News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

how do you get this confused???

Started by brekfustuvluzerz, September 22, 2009, 09:28:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brekfustuvluzerz

heres a post from a christian apologetics newsletter, have fun:

edit: skip down to about the seventh or eighth paragraph to get to the point (if there is one).

QuoteOkay, this week’s newsletter is about why I do not believe in evolution.  Or, to clarify, why I do not believe in interâ€"species or “macro” evolution.  I do, however, believe in micro evolution â€" evolution within a species that accounts for the many variations one can find within any given species.

Now, why do I say that?  Why do I not believe in macro evolution?  Is it because of my fundamentalist, literalist reading of the Bible?  No, not at all.  I do not read the Bible in the same way as a literalist or fundamentalist does.  Is it because my religion teaches me that evolution goes against the Bible and against God?  No, not at all.  My religion leaves open the question of macro evolution.  It says you can believe in it (with one qualification that I will point out below) or you can not believe it.  So I am not bound by my religious beliefs to reject evolution.  Then why do I reject one of the most sacred teachings of the atheist faith?  Statistics.  Statistics and common sense.

Before getting into the statistics and common sense part, though, I wish to make a few general comments here.  First, I am wide open to having someone prove to me that evolution (and from here on in, when I use the word “evolution,” I will be referring to macro evolution â€" one species evolving into another species) is actually true.  However, I believe as the Church teaches â€" if evolution is true, then at some point, God stepped into the evolutionary process and, in a unique act, created Adam and from Adam created Eve.  This is the one “qualification” I mentioned in the paragraph above.  I would also add that I do not believe evolution is possible without God preâ€"programming it into our genetic code.  More on that later.

Second, I readily admit that I am not a scholar or expert in any way, shape, or form when it comes to biology, physiology, anthropology, genetics, statistics, or any other scientific realm that deals with this issue of evolution.  I have arrived at my current position mostly through what I call a common sense approach.  I readily admit that I need to do more research on the subject and I hope that by writing this, I will receive good suggestions as to where to look for good research on this topic.

Third, while I do not believe in evolution, I do indeed believe that the earth is many millions, or even billions, of years old.  So I am not a “young earth” believer.  The young earth theory is directly related to a literalist reading of Scripture that involves counting backwards to the moment of creation by adding up all the spans of years mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis and coming to the conclusion that the Earth, indeed the entire universe, is only about 10 or 12â€"thousand years ol d.  (For more on a literal, or Catholic, reading of Scripture vs. a literalist, or Fundamentalist, reading of Scripture, go to: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com and order the free CD or mp3 download entitled “Catholics and the Bible.”)  Evolutionary theory and young earth theory are two separate areas.  They are related in the sense that if young earth theory is true, then evolutionary theory cannot be true.  However, if evolutionary theory is false, then it does not necessarily follow that young earth theory is true.

Fourth, I wish to emphasize that this position I hold has nothing to do at all with my religion â€" I am a Catholic, as all the readers of this newsletter know, but those of you who had this forwarded to you may not know.  The Catholic Church has not pronounced definitively one way or the other on the question of evolution â€" so, as a Catholic, I am open to believe as I see fit on this matter (again, with t he one “qualification” mentioned above).

So, this is not a theologicallyâ€"based position, but rather a scientificallyâ€"based and statisticallyâ€"based and common senseâ€"based position.  If someone wishes to change my thinking on this, which I am quite open to having happen, they cannot do so by appealing to the Bible and to theology, but rather they must appeal to science and statistics and common sense.  
Now, exactly what was it that caused this former evolutionâ€"believing, sorta intelligent, relatively wellâ€"informed person to no longer believe in evolution?  I will readily admit that I was first introduced to the idea that evolution might not be true by my reading of books and articles written by those who were indeed coming from a fairly fundamentalist theological background.  These books and articles would sometimes argue against evolution based on a literalist reading of the Bible.  ; Arguments which I would immediately discount as not being convincing.

They would also, however, often use scientific arguments.  But I found their scientific arguments to often be so esoteric that they were basically useless to me.  For example, they would argue that carbonâ€"14 dating techniques, that were used to prove dinosaur bones were millions of years old (as opposed to only several thousandâ€"years old), were actually not good science.  And they would use what were supposedly scientific principles to advance their argument.  

Well, not being a physicist or a chemist or some such thing, I had no way of possibly knowing if their arguments were on the money or were baseless.  Same thing with their arguments about the properties of some radiation field encircling the sun that supposedly proved the solar system was only a few thousand years old, and about why the Hubble telescope wasn’t really picking up ligh t from stars that were millions of light years away and so on.  Not being a trained astronomer or mathematician or such, I had no way of knowing if these arguments were valid or not.  So, I simply dismissed them.  I reasoned that since I had to rely solely on the experts’ knowledge in these matters, and that the majority of scientists â€" Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheist, etc. â€" did not hold to these views, then I was not going to be convinced by them.
But all of this got me to thinking…to asking questions.  The question that kept popping into my mind was: “Why do I believe in evolution?”  What evidence had I seen that made me believe in evolution?  Well, when I thought about it, I realized that I believed in evolution because I had seen a chart in one of my high school textbooks that showed a little monkey evolving into a bigger monkey evolving into an ape involving into a bigger ape evolv ing into a man.  And when I thought about it even more, I realized that I had always read about the “theory” of evolution.  I had never read about the “proof” of evolution…always the theory of evolution.  There is a big difference between the two.

All this got me to start asking questions of friends, particularly liberal friends for whom evolution was a dogma of their religion.  I would ask, “Okay, so the monkey evolves into an ape that evolves into man; so, what evolved into the monkey?  And, what evolved into what evolved into the monkey?”  I kept thinking about how I had seen the chart about the evolution of ape into man, but I could not recall ever having seen a chart of what evolved into the monkey.  And I most certainly did not recall seeing any chart that traced man’s specific evolution back to a oneâ€"celled amoeba or any such thing.  Yes, there were charts that had a fi sh with an arrow pointing to an amphibian and an arrow going from the amphibian to the reptile and one from the reptile to the mammal on one side and the bird on the other, but these were very, very general.  I wanted specifics.

Not one of them could answer my questions.  Not one.  They didn’t even attempt to answer my questions.  Which made me realize that for most people, the belief in evolution is more about faith than it is about knowledge.  They believe it because someone they trusted taught them about it and they have never ever seriously questioned that belief.  
I started looking for such a comprehensive evolutionary chart on the internet.  I’m not saying there isn’t one out there, but I couldn’t find it.  I did not spend hours and hours looking, but it wasn’t just one short google search either.  It seemed to me that if such a chart existed, I should be able to find it pretty quickly as I would imagine it would be on just about every website that pushed evolutionary theory.  Couldn’t find one.

So for me, the “common sense” notion of evolution which I had developed by looking at this chart of ape to man, started to not make a whole lot of sense.  I even tried to construct an evolutionary chart of my own, but I never could come up with even the first step backwards…what animal evolved into the monkey?  Was it a dog?  A cat?  A badger?  A raccoon?  What was it?

Then I started having all these other questions…what animal evolved into a dog?  Into a cat?  Into an octopus?  Into a cow?  Into a pig?  And this is where I started asking about the fossil records for evolution.  Turns out the fossil records in regard to evolution, as best I can determine in my research (again with my limited knowledge of paleontology and such), have very l arge holes in them.

I also started wondering, “Why have I not heard of species currently in existence that are in various stages of transition to another species?”  I mean, if evolution is an ongoing process, which everyone says it is, then why do we not hear about the critter that’s currently walking around that seems to be the next evolutionary stage, or is in the process of developing into the next evolutionary stage, of some other critter that is currently walking around?

Again, my friends for whom evolution is a religion could not provide any answers.  They did not even attempt to answer any of my questions.  As they say, the silence was deafening.  So, all of this led to my “common sense” belief that evolution actually is not true.

Some other questions had to do with reproduction.  If species that reproduce sexually with two parent organisms â€" male and female â€" evolve d from species that reproduce with just one parent organism, how exactly did that happen?  I could not come up with a process by which tiny genetic aberrations could result in sexual reproduction involving a male and a female evolving from a process of reproduction that involved just one parent organism.  I mean think about it.  There had to be some sort of process where an organism that had reproduced asexually for millions of years, within one generation started reproduced bisexually (or with two parents vs. one parent).  In other words, one line of mutations had to result in a female of the species and one line of mutations had to result in a male of the species and the mutations had to be such that the male parts fit perfectly into the female parts.  What are the odds of that?  In other words, if these mutations occurred, it seems they had to be directed, or preâ€"programmed, mutations.

How could the male of the species and t he female of the species evolve independently of one other, and in a supposedly random manner, and yet have such perfect sexual and reproductive complementarity?  The male of the species, and the female of the species, through thousands of supposedly random “mutations,” occurring over millions of years, evolve in such a way that they are perfectly complementary of one another sexually and reproductively?  Thousands of mutations â€" random and accidental changes â€" in thousands of separate males and females of a species, occurring over millions of years, moving in perfectly complementary directions, at pretty much the same times over those millions of years.  Does it require science or faith to believe that?

Then I ran across an article talking about the evolution of a system.  It used a specific example of the eye as a system that involves the cornea, retina, optical nerve, particular sensory apparatus within the bran, and so on .  All parts of the system would have to evolve at the same time, in the same direction, thousands of times, over the course of millions of years.  What are the odds of that?

That’s where my admittedly limited statistics knowledge came into play.  I’ve had all of 4 Statistics courses in my life.  But, it seemed to me that all the parts of a single system, like the eye, being genetically mutated, at the same time, in the same direction, thousands of times, over millions of years, was statistically impossible.

For example, try to reâ€"create the mutation from something like an ant’s antennae into something like the eye of a fly.  In order to go from the antennae, which receive various sensory inputs from the environment, but which do not “see,” to the eye of the fly, which does in fact, “see,” each part of the ant’s antennae system â€" the antennae, the nerves leading to the brai n or central portion of the nervous system, the sensory receptors in the nervous system and so on would all have to evolve in the direction of the eye, at the same time.  And, according to evolutionary theory, this evolution would have to occur thousands of times over millions of years â€" so each part of the system has to randomly genetically mutate, in the exact same way, at the same time, thousands of times over millions of years.  The odds of that happening once are miniscule.  The odds of it happening thousands of times are pretty much impossible.

Then, at some point, you would have to have a situation where you have a nonâ€"seeing parent giving birth to a seeing child.  At some point in the process there has to be this huge leap within one generation.  From single parent reproduction one generation, to two parent reproduction in the next generation.  From a nonâ€"seeing parent to a seeing child.  From a nonR 11;flying parent to a flying child.  From a parent that hatched from an egg, to a child that was birthed without an egg.  None of these things made sense to me.

Now, again, I admit my limitations in Statistics, Paleontology, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Physiology, etc., which is why I stated at the outset that I am open to believing in evolution, but someone needs to make the case to me.  So far, none of my friends who believe in evolution have been able to make even a start.

All of which is why I no longer believe in evolution, and why I believe that if evolution did in fact take place, I believe it could have only happened if it had all been preâ€"programmed into our genetic code by the Author of life.  Think about this.  How can an amoeba, with just a certain amount of genetic code, eventually evolve into a man which has a genetic code that is orders of magnitude more complex than the amoeba’s?  Can a computer add to its own programming unless it has been preâ€"programmed to do so?  No.

How can you add to genetic code?  What we experience in our lives is not somehow imprinted on our genes so that our genetic code is then added to and made more complex.  I don’t think it works that way.  We inherit our genetic code from our parents, and it does not change.  So, if what we experience in our environment does not add to our genetic code, how could the much simpler genetic code of an amoeba evolve billions of years later into the more complex genetic code of man?  If evolution is true, how was the genetic code of the amoeba added to in order to eventually beget man?  

To close, I will simply reâ€"iterate that I acknowledge my lack of expertise in the scientific fields that are applicable to these questions, and that I am open to hearing the opposing arguments should anyone wish to change my mind on this matter.  I wil l not be taking up any such opposing arguments in this newsletter, but will certainly contemplate and research those arguments â€" if sources to research are provided.

Anyway, these are just my musings on the question of evolution.  I have had a number of people ask me questions related to this over the years, so I’m hoping this has provided at least a certain level of interesting reading.  If not, don’t worry, I’ll come back in the next issue with more apologetics.  Just thought it would be a nice diversion and thought that it might provide an example of how one can use common sense to ask questions in areas that you are not necessarily expert in.  So don’t get bowled over by someone else’s “expertise” (for example, about the Bible) or by someone’s loud and repeated claims (for example, as to what a paticular Scripture passage means) â€" step back, give it some thought, see if something doesn& #8217;t quite make sense to you, and, using some good ol’ common sense, ask some questions.
"(insert favorite carl sagan quote here)" - Carl Sagan

Squid


Ninteen45

Big wall of text, Broken Apostrophe's?

Not even trying to read it.
Now I can be re-gognizod!

Kylyssa

I suggest using the "quote" feature so folks know that it isn't you saying this hooha.  As to how they get that confused, they are indoctrinated.

rlrose328

I couldn't get through much of that but as to HOW?  Brainwashing, plain and simple.  Inability to see past the crap they've been taught since they were young.  Sad, really.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


Reginus

Meh, he just hasn't read enough about evolution. Too much faith in his liberal friends to tell him.
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

SSY

To be honest, this is not as bad as a lot of things I have seen. This chap seems to think "I don't know how sex could evolve, therefor, it must have been impossible" a simple argument from ignorance. He also says he is open to answers and admits he is not scienced up. Whether or not he would actually accept the answers given are a whole other matter.

At least he does not use the word evolutionist, or tie evolution into some conspiracy with geology and abortion doctors. Some people even refute the ideal gas law, to preserve their faith in the bible, now that really is weird.
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

mcm

This person is expressing how I kind of feel about the topic so I would appreciate any answer to any of the points raised. But I will try asking some of his and my own in more simple statements because I know it's a lot of text to respond too. Just to make it clear I'm not trying to debunk evolution or make any statement on those who do believe it. It's a popular topic and in the conversations I've participated in (usually avoid them now) a lot is said from both sides (some of which I've mentioned here) which is often exaggerated or made up to prove their point of view and explains why him and I get confused. So I'm here to learn what evidence is actually out there.

* What is used to date fossils? I have heard many conflicting things like carbon dating is very unreliable and repeating the test will produce wildly different age estimates while others say carbon itself is not used to date fossils because after only 50,000 yrs it's broken down so much that it starts to become unmeasurable while others say we're unable to date fossils and instead rely on fossils found between two larva flows in the sedimentary layers and that elements in the larva can be accurately dated and this is used to provide a date range for the fossil. Also do we know what kind of environmental conditions (and know they haven't occurred in history like the ice age) can increase or decrease the rate of decay of the element used for dating?

* Do we have a quantitative estimate on the number of prehistoric fossils we believe to be in the earth's crust? It's been indicated to me that it's quite low, so is that because fossils need certain conditions to last?

* Is there photographic examples of discovered fossils that demonstrate the slow change (without big changes) in one line of the evolutionary tree? Or doesn't that exist due to the previous question? I've heard some say that a process called punctuated equilibrium is responsible for gaps in the fossil record, do most evolutionary scientists hold this view?

* Indeed as this person indicated there does seem to be quote a lot of differences need to be in place before sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction can occur. What is the thinking on how they came about?

* What is the evolutionary process of DNA like how did it go from simple building blocks to the incredibly long spiral staircase we have today and what would this change represent with the host? I presume DNA is not available from fossil record because it breaks down but I've also heard it said that the DNA structure can be compared to other species in the evolutionary tree and a kind of DNA history can be formed.

* A more detailed explanation that I've heard that's similar to the eye he mentions is the inner workings of a blood cell (this is all from memory of a documentary I've seen a couple of years ago so can understand if you want evidence of this, and will attempt to do so if asked and if I have the time). Basically it showed a factory like system with several pieces with different shapes that fit together plus other surrounding elements that are used to construct a new blood cell (i.e. creates the very parts that are used in the making of that part). I'm told that any slight change to a shape or other element in the process will cause the new blood cell to fail and not function. How is this possible given the evolutionary principle?

* I gather there are 48 control genes (is this the same as developmental genes I've read some sources mention?) which most animals share, and that when scientists played around with them strange things happened like a rat leg grew out it's back. Apparently there is one site discovered that showed development of these control genes with rapid evolutionary change although most resulting forms didn't survive. Again this was from a documentary but from quite a while ago so does anyone know anything about this and how it works or am I quite off track with what I remembered?

* I gather the majority of genetic mutations are either benign or harmful, is this correct and if so how could the evolutions process still work without major transitory issues given the length of time we're talking?

I have plenty more but I think I've already asked too many. Thanks for any insight including any information that gives some insight. I've only done a quick search for some things in past threads so if there is a past thread that deals with any of these questions and has some answer then I'll remove the question from here and we can continue discussing it in the other thread. Anyway time for bed.

Squid

Quote from: "mcm"* I gather the majority of genetic mutations are either benign or harmful, is this correct and if so how could the evolutions process still work without major transitory issues given the length of time we're talking?

Sorry I don't have time to address all the questions, just this one real quick before I go to work.

Most mutations are neutral - neither conferring any advantage or disadvantage.  People hear the term mutation and often think of it as being bad because many disorders can be the result of a mutation but it must be kept in mind that most of those disorders are considered rare.  Also, evolution doesn't have a set pace so to speak.  It can work over a very long period or, given the right environmental conditions (e.g., adaptive radiation) change can occur rather quickly.  Hope that helps somewhat for now.

curiosityandthecat

Why don't people understand that the idea of an evolutionary chart of fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal is akin to a math chart that says the number line is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and believing that it gets no more complicated than that.

It's extremely, terrifically simplified. Remember when your 1st grade math teacher said you couldn't subtract 3 from 5 because if you have 3 apples you can't take 5 away? Then when you got to 2nd grade your teacher said, "Well, that's not actually true... you can have negative numbers, see? But you can't divide 5 apples into 3 groups." Then your 3rd grade teachers says, "Well, that's not actually true... you can divide 3 apples into 5 groups if you want, they're just in fractions." And so on.

God, these people are moronic.
-Curio

mcm

#10
Quote from: "Squid"Most mutations are neutral - neither conferring any advantage or disadvantage.  People hear the term mutation and often think of it as being bad because many disorders can be the result of a mutation but it must be kept in mind that most of those disorders are considered rare.  Also, evolution doesn't have a set pace so to speak.  It can work over a very long period or, given the right environmental conditions (e.g., adaptive radiation) change can occur rather quickly.  Hope that helps somewhat for now.
If I understand correctly a large proportion of the DNA is often termed junk DNA because it appears to have no role in the body and only a small proportion is responsible for forming who we are? If true, then does it still hold that most mutations in the active area of DNA are neither advantages or disadvantages? What about the number of advantages mutations compared to disadvantages? Or is it the case sexual reproduction is the main agent of evolution and not as much on mutations?

Quote from: "Squid"Sorry I don't have time to address all the questions, just this one real quick before I go to work.
I appreciate your help very much. Most people I've talked to don't have a detailed understanding of evolution or what we've actually discovered.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Why don't people understand that the idea of an evolutionary chart of fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal is akin to a math chart that says the number line is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and believing that it gets no more complicated than that.
I take it you are referring to my request to see photographs of fossils found for one line of the evolutionary tree? I only asked for one line because I thought it would be easier to find but if you can point me somewhere that shows fossils found for the evolution of several descendants going back to one common ancestor even better. The only reason I'm interested in photographs (can be diagrammatic representation which relate to fossils discovered) is because a common complaint about evolution is that there are large gaps in the evolutionary fossil record and am interested to know if this is actually true or simply a misbelief and maybe only true for some lines as fossil recovery takes time or evolution occurred a lot more quickly. Or do you mean that variation within the population makes it harder to observe overall evolutionary change within a species in the fossil record?

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "mcm"
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Sorry I don't have time to address all the questions, just this one real quick before I go to work.
I appreciate your help very much. Most people I've talked to don't have a detailed understanding of evolution or what we've actually discovered.
That was actually Squid. ;)

Quote from: "mcm"I take it you are referring to my request to see photographs of fossils found for one line of the evolutionary tree? I only asked for one line because I thought it would be easier to find but if you can point me somewhere that shows fossils found for the evolution of several descendants going back to one common ancestor even better. The only reason I'm interested in photographs (can be diagrammatic representation which relate to fossils discovered) is because a common complaint about evolution is that there are large gaps in the evolutionary fossil record and am interested to know if this is actually true or simply a misbelief and maybe only true for some lines as fossil recovery takes time or evolution occurred a lot more quickly. Or do you mean that variation within the population makes it harder to observe overall evolutionary change within a species in the fossil record?
Nah, I was referring to this passage from the op:

QuoteBut all of this got me to thinking…to asking questions. The question that kept popping into my mind was: “Why do I believe in evolution?” What evidence had I seen that made me believe in evolution? Well, when I thought about it, I realized that I believed in evolution because I had seen a chart in one of my high school textbooks that showed a little monkey evolving into a bigger monkey evolving into an ape involving into a bigger ape evolv ing into a man. And when I thought about it even more, I realized that I had always read about the “theory” of evolution. I had never read about the “proof” of evolution…always the theory of evolution. There is a big difference between the two.

Soooo frustrating. Incidentally, there really aren't large gaps. The discovery of Ardi pretty much closed "missing link" case. What they've found recently is that, rather than the older belief that evolution was always a slow, gradual process, it tends to happen more in bursts, hence terms like the Precambrian explosion. Plus, considering the ridiculously particular conditions it takes to provide usable fossils, it's not surprising we're missing a few.
-Curio

Squid

Quote from: "mcm"
Quote from: "Squid"Most mutations are neutral - neither conferring any advantage or disadvantage.  People hear the term mutation and often think of it as being bad because many disorders can be the result of a mutation but it must be kept in mind that most of those disorders are considered rare.  Also, evolution doesn't have a set pace so to speak.  It can work over a very long period or, given the right environmental conditions (e.g., adaptive radiation) change can occur rather quickly.  Hope that helps somewhat for now.

If I understand correctly a large proportion of the DNA is often termed junk DNA because it appears to have no role in the body and only a small proportion is responsible for forming who we are? If true, then does it still hold that most mutations in the active area of DNA are neither advantages or disadvantages? What about the number of advantages mutations compared to disadvantages? Or is it the case sexual reproduction is the main agent of evolution and not as much on mutations?

Junk DNA is a bit misleading as a description.  This simply refers to non-coding regions of the genome that is, they do not transcribe for a protein.  That doesn't mean they can't.  The genome is a complicated thing and discoveries made in the late 90's have expanded our view of the genome, progressing it from some semi-static "code" and recognizing it as a more dynamic structure with epigenetics involving histone modification, methylation of DNA, RNAi and so forth.  An interesting bit of information, about 8% of our genome is made up of retroviral insertions - we're 8% genetically virus so to speak.  Now, back to junk DNA, it is actually fairly important for evolution - it is basically neutral raw material.  Mutations may arise which may cause a particular sequence to become active - and again even though it may be active it may not really be advantageous or disadvantageous to the organism.  So, yes for both coding and non-coding regions most mutations are effectively neutral as far as advantage/disadvantage goes.  Some scientists have played around with non-coding regions and produced some interesting changes - such as inducing the growth of Archosaurian teeth in a chicken back in 2006 further supporting relationship between birds and archosaurs.

Mutations are a large contributor to evolution and so is sexual reproduction however because of the process not being a linear progression within confined barriers, many things play a part in evolution - mutations, reproduction, environment and so forth.

If I have the time I'll try to answer some more questions you've posted - work and thesis work take up most of my time.

Whitney

Quote from: "mcm"The only reason I'm interested in photographs (can be diagrammatic representation which relate to fossils discovered) is because a common complaint about evolution is that there are large gaps in the evolutionary fossil record and am interested to know if this is actually true or simply a misbelief and maybe only true for some lines as fossil recovery takes time or evolution occurred a lot more quickly.

The reason some people complain about the gaps is because they don't really understand anything about evolution.  Whenever you fill one gap you create two more; and "big" is a relative term when you are talking in terms of a time line that contains billions of years.  A few gaps are to be expected for the same reason Curio pointed out.

Anyway, here is a list of the hominid timeline that links to pictures of fossils:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html  Keep in mind that while it is only showing typically one fossil example for each type that it doesn't necessarily mean there is only one specimin.

You may also find this wiki helpful:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent  As pointed out in this wiki, DNA has and can also be used to support evolution theory.  I was trying to find you a better link on that but apparently am not good at googling for sources on that subject.

mcm

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"That was actually Squid.
Oops  :)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Plus, considering the ridiculously particular conditions it takes to provide usable fossils, it's not surprising we're missing a few.
Thanks, that answers one of my questions. I gather sedimentary rock is one aspect of equation do you know what other aspects are required for the right conditions?

Quote from: "Squid"Some scientists have played around with non-coding regions and produced some interesting changes - such as inducing the growth of Archosaurian teeth in a chicken back in 2006 further supporting relationship between birds and archosaurs.
Interesting, do you know of any online articles about this where I can find out more info?

Quote from: "Whitney"Anyway, here is a list of the hominid timeline that links to pictures of fossils.
Thanks, that answers a bit about the controversy. It seems most fossils found are incomplete and can only show certain trends like skull sizes but not say spine changes. Do you know how complete the entire fossil record is at the moment for all species? And what are the species like at the base of the evolutionary tree and does it all go back to on specie?

Also thanks for the Wiki link, I'll have a look through it when I have some time.