First chimp fossil unearthed

Nature Magazine ^ | 31 August 2005 | Michael Hopkin

[tamalejoe]

Second observation. Another one of those "big problems" that is posed against evolution, which they never really talk about until they think there's a solution. No one has found a single indisputable transitional form fossil; but if it took billions of years for goo-to-you evolution, and millions of years for monkey-to-you evolution, there should be millions of transitional forms.

Here's the thing I don't undersand. We pull so mamy millions of fish out of the ocean every year that we're told that we're putting the oceanic ecosystems at risk.

In all those millions of fish we pull out every year, you't think you'd see one or two starting to grow feet and legs, at least according to Charles Darwin.

Where are they?

[ohioWfan]

They do not now, nor have they ever, existed.

It's all make-believe. There are no missing links because each species was individually created..............and all the fanciful thinking of people calling themselves scientists won't change that fact.

Three teeth?? THIS is proof?? LOL!

[RobRoy]

This article contains one fact:

they found three teeth.

[Elsie]

...where bones are less likely to rot.

Or chewed up by hyenas.....

---

Yeah.... sure......

[Elsie]

Trident

good chewing gum

[Elsie]

Bipedalism occured at least 4 million years ago.

"I am T. Rex!"

"Hear me roar!"

[Elsie]

Of course; there is the Calvin-a-saurus

[Havoc]

rofl. Never ceases to amaze that science is still "surprised" every time a new revelation shows evolution theory wrong. But, that doesn't stop the argument being made as though, hey, this is just part of the scheme. If they were looking for bits of a 56 Chevy and never found anything but Ford parts, every article would say, surprised at only finding ford parts,
science is closer now than ever to finishing the 56 chevy, see how nice it looks ("no picture given of the piles of nothing").

[AndrewC]

Interesting...