It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When people claim that evolution is wrong because we “haven’t found the missing link,” know that they understand little to nothing about evolution.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?