We won't becasue they don't exist. The so-called links (Peking man, Lucy, Neanderthal man, etc.) from apes to men were all hoaxes.
2007-11-04 22:19:07 · 7 answers · asked by jreesetwu14 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
All forms are transitional forms.
Take a look in the mirror. This is man's transitional form from what we were a million years ago to what we will be a million years from now.
2007-11-04 22:21:18 · answer #1 · answered by Don Adriano 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are tens of thousands of transitional fossils. All you have do is go to a museum and ask. I've seem many of them myself. You can also start purchasing scientific journals, where they discuss these findings all the time.
One that made a lot of headlinesa few years ago was the 'walking whale' (Ambulocetus natans) that is the ancestor of the whale before it moved back into the ocean.
The idea that there's no transitional fossils is a wivestale told by creationist propagandists, but easily refutable.
Don't believe everything your fundamentalist minister tells you. He is not an expert on evolution, although he probably thinks he is. Evangelical Bible school programmed him to say he is.
As for 'living'... Evolution demonstrates that we are all transitional living forms. We either adapt or eventually die out.
As for Neanderthals, a recent study of genetic evidence taken from them shows that the genetic variation of Neanderthal is 3 times as different from modern humans as the differences between any two humans living in the world today. That's how we know not only they aren't the same species, but also that they branched off from our common ancestor and are not our direct ancestor.
The only hoax is what you've been told. The joke's on you.
2007-11-05 06:21:50 · answer #2 · answered by gaelicspawn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very likely, we are seeing them all the time but don't know it. We could only be sure that a form was transitional after it had evolved into something else.
However, the Nile perch in Lake Victoria are probably transitional forms, as they seem to be in the process of splitting into two species, top feeders and bottom feeders.
The questioner has got his facts muddled. DNA testing shows that Neanderthals were related to us, but were not our direct ancestors, a bit like Peking Man. I think that Lucy is still thought to be on our main line of descent. None of these were hoaxes; perhaps he is muddling them up with Piltdown Man, which was.
2007-11-05 07:46:51 · answer #3 · answered by Facts Matter 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The debate you are referring to concerns the meaning and interpretation of the finds you mention, not whether they are hoaxes or not. The missing proof you are alluding to, on neither side of the debate, requires a living transitional form.
I suggest you read the literature again, and then come up with a question. The way you are going about it now, you are only going to draw a lot of insults, without doing your case any favours.
2007-11-05 06:31:19 · answer #4 · answered by kwaaikat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So your saying genes dont exist... wow, I hope you dont experience a neurosis from realising that as a human you have no room for development!
2007-11-05 06:27:58 · answer #5 · answered by latem321 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the us government has them all in top secret establishments that not even the president knows about.
2007-11-05 06:22:45 · answer #6 · answered by T dog 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
2014-04-08 07:07:29 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋