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.
“By the way, the missing link? It’s still missing!”
No it isn’t. Hasn’t been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, we’ve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle:
First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed.
The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct.
But more than that, the theory [creationists] also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.
Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included.
Originally posted by vasaga
Now before you attack me saying that this vid is utter crap, I'm only offering the counterpart of the story. I'm not saying to which side i agree, since i don't know yet, but evolution certainly is far from complete and our psyche and way of living differs way to much from a regular "ape" to put us in that category.
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years.
Originally posted by Horza
Nice thread ... S & F for you.
There is so much testable evidence to support Evolution.
It blows me away that the Creationist movement still has any credibility, even among the faithful.
It seems to me that Creationistist need to do a Hillary.
Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Interestinggg
Abiogenesis covers the start of life.
Originally posted by JPhish
There are no transitional fossils GWolf. Not because transitional species do not exist. But because they are simply not in the fossil record.