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!

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
[edit on 10/5/08 by MorningStar8741]




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Boxgrove Man', a recently discovered fossil, has been dubbed the 'oldest European'. It has been described as a hairy ape-like creature by the Chief Government Archaeologist at the excavation. These descriptions have been made from hand tools found at the site, and from a single shin-bone which has both ends missing. The fossil has been assigned the age of 500,000 years old, yet the shin-bone is indistinguishable from that of a modern human.


Oh is that a fact? Observe:


All the measurements taken from the shin bone are at or beyond the upper end of the range determined for modern man (these details are in Nature, 369, 311-313, 1994). Consequently, Boxgrove Man is reconstructed to be powerfully built individual over 6 feet tall. He is said to be a representative of Homo heidelbergensis. As far as life-style is concerned, the evidence suggests he was a hunter-gatherer: the site is rich in animal bones which are thought to have been slaughtered by man for food.


You have been conned, friend. I sure hope you haven't paid for any creationist propaganda.

[edit on 10/5/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by TALIN
 


Ok, let's go with cetaceans.

en.wikipedia.org...



Ahh yes the whale of a tale (no pun)

The assumption of "the homology of pentadactylism," which was long maintained in evolutionist publications, was overturned when it was realized that the limb structures were controlled by totally different genes in different creatures possessing this pentadactyl structure. Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism like this:



The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.


so in essence, what Mr. Fix is is saying is that evolutionist claims regarding "pentadactylism homology" appeared in old textbooks, but that the claim was abandoned after molecular evidence emerged. But, unfortunately, some evolutionist sources still continue to put it forward as major evidence for evolution such as the person following your post using the old super bug virus canard which I will attend to next.

Were the theory of evolution true, then the geological strata would be full of fossil intermediates, and their numbers would be far greater than that of all the species living today or that ever lived in the past. Therefore, the discovery of missing links would be such a routine matter that it would have no news value at all.

The most conclusive is the idea that this too as to the cetaceans as I am sure you will agree is predicated on subjective opinion, that is to say one must "reach" for this conclusion and a bias apriori can and invariably does filter out most honest objectivism in lieu of the facts.

For all we know this fossil is another extinct creature but to suggest the argument of vestigial organs isn't used much as a premise for arguing and or supporting evolution merely by the many latest discoveries where such vesrtigial organs have been found to be fully intact having a fully functioning purpose once thought to be useless.



[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by dave420
Boxgrove Man', a recently discovered fossil, has been dubbed the 'oldest European'. It has been described as a hairy ape-like creature by the Chief Government Archaeologist at the excavation. These descriptions have been made from hand tools found at the site, and from a single shin-bone which has both ends missing. The fossil has been assigned the age of 500,000 years old, yet the shin-bone is indistinguishable from that of a modern human.


Oh is that a fact? Observe:


All the measurements taken from the shin bone are at or beyond the upper end of the range determined for modern man (these details are in Nature, 369, 311-313, 1994). Consequently, Boxgrove Man is reconstructed to be powerfully built individual over 6 feet tall. He is said to be a representative of Homo heidelbergensis. As far as life-style is concerned, the evidence suggests he was a hunter-gatherer: the site is rich in animal bones which are thought to have been slaughtered by man for food.


You have been conned, friend. I sure hope you haven't paid for any creationist propaganda.

[edit on 10/5/2008 by Good Wolf]


You seem impressed for what reason I have no idea, the argument stands, that this discovery proves nothing about ape to man evolution nor does it prove molecules to man transmutation, you have merely updated the measurement of a bone to a more musular somatype

ummm how do you say,,,

BIG DEAL



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741


So then I suppose god created all the superviruses all that time ago and was just holding them someplace special until we got to the point where it would make sense that they mutated around current treatment methods right? Remember, you said that our genes cannot provide new info, so was God just waiting for us to develop antiviruls before helping us find their resistant counterparts or did perhaps, some new information make its way out.


Yes at least you are begining to understand GOD created those too with one caveat I might suggest you ask any Physician WHY they INSIST on you finsihing your entire prescription of anti viral drugs next time you the bug. He will explain as I am certain of this just HOW they got so super and mutations have nothing to do with it.

What gives you the idea the Bible is a Science book I subscribe to or do you usually just assume anyone challenging that asinine theory of evolution is a Bible Thumper. In order not to have to accept supernatural forces-in other words, the existence of a Creator. However, the aim of science is not to avoid accepting the existence of supernatural forces. Science can get nowhere with such an aim. It should simply observe nature, free of all prejudices, and draw conclusions from these observations. If these results indicate that there is planning by a supernatural intelligence, then science must accept the fact.

Under close examination, what they call the "scientific cause" is actually the materialist dogma that only matter exists and that all of nature can be explained by material processes. This is not a "scientific cause," or anything like it; it is just materialist philosophy. This philosophy hides behind such superficial words as "scientific cause" and obliges scientists to accept quite unscientific conclusions.

I WAS able to find a list of credible arguments refuting your assertion and you may do the same on your own here
*clickety click*

[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChChKiwi
"The concept, in essence, is fairly straightforward. Let’s say that you have a Species A that existed some time in the past, say, 10 million years ago. Currently, we observe Species C that exists now and shares a lot of the anatomical characters that are seen in fossils of Species A, but which also has several characters that are not seen in Species A. Evolutionary theory predicts that if Species C is descended from Species A, then there is likely a Species B which has more characteristics in common with Species C than Species A. We refer to Species B as a transitional species, but this is only in the context of the difference between Species A and C. These transitional species are often referred to as “missing links” because they are hypothesized to exist, given the fact that fossils are not found one after the other in a continuous line into the past, but are found corresponding to various points in prehistory, which is the reason that gaps exist in the fossil record." Source posted below:
This says it far more succinctly than I can as I tend towards verbosity and while that can be frustrating, I often enjoy it

Essentially, Creationism, as Good Wolf put it, is apologetics and doesn't even stack up when viewed under the microscope of scientific method.

[edit on 13/9/08 by ChChKiwi]


Interesting theory and explanation is splendid if it were only true. The fact is however, that these fossils have NOT been seen. What HAS been seen are Millions of year old Alligator fossils looking like Alligators do today. Hammer head sharks looking like hammerhead sharks do today, dragon flys cock roaches even numeruous living fossils once thought to be extinct millions of years ago exhibiting no change what so ever.

The argument they are or were perfectly suited for their environment hence no change was required is made moot by the fact they were almost made extinct due to environmental stresses that put them on the extinction list to start with.

The Scientific method ? Gee when was the last time you read a peer reviewed science paper where you actually saw a generally accepted protocol that was employed that closely resembled anything like the same so called scientific method all the others thought was it.

The Scientific method pffft puhleeeaze



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If there is no missing link then why is it that there are tribes sround this world that where not exposed to this have not continued to progress. They still use primitive tools and methods in which to survive. Like the tribe that was highlighted on ATS just recently (Im not sure how to provide a link to this if anyone can help). The egyptians where far more advance to these cultures thousands of years ago how can this be we are all human and we have all evovled so far but why, why is it that cultures that have been hidden away have not evolve as far as the rest



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 


I believe I asked for any evidence of any other creation story or whatever anti-evolutionary idea you do subscribe to. In fact, I believe I opened the question to everyone. You can pretend that you shut me up by asking me to refute you. Well, sorry but there is nothing really in your statement to refute. You seem to missunderstand a few things but that is fine. We can get to that as soon as I hear how you believe we all got here and see all the evidence for it. Give me this huge chain of evidence with only one missing link and then you are at least even with evolution. I will wait.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
There is no God!!!!!!

There is no evidence, proof, any reason to believe in...
That there's no evidence does not mean he can not or does not exist. We simply do not know, so your conclusion is plain false. It has no base whatsoever. (Some) evolutionists always have tried to say that because evolution is right, God can not exist, which is also plain false. They're both examples of formal fallacy...



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


God did not create man he created dinosuars and neandertals moden man created themselves from the ashes of the meteor. God created the first life on earth.

Adam and eve where the first people on earth, eve told adam to take a bite from the forbiden fruit, neandertals did not have a developed larynx to have a complex dialect. The who theory of god has enough holes it to be at least questioned. The whole idea of not to question and just have faith is a brilliant concept and sounds alot like a cult



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mullet35
If there is no missing link then why is it that there are tribes sround this world that where not exposed to this have not continued to progress. They still use primitive tools and methods in which to survive. Like the tribe that was highlighted on ATS just recently (Im not sure how to provide a link to this if anyone can help). The egyptians where far more advance to these cultures thousands of years ago how can this be we are all human and we have all evovled so far but why, why is it that cultures that have been hidden away have not evolve as far as the rest


I don't understand what does this have to do with missing links? So they are missing some marbles upstairs but they are still humans carrying the same seed of their kind.

What evidence do you have that the egyptions were so much more advanced? The pyramids?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
There is no God!!!!!!

There is no evidence, proof, any reason to believe in...
That there's no evidence does not mean he can not or does not exist. We simply do not know, so your conclusion is plain false. It has no base whatsoever. (Some) evolutionists always have tried to say that because evolution is right, God can not exist, which is also plain false. They're both examples of formal fallacy...


I was simply responding with the same arrogance as the OP. See, I am open to the possibility of a god as much as evolution. Apparently the OP has not found a missing link, does that mean one does not exsist or that he does not know?

Right, so in the spirit of the thread, I will say it again.

There is no God or god.

Just offering the flip side of the coin here. If I cannot be certain, how can anyone else here?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741


I believe I asked for any evidence of any other creation story or whatever anti-evolutionary idea you do subscribe to. In fact, I believe I opened the question to everyone. You can pretend that you shut me up by asking me to refute you


I believe I gave you a link that should answer your questions but I remind you, YOU responded to MY post I didn't yours. You asked a question regarding Virus and I responded, YOU are not the creator of this thread much less the OP so if you want to have someone jumping through hoops of an alternative theory to the one you hold as your religion, try making your own thread. I never agreed to argue withg someone so steeped in their own oblivious willfull wanting ignorance as to think evolution has ONE missing link and that it has no equal when any fairy tale is just as fictional as another.



We can get to that as soon as I hear how you believe we all got here and see all the evidence for it. will wait.



Hope you aren't holding your breath.

Well I believe and this can be tested and was observed, the same way all of us got here for thousands and thousands of years. I got here the same way we all got here, the same way you got here.

I have parents.

YOU?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 


The evidence that the egyptians where quite advanced with the use of primative batteries, the use of the wheel along with pottery as well as yes the pyramids and they had a complex social order.

www.ancientx.com...
www.ancientx.com...
www.ancientegypt.co.uk...

The point of what I was trying to make was how can some homosapians in todays world that have been cut off from the known civilization end up living like this
www.smh.com.au...
This is not the first time these people have been photographed thats not the point Im trying to make in this post

As oppossed to the way other homosapians live today
www.new-york-city.cc...
People may argue its just nothing more than passing of information from generation to generation get a 7 year old from the city and one from one of these tribes and see the differnce in the ability to understand concepts not technology.

Is the missing link not a species as opposed to interfernce

Please lay of the belittling it archeives nothing

[edit on 10/5/2008 by mullet35]

[edit on 10/5/2008 by mullet35]

[edit on 10/5/2008 by mullet35]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TALIN

Originally posted by MorningStar8741


I believe I asked for any evidence of any other creation story or whatever anti-evolutionary idea you do subscribe to. In fact, I believe I opened the question to everyone. You can pretend that you shut me up by asking me to refute you


I believe I gave you a link that should answer your questions but I remind you, YOU responded to MY post I didn't yours. You asked a question regarding Virus and I responded, YOU are not the creator of this thread much less the OP so if you want to have someone jumping through hoops of an alternative theory to the one you hold as your religion, try making your own thread. I never agreed to argue withg someone so steeped in their own oblivious willfull wanting ignorance as to think evolution has ONE missing link and that it has no equal when any fairy tale is just as fictional as another.



We can get to that as soon as I hear how you believe we all got here and see all the evidence for it. will wait.



Hope you aren't holding your breath.

Well I believe and this can be tested and was observed, the same way all of us got here for thousands and thousands of years. I got here the same way we all got here, the same way you got here.

I have parents.

YOU?


Read loud and clear

"I have no other idea that is any better than the flying spaghetti monster but your idea kills my god so bleah...."

Did I sum you up correctly?

You actually answered nothing about the viruses either. You actually seemed to miss the point altogether but that is ok, how can I expect rationality on a thread like this.

[edit on 10/6/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
TALIN, how much science are you willing to refute to get rid of yukky evolution out of your perception of reality?

Obviously most (if not all) biology, especially genetics, geology. Are you a YEC? Cos that means physics and cosmology are out too.

It's pretty silly. Genetics have always demonstrated evolution, for example we can track out movement out of africa and use the same principle to workout how long ago the Neanderthal and Human common ancestor lived and for how long. The same principal is used on all sorts of organisms and it mirrors what we find in the record.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
TALIN,
how much science are you willing to refute to get rid of yukky evolution out of your perception of reality?



I have no such refutations with Science I have with Darwinian Macro Evolution which I will refute ALL of it. I have no argument with Genetic research either and understand how it is used to examine migration but saying it PROVES evolution of neanderthals?

Sorry guy, like so many cavemen before him, this one too was nothing but

a hoax


Neanderthal Hoax Exposed
A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.
www.museumofhoaxes.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741


Read loud and clear

"I have no other idea that is any better than the flying spaghetti monster but your idea kills my god so bleah...."

Did I sum you up correctly?


No



You actually answered nothing about the viruses either. You actually seemed to miss the point altogether but that is ok, how can I expect rationality on a thread like this.




Well you can start by being rational yourself, and NO I did not answer your anything about the virus but I suggested what you can do to find answer so it wasn't I that missed the point, it is YOU.

Here Ill grant you the papers you need to catch up to my level of understanding and then perhaps, in the future, if you are wise, you will refrain from using such easily debunked questions about virus.


One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations." A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.307

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.308


Bacteria quickly become immune to antibiotics by transferring their resistance genes to one another. The picture above shows a colony of E. coli bacteria.
In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.309

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken.

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."310 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!


[edit on 6-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
A long time since I last posted on here but I’ll just throw this into the mix...

If ET lands on Earth sometime in the future AND he resembles us then where do all these arguments lead us?

You see I believe we (humans) have always been a separate species and not evolved at all just as apes are unique so are we.

Before you shoot me down as a creationist, I am not one by the way, just spend some time thinking instead of trying to argue one side or the other, there must be something else we are missing about our distant past?

After all if there was irrefutable proof either way we wouldn’t be arguing would we?




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Let's finish this once and for all shall we... Read this, and then we can discuss further:

english.pravda.ru...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join