Darwinus masillae(missing link?), page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 15-5-2009 @ 09:56 AM by AGENT_T
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Well this should set the cat among the pigeons for creationism followers everywhere.
(Or should that be Lemur among the pigeons?)

The fossilised animal, thought to be at least 37 million years old, is a member of the extinct adapid family, and was discovered in a disused quarry in Germany.

Similar in appearance to modern lemurs, the young female has certain key differences which convinced researchers they have found the link to modern apes.

Unlike lemurs, it has no "toothcomb" teeth for grooming or "toilet claws" for scratching, two omissions which make it more likely to be ancestral to monkeys, higher apes and ultimately humans.


This is being discussed as part of the 'History Channel May 25th viral ad"

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It does not seem to be the topic to be discussed as it is really a 'BBC sponsored find'
BUT it is a major find and will leave some points open for discussion after the presentation airs..also later this month apparently.

WATCH THIS SPACE!!.


[edit on 15-5-2009 by AGENT_T]


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 10:24 AM by AGENT_T
reply to post by Shamrock87


I know what you mean,a few hoaxes have been pulled before on this topic.

Prof Philip Gingerich, co-author of the report and president of the US Paleontological Society, said: "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."


Very wise words indeed
It seems they have undertaken vigorous tests to prove its authenticity before speaking up.

Better than to look like complete berks when someone owns up to gluing two skeletons together or something.

It can still mean we were left here by intelligent design though


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 10:51 AM by Shamrock87
From Wikipedia, Albeit, not the best source, but it will do.:



Recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome 2 may play an important role in human intelligence.


I read about it and didn't really find any indisputable evidence. I see what I've always seen.



The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [5][6]


It's SOOOO CLOSE!

Yeah, well Close only counts in Horseshoes and Hand grenades.

I'm not saying evolution didn't happen.

Quoted from Websters 1913 Dictionary:



Evolution - A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.


I.e change over time. It's foolish to believe that humans didn't get taller or shorter. It's foolish to believe that we didn't evolve to our current technology. I agree evolution happened. But did man evolved from apes? I don't believe that there is a possibility. You can show me again and again how close we are to apes, but unless I see something that walks like and ape, talks like a man, I can't really truly, coherently, sanely, sufficiently, logically, believe that it happen. And trust me I welcome any rational argument. I'm not denying this just to deny it or be obstinate. I just don't see the real evidence behind it.

And Yeah there are plenty of credited ID scientists. You just don't hear about them too often because the scientific establishment takes every opportunity to shut these people down before their ideas can reach people like you or I. This website is about conspiracy and finding the truth behind things and yet people are still blindly following what others are saying just because it's widely excepted or just because someone said it! Where's your research? Where's your backed up answers? Or is it all just because this guy said so? Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not going to believe it until you have the real proof.

(In reference to the no credited intelligent Design advocates/scientists, watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." I think you'll be pleasantly surprised)


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 10:54 AM by Shamrock87
reply to post by AGENT_T


Yes, but still. Just some guy saying something. Where are the pictures? Who else examined it? Who is this guy in the first place? "Prof" and not "Dr"? Etc, etc. . .


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:22 AM by Shamrock87
reply to post by rhinoceros


Look here's what I'm trying to say:


Here's point A:

Nothing Living Exists.

Point B:

Something Living exists.

Explain?

Here's something else.

Point A:

Ape.

Point B:

Man.

Where's the line in between? How come there's nothing between Ape and Man still living today? Whatever evolved from an Ape MUST have been more capable of surviving than an APE due to Natural Selection or else it wouldn't have evolved, right? So what I'm asking for people to provide isn't so much The Result as the Equation. Catch my Drift?


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:30 AM by Shamrock87
reply to post by NatureBoy



At each point Dawkins attempts to infer, from molecular and fossil evidence, the probable form of the most recent common ancestor and describes the modern animals that join humanity's growing travelling party.


"Attempts", "Infer", "Probable".

Look ya'll aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. Where's the hard proof? Richard Dawkins is just another guy like you are I. Just because he says so doesn't make it so! I mean if we want to use Richard Dawkins:


www.youtube.com...


What a man says is subjective to what really is is my point.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Shamrock87]


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:42 AM by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Shamrock87
Here's point A:

Nothing Living Exists.

Point B:

Something Living exists.

Explain?

Abiogenesis and off topic. We might just as well say Allah created the first cell and off we go. It really has nothing to do with common descent of man and ape.


Here's something else.

Point A:

Ape.

Point B:

Man.

Where's the line in between? How come there's nothing between Ape and Man still living today? Whatever evolved from an Ape MUST have been more capable of surviving than an APE due to Natural Selection or else it wouldn't have evolved, right? So what I'm asking for people to provide isn't so much The Result as the Equation. Catch my Drift?

You mean like why there aren't any Homo erectus (like the ones we have fossils of) around today? We are them.



Evolution doesn't stop unless your niche remains 100% the same, in which case you'd except that at some point you reach a stage in which you're more or less perfect for it and thus natural selection "prevents" change (and it still doesn't stop as some are going to be better at getting babies than others). As for the other part of your argument. Chimps evolved from the same apes we did. They aren't like they were 7 million years ago. It's like some 7 million years ago you had 2 brothers (they probably looked more like chimps than us) who went their separate ways. They both got lucky. Their families grew, but there was a mountain separating them. On the other side of the mountain there was some warming going on and the rainforest disappeared. Natural selection started preferring individuals who were better suited for this new environment. It's good to see far at savannah and thus at some point they turned bipedal (not like woops - done, but more like natural selection again preferred individuals who were better suited for bipedal movement) and here we are. I'm not saying that's how it happened, but it's something in this fashion..

[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:54 AM by Shamrock87
reply to post by rhinoceros




Abiogenesis and off topic. We might just as well say Allah created the first cell and off we go. It really has nothing to do with common descent of man and ape.


Not off topic. I'm trying to get the point across that something doesn't happen magically. It's a Rhetorical Question.

And once again, another time line.

Oh well, it says it right here on paper. If you follow this line we obviously evolved.

Fossils? Where's the Man Ape Fossil? That one would have floored me!


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:58 AM by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Shamrock87

Fossils? Where's the Man Ape Fossil? That one would have floored me!



img198.imageshack.us...
img38.imageshack.us...

Man or ape or something in between?

[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]



reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 12:09 PM by Shamrock87
img51.imageshack.us...

I see shards and a mold. Plus this is assuming that nothing in the history of the world (except contemporary times) has been deformed?

img2.travelblog.org...

The Second one looks as if it were made from plaster.

www.iriscb.com...

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Shamrock87]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags