Do You think there is a missing link between what is speculated to be the earliest Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Idaltu) in the line to modern humans and what are speculated to be their closest known ancestors (Homo-Heidelbergensis or Homo-Rhodesiensis)?

What genetic engineering?
Higher that what laws?

Evolutions is 100% proven and has been accepted by world renown scientists all over the planet for more than 100 years. The only thing that can possibly happen to the Theory of Evolution is that more information will be added to it. It will never be disproven

Science theory are always proven and repeatable.
Hypothesis are ones that are questionable and are being worked on.


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. "

If scientists except it as fact, it doesn't mean everyone else has to. Evolution adds up to me, but I don't tell people it's %100 proven. There are some key aspects of evolution, which scientists believe help explain the process, but they admit those are theories and not proven facts.

The theory or hypothesis that there was genetic engineering on hominids in the past is what adds up to me right now. That doesn't negate evolution. One theory or hypothesis is that genetic engineering was used to fuse a gene, which could explain why humans have 46 chromosomes and other primates have 48. In the science article that I mentioned fusing of genes was thought to happen sometimes and be a possible explanation of how a new species could be formed and how organisms could have different numbers of chromosomes, but as I mentioned, it was stressed that this was just a theory. If genetic engineering was used in one case of a new species being formed, there is a chance it could be used in all cases. I don't think this is the case at all, but am just making the point that new species being formed through evolution isn't really %100 certain, if there is another possible way it could happen. I know that brings up the question of how the genetic manipulators were formed, but then we wouldn't know enough about them at this point to know %100 how they came to be.

The reason that I speculated that my theory could be higher than laws is because you posted an article that said "... theories would be higher than laws".

Scientists believe blue eye color came from a mutation in one ancestor, but I think they would also admit that it could have come from an outside source such as aliens.

Rh negative blood poses a quandary, so scientists seem to tend to brush that aside instead of admitting that Rh negative blood coming from an outside source makes a lot of sense.

Gravity is a fact
Evolution is a fact.

I have gone over with this with you befor. You are a very slow learner.
They are FACT and the only thing that will change is that more data will be added to the research as time goes on. That is the nature of science, it is an open ended discipline.


You on the other hand are used to dealing with closed systems and are unable to grasp simply concept of progression.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
http://www.notjustatheory.com/




"Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Science is an open ended discipline. Evolution will never change, more data will be added to the already existing resources. That is not changing the facts that already exist, it will simply increase the informaiton available.

There have not been any theories that have been replaced for over 100 years. But no accepted theories at all.

There have been assumption and hypothesis that have been proven wrong. Most of those have been from a very long time ago.



These have all been Proven Wrong - But NONE of them were ever a Theory.

1. Fleischmann and Pons's Cold Fusion

While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures-think of the processes that power the sun-the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature.

This idea briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion-and the precious 'excess energy' it was hoped to produce-in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium.

Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results.

2. Static Universe
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant-it had always been the size it was, and always would be.
The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein-the Static Universe is often known as 'Einstein's Universe'-who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.
The idea of a static universe was problematic from the start

3. Phrenology
Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery.
4. The Blank Slate Theory

One of the oldest and most controversial ideas in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities.

This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures.


5. Luminiferous Aether

The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe.
Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein's special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents.
6. The Martian Canals
The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first 'discovered' in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli.
The Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds.

7. Phlogiston Theory

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston hypothosis is the idea that all combustible objects-that is, anything that can catch fire-contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible
The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.


8. The Expanding Earth

Briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics.
9. Spontaneous Generation
The observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This idea that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested.
10. The Discovery of Vulcan
Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915

No theories do not change. You obviously have no clue what the term 'theory' mean in the scientific community.


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.