Featured Evidence of evolution?

> I wasn't alive during the Civil War. But because of artifacts, primary sources, photographs, and even secondary sources - I can know more about it today than even some who lived it did.

Human history only goes back 6000 or so years. That Is a very short time span.

There is no general agreement about JFK's homicide and millions of people have seen it TV.

 

"Theory" means "well demonstrated hypotheses.

>Where are the "intermediate" links that you claim we have found?

You reject mDNA studies that indicate the entire human race descended from a very small African group?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.


Each ancestor (of people now living) in the line back to the matrilineal MRCA had female contemporaries such as sisters, female cousins, etc. and some of these female contemporaries may have descendants living now (with one or more males in their descendancy line). But none of the female contemporaries of the "Mitochondrial Eve" has descendants living now in an unbroken female line.


Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.


Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration.[4] The dating for 'Eve' was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis that modern humans originated relatively recently in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis became dominant.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups.


In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[3] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.[4] Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.


The phrase missing link has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature.

 

>Is is interesting to me that you maintained that it was a hypothesis and not a science. Why is it that so many evolutionists claim it as such? Not trying to be antagonistic, but simply making an observation.

Say again? That's like saying that making cookies is baking, not cooking.

It is a problem of words and how professionals vs the press vs casual readers use them. Probably half the nasty arguments on this list are about common words wrongly used because some news reporter or other non-professional person tried to write about a complicated subject and explain it in 6th grade terms.


BillyJeff Clinton was possibly the smartest president of the last century but put on a "good old boy" facade. When, during the impeachment hearings, he replied, "That depends on what 'is' means," I thought it was brilliant but it went over the heads of the Representatives. They were to dense to understand. So when someone in this list recently referred to Clinton "defining" the word, 'is," . . . what can I say!

>Originally Posted by Jon-Marc
>Evolution wasn't taught as a theory in my high school in the 1960's, it was taught as fact. That doesn't change the fact that it ISN'T fact; it's still just an unproved theory, but we see the proof of creation every day all around us.

Please define "fact" and "proof." Why do hold your hypothesis of God to a lesser standard than you demand for the theory of evolution?

Ernst Mach was one of the great scientists of the late 1800's early 1900's but he totally missed out on the discoveries about atoms and atomic theory because he refused to "believe in" anything he could not see with his own eyes. He could not see atoms, not even with a microscope. For him, they didn't exist.