Astralopithecus Afarensis?

.
Why do you call On the Origin of Species an "infamous" book? In the estimation of any genuine scientist worth his salt, "Origin" is a very famous book that represents a milestone in our understanding of nature and how all species are connected by common ancestry that converges on a single common ancestor that existed around 3.8 billion years ago. Discoveries in biology since the time of Darwin - such as Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA in the early 1950's, have only confirmed and reinforced Darwin's ideas. The "infamous" remark is fatuous and should be withdrawn.

How are creatures, as you say, "connected by common ancestry," if there are no undisputed transitional forms that have yet been found? And its been quite some time since Darwin's book.

.

This site has a list of transitional forms that you may or may not care to investigate:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

The question of disputedness is a red herring. New fossils are being discovered all the time, so it's inevitable that details of family trees and theorized degrees of relatedness will be shuffled and altered as more information comes to light.

.
They might have doubters as to the exact place that any particular transitional fossil has in the overall picture, because, after all, fossils don't come labelled as to their precise ancestry and list of direct descendants, but as to the overall view that transitional fossils are indicative of links between major groups of animal species, there is no doubt. For instance, there are a variety of candidates for ape-like pre-humans that may be directly ancestral to modern humans. It isn't crucial that we find the exactly correct examples that represent a continuous lineage to modern humans. The examples found so far could represent cousins of those specimens that represent the continuous lineage. The same applies to a fossil like Archaeopteryx, which combines both dinosaurian and birdlike features. It doesn't particularly concern us if Archaeopteryx represents a lineage of dinobirds that didn't figure in the direct ancestry of birds. Evolutionary relationships are more like a branching bush than a linear succession, and so we can expect that many fossils related to modern organisms will be cousins rather than direct ancestors. To find a continuous chain of direct ancestors would probably be like finding a needle in a haystack.

and it never will be found

....
References:

1 Darwin, C. 1902. On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th Edition. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 233.
....

Just as you now live in Tikrit, Iraq? I thought you were in England.

I saw recently that JR had just moved from Tikrit, to Oxnard, CA.

I haven't seen one bit of real evidence supporting creationism yet.

Which means that you have absolutely nothing to support your creationist claims.

Yet you continue to indoctrinate our youth with this religious nonsense ..... why do you insist on brainwashing innocent children ..... messing up their minds?

Peace

1902? WTF did Darwin know about DNA? What do you know about DNA? You're in the wrong f**king century.

Walt at his finest!

Peace

The original thesis of Darwinian evolution has morphed into religious dogma, because adherents have concluded in their hearts that there is no God.

With no God, there is no moral accountability, so anything goes. Including mass murder. Check the statistics. The United States has 10 times the amount of death by gun violence of any developed country.

Still think it's a good idea to teach our children that we evolved from monkeys? If there is any so called evolution it is now de-evolution.

The original thesis of Darwinian evolution has morphed into religious dogma, because adherents have concluded in their hearts that there is no God.

With no God, there is no moral accountability, so anything goes. Including mass murder. Check the statistics. The United States has 10 times the amount of death by gun violence of any developed country.

And what resemblance do we bear to this proposed "find?"

How do we know this "fossil" is authentic?

Have not there been already countless counterfeit fossils fabricated?

What about the so called "prehistoric" skeleton (noted earlier in this thread) of a chimpanzee that was sent to a French museum, asserting it was a missing link? It was rejected because it had (chimpanzee) canine teeth.

humans are a kind of ape that evolved from other earlier species of apes.

And do we now find, today's apes slowly evolving, transitionally into humans?

No.

Why not?

Belay that question.

Religious atheist evolutionists say apes and humans had a common ancestor.

But we don't know what that was.

Sounds like a lot of guess work, Clarence.

I know you're not well educated. Why would apes evolve into humans? Humans are apes.

wondering how you know who is well educated and who is not.

.
That would have to mean God is also some kind of evolved ape.


Why couldn't humans who disgustedly deny that they're apes have been purposely evolved for the wry amusement of a deity who designed and initiated the evolutionary process? That's what theistic evolutionists believe. Not as I agree with them. I think it more likely that we're the random product of a natural unguided process.

.
Evolution operates over vast timescales of millions of years, so we cannot expect to see large changes take place in organisms over a human lifetime. And it's unclear what conditions would favour modern apes evolving more human-like characteristics, but presumably this would require lots of time and an absence of us. The most likely fate of modern apes would seem to be extinction as their habitats are destroyed and they are hunted for food and body parts.

No, we don't know what the precise common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees looked like, and we may never find that specific species. Finding any specific species would be like seeking a needle in a haystack. The best we can hope for is to find close relatives of the common ancestral species that shows the kinds of characteristics we would expect to find in a transitional fossil between apes and humans,and there are plenty of examples that fit this criteria.