It hasn't yet!
In all honesty it may never. Fossilization is an extremely rare event. To even have complete dinosaur skeletons is almost an impossibility. What we
will most likely find is a group of common ancestors, rather than the one specific point of division.
They'r "Species" individual species, not transitional creatures...those creatures are the ones that are missing!
Actually there are many examples of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a fantastic example.
How do you know "we changed"
Whats to say that humans didn't always exist, and we kept on existing since we are better suited for this planet than the species that died off..
The fossil record shows this. So does archaeology.
Neither does the article, nor the paper, nor the "scholars" prove that this lemur is proof, or one more proof of human evolution.
All they do is describe the dissposable thumbs, tail, etc... which absolutely proves nothing in supporting "human evolution."
Actually, the creature shares unique traits that are only found in primates. As for the disposable thumbs, I don't think any creature has evolved
thumbs that they can just throw away when they are done with them. We humans do have opposable thumbs though, which is something else primates
share.
It describes a theory and only a theory, a theory that is preached as fact when in FACT it is only a theory.
A sadly common misconception. The Theory of Evolution is a working explanation to why and how evolution works. The scientific definition of a Theory
is extremely specific.
How do you know?
What proof do you have with out explaining the concept of the theory of evolution?
Again, we know through genetics and the fossil record.
Why is it that when evolutionists are confronted with questions to back up their theory they preach as fact, that all they do is re-mummble how
evolution works...
We all know, how it suppose to work, the only problem is that we have no evidence of it actually working!!
www.sciencedaily.com...
Thats called "adaptation"
Why are you bringing up adaptation in an evolution-type thread?
Adapting has nothing to do with "evolving."
It's actually the exact same thing.
God, quite describing the processoses, and start PROVING how they work.
Iono what a processoses is, but she's explaining why species adapt to their surroundings. A tiger with camouflage is a much better hunter than a
bright pink one. Natural selection weeds out the individuals who are less suited to their environment. The ones with beneficial changes have a higher
probability of surviving, and pass on these beneficial traits to new generations.
Actually they would have to, according to your above descriptions and descriptions regarding the theory of evolution elsewhere, they would all
have to evolve individually through mutations.
No. Individuals cannot evolve because this would involve changing their genes. Gregor Mendel's work serves as a model for genetics among species, and
how they change with time.
Evolution is not a "given."
Its an oppionated theory and nothing else unless by some miracle is proven otherwise.
I don't know what oppionated means, but I have already explained what a theory in scientific terms is.
[edit on 22-6-2009 by PieKeeper]