The Missing Link: Secret findings regarding Human Evolution to be released

Now where would be if there wasn't a new 'missing link' claim every few years. There are 'gaps' where we are unable to class the missing adaptions and transitions that led to present humans.
news.ninemsn.com.au...

Did hominoids evolve from Adapids. This is a 'missing link' argument in scientific circles regarding our development
books.google.com.au... i=MmkGStb5C6HksgPBn6WwBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

A super secret film is being made by legendary documentary maker Sir Richard Attenborough. Based on research headed by the President of the US Paleontological Society of a 37million year old Adapid.

A fossil found in Germany that is similar to but NOT a lemur is speculated to be the 'Missing link'. The small primate (adapid) is believed to have evolved into monkeys, apes and human beings.

Pro creationalists have yet to present the 'creation' skull or skeleton and this is the unfortunate bi product when you believe that Homo Sapiens were 'created' rather than evolved. Paleontological remains of hominoids have been able to time and again map the hominoid development tree, admittedly not finished yet (or for some time) but its is filling up.

The remains of a 1 year old female featured in Attenboroughs doco highlights that more and more intermediary adaptations are found and never has one 'original man/woman' been found.
The interest in this latest find in Germany is that scientists may be able to settle the argument as to where humans have evolved from:

‘I examined this skeleton. It is exceptionally complete and it is well-dated. We have kept it under wraps because you can’t blither about something until you understand it. We now understand it. It is going to advance our knowledge of evolution.’

news.ninemsn.com.au...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6a783d9f4ab.jpg[/atsimg]

Will this show definitively how humans evolved? How will Intelligent Design be able to claim the 'design' of modern homosapiens. Evolution defines the process of reproduction with adaptations, not the creation of life and will the skeleton support this?

Roger Thomas, secretary of the US Paleontological Society, said: ‘According to one group of thought, we are descended from the same primates as lemurs. Another argument is that hominids evolved from another small primate, the tarsiidae.’

www.dailymail.co.uk...

To understand ID, I have linked the following article, as a summary, they believe that change in evolution came from 'god direction' not biological evolvement as Darwin's theory propagates.

www.dallasnews.com...

Is there a better explanation? Based upon our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems – namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter such complex systems – whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines – and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

I suppose I am trying to grasp, do ID believers say that god touched every creature to instigate the change each time? and that oxygen, weather, food etc had nothing to do with it? As an example, the biological changes of modern Humans, such as fair hair in the north, and dark skin in the sunny south were 'touch and designed' and not a biological reaction?

I've never engaged in a debate on ID versus Evolution but this new find has got me thinking:
How can Evolutionists keep filling in the 'gaps' (there are still more to go), but the scientific evidence is simply ignored by ID believers?

Admittedly we are yet to see if this animal had features which link indirectly to higher primates, such as dry v wet nose, nails v claws, 4 incisor teeth in each jaw approximating to each other the midline, long foliate canines separated from the incisors by a diastema and blunt molars.

The secrecy and money involved in its 'unveiling' lead me to think they must think they are on to a sure thing, particularly as this is Sir R A's last doco and his lifelong work and reputation count on it, so I wait in anticipation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/81e16146260f.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Attenborough is awesome, it's astonishing how much he has contributed to the arts in his life time and he's not slowing.

Although I wasn't ever aware of a real missing link, just claimed ones. The Human evolutionary tree is more of a thicket, with many different species spotted all around it. It's hard to say exactly 'where' the hypothetical missing link is supposed to be and where the corresponding gap is. As we discover more, the distances between species gets ever smaller as we put more into the thicket. No one ever says "Where is the missing link between [insert species] and [insert vastly different species]?" The just say "Where is the missing link?" and appear to have no idea what they are talking about.

Edit: Whoops, I forgot to star and flag you there. ^_^

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Welfhard]

It's not at all surprising that IDers can't come up with solid evidence for their claims. The 17th Century wasn't all that rigorous regarding evidence. Perhaps some day they'll notice they're four hundred years behind the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It's not at all surprising that IDers can't come up with solid evidence for their claims. The 17th Century wasn't all that rigorous regarding evidence. Perhaps some day they'll notice they're four hundred years behind the rest of the world.

Sshhhhh. Don't provoke them, unnecessarily. This is a cool thread, I don't want to explain 10 times over a matter of pages that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by WelfhardSshhhhh. Don't provoke them, unnecessarily. This is a cool thread, I don't want to explain 10 times over a matter of pages that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

You don't have those responses in a file for copy-and-paste by now? You have already noted, I think, that every single point has to be explained every single time? That's because everyone of them comes storming in with the Banner of the Cross held high, sure they're going to save Christianity from the infidels.

Pre-emptively: Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. To determine exactly when "life started" you first have to define what is "live" and what isn't. That's easy if you go with miracles. Harder if you're restrained by reality. It's quite possible that there is no "exact point where life started", but rather a gradual process that took quite some time, with no clear boundaries between "not live" and "live". However, that concept won't fit neatly between the page of The Bronze Age Goat-herders' Anthology of Campfire Tales. So it's ignored by our guests from the 17th Century.

I hope this turns out to be something promising and not just another failed missing link.

I don't understand why there is such animosity between the boxes of belief systems. Personally I don't like boxes, and I cannot place myself into any of the boxes available today.

While I believe evolution has and does occur, I also believe there may have been some intelligent guidance whether in the beginning or somewhere through the middle. I also hold some faith, however I do not take the bible or the story of genesis literally as it is written.

Life is bound to change/adapt to its environment and I don't think anyone argues against that. Instead of focussing on the differing opinions we should focus on what everyone agrees on and build on that instead of slinging insults.

Perhaps micro-evolution is a place to start.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
I don't understand why there is such animosity between the boxes of belief systems. Personally I don't like boxes, and I cannot place myself into any of the boxes available today.

Atheism is NOT a box.

Desperate attempts of those who believe to herd all those who say that actually there is NO box (called GOD) into yet another box are certainly laughable.

Theory of evolution is only a theory of what actually happens before our eyes.

Perfect one? Hell, no. Best one science have so far though...

But, guess what, if it gets proven wrong, it goes down the toilet

ID cannot throw the God part down the toilet no matter how bad it stands the test of time

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You don't have those responses in a file for copy-and-paste by now? You have already noted, I think, that every single point has to be explained every single time?

Well there is this from an older thread:

2. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Two things to remember here.

A) Abiogenesis is the science of the origin of living organisms.
B) Evolution is the science of life changing over time, once it is already present.

Of course if you want to debate about the origins of life, you mite actually have a debate as abiogenesis is still in it's genesis. But make sure you actually know a thing or two about abiogenesis before you say "life didn't just spontaneously appear on earth" because it make you look like a simpleton.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Welfhard]

If this is as you say "super secret" A- How do you know about it. B- Didn't you just blow the secret by posting here?

reply to post by WonkoTheSane


LOL! no as I quoted the researchers involved. they have DEFN kept it secret, as they felt it was worth researching first rather than laying claim immediatley to their findings, which makes a nice change quite frankly. That said, I do belive the super secret part is just some good marketing on the producers part, and they possibly funded the research and got them to sign a non disclosure clause, so they can make it quite a dramatic film release. This is pure speculation on my behalf, but knowing personally how these things work, I'd say Im close to on the money.

Gotta love the name they gave to our "missing" lemur-monkey overlord: Darwinus masillae

reply to post by rhinoceros


Interesting
Darwins Resin, though my latin is poor nowadays, I must say, I'm assuming the latin for Mastik, from Latin mastichum, but I'm likely wrong as I haven't read Latin in too many years.
From what I'm poorly intepreting its the Darwins ' resin' or glue that sticking the pieces together?




Edit poor spelling as well as poor latin


[edit on 10-5-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by WelfhardSshhhhh. Don't provoke them, unnecessarily. This is a cool thread, I don't want to explain 10 times over a matter of pages that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.

You don't have those responses in a file for copy-and-paste by now? You have already noted, I think, that every single point has to be explained every single time? That's because everyone of them comes storming in with the Banner of the Cross held high, sure they're going to save Christianity from the infidels.

LOL! cut and pasting Ill have to create a file for 'standard responses' thanks for the tip.
Interestingly the Catholic Church (largest christian group) has come out to say the creationsim shouldnt be taken literally. And that faith and scientific evolution can coexist.

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. Today

Important Topic Updates
, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org... extra DIV