But, if legit, whenever we find a new fossil like this it just opens two more gaps for creationist criticism to focus on, lol.

Only if a god appears and states on FOX news that we did evolve from an ape-like ancestor will some accept the scientific evidence.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]

I dont see how one scull from one era can be classified as a missing link.

If the civilization was big enough to carry on and evolve, shouldn't there've been quite a few found?

And if there is so few, than why are there genetic disorders amoung inbreeding. If during that period the population was so low, wouldn't there've been a lot of inbreeding?

Originally posted by melatonin
But, if legit, whenever we find a new fossil like this it just opens two more gaps for creationist criticism to focus on, lol.

Only if a god appears and states on FOX news that we did evolve from an ape-like ancestor will some accept the scientific evidence.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]

How does science explain the inbreedin problem. Science says inbreeding causes genetic disorders. But if we all evolved from an old tribes of monkies, where are all the problems that go along with it?

Originally posted by shaimaison
How does science explain the inbreedin problem. Science says inbreeding causes genetic disorders. But if we all evolved from an old tribes of monkies, where are all the problems that go along with it?

ToE does not suggest we evolved from monkey's.

OK, now I'm not a biologist, so someone may have a better explanation, but here goes...

every species has a minimum viable population that will protect it from extinction due to genetic depression or environmental change. At this value (which is above 50 for pandas) the species will be viable about 95% of the time for periods over 100 years.

So the problem is that we don't know how small the populations of early hominids were. Just because we find few fossils does not suggest unviable populations. The particular conditions for fossilisation are rare.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]

I know the term missing link is a bit antiquated, but bear with me.

In this article, the term "missing link" is a bit misleading.
We're talking about time periods well under a million years.

What they found here is a "link" between early humans, and modern humans.
Something in between Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens.

Maybe they should start phrasing it as "one of the missing links" in the chain of human evolution.

There is still a search on for remains of the first UN-ape (for lack of a better term!). This would be an animal divergent from other apes, that began the chain that ultimately led to who we are now. This proto-hominid, would
probably have been alive over 6 million years ago..

Originally posted by shaimaison
If the civilization was big enough to carry on and evolve, shouldn't there've been quite a few found?

The chances of just one remaining intact probably would've been very low considering it's age.. there may have been thousands originally.

Wow, they found another rejected miscarriage? When is this non-sense (IMHO) gonna stop?

Originally posted by phiniks
Wow, they found another rejected miscarriage?

I don't understand. rejected miscarraige?
Seeing that term is a double negative..I'm assuming you mean full-term?

lemme explain.. it sounded kind of misplaced. miscarriage is not the right term eather.. I shouldn't be typing english when I'm not sober

I don't believe in evolution, and if one or two deformed skeletons are found, I'd rather explain it as a misborn human then a missing link between species.. that's all.