You still don't understand.
You make unjustified assumptions, implying the poster is ignorant.
Ignorant of what? Don't just say that. Give me facts?
Eg. I didn't say human reproduction was the only means.
Darwin believed in God, and as a self appointed spokesman, decided he would fill in the details of creation of life forms.
And you, as believer and self-appointed spokesman for God, can tell me the details of Abiogenesis?
He wasn't there, how would he know?
He was there and then he knew!
It'a all speculation. Neither he, nor you, nor anyone working in the fields relating to the subject, have any evidence of intermediate species. There is variation everywhere in the world, from a stone to a butterfly.
And everything in between, no?
You cannot disprove something by confirming it. Intermediate species are everywhere. Life does not deliver a finished product. You and I and everything else are intermediate forms of our species, be they bacterial or mammal. Just look at the variety of intermediate hominids that are now extinct, and for which we do have fossil records.
Just look at the fossils of thousands of species (some extant, some extinct). Why do you refuse to look and draw logical inferences.
You ignore the enormous timelines we are dealing with. Of course there are gaps. If you bury a steak, how long does it take before it has disintegrated completely and there is no trace left of that steak. Does that mean there never was a steak? Bury that steak in some cement and a million years later you may find a bone, proving there was a steak. And from the bone's DNA, you can determine what animal it came from.
The basic DNA structure provides the blueprint of the species, but there are very few clones (identical copies), the rest are intermediate forms. When you see variety, you are looking at intermediate forms.
Origins of Humankind
Fossils Reveal the Story of Our Relatives
In the 8 million years or so since the earliest ancestors of humans diverged from the apes, at least a dozen humanlike species, called hominids, have lived on Earth. And this list is getting longer. As scientists discover new fossils, the hominid family tree grows new branches.
But fossils are often difficult to categorize neatly as one species or another.
Like all creatures, no two individual hominids were alike. And over the millions of years most of the species existed, hominids changed; they evolved; some diverged and became new species.[/quote] This is the story of our distant relatives, as told by the fossil record.
A - Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya)
B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya)
C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya)
D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya)
E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya)
F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya)
G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya)
H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya)
I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya)
J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya)
K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya)
L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya)
M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya)
N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya)
O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present)
mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago
The Hominid Family Tree
At first glance, it seems there are far more questions than answers regarding the relationships among
species on the
hominid family tree. The graphic above plots 15 different species along a timeline spanning 6 million years, and it depicts, with connecting lines, how some scientists think these species relate to one another. A few relationships are clear. For instance, there is consensus among scientists that the three most recent species of hominids (
Homo heidelbergensis,
Homo neanderthalensis, and modern humans,
Homo sapiens) all evolved from an earlier species called
Homo erectus. But other relationships are murkier.
Indeed, our view of the origins of humankind is incomplete, and the search for pieces to the puzzle continues. But to view the question marks on the hominid family tree merely as gaps in our knowledge belies the reality of evolution. Hominid species were changing over periods of hundreds of thousands of years, adapting to new environmental conditions. And so, given that the present fossil record gives us only a glimpse of these evolving species, it's very difficult -- even unnatural -- to identify exactly when a species "became" something else.
In order to begin to understand human evolution, however, scientists have had to take the fossils they have, analyze them, and categorize them based on similarities and differences. In this way, they are able to find trends among the species and a better understanding of how they came to be. In this way they have allowed us a glimpse into our ancient past -- a glimpse that will undoubtedly become clearer in years to come.
-> Learn about the fossilized evidence of our fellow hominids
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/low_bandwidth.html
The average person would not write a book explaining brain surgery not knowing anything about it.
Exactly, the average theist should not write a book explaining science, not knowing anything about it.
You can make all the grandiose statements you like. Theist creationists know much less about biology than scientific Biologists. Why do you reject their knowledge and insist that your ignorance (no offense) is more authoritative than theirs?
If you agree that there is no evidence of "irreducible complexity", then you must also agree with the implication that every extant individual organism itself is an example of an evolutionary intermediate form. This evolution thing just keeps rolling along. There is no finished product anywhere. And even if there is, then a single unfortunate event may bring about the extinction of a whole evolutionary line.
The butterfly effect applies to everything going forward or backward. It's a self-referential mathematical algorithm (an equation).
