The link i provided and the one you provided are interlinked on wikipedia. If you remove the Chimpanzee genome information from your link you have evidence of nothing.

So you're basically saying that if you discard enough evidence, then I have no evidence. Brilliant! Lets get to work refuting gravity so we can all fly.

Then what we are imaging is that every so often a human is born from an ape. Now for humans to get a chance we need both a male and a female (as we already know humans and Chimpanzee can not produce offspring) if it was common for humans to appear out in the wild then they could of started in such a method.

Whomever wrote that has no clear understanding of biology, let alone evolution. Wolves never gave birth to Dachshunds, but they exist none the less.

Although in the case of Australopithecus well it is more want than any kind of link, Been well debunked:
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

That article is filled with factual errors, completely ignores all Australopithecus specimens except "Lucy", and then continues to claim that she is the "latest discovery", even though she was the first discovery of her kind... in 1974. It was a complaint article, not a debunking.

I am in agreement to the limitation inferred.

There is no limitiation inferred, selective breeding can produce new species just was well as natural selection can because, wait for it, they use the same mechanism!

An example of intelligent design!

Ah yes, but you're not arguing that "natural" selection isn't possible, you're arguing that the "mechanism" isn't possible, and then simultaneously accepting the mechanism as possible within the context of selective breeding.

So please clarify for me, are you arguing against the existance of the mechanism, or are you arguing against the mechanism's ability to function without an intelligent being in control?

and the one you provided
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

are interlinked on wikipedia. If you remove the Chimpanzee genome information from your link you have evidence of nothing.

If you add it you get some simulates. But also big differences; one is the number of chromosomes, now if you combine two chromosomes you would get the same number, Lets pause an imagine what that would mean and look like

If one were to brainstorm that every so often the two chromosomes were to combine (and ignore any of the other differences for the clear view of what the world would look like) as to consider when the chromosomes combine the result is a human who would need the miracle of time to become completely human.

Then what we are imaging is that every so often a human is born from an ape. Now for humans to get a chance we need both a male and a female (as we already know humans and Chimpanzee can not produce offspring) if it was common for humans to appear out in the wild then they could of started in such a method.

But it has never been seen, It may be hard to find a scientist who would make such a claim because if it is extremely rare the odds can be established by multiplying the ratios together to determine the odds for both a male and a female.

an example for 1 in 10 happening twice 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 and for one in a million 1/1000000 * 1/10000000 = 1/1000000000000

There is some point at which the odds against an idea which is one of belief become so high that one needs to look at that belief as faith.

Although in the case of Australopithecus well it is more want than any kind of link, Been well debunked:
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

The link is still missing.

---

You said:

The only difference between Darwin's Natural Selection and selective breeding is who is controlling the selection criteria, the mechanisms are exactly the same.

I am in agreement to the limitation inferred.

Take a wolf and keep breeding them until you get a dog.

An example of intelligent design!

care to link to one?

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

Sound easy, Why don't they just prove it then? And develop a new type of bacteria or fruit fly or something.

It is easy, my high school's AP Biology class did it every semester. The hard part is getting people like you to believe your own eyes.

They seem to keep stopping before the have anything that could not be described as selective breeding, which predates Darwin.

The only difference between Darwin's Natural Selection and selective breeding is who is controlling the selection criteria, the mechanisms are exactly the same.

Keep breeding cats and selecting out the black ones and breeding those cats you get black cats ... how do you get from a cat to a dog!

Take a wolf and keep breeding them until you get a dog. We did same thing with wild cats.

Interesting about the bacteria that they can also mutate back to being sensitive to antibiotics though.

Interesting that Evolution never said they couldn't.

Have you seen Expelled?

Not my kind of entertainment.

What do you think about Nova Intelligent Design on Trial? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ Should it be banned from study?

If somebody wants to study ID, and somebody else wants to pay for it, then by all means they should. But until they have predictions, tests and proofs, it's not science, it's theology.

There are more than enough "missing links"

care to link to one?

As for proof of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory), all you need is a colony of bacteria and a year of exposure to antibiotics to prove that it happens exactly as Darwin proposed.

Sound easy, Why don't they just prove it then? And develop a new type of bacteria or fruit fly or something. They seem to keep stopping before the have anything that could not be described as selective breeding, which predates Darwin. Keep breeding cats and selecting out the black ones and breeding those cats you get black cats ... how do you get from a cat to a dog!

Interesting about the bacteria that they can also mutate back to being sensitive to antibiotics though. Breeds of cats can return, seems once they are pure bread they stay.

Have you seen Expelled?

What do you think about Nova Intelligent Design on Trial? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ Should it be banned from study?

What would you suggest is the proof, the missing link, for the theory (as suggested by Darwin) that man evolved from ape?

There are more than enough "missing links" to establish our lineage by physical features alone. On top of that, we can read our genetic differences like an ice-core or tree-rings, that gives us an even better picture of our evolution throughout history.

As for proof of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory), all you need is a colony of bacteria and a year of exposure to antibiotics to prove that it happens exactly as Darwin proposed.

There is no natural biological distinction between species, the term "species" is a somewhat fuzzy classification we've invented that represents a degree of separation, not an actual physical trait.

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

One could say there is little different between the content between what you are suggesting and what I am suggesting. Both consist of Unicode characters on an Internet web site. A fuzzy difference without a inspection. Or look at the little difference (seen from the screens) between Mac OS, uniq and Windows 98 (same origin?). Little difference between LCD displays and TVs (same origin?). When one looks at Fibonacci number and the Golden ratio, One could go wild finding similarities in nature and life - same origin or are we just looking at a basic building block. All life has DNA, same origin? Likely life has the same origin, one can not deny similarities if one looks for, is open to the truth, and allowed to pursue it.

What would you suggest is the proof, the missing link, for the theory (as suggested by Darwin) that man evolved from ape?

It is a theory that man evolved from apes.

How and when we evolved from apes is the theory. By the way, humans are technically one species in the "ape" family, so it's not so much that we're not longer apes, just that we're different apes.

Selective breeding is a fact. If you agree that the theory of evolution is limited to variations withing a species then that is a fact we could agree the evidence supports it.

There is no natural biological distinction between species, the term "species" is a somewhat fuzzy classification we've invented that represents a degree of separation, not an actual physical trait. You can take a single species, separate them physically so that the two groups no longer interbreed, and you would technically have created separate species even if they are still identical genetically. You're hanging your entire argument on semantics that don't really mean what you think they mean.

Selective breeding is a fact. If you agree that the theory of evolution is limited to variations withing a species then that is a fact we could agree the evidence supports it.

If you believe that the theory of evolution is fact, truth and complete ... I can accept that if you can accept that I do not share your belief.

It is a fact that species evolve, it is a theory that explains why. I can accept that you do not believe the theory, but I can't accept that you do not believe the fact that species evolve anymore than I could accept you believing that the earth is flat.

People can look up natural law and theory themselves

I maintain that when something is considered a scientific fact, then it is a physical law, it is no longer a theory.

Then you really have no idea what science is, or how it works. Let me try to inform you:

Facts tell you what is, an object or action that is known, cannot be denied, and will never be disproven. Facts don't make prediction or give explanations, they just exist.

Laws tell you what will be, they are derived from things common to all known facts. Laws predict the existence of facts, but they don't give explanations.

Theories offer an explanation for why certain facts exist, and why certain laws are followed.

Any aspect of science will have all three of these. Evolution, for example, contains both facts (DNA), laws (heredity) and theories (natural selection).

If you want to argue that a theory is wrong, you must either provide facts that couldn't exist if the theory is right or show that the laws it depends upon can be violated. If your can't do that, then don't expect anybody to treat your argument as a reason to drop the existing theory.

If you want to push a different theory, it must agree with the facts and laws at least as well as the current theory, and with no more assumptions than the current theory. If your idea doesn't accomplish that, don't expect anybody to treat it with the same credibility as the currently established theory.

I maintain that when something is considered a scientific fact, then it is a physical law, it is no longer a theory.

I did not realize I was so powerful :) I guess I should invent Global Cooling.

By "you" I meant people who don't like a certain set of scientific facts, who instead of accepting facts and adjusting their beliefs, have decided to not only deny those facts, but will attempt to keep others from acknowledging those facts. Unfortunately, that group of people is large and vocal enough to actually push crap like that though school boards and state legislatures.