This is exactly what I am referring to. What evidence?
You know, Dawkins talked about an interview he did with a well known Creationist in England. She kept saying "what evidence!?" When his response was to list the evidence, specimen after specimen, she continued to repeat "what evidence" over and over. He even told her to just go to a museum to look at it for herself, and she simply ignored his suggestion and repeated "what evidence?!"
What he described very much reminded me of the scene in Planet of the Apes when Heston is on "trial" and explaining how humans were intelligent, and the Ape council covers their eyes and ears because they simply didn't want to admit the evidence existed.
It also reminds me of when Michael Shermer debated Kent Hovind, and Hovind said "there are no intermediate species between whales and their supposed land mammal relatives", there's nothing but a big "gap"....Shermer then proceeded to show a slide of a recently discovered and amazing transitional fossil between land mammals and modern day whales, and Hovind then chimed in "well, now you have TWO gaps".
If one begins with the assumption that evolution is not or cannot be true, then no amount of evidence will convince a person. Unless we deliberately tell ourselves we will go where the evidence does, and then go from there.
Now I'm not saying that's what your doing, but some people do do that very thing. And all I can say as a former young earth creationist all I can really remember is that the more I learned about HOW science actually works, and that evolution is verified by so many independent scientific fields independently it became harder to deny it. I also found out that so many creationist arguments were simply flat out wrong, either by misconceptions or misunderstandings, and in some cases total fabrications that the whole thing came down like a house of cards. But that's just my perception. It could be totally wrong....in fact evolutionary theory "could" be totally wrong. Because it is a falsifiable scientific theory. All someone has to do is dig up a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock and the whole thing comes down like a house of cards. However "creationism" isn't falsifiable because no one could ever "disprove it"...because in the end it's not science, but theology. I just don't think those things should be mixed because it could be horribly dangerous to do so. Anyways, I digress.....
Are you referring to an ape like specimen like Lucy? You keep claiming that there is a holy grail of evidence.
There is no single holy grail, because that's not how evolution works. Lucy is but an early ancestor, but there are many, many after the Lucy fossil, the so called "transitional fossils" between Lucy and us.
here's a quick list I copied off wikipedia (for speed) of just the genus Homo...this doesn't even consider pre homo ancestors like "Lucy"...you want the transitional fossils, here's a list:
* Homo habilis†
* Homo rudolfensis†
* Homo ergaster†
* Homo georgicus†
* Homo erectus†
* Homo cepranensis†
* Homo antecessor†
* Homo heidelbergensis†
* Homo rhodesiensis†
* Homo neanderthalensis†
* Homo sapiens
o Homo sapiens idaltu†
o Archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)†
* Homo floresiensis†
At least a dozen species there, with a few subspecies at the end. Now
100 years ago the whole "there are gaps" argument worked because they really hadn't been discovered yet. Now there are almost no gaps. We can clearly see how for example Neaderthals are very close relatives to modern day humans, and yet we are not genetically identical. (the Neaderthal genome has been mapped in a "first draft" this far, so we KNOW this, it's not an educated guess) BTW it's important to get the linear 1950's text book picture of human evolution out of minds...where on the left is a "monkey" and the right is a man...evolution is now known to be a branching tree not the popularized misconception of lower to higher lifeform.
All I'm asking is where is it? Or is it a bunch of little pieces of evidence that are grouped together to look like a "historical account" of what the grouper himself thinks?
It's both. There are a bunch of "little pieces" and a bunch of "big pieces" as well as in tact skeletons, etc. Of course it is much like putting together a puzzle, but so is history, and so is anything. If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion we couldn't know anything about anything, and we'd have to remain totally agnostic about anything that happened prior to our own life times.
Granted some people do take that position, but then my question would be, if everything is just a "guess" then how do you know Christianity is even true? what evidence do you have Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is NONE, if indeed one assumes we can't know anything unless we directly experience it for ourselves.
If you're really interested in all this go check out Dawkins book at the library, that's what I did. He explains quite lucidly everything you just asked, in great detail. Then go read Ken Miller, and Francis Collins, both Christians. Again, why would a devoutly anti religious atheist, and orthodox Catholics be able to come to the same conclusions independently if in fact evolution wasn't true? That to me just doesn't make sense unless it was in fact true.
You can also check out this website:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
edited for clarity I hope