Poll: How did human life come about?

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic! :D


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it. ;)
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.
Actually that's completely wrong. the first forms of life were naked self-replicating RNA molecules. If you want to go further back, very very simple selfreplicating molecules. And nucleic acids HAVE been formed from simple organic molecules in experiments
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic! :D


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it. ;)
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.
Who said the first living thing was a cell? Doesn't have to be. Just something that can replicate and mutate is all that's required, the genetic material doesn't have to be DNA. A cell doesn't necessarily have to have thousands of genes, particularly given a lack of competition.

And before you even think about saying something about mycoplasma, that's like comparing a fusion powered flying Mercedes to a horse drawn sled.

Edit: still waiting for the entropy argument.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: db
"How did human life come about?"

God farted, blowing a dingle berry out into space. That dingle berry is our universe.

Wouldn't a happened in the first place if He hadn't been partying for a week and taken a shower.

Shall we all fear the coming of the great toilet paper? ;)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,359
8,456
126
Originally posted by: RapidSnail

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

billions of years of time, billions and billions of stars, surrounded by billions and billions and billions of planets and other objects, each with billions and billions and billions and billions of chemicals interacting each second, with each and every possibility becoming reality in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of universes, and you think that the chances of life are slim?
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: RapidSnail

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

billions of years of time, billions and billions of stars, surrounded by billions and billions and billions of planets and other objects, each with billions and billions and billions and billions of chemicals interacting each second, with each and every possibility becoming reality in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of universes, and you think that the chances of life are slim?

Come on, it makes perfect sense. Just like if you win the lottery, you surely recognize the chances of it happening are astronomically low, like 1 in 200 million. Therefore it is impossible that you won the lottery on mere chance, and it is proof either that god exists, or that the numbers themselves are cursed and will cause you to crashland on a mysterious island with inexplicably gorgeous women and monsters made of smoke.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: RapidSnail

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

billions of years of time, billions and billions of stars, surrounded by billions and billions and billions of planets and other objects, each with billions and billions and billions and billions of chemicals interacting each second, with each and every possibility becoming reality in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of universes, and you think that the chances of life are slim?

Meh. Time is an illusion. A billion years only appears to be a ridiculously long period of time because of our own short-lived viewpoint.
As for the chances of life, calculating that is simply impossible. As life exists, and we know it to exist, I therefore insist that the odds are 1.
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Your logic is circular and flawed. Like I said, this is what happens when you try to interpret "literally" something that was originally written poetically. IMO, it doesn't matter whether you're for or against religion, making these arguments just makes you sound stupid, because the only way to do so is to come to your conclusions first, then find evidence with which to support them.

Plus, the idea that "theistic evolution" (as you call it) requires the Judeo-Christian God and a particular "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is assinine in the extreme. That's a pretty straw man you've created there. Please beat it off in private, eh?

So what was wrong with my argument again? That I interpreted the creation week as literal? You're the one who said that the "days" in Genesis 1 where "ages." I showed you how your interpretation could not fit in with the Biblical account, and then you said I'm the one using circular reasoning, even without an illustration from what I wrote.

You see, you're the one with the burden of proof, not I. There is no reason for me to believe that the days of the creation week were anything other than that, unless it can be shown otherwise.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic! :D


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it. ;)
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

Again, you continue to display your ignorance on the matter. One of the common theories toward the earliest generations of life invovle an RNA world--made up of viruses. It is debatable that a virus can be considered life.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Your logic is circular and flawed. Like I said, this is what happens when you try to interpret "literally" something that was originally written poetically. IMO, it doesn't matter whether you're for or against religion, making these arguments just makes you sound stupid, because the only way to do so is to come to your conclusions first, then find evidence with which to support them.

Plus, the idea that "theistic evolution" (as you call it) requires the Judeo-Christian God and a particular "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is assinine in the extreme. That's a pretty straw man you've created there. Please beat it off in private, eh?

So what was wrong with my argument again? That I interpreted the creation week as literal? You're the one who said that the "days" in Genesis 1 where "ages." I showed you how your interpretation could not fit in with the Biblical account, and then you said I'm the one using circular reasoning, even without an illustration from what I wrote.

You see, you're the one with the burden of proof, not I. There is no reason for me to believe that the days of the creation week were anything other than that, unless it can be shown otherwise.

I have explained exactly what is wrong with your argument. It insists on a literal interpretation of something that itself is not literal, nor ever meant to be taken literally.

As to what you personally believe, I honestly don't care about that. Why should I?
I find it amusing though. You're basically saying that a day was a day before a day was a day. And when I ask for proof of this, you point to your own personal "literal" interpretation of an ancient allegorical text. Fascinating!
Which side are you pretending to be on here?
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Your logic is circular and flawed. Like I said, this is what happens when you try to interpret "literally" something that was originally written poetically. IMO, it doesn't matter whether you're for or against religion, making these arguments just makes you sound stupid, because the only way to do so is to come to your conclusions first, then find evidence with which to support them.

Plus, the idea that "theistic evolution" (as you call it) requires the Judeo-Christian God and a particular "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is assinine in the extreme. That's a pretty straw man you've created there. Please beat it off in private, eh?

So what was wrong with my argument again? That I interpreted the creation week as literal? You're the one who said that the "days" in Genesis 1 where "ages." I showed you how your interpretation could not fit in with the Biblical account, and then you said I'm the one using circular reasoning, even without an illustration from what I wrote.

You see, you're the one with the burden of proof, not I. There is no reason for me to believe that the days of the creation week were anything other than that, unless it can be shown otherwise.
So what parts of the bible do you take literally and what parts dont you? is it a pick and choose kind of thing?
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
also curious RapidSnail, what's your education level and if you went to college what was your major?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Your logic is circular and flawed. Like I said, this is what happens when you try to interpret "literally" something that was originally written poetically. IMO, it doesn't matter whether you're for or against religion, making these arguments just makes you sound stupid, because the only way to do so is to come to your conclusions first, then find evidence with which to support them.

Plus, the idea that "theistic evolution" (as you call it) requires the Judeo-Christian God and a particular "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is assinine in the extreme. That's a pretty straw man you've created there. Please beat it off in private, eh?

So what was wrong with my argument again? That I interpreted the creation week as literal? You're the one who said that the "days" in Genesis 1 where "ages." I showed you how your interpretation could not fit in with the Biblical account, and then you said I'm the one using circular reasoning, even without an illustration from what I wrote.

You see, you're the one with the burden of proof, not I. There is no reason for me to believe that the days of the creation week were anything other than that, unless it can be shown otherwise.


you're not a very studious reader, are you? Vic is calling out your notion that assumes the Christian interpretation of God is the only one that is valid; yet you return to your same point "proving" the bible's account. Don't you realize that you have nothing but prove Vic's assertion that you are an idiot? (my words, not his)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: bluemax
I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

lol


wow...good luck seeking funding.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,359
8,456
126
Originally posted by: Vic

Meh. Time is an illusion. A billion years only appears to be a ridiculously long period of time because of our own short-lived viewpoint.
As for the chances of life, calculating that is simply impossible. As life exists, and we know it to exist, I therefore insist that the odds are 1.

time is relative. i dunno if i'd say an illusion. and, on a scale of how long a chemical interaction requires to take place, a billion years is definitely a ridiculously long period.

and with the current state of quantum physics, the probability of life appearing does seem to be 1.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic! :D


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it. ;)
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?


It's a HUGE problem...in world that is 10,000 years old. ~4.5 billion years is a pretty solid age though ;)
yeah that's true. Ignoring fossil, carbon dating, other forms of radioactive dating, ice core samples, magnetic shift lines and just general evidence, i suppose calling the Earth 10000 years old would pose quite a bit of a problem for us crazy evolutionists

please don't use that word. it lends credence to creationist vocabulary, and the entire debate in general. I know that I am not, nor every will be, an "evolutionist" ;)
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic! :D


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it. ;)
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?


It's a HUGE problem...in world that is 10,000 years old. ~4.5 billion years is a pretty solid age though ;)
yeah that's true. Ignoring fossil, carbon dating, other forms of radioactive dating, ice core samples, magnetic shift lines and just general evidence, i suppose calling the Earth 10000 years old would pose quite a bit of a problem for us crazy evolutionists

please don't use that word. it lends credence to creationist vocabulary, and the entire debate in general. I know that I am not, nor every will be, an "evolutionist" ;)
Creationism might not be all bad if only God would create more animals. Maybe an extra delicious animal that combines the tastiness of steak, bacon and fried chicken.
 

LeiZaK

Diamond Member
May 25, 2005
3,749
4
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Creationism might not be all bad if only God would create more animals. Maybe an extra delicious animal that combines the tastiness of steak, bacon and fried chicken.
Haha

 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

That complexity can arise through small minute mutations in DNA given an extended period of time, many leading to dead ends but a few lineages survive, making up the diversity of life as we know it today.

I you consider this to be the most significant and solid data proving evolution, then you should do a better job of explaining it, not merely alluding to it. I am not certain about short term mutations, but they would prove nothing. What "long term" study has been done on this, and how long of a term was it? Although my list of questions is short, don't let that deter you from elaborating on the finer points.
Why would short term mutations prove nothing? Obivously there can be no active long term study but fossil evidence has suggested a morphological continuity among phylogenies

Take a look at the QBeta RNA virus study for short term evolution

I dont make a distinction between micro and macro evolution, i think macro evolution is merely the accumulation of a long line of microevolutionary steps.

Which I could elaborate further but i gotta go to class. (molecular evolution coincidentally)
I suppose that it is easier to lump micro and macro evolution into one ball, but there is NO evidence to support this, except for a person's own biases. There is NO evidence in the fossil record to support anything, except that there were alot of extinct species of life.

One of the main traits that science claims as a requisite for good logic is an open mind. I do not claim to have one, but since those who are scientifically oriented should, I wonder why they ignore other possibilities for explaining the fossil record, other than those popularly held? Even if you ignore religion, there are other "scientific" explainations available, which have better support than evolution. Every attempt to explain life via evolution is confronted by a huge chasm that requires a leap of faith, which is far greater than that which is required to believe in God. Without this faith, nothing is left but alot of isolated bit of data without explanation, which would leave science bouncing around in a darkness that would leave it's followers very uneasy.

 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Erm... is there some evidence that the bible was not written literally? Because I don't find it all that implausible that people were just foolish back then and believed the things in the bible were possible. It wasn't all THAT long ago when we thought aphids were spontaneously emerging from dew.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

That complexity can arise through small minute mutations in DNA given an extended period of time, many leading to dead ends but a few lineages survive, making up the diversity of life as we know it today.

I you consider this to be the most significant and solid data proving evolution, then you should do a better job of explaining it, not merely alluding to it. I am not certain about short term mutations, but they would prove nothing. What "long term" study has been done on this, and how long of a term was it? Although my list of questions is short, don't let that deter you from elaborating on the finer points.
Why would short term mutations prove nothing? Obivously there can be no active long term study but fossil evidence has suggested a morphological continuity among phylogenies

Take a look at the QBeta RNA virus study for short term evolution

I dont make a distinction between micro and macro evolution, i think macro evolution is merely the accumulation of a long line of microevolutionary steps.

Which I could elaborate further but i gotta go to class. (molecular evolution coincidentally)
I suppose that it is easier to lump micro and macro evolution into one ball, but there is NO evidence to support this, except for a person's own biases. There is NO evidence in the fossil record to support anything, except that there are alot of extinct species of life.

One of the main traits that science claims as a requisite for good logic is an open mind. I do not claim to have one, but since those who are scientifically oriented should, I wonder why they ignore other possibilities for explaining the fossil record, other than those popularly held? Even if you ignore religion, there are other "scientific" explainations available, which have better support than evolution. Every attempt to explain life via evolution is confronted by a huge chasm that requires a leap of faith, which is far greater than that which is required to believe in God. Without this faith, nothing is left but alot of isolated bit of data without explanation, which would leave science bouncing around in a darkness that would leave it's followers very uneasy.
What are the other "scientific" theories about the fossil record are there currently? There only other two explanations for fossils and they both envolve religion
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I suppose that it is easier to lump micro and macro evolution into one ball, but there is NO evidence to support this, except for a person's own biases. There is NO evidence in the fossil record to support anything, except that there are alot of extinct species of life.

One of the main traits that science claims as a requisite for good logic is an open mind. I do not claim to have one, but since those who are scientifically oriented should, I wonder why they ignore other possibilities for explaining the fossil record, other than those popularly held? Even if you ignore religion, there are other "scientific" explainations available, which have better support than evolution. Every attempt to explain life via evolution is confronted by a huge chasm that requires a leap of faith, which is far greater than that which is required to believe in God. Without this faith, nothing is left but alot of isolated bit of data without explanation, which would leave science bouncing around in a darkness that would leave it's followers very uneasy.

No evidence in the fossil record? Huh? What do you want, fossils from every single living being from RNA inside primeval soup to jack down the street who was just buried? The way a theory works is this... it is used to predict how things will behave based on observations of how things have behaved in the past. We predict that there were various forms of human-like life in the past from which humans eventually evolved and any fossils found to be from the appropriate era will be at some predicted stage of development.

Science does not require that every scrap of possible evidence in the universe be found and verified before a theory is considered valid. That is what people who talk about holes in the fossil record assume is required. It isn't.

As for the huge chasm leap of faith, I'll leave that for now since it is subjective obviously whether you can take 3 fossils and a demonstrably accurate theory such as evolution and predict what happened. For you this is apparently a huge leap of faith because you refuse to believe that science is valid unless we have 398 billion fossils to work with. I on the other hand choose to accept that the scientific method is accurate based on virtually limitless evidence demonstrating it to be true.