Replies

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils. Crushed or not, we find human, not ape-like, remains from the distant past all over the place. ID or no ID, I just think its too much of a stretch. It feels and looks like science constantly trying to stop a leaky faucet. Too many, oops where did that come from or maybe if we do this it will fit again. At least in terms of the ape to man evolution.

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils.

That's because primates are just one family, wheras dinosaurs cover over 50 families. It's an invalid comparison.

Crushed or not, we find human, not ape-like, remains from the distant past all over the place.

These don't all look human:

In fact can you tell me where ape ends and human starts? I'll give you a clue - a is chimpanzee, n is homo sapien.

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils.

Hominidae: On the planet for 30 million years, small family-level taxon (4 genera, 5 species extant),
localized to Northern Africa for most of their history, not terribly successful until the rise of modern humans.

Dinosaurs: On the planet for 185 million years, covered the Earth as the dominant life form, extremely successful
and diverse subclass-level taxon (several hundred genera):

You do the math on how many more fossils will be found of dinosaurs versus the Hominidae...

True, but there seem to be a whole lot more dinosaur fossils, complete or incomplete, than there are ape-like fossils. Crushed or not, we find human, not ape-like, remains from the distant past all over the place. ID or no ID, I just think its too much of a stretch. It feels and looks like science constantly trying to stop a leaky faucet. Too many, oops where did that come from or maybe if we do this it will fit again. At least in terms of the ape to man evolution.

But how long were dinosaurs around versus ape-ancestors? And "dinosaurs" is a broad range of creatures, sort of like "mammals" today ... if would be more acurate to compare the number of complete apish fossils to the number of, say, complete brontosaurs skeletons (or pick another dino).

And what criteria are you using to separate the "human" fossils from ones that merely appraoch human?

Too many, oops where did that come from or maybe if we do this it will fit again.

Yes, but to know if new data fits the existing theory, and to "fix" the existing theory, one would need to actually know the existing theory. I can't run around saying that because I found a red sweater, the theory of gravity is incorrect, and expect to be taken seriously or positively contribute to science.

At least in terms of the ape to man evolution.

You sem to be applying a different standard to "ape to man" evolution than to many other species. Just how many fossils do we have for transition of other species as compared to human evolution? It would be very difficult to find a completely unbroken transition in every case, as you'd need a sample of each and every generation ...