I said observable progression because I meant it.
I don’t talk in code words. Do you “get” that?
I appreciate the wiki page which I have looked over in the past.
As you might suppose my question has to do with the seemingly sudden appearance of civilization after millenia of savagery and near savagery.
Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being.
I recently read a long article in the New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert profiling an autodidatic researcher who has long puzzled over the obsession of scientists as to why the Neatherthals died out as opposed to any curiosity about where/why WE came into being.
Alas at the end of that article I had little more understanding myself.
At any rate thanks for your efforts.
“Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being.”
Essentially, the current evolutionists’ position on that amounts to:
Creatures biologically identical to modern man existed for hundreds of thousands of years living as hunter-gatherers, never creating anything much more technologically advanced than a flint handaxe. Then, suddenly about 6-10,000 years ago, we began behaving like modern men, with no detectable biological change to explain the new behavior.
The alleged absence of "observable progression" in fossils is a key argument among anti-evolutionists.
It works well for them because regardless of which fossils you show them, and how similar-but-different the fossils might be, they can always claim -- with a straight face -- "yes, but where is the intermediate fossil between those two?"
Indeed, the more similar fossils you present, the more intermediates they can claim are missing!
So it's a beautiful argument, and they often get away with it.
The example in my post #50 of intermediate forms should be adequate, I'd think, for anyone approaching the subject in good faith.
Fightin Whitey"...my question has to do with the seemingly sudden appearance of civilization after millenia of savagery and near savagery."
Imho, science will never find a better explanation than the one in Genesis 2:7 -- "7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
What came before was "pre-human", after is "fully human".
Non-human beasts do not recognize God, fully human beings do, even when they refuse to admit it.
Just my opinion.
Fightin Whitey: "Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being."
Rest easy, FRiend, no fishie ever became a birdie.
Of course, fishies did, and still do, crawl out on land for various reasons, some eventually evolving to live on dry land except for their eggs, amphibians.
A few amphibians evolved to lay eggs on land, becoming reptiles, diverse of which grew feathers and... well, you might guess, right?
And all that, the fossil record tells us, happened over not years, or even millions of years, but hundreds of millions of years.
By contrast, the ascent of pre-human kind from chimps is just a few million years, and real civilization (i.e., farming) less than 10,000 years.
Fightin Whitey: "...puzzled over the obsession of scientists as to why the Neatherthals died out as opposed to any curiosity about where/why WE came into being."
Perhaps that author was not so familiar with the literature.
In fact there is huge scientific curiosity about the origins of modern-man, and whether this happened in only a single location, in Africa, or was it more wide spread, with lots of interbreeding going on amongst various pre-humans?
But remember, we are making a distinction here between biologically-modern mankind (i.e., Cro-Magnons), and let us call him, farming-civilized God-fearing mankind.