in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented.

Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?

Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about “missing links,” and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates.

The “missing links” are still missing.

Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.

* Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'.

It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

* Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

* Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

* Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

* Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

* Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

* Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men

These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

* Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'.

However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human.

For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

* Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus.
It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

* Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size).

However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

the tiktaalak
[or whatever you guys call that'intermediate'

[that has flippers..[not limbs nor a shoulderblade
[the thing all legged animals need to'walk' and have got]

so here is my SPECIFIC point
from this link
http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

using this quote

<<..Actually it’s a red herring!

As discussed elsewhere on this site,the question of how one fills the gap between Panderichthys and Acanthostega is ultimately a side issue for the thesis that lobe-finned fish evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods...Apart from the problem of identifying Ichthyostega’s descendants, the crucial questions include:

How does one account for tetrapod trackways in beach sediments that predate even Tiktaalik by 10 million years?

How does one fill the gap between Tiktaalik, which was a fish with no legs, and an aïstopod such as Lethiscus, which within 20 million years had supposedly acquired legs and limb girdles and then lost them again, and changed from a fish to something more like a snake than any tetrapod?

That is the burden of proof that needs to be discharged. As Clack remarked in an academic paper earlier in the year, Lethiscus suggests that ‘a great deal happened in the course of tetrapod evolution that we know very little about’.

This is one of the trade secrets of palaeontology to which Darwinians do not like to draw public attention.

Until the problem is solved, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that we know very little about tetrapod evolution at all and to regard Tiktaalik in much the same light as one now regards the lung-fishes, which, for all their superficial appeal as intermediates, are no longer seen as ancestral to tetrapods.>>

so much for FACTS[you give links ,thus i rebut one point that invalidates the whole link[one flaw the whole science is flawed;its not science faulsifiable]

i know you got no specific proofs

all could easilly be rebutted
if you didnt YEARN for proof of what you BELIEVE, childish fables

i research things, dare to ask questions
[and am not afraid of what the real truth reveals

why dont you guys question EVE,volution

[anything?]

I think I will leave you to talk nonsense to yourself.

TYPICAL*..quote<<..you*..get new document's>>..

NOW..too many?
thanks anyhow*..cheers

you may think,..evolution won..its courtcase
till you realize,..it wasnt judging..'evolution/creation'
but..*whether..bible*..could be taught..in a science_class..!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
from
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

QUOTE>>..defendant:..The[EVOLUTION]Theory..is not a fact...
Gaps in the Theory exist..for which there is no evidence...>>

[there are many GAPS,..as honest appraisal would confirm

The complaint

[quote>>.'(defendants’“intelligent design policy”)..will compel..public school science_teachers*..to present to their students in biology class..Information..that is inherently*religious,,,not scientific,!,in nature.]

The resolution thus..is in clear..and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,ll..*which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas..in public school science classes>>>

so..it wasnt ABOUT evolution]
but about''teaching..or presentation of religious ideas!

it wasnt about PROVING..or DIS-proving..*'CREATION'..
[it was ONLY about allowing..*the full facts_to be questioned*..ON THE GROUNDS of..*teaching religious_ideas..*..in public_schools'']

missing link ?..lol..[now deleted]
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms

SAID..quote>>..where are all the intermediate forms?..
they are still with us;..*ring species]..LOL..

[PROOF?..ha]
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

[QUOTE}>>..Salamander;the Ensatina ring species,..
Richard Highton..*argued..Ensatina is a case of multiple species !
and not a continuum..of one species(..meaning, by traditional definitions..*it is not a ring species.

Greenish warbler[ring-species]
An article..that discusses greenish warblers..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

....>>in all cases..*we are talking about breeds of salimander/breeds of a warbler species{..LOL][THAT FAILS.the wiki description]..mt,DNA alone should not be used..to infer species boundaries

[QUOTe>>..Definition;..If an organism'B'..is intermediate in form between organisms..'A'and'C,..then it is said..to be an intermediate form between..A.and.C.

>>Intermediate forms..are one of the key predictions..of the theory of evolution,..which'stipulates'..that species evolved through a gradual process of natural selection..acting on small variations.

>>It follows that<<if>>..a kind of animal..'C'..is evolved from a different kind of animal..'A,..there will have been intermediate forms B1,B2,B3,etc..between..'A.and.C.>>

>>see that a salamander is..[B1,B2 b3,etc]..LOL
*..within the species salamander].

LOL..*SPECIES SALAMANDER?

refuted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamandridae

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

[quote]>>>>General lineage":..This is a sequence of similar genera or families,..linking an older group..to a very different?younger group...

A lineage like this//shows obvious morphological..intermediates for every major structural change,>>..lol

GENOTYPE*,no..[pattern]..lol

THEN..<<...there are still gaps..between each of the groups..lol
*few or none..*of the speciation..events are preserved>>...lol..

NO..*DNA proof*..EITHER

.<<.Why don't paleontologists..bother
to popularize..the detailed lineages..and species-to-species transition's?..

lol..*Because..it is thought to be unnecessary detail....LOL..
why waste valuable textbook/space..on such tedious detail?...>>>

why?..because that's..what it would take..to validate belief..INTO*..TRUE science[LOL]

im sorry your leaving..Cossomby
it seems everytime..i raise the issue..it seems i upset someone

another time it was ludwig..[who actually teaches botany..subtopic..specialty : eucalyptus..very learned etc..much im presuming like your good self]

regardless..you cant have missed
the subtle put downs i have received..
im called ignorant or a creationist..or told to goto this site or read that link..

so i do..and find the same non-science faith..that a theory* is 'science' fact.

im told learn more so i do
im told read this or that so i do

im told im stupid..illiterate dont know species = a livingthing

all this peer pressure is for what?..that i call THEORY science?..that i call dead naming words .living djectives?..thati call clear fixation or faith fact?

i know a science NEEDS falsifiability
that if refuted..refute the errant fact..and that peer review..keeps the ;science'..pure..[when religion has the same peer control system..

nd 'believers'..in both
can have blind faith that what they believe is true..because the high priest in a lab coat says so?

i seen what blind faith does
it allows lazy blind faith..well faith is fine..
but to say any faith..is more science than any other,is insane

nothing im saying is to upset anyone..i love truth..i love falsifiable fact..but most having faith..in their peers theory
presume falsifiable means made up..

and never even heard of phenotype genotype
let alone genus nor taxonomy etc..THEY TAKE THAT ON blind FAITH..

they got faith..not science..
and thats fine..till they call me ignorant just for questioning

then along comes a ludwig or a Cossomby..and i say to myself finally someone whop grasps what im so poorly trying to say..[so as to let those with faith believe as they will

but we are limited to 8 posts a day
so i uneed to get as much out there..while i got a possable science mind present..

i hoped could debate the issues
instead i get peer pressure to change
yet even facts cant change..*their faith..thanks be to peer's