You asked me to be more specific. We have not found the missing link from whatever ape-like creature to mankind. Or any links between other alleged transformations, i.e., dinosaurs to birds.
All differentiation within species is a matter of genetic information being removed, not added. “Devolution,” I guess you could call it.
There is no inter-species breeding.
You are wrong pretty much across the board.
First, there is no such thing as "the missing link." That is a popular term, not a scientific term. What we have in science is a lot of what can be called "transitionals." Even this term is misapplied, as everything is a transitional between past and future generations. Do you really think the penguin is a finished product? That in a few tens of thousands of years penguins will not be more adapted to an aquatic lifestyle?
But transitionals in the ape-like critter to mankind? See the information at the end of this post.
Second, no "links" (transitionals) at all? Try this link. There is more information here than you will be able to handle, and it shows transitionals are common.
Third, you claim "differentiation" can only come about by removing, not adding, genetic information. How about changing genetic information? Ever think of that? Or does that not fit with your religious belief? (Google sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia for examples of genetic change, if not genetic addition.)
Next, you claim there is " no inter-species breeding." Are you aware that lion and tigers (different species) can interbreed? And that dogs and wolves and coyotes (all different species) can interbreed? And that female horses and male donkeys can interbreed (that's where mules come from)? So, you are shot down on this point too, eh?
You seem to be getting your scientific information from creationist websites. Don't you realize they are lying to you?
As promised above, the following is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
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
Thanks for your reply. You obviously put a lot of effort into it, and are communicating instead of being negative or whatever, which I appreciate.
I learned Darwinist/evolutionary theory throughout my public school education. Also, in my family, we were not of us into “creation science.” So it’s not like I come out of the block as a creationist, here, I didn’t change my mind until I became a Christian when I was 21.
I guess I’ll just have to disagree with you. I do believe, if evolution is true, that there should be transitional life forms or at least fossils. As one example, I do believe, that if modern day birds are the result of evolutionary changes from dinosaurs, there should be some type of half birds/half dinos in the fossil record. I guess you don’t think that’s necessarily so, but I do.
I guess the skulls you’ve posted are supposed to be transitional from ape to man? I think the data can be interpreted differently; I’m sure it is. I had to smile about its own disclaimer: it’s their “best guess!” I know you are familiar with the many big announcements about such “missing links,” so far always disproven in a short time. We can have different skull shapes, even between races, and that does not mean we have evolved from apes.
As for “ligers,” that is to say, lions and tigers interbreeding, yes, I know, but their offspring can’t reproduce. It stops there. Same with horses and donkeys, right, I know. So that to me is not scientific evidence of evolution, rather, creationist evidence of God make each type of animal after its own kind. Dogs are an easy example. I doubt there were Great Danes and poodles on the ark. Just a “dog,” ancestor of wolves, coyotes, and common dogs. Species can differentiate - we can breed for certain traits, obviously, using genetic selection - but we can’t change them into new species, even when we try very, very hard.
Yes, I think penguins are a finished product. I think men are a finished product. We are more technologically advanced than our forebears, because we have built up a gradual knowledge over time and recorded it and used it as a starting point, building upon past knowledge and accomplishments. But I think our ancestors were just as smart and just as human as we are. Archeological evidence certainly supports me there.
I don’t know very much about changing genetic info. I suppose we do that in labs with genetic engineering. That is not, however, proof of evolution either. Evolution should not require men in white coats! It’s supposed to happen naturally. Mutations are always negative. They never improve a species - make it faster, smarter, what have you. They are a genetic defect.
I do, now, get a lot of information from creationist textbooks, particularly the Apologia series by Dr. Wile, which I use in my home school. He does teach what the theory of evolution is, however, he teaches that it is false. I find his textbooks fascinating, because in public school you never even got two sides to the story. It was all evolution, evolution, evolution.