'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Well I was swinging from tree's at the age of 5 but I disagree with this.
You see this is what they WANT to be real so that they can ignore inconvenient discovery's that would put them all out of there job's and end there careers proving them to be bunch of pseudo scientific charlatans.

How many time's have anthropologists over ruled geologists (geology is a real science).
This site loves to tear into cremo as he IS an author with money to make but still?.

And they love to attack Johnathan gray another such author.
www.beforeus.com...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: rickymouse

I carry the Denisovan gene so I'm part denisovan however whenever I read evolution of human info the only thing that comes to mind is "hocus pocus"

Micronesian?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

We have decided after not being sure.
No scientific evidence but assumption offered

No faith needed when you have testable data and conclusions from experiments.

"Missing link" is MIS-nomer. Every fossil found is a link between something. They already found like 24 different species that are links between modern human and ancient ape. You don't just have one single link that's an exact 50/50 blend between the 2. The article title is misleading.

Yeah but nah, that's childish

Scientific evidence is, capitalize that IS
Repetable observable and testable not debatable

Barcs, keep your head down, you are such a naive and easy target I am embarrassed for you

All the bones are evidence for is that something lived, it's not science, it's faith and your fundie types have made it a religion

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

No faith needed when you have testable data and conclusions from experiments.
.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

a reply to: rickymouse

Nope, my ancient DNA profile is Swedish and Russian but my recent DNA profile is Irish and Northwestern European. Basically my ancestors are northern Irish and were probably raped women from Ulster or they were the invaders and settled with native Celtic population

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: rickymouse

Nope, my ancient DNA profile is Swedish and Russian but my recent DNA profile is Irish and Northwestern European. Basically my ancestors are northern Irish and were probably raped women from Ulster or they were the invaders and settled with native Celtic population

I'm just a Finn, half Swedish but no swedish at all. In ancestry that little part of sweden is actually full of Finns. My uncle told me that it was naughty for the young to go get a Swedish wife or husband from across the border, evidently the whole area was all Finns in Sweden from everyone being naughty for many generations. So, even though records show I am half Swedish, I have no real Swede in me.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

No faith needed when you have testable data and conclusions from experiments.
.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

Here's your link to the testable data - 361.44 kb. I'm sure that you'll find it most enlightening. Be sure to let us know what your conclusions are.

Data Source

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: rickymouse

Nope, my ancient DNA profile is Swedish and Russian but my recent DNA profile is Irish and Northwestern European. Basically my ancestors are northern Irish and were probably raped women from Ulster or they were the invaders and settled with native Celtic population

I'm just a Finn, half Swedish but no swedish at all. In ancestry that little part of sweden is actually full of Finns. My uncle told me that it was naughty for the young to go get a Swedish wife or husband from across the border, evidently the whole area was all Finns in Sweden from everyone being naughty for many generations. So, even though records show I am half Swedish, I have no real Swede in me.

Yeah if you go back far enough it's hard to tell because of the invasions and 300 years of the viking age, also the Anglo's coming into celtic lands and things like that.

I was very interested to find that I am mostly Swedish and Russian. I really blame that on the viking age and the people from that part of the world raiding northern Ireland for such a long period of time

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

No faith needed when you have testable data and conclusions from experiments.
.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

Here's your link to the testable data - 361.44 kb. I'm sure that you'll find it most enlightening. Be sure to let us know what your conclusions are.

Data Source

That link and data prove absolutely nothing barcs and you are still lying.
Where is the testable data, not a stupid vague link

Oh that’s right, you don’t have any testable data at all just a stupid vague link with assumptions
You are so brainwashed and gullible

Ok so no testable data at all, a vague useless link
And don’t say you read it, clearly that would be a lie, the intro even stated it was still assumption and subjective
You can’t even get off the ground barcs, as usual

HOW ABOUT some CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERIMENTS you talked about or is that another stupid vague link

Why do you hate science, why do you make science a lie, a religious tool to indoctrinate people.
Why do you take something real like science and make it a puppet bitch for your lies

Disgraceful

originally posted by: schuyler
There is no missing link and never has been. Further, Australopithecus species (plural) have been known for along time. This PARTICULAR Australopithecus (sediba) is very well documented. If you want to see a real wrench in the works, check out Homo naledi. (Yeah: Homo) which is a whole lot younger than anyone ever anticipated.

.
Perhaps not so ironically, both A. Sediba and H. Naledi were excavated under Lee Berger from the University of Wittwatersand. I think John Hawles from University of Wisconsin also worked both digs. The real cool part though is that Dr. Berger takes an open access approach to Paleoanthropology and you can go online and check all of the data. And if you have access to a 3D printer, you can print out copies of the fosssils for yourself from 3D scans taken of all of the material from the Rising Star Cave System. It’s pretty inane that H. Naledi still exhibited so many archaic morphological just a little over 200 Ka, maybe even more recently. Rising Star caves have been a treasure trove of data the last few years.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Barcs

please pass it this way

Gladly

"More than 3.6 billion years ago, a major transition was made on Earth whereby a dilute, swirling cauldron of simple chemical soup made a critical step towards creating the building blocks of life. The simple chemicals became amino acids, the fundamental building blocks of more complicated protein molecules. These proteins then somehow came together to form a single, primitive cell."

All that was on the Earth was rocks (minerals) so the simple chemical soup was made from rock, no?

NO! That's simply not true that the earth was all rocks. Besides if you make a soup and serve it in a bowl, do you call it BOWL SOUP because it's served only in a bowl? Of course not. You call it tomato soup or whatever flavor of soup you are drinking.

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Evolution basically says that man was created from rock soup.

Whatever you are smoking, please pass it this way.

Well, he's not wrong. At least, on this planet anyway.

Meaning, if life were seeded here via panspermia, who knows really, where and how it started.

That doesn't magically make it "rock soup" LOL! Rocks are solids and can't be soup.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
In a nutshell...

You know darwinist's are getting desperate when these 'Missing link' claims are even being criticized by their own scientists.

So leading paleoanthropologists like Bernard Wood, Donald Johanson, Fred Spoor, Ian Tattersal, and Tim White aren’t convinced that Au. sediba was a human ancestor, but the media believes it’s perfectly acceptable to promote the opposite view to the public.

Australopithecus sediba: The Hype-Cycle Starts Again

In a nutshell, you are posting dishonest propaganda. Typical citing a known propaganda site like evolutionnews.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Evolution basically says that man was created from rock soup.

Man created himself when he first called himself by name.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but nah, that's childish

Scientific evidence is, capitalize that IS
Repetable observable and testable not debatable

Barcs, keep your head down, you are such a naive and easy target I am embarrassed for you

All the bones are evidence for is that something lived, it's not science, it's faith and your fundie types have made it a religion

How is that childish??? I explained the problem with the term "missing link."

Stop denying science without even reading it.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

I'm a liar??? Prove it. I've posted the testable data many many times on here.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Surely you can refute at least one of those by now. Oh wait, you can't. You just deny it blindly and post libel against me.

How did such a bad post get 5 stars? Creationists are super desperate these days I guess. They'll blindly star anything that goes with their invalid premise and smear campaign against evolution. Grow up kids.

originally posted by: Barcs
Stop denying science without even reading it.

That premise about having to read Science to understand Science is flawed to put it mildly...

Studying Science to understand evolution makes just as much sense as reading "Dianetics" in order to figure out what Scientology is all about.

Just like ALL other cults, Science is a powerful form of mind control used by the ruling class to manipulate and enslave the masses.

FYI, I'll take my known 'propaganda' any day over your cult brainwashing indoctrination...

In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways.

Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public

Lol what?

The Australopithecus Sediba skull has a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters. The average homo sapien skull is three times as large as that. This isn't a missing link, it's just a ape/monkey-like creature that evolutionists assume to be a step in their evolutionary fantasy.

It is backwards science. They assume evolutionary theory to be true, and try to fit all observable data into their theory. All facts that don't fit the narrative are ignored, or the goal-posts changed. It's mind-boggling that vast amounts of tax-payer dollars are used to try to prove that humans are ancestors of mutant apes.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but nah, that's childish

Scientific evidence is, capitalize that IS
Repetable observable and testable not debatable

Barcs, keep your head down, you are such a naive and easy target I am embarrassed for you

All the bones are evidence for is that something lived, it's not science, it's faith and your fundie types have made it a religion

How is that childish??? I explained the problem with the term "missing link."

Stop denying science without even reading it.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

I'm a liar??? Prove it. I've posted the testable data many many times on here.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Surely you can refute at least one of those by now. Oh wait, you can't. You just deny it blindly and post libel against me.

How did such a bad post get 5 stars? Creationists are super desperate these days I guess. They'll blindly star anything that goes with their invalid premise and smear campaign against evolution. Grow up kids.

Vestigial organs, I have a whole thread on the stupidity of vestigial organs, its stupid
You get 5 stars because people are stupid.

Talk origins, your religious site with your religious kin, you hate science and poison it with your religion

Talk origins seriously, dummy fodder

Now lets go back to the same old same old as usual

Repeatable observable and testable not debatable
CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERIMENTS
TESTABLE DATAIS SCIENCE

Not dummy sites with no TESTABLE DATA

I dont understand why you have a mental block re TESTABLE DATA

a reply to: Barcs

No it was SPACE rocks and SPACE water as I was told and was constantly corrected by an evolutionist, not terrestrial but real space dust and space water
Like it could have been anything else.
Turning science into a new old age religion

a reply to: schuyler

This is True . Homo Sapien Sapien is nothing more than a Hybrid Species Created by Alien Intelligence's 50,000 Years Ago . Please present Evidence to Refute this Claim Sir .