Where Adam And Eve Quadrupedal?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Yes, we have found transitional links to human evolution. In fact, there are more human links than any other. The fossil record of Human evolution is more complete than any other. We've been looking harder for them than any other transitional forms.

 

Yes, supposedly, but all fruitless until they find ALL the transitional pieces, or the smoking gun so to speak.

 

This is a logical impossibility. Here's why:

 

- I present you with a list of fossils. We number them according to their age, starting at 1, the hominid fossil farthest from Homo Sapiens, and ending with 10, a modern Homo Sapiens skull. My list looks like this:

 

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

- You say "Aha! 3 and 6 are missing!"

 

- A few years later, we find 3 and 6. I present you with my new list:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

- You say "yes, but what cam between 3 and 4, can you tell me that?"

 

- Time goes on, and we find even more fossils. I present you with a new list:

 

1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10

 

- You say "yes, but what comes between 4.5 and 5, can you tell me that?"

 

Do you understand? no matter how many 'transitional forms" we find (and every life form is transitional), you can always say that there is a gap, however tiny, between one form and the next. What you are asking for is a fossil of every single animal that has lived for the past 300,000 years. That would be the only way to fill every gap - to say "this animal and this animal mated, and here are their offspring . . ." IOW, a 300,000-year genealogical record in fossil form.

 

Not even the genealogies in the Bible are without gaps. Does that make them suspect?

 

Exactly! Yes! That is it Davka. That is the premise of my argument. As a believer in the Biblical creation, or a God that created all things, and man unique. We can't believe the Genesis of life as the beginning of Evolution at all to be true. Because as to your example, no matter what the current discovery, finds, years, numbers, the question will always move into a different direction.

 

The question ultimately is the gap between gases and life. This will be what evolution study leads to and all we have is a lab experiment 50 years ago

[ContraBardus]

Then why isn't it called the Law of Evolution?

 

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

 

 

That's why.

 

Scientific Laws have more to do with specific properties and very specific situations. They are also disproved quite often.

 

'Scientific Law' is not a higher level of certainty than a Theory. It relates to much more specific phenomenon.

 

For example, Gravity is still a Theory. Newton's 'Laws of Gravity' are only applicable to the effects of Gravity within a weak field. They are very specific and only relate to the effects of Gravity within a specific system.

 

The Theory of Evolution is not a Law, because it's not specific enough, and does not relate to a specific system or particular circumstance. If there are Evolutionary Laws, they would be limited to specific situations or properties of things within the system of the Theory. It would not make Evolution stop being a theory.

 

I find myself doubting you've done much research on the subject if you don't know the difference between a Theory and a Law. One does not trump the other, and both coexist. In fact, you can't have a Law without a Theory. Laws are related to Theories, they are not a higher level for them.

[ContraBardus]

 

Exactly! Yes! That is it Davka. That is the premise of my argument. As a believer in the Biblical creation, or a God that created all things, and man unique. We can't believe the Genesis of life as the beginning of Evolution at all to be true. Because as to your example, no matter what the current discovery, finds, years, numbers, the question will always move into a different direction.

 

The question ultimately is the gap between gases and life. This will be what evolution study leads to and all we have is a lab experiment 50 years ago

 

The problem is, that it's an unreasonable standard, and discounts the fact that not just the fossil record, but -all- the evidence points to the same conclusion.

 

The issue here is that you're acting as if the fossil record is the only evidence there is. This is not the case at all.

 

The fossil record is just one piece of evidence. A very large piece to be sure, but again, -it is not the only evidence-.

 

The imperfections within the fossil record are not enough to discredit the Theory or bring it into question. They provide an accurate predictive model, but even if they did not, it does not discredit -all the other evidence-.

 

Everything else still points to the same conclusion, even without it. If you take one single piece of a 50 piece puzzle out, does it make it impossible to tell what the picture is?

 

No, it is still clear, even with the missing piece what the picture on the puzzle is of.

 

Focusing on discrediting the fossil record doesn't do anything to argue against all the other evidence that points to the same conclusion, and is irrelevant to begin with. It still doesn't do anything to further your argument that Evolution isn't true. Because the fossil record supports other evidence, and is merely one indicator out of several pieces that indicate the same conclusion.

 

That's a huge flaw in your argument here.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I find myself doubting you've done much research on the subject if you don't know the difference between a Theory and a Law. One does not trump the other, and both coexist. In fact, you can't have a Law without a Theory. Laws are related to Theories, they are not a higher level for them.

 

Sometimes we can be so focused on trying to figure out someone else's education than trying to understand what they are saying. This can happen even to the point of that person actually admitting what the point of the other person was the whole time, not even realizing it.

The Theory of Evolution is not a Law, because it's not specific enough, and does not relate to a specific system or particular circumstance. If there are Evolutionary Laws, they would be limited to specific situations or properties of things within the system of the Theory. It would not make Evolution stop being a theory.

 

Specific enough as in falling from a building, gravity in action. I get what you say Contra. Get me? Hope so, you seem half educated on the subject.

[Abiyoyo]

This why you never continue to try to explain your perspective of a specific thing to someone who questions it in two threads, on similar subjects, with totally different topics, because I just realized that somehow this has gone way further than the OP because of back and forths, questioning of education, because of lack of clarity and thoroughness in reading someones posts.

[Ouroboros]

 

Evolution doesn't require a denial of a "God". Only certain ones...

 

I explained this earlier. Evolution's premise is that 'life' evolved over millions of years via mutations into different creatures, represented by the transitional forms, which also are considered all remnants found, to become what we are today.

 

How can God still fit into that premise? I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that evolution and God could coexist, with humans being apart of the evolutionary process?

That's a bit narrow minded Yoyo. God could have used Evolution to bring forth life. After all, Genesis states that God commanded the oceans to "bring forth life," not that he directly with his hands created the animals. He commanded Evolution, so why is that so difficult? I've heard Jewish rabbis, and even theologians admitting that God could have used Evolution to bring life to this planet. So the answer is: No. Evolution does NOT negate God. It does however negate the modern fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Genesis. You do know that Evolution was, in a different form, accepted by the Christians during the time of Darwin?

 

So I think it's very small minded to claim that God must have created all life without Evolution, when in fact it is up to God to pick his own method.

[Guest Davka]

Abiyoyo - I think you might be stuck here.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Sometimes we can be so focused on trying to figure out someone else's education than trying to understand what they are saying. This can happen even to the point of that person actually admitting what the point of the other person was the whole time, not even realizing it.

 

Specific enough as in falling from a building, gravity in action. I get what you say Contra. Get me? Hope so, you seem half educated on the subject.

 

No. You were just wrong, and were trying to misuse the concept of a Scientific Law.

 

If you had done research on the subject, you wouldn't be trying to use some of these arguments, because you'd realize that they aren't valid.

 

Your level of education isn't the issue, it's that you're not being very honest in the argument at hand. You're trying to make it sound as if the fossil record is the only evidence there is, and that it's imperfection is much more relevant than it really is. You're completely ignoring all the other evidence, as if it didn't exist. Discrediting the fossil record is not really a valid argument. Even if you manage it, you've still got all the other evidence that points to the same conclusion, and are arguing against an effective model that works for reasons beyond the evidence in the fossil record. You're intentionally misrepresenting the actual Science in order to promote your personal opinion on the matter.

 

You've also missed the point. Your assertion that 'because it's not a Law it's not proven' is false. Your gravity example isn't relevant at all. It's not related to the issue and only proves that you don't know what you're talking about here.

 

Yeah, if you step off a building you fall, both the Theory of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Gravity are applicable in that situation. That does not change the definition of a Scientific Law, or the fact that you were trying to misuse it to make the Theory sound less credible than it really is.

 

I got your point, and you are still wrong.

[Abiyoyo]

If 'Adam and Eve' were different physiologically, then they weren't human.

 

Humans aren't quadrapeds. If they were and had a different pelvis structure then they were an earlier species of hominid that evolved into humans. You know, like evolutionary science already suggests without the influence of a magic sky being.

 

 

 

No offense Contra, but before you spammed the thread with youtube vids, I was going to say that also in the Bible it says they were made Male and Female, before it gets into the more specific Adam and Eve account, which is a little different. So, if reading it literally, we have everything created, male and female, even humans. Now, they hadn't eaten of the tree yet, so their was no pain during childbirth. If God made them as quadrupeds, then they could have been more than them made. It could leave a wonder if Adam and Eve were the only ones 'cursed', and the rest were not. This would make quadrupedal humans existent Biblically. of course, their is no actual fact about this, as to why I chose to put it in the lions Den instead of Science thread.

 

So, then, we have the Flood only about 6-7 generations later, not long after Adam died. Enoch is taken up to God at a third of his age, and then Noah is predicted of the Flood and makes the ark, ...and so it goes.

 

Now, if dinosaurs were present during this 'unknown' time (always been guessed based on assumption of Abraham in current time lines). Then we would have dinosaurs, original created 'man'(possibly quadrupedal)and the punished 'man' (bipedal). All are killed in the Flood except the designated animals told to go in the Ark, Noah (possibly few others). These killed would include the Dinosaurs, quadrupedal humans, and the other bipedal humans.

 

Now skip to 20th century. Dinosaurs equal x million years old because of the depth of their burial. Lucy equal x million years old because of depth she is located. Whalla! We have evolution!

[Abiyoyo]

 

Evolution doesn't require a denial of a "God". Only certain ones...

 

I explained this earlier. Evolution's premise is that 'life' evolved over millions of years via mutations into different creatures, represented by the transitional forms, which also are considered all remnants found, to become what we are today.

 

How can God still fit into that premise? I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that evolution and God could coexist, with humans being apart of the evolutionary process?

That's a bit narrow minded Yoyo. God could have used Evolution to bring forth life. After all, Genesis states that God commanded the oceans to "bring forth life," not that he directly with his hands created the animals. He commanded Evolution, so why is that so difficult? I've heard Jewish rabbis, and even theologians admitting that God could have used Evolution to bring life to this planet. So the answer is: No. Evolution does NOT negate God. It does however negate the modern fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Genesis. You do know that Evolution was, in a different form, accepted by the Christians during the time of Darwin?

 

So I think it's very small minded to claim that God must have created all life without Evolution, when in fact it is up to God to pick his own method.

But, this can not explain humans. It specifically says that God made humans. We weren't brought forth. I understand your point here Hans and thanks for mentioning that, I never noticed it before. But, as far as man, It is different.

 

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Abiyoyo]

Okay, so I admit that evolution of other creatures may be the beginning result, but evolutionists won't be happy until they can prove it was so for human kind as well.

[Abiyoyo]

Abiyoyo - I think you might be stuck here.

 

I think Contra is stuck there.

[Guest marabod]

Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

 

So, the bipedal nature of humans is the reason that child birth is as painful involving the pelvic region of the body.

 

Could Adam and Eve been quadrupedal in the Garden of Eden?

 

Abi, Adam and Eve were created as Images of God. This implies that if they were quadrupedal then God-Father is also quadrupedal. Can you imagine worshiping such?

 

The only one in genesis who was quadrupedal was the Serpent, who then was subjected to the limbs amputation as a punishment.

[Ouroboros]

But, this can not explain humans. It specifically says that God made humans. We weren't brought forth. I understand your point here Hans and thanks for mentioning that, I never noticed it before. But, as far as man, It is different.

Well, that's the literalistic interpretation of Genesis. If you read it more as a figurative story, then there's no conflict.

 

After all, it says that God created humans from dirt. We're dirt. So there's no huge stretch to believe that we came "from the rocks" as Ken Hovind accuses evolution of saying.

 

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

What kind of "likeness"? We do look much alike to the apes, so are they also in physical appearance alike God?

 

Or perhaps the "likeness" is about the mental, emotional, and self-conscious part of the human being? My interpretation of that verse is that we're supposedly like God in spirit, not body. So why can't God do that to an animal he created through Evolution? At one point, when humans had evolved, he decided to add the spirit of reason, thought, and awareness in them.

[Ouroboros]

Okay, so I admit that evolution of other creatures may be the beginning result, but evolutionists won't be happy until they can prove it was so for human kind as well.

 

Imagine if you were a Creator, and you wanted to create something unique. Would you be surprised over the result of you designed it? Nope. But if you created a process which could lead to any kind of creature you never thought of, and then add your spirit to it, wouldn't that be more interesting? So why couldn't God?

[ContraBardus]

 

I think Contra is stuck there.

 

I'd call it an accurate representation of where you are in this discussion.

 

'Spam' implies the videos weren't relevant. The videos were all relevant to the topic, and I still suggest watching them. I've noticed on several forums that Theist are fond of misusing the term. It's not an ad, not off topic, and not 'spam'. It's just a collection of ideas you don't agree with, and completely in line with the subject matter.

 

I'm certain they won't change your mind, but they would give you a better understanding of exactly what it is you're arguing against. This is something you're clearly lacking in based on your previous posts.

 

Even more so now that you've brought the flood into this. They are a clear explanation of why you are wrong in these assertions, what the evidence is, and what it points to. Complete with references and a clear and concise explanation of what the actual Science is.

 

You're not basing any of your claims on anything but an assertion that the Biblical account is correct.

 

What evidence do you have that it is? Evolution has lots of evidence that it is, freely provides it, and it is constantly reviewed and verified.

 

I've yet to see any evidence for a Biblical account of Genesis, or the flood that allows such scrutiny. In fact, I've yet to see any evidence that even implies that such a thing is true, all known evidence contradicts it.

 

So why should we consider that it 'might be possible'?

 

It's clearly not, so conjecture on the subject is nothing but Hyperbole that doesn't contribute to any sort of gain in knowledge or anything but speculative conjecture.

 

That's not 'narrow mindedness' it's just common sense and reason. If it contradicts all the known evidence, has no support or inference that it's true, why bother speculating that it 'might be true' at all?

 

There's no reason to think that Adam and Eve existed at all, much less that they were quadrapeds, or that there ever was any global flood.

 

The speculation you're making about the relation between the flood and fossils has been conclusively disproved for years. There's no possible way it's true, the evidence blatantly contradicts it, and there is no mechanism that would make it fit the evidence. It just could not have happened, because what the evidence shows is not in line with the flood story. It doesn't work, doesn't fit, and just is plain false. It's been proven that it is beyond doubt. Speculating that it 'might be true' is pointless without a working model of how it might have happened if it was the case. All models that suggest it don't work, and do not explain what is actually found in the fossil and geological record.

 

If you could provide a plausible explanation for how it might appear as it does, one that can be verified and repeatedly confirmed by several independent sources, then it might be worth considering. However, no Biblical Flood proponent has ever been able to come up with such a model. They all violate known scientific principals and fail to stand up to all the variables in the geological record and fossil record.

 

It's a failed hypothesis in every instance that it's been tested. There's absolutely no reason to think that it's true, and a wealth of reasons to think that it's not.

 

You also fail to account that the Bible also says that God 'created' all the other animals, the planet, the stars, the moon, and everything else in the universe in the same manner as people.

 

You're trying to separate human creation as a different event in a way that isn't supported by the Bible itself. There's no indication at all that man's creation was any different than the creation of anything else.

 

Again I ask, what evidence do you have that any of this is true? Why should we just assume that it is? What is the basis of this aside from a 2,000 year old anthology of Jewish fairytales, and why should we believe it is anything more than that?

 

You're asking us to 'suspend our disbelief' for the purpose of supposition, and that's fine, but it still leaves you in the realm of nothing more than hyperbole. It doesn't prove anything, and does nothing to disprove or discount the known facts of the reality of the situation.

 

Why should we believe that humans were a special creation that is separate and above all life? Why should we think that all other life evolved, but that we're somehow special and were made outside that system? What evidence is there to support this claim?

 

The truth of the matter is that the actual evidence contradicts these claims completely. There's no reason to think that they are true, and even if you can discredit the fossil record, you still can't provide any evidence that your speculation on the matter is true. It still contradicts all the other evidence, and has none of it's own to support it.

 

There's just no reason to consider that it might be true. It's just something that sounds nice to you, and human arrogance that we're superior to all other life.

 

You can bring up our intelligence and all that we've built, but at the end of the day, bacteria are still far more suited to life on this planet, far more successful as life, and trump us. Bacteria can exist in places and in environments humans could never survive. As far as life that dominates this planet, Bacteria are the true masters of the Earth, not people. They have power over us that we can't break or deny. They didn't need to build civilizations or become intelligent to do it either.

 

Put simply, they're more 'fit' than us. If this planet was made for anything, it wasn't people, but bacteria.

[Shyone]

But the fact is that there are holes, very important holes, in the fossil record ( read a little instead of watching youtube). We are talking about the existence of human beings here, not just how this and that creature became another.

 

When the only "hole" left is your great-great grandmother, you will hide the body to be sure that hole is never fillled because you don't care how complete the record is. You just want it to be "incomplete."

 

Humans are animals with the same organs and metabolic pathways, the same general diseases, and we all die. The fossil record is pretty damned complete, but more importantly it is quite clear that for the first 4 billion years or more, there were no humans despite tremendous numbers of animals and plants. If it weren't for a little rat like creature that survived the K/T extinction event, we wouldn't be here today.

 

Many, many species weren't around, then are - or are around, then aren't. Evolution has been a process that has shaped species for millions and possibly billions of years, but you seem to think that after all of the steps that would be necessry to make the great apes, God created man in his bipedal image with a phallus, two testes and the same internal organs as other primates.

 

How ignorant can you get?

[Shyone]

 

You can bring up our intelligence and all that we've built, but at the end of the day, bacteria are still far more suited to life on this planet, far more successful as life, and trump us. Bacteria can exist in places and in environments humans could never survive. As far as life that dominates this planet, Bacteria are the true masters of the Earth, not people. They have power over us that we can't break or deny. They didn't need to build civilizations or become intelligent to do it either.

 

Put simply, they're more 'fit' than us. If this planet was made for anything, it wasn't people, but bacteria.

Very well put. The whole thing, but this in particular.

 

Bacteria have not only inserted themselves into every environmental nook available, they have also placed themselves where they are symbiotically necessary for life of most mammals. Just as single cells were invaded by "mitochondrial parasites" billions of years ago, our bodies are colonized with bacteria and attempts to eradicate them are futile (and dangerous). Just ask the Activia Woman.

 

Bacteria have become involved in every step of life for virtually every multicelled organism from synthesis to decomposition and recycling. Amazing.

[Abiyoyo]

You just want it to be "incomplete."

 

 

 

Hurry!! Hurry!! The Christian! Lets say he is crude, unintelligent, and tell him what he 'is thinking' and then bash him! Stupid Christians

[NotBlinded]

You just want it to be "incomplete."

 

 

 

Hurry!! Hurry!! The Christian! Lets say he is crude, unintelligent, and tell him what he 'is thinking' and then bash him! Stupid Christians

Yeah! Stoopid Christians!

 

Hey wait...you're joking aren't you?

 

[Guest marabod]

mental, emotional, self-conscious, spiritual

 

Phanta, it seems Genesis points to the self-consciousness part more than to the others. The first chapters only mention Adam being created in the image of God, without explaining this anyhow. But the lost paradise story clearly explains that after humans ate of the tree of knowledge, they became like Gods BECAUSE they started to know the difference between Good and Evil. Knowing this difference is related to the level of perception and reasoning, and is basically a notification that the humans acquired Morality (thus becoming different from the animals). Animals are seen as sinless, so human sin must be derived from acting (or reasoning) against own moral principles, this becomes unavoidable if the distinction between Good and Evil is clear.

[ContraBardus]

You just want it to be "incomplete."

 

 

Hurry!! Hurry!! The Christian! Lets say he is crude, unintelligent, and tell him what he 'is thinking' and then bash him! Stupid Christians

 

 

Well, I would have agreed if you'd not taken it to such an extreme. Both of you are being sarcastic here and I'm sure you're both aware, but I can't get behind this despite that I might have agreed with a less extreme version. If you'd just said something along the lines of 'You shouldn't assume what I might do or think'. I'd have agreed, but seeing as you've taken it to the extreme and added a bunch of assertions that aren't true, I'm gonna have to disagree and cite you for trying to play the victim.

 

I get onto Christians for telling me what I think, what my morals are, and what I really believe all the time. I'm always quick to point out that I doubt they have psychic powers and have no way of knowing such things. So I can't agree with Shyone's assertion here even knowing it was sarcasm. He does make a good point, but it would have been better served if not stated at an individual level. There's precedent for such behavior for some Creationists within the group, but not you as an individual that I'm aware of.

 

We've made comments about the subject that imply your beliefs in this particular topic are stupid because they contradict a great deal of known evidence and have no supportive evidence of their own, and that's true. It also implies there is a certain level of ignorance on your part. Ignorance can be corrected, and it's not an insult to point out that someone is lacking in knowledge on a particular topic. In other words, there are good reasons for us to state as such.

 

I also don't recall anyone stating that you personally are an idiot in this thread. Perhaps someone has, but I don't recall it. That still doesn't reflect on the rest of us as a whole. Commenting as such about a belief or idea is not the same thing as saying it about an individual. We've called your idea stupid, but have not mentioned anything about you personally being an idiot. Even geniuses have stupid ideas sometimes.

[Guest Davka]

First of all, asking if humans can be quadrupeds is like asking if a dog can be cold-blooded and lay eggs. If it does that, it's not a dog - even if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, and walks like a dog, it's still not a dog.

 

A quadrupedal ancestor of Homo Sapiens would not be a human being. It would be a pre-human simian ancestor.

 

Second, the evidence about the age of fossils is only partially based on the layer of rock they are found in. The most accurate dating technique we have has to do with the half-life of radioactive isotopes. This can tell us not only how old a fossil is, but how old a rock is. The Flood (which is likely a myth) even if it were real, would not have changed the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes.

[NotBlinded]

Okay, so I admit that evolution of other creatures may be the beginning result, but evolutionists won't be happy until they can prove it was so for human kind as well.

 

Imagine if you were a Creator, and you wanted to create something unique. Would you be surprised over the result of you designed it? Nope. But if you created a process which could lead to any kind of creature you never thought of, and then add your spirit to it, wouldn't that be more interesting? So why couldn't God?

That reminds me of something I heard from Alan Watts while quoting G. K. Chesterton:

 

It is one thing to look with amazement at a gorgon or a griffin, a creature who does not exist, but it is quite another thing to look at a hippopotamus, a creature which does exist and looks as if it shouldn't.

 

I don't know why I wanted to say that, but I think it's applicable here...somehow??

 

He is talking about the seemingly randomness and chaotic nature of existence being in perfect harmony. Such as along the lines of:

 

Why is it I send rain on the desert where no man dwells?

God of Abraham

[Shyone]

You just want it to be "incomplete."

 

 

 

Hurry!! Hurry!! The Christian! Lets say he is crude, unintelligent, and tell him what he 'is thinking' and then bash him! Stupid Christians

I'm getting back into this late, but I can see that I opened a can of worms.

 

The efforts that you have gone to in order to convince yourself (because you aren't even close to convincing anyone else who knows what evolution is) have been so extreme that I stated that there is no evolutionary record that would satisfy you with respect to completeness. If that is wrong, then be specific. How complete would the record have to be to show you that species have changed into other species over time?

 

It goes from parent to child to grand child to great grandchild to great great grand child, and that is only 100 years. 5 generations per century, and the changes would take 10s of thousands of years, so that means 500 sequential generations for 10,000 years, and for 1,000,000 years that would be 50,000 generations.

 

If you can list even 500 generations of your family, then I would be quite amazed.

 

The archeological record is inherently incomplete, but one might be able to gather once representative species from every 1000 generations if you're very lucky.

 

 

The diagram above is now "incomplete." Another species has been discovered that pushes human evolution back another 1/2 million years or so, Ardipithecus ramidus.

 

So to insist that there are no intermediary forms, or that huge gaps in the fossil record preclude human evolution requires "willful ignorance." "Deliberate ignorance." The only explanation for failing to see the obvious is because you don't want to see the obvious. I stand by my claim, "You just want it to be "incomplete.""

 

It doesn't take a mind reader to see this.