It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is No “Missing Link” in Evolution

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Article


The next time someone gives you the massive brain-spasm to think that clinky aliens made, in bowl of soup modern humans, a pinch of salt, a pinch of DNA, plus some religious fanaticism. Think again. And don't ask Ziltoid about it, he knows nothing.


When people claim that evolution is wrong because we “haven’t found the missing link,” know that they understand little to nothing about evolution.




posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: GmAndre

but but scientists also said we were made from a bowl of soup....LOL

www.livescience.com...



VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Just as species are thought to have evolved over time, the individual molecules that form the basis of life also likely developed in response to natural selection, scientists say. Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GmAndre


The next time someone gives you the massive brain-spasm to think that clinky aliens made, in bowl of soup modern humans, a pinch of salt, a pinch of DNA, plus some religious fanaticism. Think again. And don't ask Ziltoid about it, he knows nothing.


I think you have misinterpreted the article and the evidence. So has the writer to some degree. In one sense he has a point that a void in evidence does not imply or demand there must be alternate explanations or functions, but where you and him get it wrong is that it eliminates the possibility. It doesn't.

If in 100,000 years from now humans are wiped out and some other group comes by and looks at bugs, plants, and animals and sees there are genes in them that were deposited with genetic engineering, does it nullify evolution? Certainly it does not. Does evolution then disprove the fact humans had a hand in altering genetic code willingly or unwillingly? No of course not.

The biggest problem with modern scientific interpretation, and even religion and any type of ideological opinion is that every gets far too happy with themselves. Overconfident. Implying their solutions answer any and every future question.

At one time skeptic was a philosophical movement, where skeptics questioned our very understanding, that even when we feel we know everything we must recognize how little we know. It changed in modern times, where it seems to now mean we know everything, and anything establishment is correct, anything opposing is incorrect.

It's not coincidence when the media is trying to foster the over confidence they say:


A study on the work has been published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature. A second paper has been published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science

. - See more at: www.dailytech.com...


Even though the peer review system itself has a defect, and wasn't even meant to be used as it is now.

Why is this relevant? Given that ideology and political pressure, can skew and push any scientific understanding in the wrong direction, and the basis of our understanding is recognizing its limits, getting over confident and zealous about anything is no better than what you are trying to "prove" wrong. It's not about proving anything wrong, its about supporting what is the most likely or best solution for the answer. The black and white materialism that is pushed by popular media is not how human understanding progresses, its in fact how its stuttered for so long and the very thing you are attempting to eliminate. (by using more of the same thing).

It's fine to say the idea behind a missing link wasn't correct to begin with, and you can also point out someone who says "Where's the missing link?" is using a straw man argument. However, by claiming because one person sought out or used a missing link argument to attack or question the overall current understanding, it doesn then disprove any alternative understanding that might come about which is contrary or different, simply because at one time our understanding was wrong.

It's a bit of a circular argument and Im not surprised if people get lost in it. Though it's not my argument, it's what was presented in the OP.
edit on 28-7-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: GmAndre
Ziltoid cant even find a decent cup of coffee.....



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho
Well put sir!



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: GmAndre

Well yah, except for the 'life from lifelessness' part.

And the life replicates itself part.

And the seed and eggs, womb, thingies.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
ah, the good old ('those who don't accept what I or we say,' or the way something is rephrased in this case regarding the term "missing link", a term used by evolutionists to promote interest in certain fossils found themselves) 'they just don't understand'-argument that has been done to death already on ATS and elsewhere. The first part obviously isn't spelled out in the argument.


Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and [sometimes] moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Between brackets is mine. Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!: Awake!—2000
edit on 28-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
ALIENS!



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Something causes the DNA to form life a certain way. Chaos did not accomplish this. That is the missing link.

We did not evolve from monkeys, both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor who may have been more human like than monkey like. I looked at the evaluation and the evidence that one scientist gave on that subject and it seemed much more relevant than evidence we evolved from monkeys or apes.

Why are we even looking for a missing link. It is a money making venture by those who work in the field. Science consumes money way faster than anything else, you need to prioritize funding of things that are not relevant to our lives. The argument is immaterial, it should not even be dividing us from one another. It is part of a sales pitch.

Look at the whole picture on the puzzle, do not just concentrate on the pieces.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: GmAndre

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Until they can one simple question that has yet to be answered:

Where did the very early building blocks, the very things that the bolt of lightning hit to kick start life on earth/in the universe then I'll believe whatever they say.

My own theory is that something had to have a hand in it. Mathematics is the language of the universe and the equation says it all - NOTHING PLUS NOTHING EQUALS EVERYTHING.

If scientists are sticking with the idea that there was nothing before the universe that it was the beginning of everything and it was an explosion that created everything that is/was and every will be in this universe then where did all that power come from. You cannot get everything from nothing.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
but but scientists also said we were made from a bowl of soup....LOL


I always found it was a bit too salty.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
If scientists are sticking with the idea that there was nothing before the universe that it was the beginning of everything and it was an explosion that created everything that is/was and every will be in this universe then where did all that power come from. You cannot get everything from nothing.

A hypothesis, M-Theory, brought forth via string theory is that there are membranes seperating dimensions that are constantly smacking and bumping each other, this in turn transfers and "creates" massive matter explosions. result is our universal bubble.



M-Theory and the incorporation of an eleventh dimension is also consistent with the existence of a multiverse, a convenient but ultimately unprovable solution to many of the more intransigent problems in theoretical physics. For example, if the membranes move and ripple, as it is supposed they do, then events like singularities (and the Big Bang itself) can be visualized as the result of chance collisions between rippling, wave-like membranes, with the initial Big Bang of our universe being just one of many in the constant encounters between membranes in parallel universes.

Interesting article

This seems an elegant hypothesis on how things came to be here.
Of course like every good hypothesis, the focus will swap from the question of the big bang, to what created the membranes and that dimension, etc etc..chicken/egg



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: GmAndre

but but scientists also said we were made from a bowl of soup....LOL

www.livescience.com...


No they didn't. They clearly said scientists "suspect" that was how it happened. They don't know for sure nor do they claim to.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Thanks for the article. Someone else mentioned the whole dimension thing to me before and I did say the same as you already pointed out, changing it from "who created the universe" to "who created the multiverse/membranes etc" which still doesn't answer the question and while I'm not expecting them to be able to ever answer it (Although I wouldn't say it's impossible" I think that until they can answer the question of who or how it all truly started then it any new theory should be just that and people who believe different should be allowed to.

I have my own belief system that I called "The Church of a Universal Sentience" or "The Church of Universal Thought" I haven't decided on which and its a basic belief that the universe is alive. That it created itself out of sheer will. (I know technically it doesn't answer the question of who created what" but it has one tent pole that says the universe is alive and was alone, and when it couldn't take being alone anymore it ended its own existence in a great explosion that gave birth to all consciousnesses in the universe and all the matter that came within.

I realise it makes me sound like a crack pot cult leader but it's something that I have been thinking about for years.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Do you understand that there are multiple hypotheses on proteo-gensisis (first life)/Abiogenesis? One is the one you call a
bowl of soup. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

edit on 28-7-2016 by Farlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Excellent thoughts.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Don'tcha just love when people either deliberately or are are just willfully ignorant of what Scientists actually say???



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

However, by claiming because one person sought out or used a missing link argument to attack or question the overall current understanding, it doesn then disprove any alternative understanding that might come about which is contrary or different, simply because at one time our understanding was wrong.


Yes its a pretty snowball play with this statements, and I am throwing a boomerang at the fan with my short OP, yet sometimes contoversy brings the horses out of the ferarri. We can guess that all variants are theoretically possible, thus comes the ring-play of the bold statements. Appreciated the generative post of yours, this way people may use our viewpoints for their own conclusions. We may find the solid truth... one day.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
...both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor who may have been more human like than monkey like. I looked at the evaluation and the evidence that one scientist gave on that subject and it seemed much more relevant than evidence we evolved from monkeys or apes.

Consider the conclusions and on what evidence those are based from the scientists quoted in this article:

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

What About Human Evolution?

Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics.* [Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.]

WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS

▪ Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar. However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls—let alone complete skeletons—are rare.

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.” In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.”* This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. [* = The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.]

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS”

▪ Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.” Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.” However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”

TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

▪ Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

▪ Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.” Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

edit on 29-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join