Why is evolution hiding?

[Phatt Matt s]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

[tor]

Do you agree that there were a hominid species which split into apes and humans? Yes or No.

[SteelCurtain]

It is not testable according to the scientific method and we simply don't see half gorilla's half humans or do you disagree?

It is absolutely testable according to the scientific method.

There is not one person with any expertise in evolutionary biology that would expect to see half gorilla/half humans now. Now I would argue that Australopithecus afarensis is a pretty good match for what I think you're talking about. There is never a clearly defined transition between two species, though. There are instead many small changes over successive generations that result in a different species. A rabbit will not ever give birth to a jackalope. But the 5000th generation of that rabbit with certain advantageous mutations will look something like a rabbit, and something like a jackalope. 5000 more generations later, and more of those advantageous mutations give you a jackalope. We're talking tens of thousands of years here.

[Phatt Matt s]

It is not testable according to the scientific method and we simply don't see half gorilla's half humans or do you disagree?

It is absolutely testable according to the scientific method.

There is not one person with any expertise in evolutionary biology that would expect to see half gorilla/half humans now. Now I would argue that Australopithecus afarensis is a pretty good match for what I think you're talking about. There is never a clearly defined transition between two species, though. There are instead many small changes over successive generations that result in a different species. A rabbit will not ever give birth to a jackalope. But the 5000th generation of that rabbit with certain advantageous mutations will look something like a rabbit, and something like a jackalope. 5000 more generations later, and more of those advantageous mutations give you a jackalope. We're talking tens of thousands of years here.

I think after 5,000 years the Apes now should be able to invent what the apes five thousand years ago could not. Gorillas have not invented the wheel in how many thousands of years? Will they ever?

[tor]

It is absolutely testable according to the scientific method.

There is not one person with any expertise in evolutionary biology that would expect to see half gorilla/half humans now. Now I would argue that Australopithecus afarensis is a pretty good match for what I think you're talking about. There is never a clearly defined transition between two species, though. There are instead many small changes over successive generations that result in a different species. A rabbit will not ever give birth to a jackalope. But the 5000th generation of that rabbit with certain advantageous mutations will look something like a rabbit, and something like a jackalope. 5000 more generations later, and more of those advantageous mutations give you a jackalope. We're talking tens of thousands of years here.

I think after 5,000 years the Apes now should be able to invent what the apes five thousand years ago could not. Gorillas have not invented the wheel in how many thousands of years? Will they ever?

Gorillas don't invent wheel because they don't need a wheel.
So do you agree that there were hominid species which divided into apes and humans? Yes or No.

[Phatt Matt s]

I can't make a decision that I don't know to be factual. Tell me how you know this to be factual and I'll have to check multiple sources and evaluate both sides of the argument and all data not just some that which is cherry picked and propagated by a group with an Agenda.

[Esquilax]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

In accordance with what evolutionary theory actually says, what you'd see is an egg from a bird that's slightly different from a chicken, hatching into a chicken like we see them today, with a couple mutations that make it different from its parent bird.

See, I think this is where the misunderstanding is; the changes in evolution are often very small, and happen over many, many generations. There's a reason this shit takes millions of years. When you say that we see changes within species, but that we don't see species changing into other species, what you're really saying is that we know animals have little changes over the generations, but that those little changes will never accumulate into big changes, and that's just absurd. When you offer no mechanism by which those little changes could stop before the organism is noticeably different... well, you haven't really said anything at all.

Put it this way: you recognize that organisms look different from their parents, and that's due to mutations that we can see. Would you not agree that, over millions of years, those mutations would build up and accumulate until the organism looks very different from its ancestor?

[tor]

There
http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/...-ancestry/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/fol...47161.html

[Phatt Matt s]

Gorillas don't invent wheel because they don't need a wheel.

Well we don't need the Internet or Space ships that fly to the moon. Yet we invent them regardless of not needing them. Apes could prolong their lives and enhance the quality of life if they would start inventing new things.

---

I don't deny that there is evidence in favor of what you say. However, If Credible scientific studies have come to the opposite Conclusion...I can't say for sure who is right and who is wrong.

I need to figure out more on this before declaring more strongly what I know to be true:

The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

... complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

[tor]

If Credible scientific studies have come to the opposite Conclusion...I can't say for sure who is right and who is wrong.

They did not.