Quote:
|
Originally Posted by B'Aqu-anir The evidence for evolution, until recently, was based almost entirely on skeletal remains. So for the most part, the gaps in the data are due to the lack of some sort of "missing link sleleton". What overwhelming evidence is there that negates the lack of a missing link skeleton in evolution for any species? Humans are hardly the only species lacking a missing link. In fact there are huge gaps in the skeletal evidence across most species, including humans. |
It has taken me some time to decide how I would reply to this. It has been quite awhile since the theory of Evolution based its theory on skeletons. The main group of factual evidence is genetic. More is based through once more breeding.
It is fact that if I wanted to create a breed of dog I could, one that had sharp hearing, godd instincts and were black. That is evolution controled specifically by me. Natural selection after all, If I really tried I could probably create a breed of three legged dogs. Not that I think they would survive in the wild.
It is also fact that they can trace your genetic tree bacwards. They recently did this with the Moari, and found that alothough they no longer resembled them, they descended from the peoples of Thailand.
I doubt you could find one place that denies the evidence of breeding for traits, because thats what evolution is. People get hung up on the skeletons when quite frankly all they can prove is where we came from, but cannot really prove evolotion really anyway, because there aree always mutants. Although I would suggest that if all the skeletons from one time period were missing then that suggests more that something rather huge happened in that period, rather than disprove the theory.
Linear Mode
Latest Threads
