Replies

"I provided some evidence, both data (photographs and descriptions of several of the important fossil specimens) and interpretation (a chart showing the best guess at their relationships.

So, best guess is evidence? Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence? I'm sorry that I cannot connect non-existant dots like those who profess to know these dots exist in the first place. Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist. No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar. No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary. For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans. Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other. If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim. That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found. People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists. And, simply because someone doesn't agree to what someone else claims is, doesn't give someone the right to "put them down". As stated earlier, I asked a question, and was set upon when I didn't agree with the claims of evidence. As stated earlier, I made no claim of having any proof or disproof, but wanted the evidence that fully supports the theory. No-one provided, so I disagree.

So, best guess is evidence?

Ultimately, all of science is the "best guess".

Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence?

The explanation is the theory; descent with modification. The causes for descent with modification have also been well-established.

Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist.

Your inability to "fathom" information does not mean that information does not exist.

No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar.

There is also the layout of remains as seen in the fossil record. There also exists DNA evidence in extant primate species that strongly supports previously established lineages of common descent.

No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary.

Please provide an alternative explanation for all relevant observations and explain a means by which this alternate explanation could be tested.

For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans.

How can "moral" reasons show that humans are not descended from non-human primate ancestors? Please be specific.

Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other.

You are incorrect. Data does exist. You may be unaware of the data, or you may disagree with the conclusions drawn, but that does not negate the existence of the data.

If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim.

What, exactly, do you believe that the fossil record should yeild?

That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found.

You are mistaken. The "fossil record" does indeed exist, and has been known since the 1800s. Moreover, recent studies in DNA has yeilded even more evidnce establishing greater confidence in common descent.

People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists.

As you have already been told, "proof" is not used in any field of scientific study. All scientific claims are supported by data. Note are "proven", all are the most confidently held explanation that fits all available data and is subject to objective testing.

If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim.

This sentence implies that somewhere in the hominid skull sequences you've already been shown you think there is at least one gap that evolution didn't cross. I would me most grateful if you would point out where that gap lies wherein you require more "missing links" to be found for you to accept the theory of evolution. (and even more grateful if you will explain your reasons for your choice, though that isn't strictly necessary). The row of skulls is arranged top to bottom, and left to right in each row, with the bottom left skull being that of a modern human being. Where in that sequence is the unbridgeable gap?