[quote:9qat2y2i]I personally don’t find it suspicious; if any field were bent on finding proof and full of people happy to come up with a hypothesis to tear down another, it’s science. [/quote:9qat2y2i]
Of course, that is part of what drives people to look for answers and they (scientist) are always trying to improve on each others discoveries. Which is to be expected. No qualms about this at all.
[quote:9qat2y2i]So what about examples derived from fossils, or diverged species? As in, you can see that genetically and physically two organisms are close, and there are examples of shared ancestry, but the two species are specifically different? I’m currently thinking the difference between the Przewalski’s Horse and ordinary horse.[/quote:9qat2y2i]
Candleflame, all we have is bones. No genetic material that concludes a positive mutation has been found. But to further show you this missing positive mutation, why not make that connection now with what we have?
Like the close link between us and the ape?
Candleflame I’m not resisting this because I don’t want it to be true. If we have evidence to support it then I will embrace it. It’s no big deal. I’m simply stating that there is a BIG MISSING LINK.