The Big Bang Theory......

[The Noose]

An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11660.html

Excerpt: The report describes the stone tools as microliths, thin blades about only an inch long that could be affixed to wood or bone. These tipped projectiles were either arrows propelled by bows or, more likely, spears launched by atlatls, wooden extensions of the throwing arm that act as a lever, imparting greater speeds and distances to the weapon. This technology, the researchers said, may have been pivotal to the success of **** sapiens as humans left Africa and entered Eurasia some 50,000 years ago, encountering Neanderthals who were limited to hand-thrown spears.

Point: When thinking about the transitional fossils that would support evolution, we have to consider that Archeologists still haven't found the beginning of **** sapiens.

Seems more like questions about how evolution happened, not evolution itself.

[squealpiggy]

Transitional fossils (or lack there of) are pretty "gaping" holes wouldn't you say?

Hundreds of thousands of specimens of transitional fossils, what gaps?

Good point!!

IMHO, people shouldn't get too uptight whenever it is suggested that there are discoveries challenging the theory of evolution and its coinciding natural selection process. Conceptually it was a reasonable hypothesis given the lack of hard supporting data during Darwin's time. He actually nailed the origin of man {Africa} long before there was sufficient evidence to support the idea.

But when as we delve deeper into the "Natural Selection" hypothesis today, taking into consideration the many fossilized discoveries, we still cannot state with certainty that the theory in unquestionable and supported by evidence. {and when I state "we" I'm referring to accomplished archaeologist's}

Evolution is a field of biology. It is studied by, among others, microbiologists, biochemists, geneticists, ethologists and paleontologists. Archaeology is the study of human activity and is not a field concerned with evolution of organisms.

When someone states "Gaps, what gaps?" in reply to the suggestion that the theory of evolution still has enormous gaps that need to be filled -- It doesn't necessarily suggest that they are unwilling to accept recent archaeological data and findings, just that they may be unaware.

Life has been evolving on earth for around three billion years. Archaeology and evolutionary paleontology are fields separate by enormous timescales.

Here are two very interesting quotes:
"Liking or not liking a certain word is not the issue, but in science adequately defining a key word is mandatory. Living things undoubtedly change, but they exhibit only variation within discrete kinds of plants and animals in the fossil record and in experiments. Observable, vertical evolution always eludes evolutionists."

I would like to address something in this quote:

"Liking or not liking a certain word is not the issue, but in science adequately defining a key word is mandatory"

I agree. In this case the key word is:

"Living things undoubtedly change, but they exhibit only variation within discrete kinds"

Define "kind".

By the way the actual source for this quote is The Institute for Creation Research, specifically a column by one Frank Sherwin, one of ICR's cargo-cult scientificators. Apparently one of his "specialties" is Noah's Flood. I can relate. One of my specialties is Star Wars trivia. It's just that I don't think my fictional story is literally true.

"An issue of Scientific American stated, “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,” and a popular British magazine lamented: “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.” A well-known paleoanthropologist at George Washington University said, “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”"
Source: http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2012/0...key-evolution/

Your choice of source is very interesting. I generally check out links to articles. This is what yours says:

"...as you should have guessed the following quotes are almost certainly mined:

Science writer Jennifer Viegas said, “The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans remains a holy grail in science.” Six evolutionists stated, “Evidence of humans from this period is sparse and controversial.”

An issue of Scientific American stated, “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,” and a popular British magazine lamented: “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.” A well-known paleoanthropologist at George Washington University said, “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”

Importantly, also, all of these quotes are talking more about specific fossils than the actual fact that “people evolved from ape-like ancestors.”

Now when reading this article along with many others that can be easily referenced, there isn't only significant doubt, but unquestionable doubt being exhibited by the experts. And I'm not talking about smart reader's who have a formulated opinion -- These doubts are from those who are in the best possible position to validate the theory of evolution ... Archeologist's.

You didn't actually read the article. Also archaeologists study artifacts related to human activity so they are not in "the best possible position to validate the theory of evolution". In fact the people who are in the best possible position are geneticists.

One of the most recent discoveries:

Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/sc...d&oref=slogin&

Excerpt: Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44-million-year-old **** habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old **** erectus found in 2000 — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

Again this article does not in fact challenge the validity of evolution. It suggests that the two genii were contemporaneous as opposed to being ancestral of one another. That's not the same as saying "Well the precise order of evolution is now in doubt therefore MAGIC. Read the links you post. That's my suggestion.

An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11660.html

Excerpt: The report describes the stone tools as microliths, thin blades about only an inch long that could be affixed to wood or bone. These tipped projectiles were either arrows propelled by bows or, more likely, spears launched by atlatls, wooden extensions of the throwing arm that act as a lever, imparting greater speeds and distances to the weapon. This technology, the researchers said, may have been pivotal to the success of **** sapiens as humans left Africa and entered Eurasia some 50,000 years ago, encountering Neanderthals who were limited to hand-thrown spears.

This has nothing to do with evolution.

Point: When thinking about the transitional fossils that would support evolution, we have to consider that Archeologists still haven't found the beginning of **** sapiens.

Archaeologists don't study evolution archaeologists don't study evolution archaeologists don't study evolution.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

People are still arguing about evolution.......

[squealpiggy]

People are still arguing about evolution.......

It's shocking really. The same creationist canards being thrown out time and time again. Canard is French for "duck".

[rorymac]

Given how many fossils perish, I actually think it's amazing how many 'transitional beings' have been found. Anyway, everything is a transitional being - some mammals may eventually evolve into a whole new biological class, who knows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventastega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanoconodon

[D-MiZe]

The idea that the universe burst forth from nothing is among the most absurd fantasies yet created by mankind.

Yet God came from nothingness and that's a plausible theory.

[arraamis]

People are still arguing about evolution.......

No, its not exactly an argument, just a statement of fact that Evolutionists, just like Creationists, do not have enough data\evidence to support their claims -- This is a FACT, it is not conjecture nor speculation.

Just like religious belief-systems, if some choose to swear by and believe concepts and ideas as truth, without comprehensive\conclusive evidence, that is again, their choice. But it should never be implied, that non-believers are among those stricken with the moron bug, simply because we don't believe.

Religious belief systems believe in spirits floating around space, manipulating human affairs, with no evidence what so ever -- we won't go into the snakes and trees here.

Evolutionists believe that apes were without a catalyst, magically and spontaneously selected by something undefined, to evolve into a superior human specimen.

Yet God came from nothingness and that's a plausible theory.

Good Point!!!

Its called selective blindness .... when one cannot see that their belief-system is in reality no different from others that are mocked.

[talip bin osman]

nice to see smarties like araamis and piggy trying to ignite some fireworks in this thread...

[D-MiZe]

Evolutionists believe that apes were without a catalyst, magically and spontaneously selected by something undefined, to evolve into a superior human specimen.

Don't understand the need for the word 'magically', genetic mutations are real. Spontaneous is another word added to skew the reader's perception - these changes did not occur over night.

Why does there need to be a reason for the existence of life?

[The Noose]

Yet God came from nothingness and that's a plausible theory.

The religious response to that is always: God didnt come from nothingness, he is eternal and has always been.
Or something.

Religious belief systems believe in spirits floating around space, manipulating human affairs, with no evidence what so ever -- we won't go into the snakes and trees here.

Evolutionists believe that apes were without a catalyst, magically and spontaneously selected by something undefined, to evolve into a superior human specimen.