acknowledged that all he had was the language of science to back up the theory, and that the theory didn't actually hold any water.

This (below) is the language of science. This is data! And guess what, it was found long after Darwin and Huxley! Gee, science actually goes out and finds data. Too bad the Discovery Institute and the rest of those folks can't do the same. All they can do is carp from the cheap seats.

Darwin acknowledged that he did not have the fossils he needed. But he was writing 150 years ago. Do you really think that no fossils have been found in those intervening years? Do you think paleontologists have been doing armchair science?

I have posted this to you before but you have just waved it away. Maybe repetition will help.

This is a transitional. This is data. Your disbelief based on religions grounds does not change a thing. This nice skull is still there, and science is still moving forward.

Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center). (You could call this a "missing link" except that its not missing):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[SoldierDad]

Sorry, I still don't see what you are attempting to pass along as some kind of evidence that one skull belongs to some animal that evolved into another, different type of animal. The changes, as explained, occured over long periods of time and involved minute changes (yes or no?). If this is so, then where are each phasic change located in the fossil record. You don't have them and neither does anyone else. When they are found, then we can talk about how one animal evolved into another distinctly different animal.

[RunningWolf]

Data?

That is a very uncertain flow chart, with a composite skull on the top that has been built up of what looks like 200 parts that were scraped up off an African plain, and is dated to 1.7 mya give or take several thousand years for each fragment.



What I want to know is, how has 'science' become so audacious as to assert that these composite skulls are anything other than manifestation of their imaginations??

Wolf

[tomzz]

You can say whatever you want about hominids, we are not related to any of them. The problem is at the top of the chain and not lower. DNA evidence has eliminated the neanderthal as a human ancestor(too far away genetically) and all other hominids are much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. Trying to claim, as evos do, that we AND the neanderthal are descended from some more remote ancestor is like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves, and must therefore be descended directly from fish.