RAF
Sigh...I dont know where to start with your post.
"I'm sorry Asheron but if it was that simple scientists wouldn't have any probleme to explain the missing link ... they would have historical material to link one to another ... so I'm sorry no evidence here. only hypothesis"
I think you are refering to what is called a transitional fossil. It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution, like you, often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.
How many fossils would be enough for you to believe in Evolution? Im guessing no amount. Do you know what fossil evedence is available? Have you looked at them?
"The reason why Darwin's hypothesis get out of credulity is because 2 jockers geologues if I remember (don't remember there name either and I don't care there names anyway) had build false evidences ... and for more than 50 years nobody reliased (that it was a fake) Means that's for 50 years this theorie of kind of evolution have been accepted because of that (A FAKE) ... but now ... well they don't know what to say ... they just continue on the same line but still with no proof."
I guess you are referring to the Piltdown man fake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Am I to believe that you think Evolution is not true because there was a faked scull in 1912? You cant really believe that this was/is the only evedence for evolution do you? With respect, please do some reading on current science and evolution before typing.
Why do people want to believe with no proof (better forget about what it is all about) cause we can live without knowing ... don't we? But when something become the truth (because some people manage to make it appear like the truth well ... you know where it can lead) at some point you can only say ... I've been stupid to believe ... no you just believed without proof.
huh??
