Darwinism Is Nonsensical (as well as very politically correct)

[Neanderthal]

Dinosaurs went extinct 65-66 million years ago according to geologists (the Cretaceous–Paleogene Extinction; probably a result of a meteor impact and change of climate that followed).

I'm not and never was interested in dinosaurs to be honest so I don't know the exact dates, although I have basic notion in geological eras.

Also there are quite a few hominid fossils found. The homo erectus is believed to be an ancestor of ours for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

So does Denisova, so does Neanderthal, and so on, but this is not what i'm asking for. Look, i'll try to explain as simple as possible, for example, science tell us Cromagnon and Neanderthal interbreed, and this is a fact, because we have archaeological and genetic evidence of hybrids. What about the transitory homo species between all those hominids and modern homo sapiens? Don't tell me it's 'very hard' to find fossils, because it's bullshit dude, and you know it. We have sequenced much older Neanderthal DNA for example but were are unable to find one single tooth of the missing link? pfft.

I wonder what kind of evolution you think is preposterous (some creationists accept 'some evolution' for instance on a micro scale and others assume only humans are the one species not part of it lol) and if there's no evolution whether we've been magically made in a whim by a deity who thinks we're special as the tiniest spic in the entire universe we're probably (speaking about mathematical probability here) not the only planet with life on anyway.

Microscale evolution does exist, but I loathe the term 'evolution' because it implies bullshit, I rather call it 'divergent traits in favor of adaptability' and period, but those changes are very small and it's just unable to get a totally different (note I say different, not new, because I don't want bullshit plant examples of new breeds, k?) species from a previous well established and documented species.

I don't know if there's a God or there are many or there are isn't one, and I don't care about mythology, after all, it's dogmatic crap very similar to what the Darwinists preach. So Don't go that way with me, i'm just interested in proofs, is that hard to understand?

No arguing with such people of course, especially not if they bring forth mythology (like 100% untrue) as the alternative.

Look bro, i'm not an illiterate Hillbilly, i'm a self educated person, with a very decent IQ who was about to graduate from the psychology career and ditched. I come from a family of many teachers with many degrees, world history, anthropology, pedagogy, etc. I consider myself a true Sapiens individual, not wannabe scientists fanboy. That's all.

[Also]

True. However, if religious dogma is to replace the scientific method, we have a problem. Especially when we have people who portray Biblical mythology as science, taking the most absurd fairy tales for truth and working their way around the burden of proof against them. Idiots who think Noah's Ark was real are no scientists.
That is what makes people react as they do. And religion does such things. Now today we have seen Lebanon and South Korea scrapping evolution from their school curriculum out of religious dogma (I blame the muslims in Lebanon and the christians in South Korea).

Lebanese and Koreans don't even know their countries used to be less religiously indoctrinated in a better past.

I am against opposing science and religion.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I would not say they are 'missing link' because they were still probably just human, but peking man and dmanesi skulls are clearly human ancestors, ranging from one million to almost 2 million years old. But I don't think you will find human-chimp ancestor because basically it doesn't exist. That obsession has only come about because of people who want to disprove creationism.

Apes are bipedal so obviously humans and apes have a split, and it's much further back than the 4-7 million year mark that some try to push on us - which they only use because that is where some convenient (but obviously invalid) fossils exist.

I do believe in evolution because I think god 'plays by the rules' as it were, and doesn't wave around magic wand unless there is some purpose for doing so, but a lot of people talk a lot of shit on subjects they have NO clue whatsoever about. I seriously doubt anyone here is much more of archaeology nut than me for god's sake, but people will try to point out basic shit any retard would know as if it is definitive proof. Further back we have lots of missing pieces, and in the countries that they probably exist, like china and india and turkey, no one is really even looking for them.

[Tropico]

Wheres the evidence? Where are the missing links between species? We have dinosaurs fossils from 40 million years ago, primitive hominids from 2 million years ago, neanderthal fossils but not a single transitory fossil between primitive homo and modern human? Pure bullshit. They never existed, that's why there are no fossils.

lol They have fossils. They have a shit ton of species that existed between the first Homo species and humans... lol And you can see the cranial capacity grow, legs get longer, forearms shorter... lol Have you never seen ONE documentary about human evolution? lol I think one of the best is Becoming Human.

[Neanderthal]

lol They have fossils. They have a shit ton of species that existed between the first Homo species and humans... lol And you can see the cranial capacity grow, legs get longer, forearms shorter... lol Have you never seen ONE documentary about human evolution? lol I think one of the best is Becoming Human.

Yeah... totally what i'm asking, some dudes from Discovery Channel dressed as cavemen...

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Holy shit Tropico...

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There's a big problem though, the lines don't fit for brain size increase and there's no fossils with brain size outside of ape range in africa, meaning it's all bullshit.

[Svipdag]

The fossil record is very incomplete because the geological record is very incomplete. It has been estimated that no more than 10% of geologic time is represented by sedimentary rocks. Where is the rest ? Either no sediments were deposited, or they have been eroded away.

For some species of some organisms, most of the transitional forms have been preserved. The odds are against this. Preservation of organisms as fossils is a chancey business .There will always be lacunae in the record. However, trends and patterns of development of organisms over time can be inferred from the incomplete evidence.

The sequences of life-forms observed as fossils in sedimentary rocks, which are used to determine their relative ages, are consistent with the quantitative measurement of the ages of these rocks by radiometric dating of, for example, lava flows intercalated among them . Thus, we can justifiably infer that these organisms have changed progressively in a determinable sequence over time. Progressive change of organisms over time is what evolution is all about, and, for this there is an enormous body of evidence.

Marine organisms, especially shellfish, are much more likely to be fossilised than land-dwelling organisms which live in an environment which is, on the whole, adverse to fossilisation. Hence, the evidence for evolutionary development comes mainly from the more easily fossilised marine organisms, rather than from land animals. However, it is quite reasonable to assume that analogous trends of development have occurred in the terrestrial organisms which are poorly preserved as fossils.

[Neanderthal]

[Tropico]

Yeah... totally what i'm asking, some dudes from Discovery Channel dressed as cavemen...

Wow. You're dense. They show the fossils of many Homonid Species from Museums all over the world and show you, right there, the continuity from the first Hominid species into Homo Sapiens. At this point if the evidence is strong, anyone who says "Wheres the evidence" is just closing their eyes.