Darwinus masillae(missing link?)

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]

Before I am to believe this, I would need to see photographic proof and even then I would need to see extensive reports written by credited biologists, both Darwinist and and Intelligent Design (Not Creationist, let me stop the confusion right there) advocates on the condition it was found in and NOT afterwards.

Although I can't recall Exact names (and please don't believe me on this unless you can find proof for yourselves) there was an instance in the early 1920s where it was believed that scientists had found the missing link between Humans and Apes. Everyone one was so excited! The Jawline on this Ape-like skull matched that of a human's almost exactly! Come to find out one of the scientists who had discovered it had simply filed that jawline down!

Plus I won't believe for a second that we evolved from Apes, unless you can provide indisputable evidence that it happened. I.e, more than just a theory of some aristocrat who traveled to the Galapagos.

Dude there is not a single credited ID biologist on Earth.

Plus I won't believe for a second that we evolved from Apes, unless you can provide indisputable evidence that it happened. I.e, more than just a theory of some aristocrat who traveled to the Galapagos.

We are apes. Anyways for indisputable evidence that we share a common ancestor with chimps go read about Human chromosome 2.


[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

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

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 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. . .

Originally posted by Shamrock87
I read about it and didn't really find any indisputable evidence. I see what I've always seen.

Looks to me like you need to read more. Perhaps you missed the part about chromosome fusion somehow? It's of course just one more thing on top of the huge pile.

microevolution - check
macroevolution - check
rather complete fossil record - check

Be objective, the mountain of evidence (no matter where you look) supporting common descent is indisputable. And contrary evidence? There is none.

Just look at these two pictures:




This is just "microevolution". Did you ever think why our mouth seems to be too small for our teeth? The second picture sheds some light on that. What's the alternative? Intelligent designer that failed to see how many teeth fit nicely in Homo sapiens mouth? This kind of designer would be a fool..

[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Read; Richard Dawkins - The Ancestors Tale

He explains very clearly the continuous line of evolution which take us right back meeting all the great-grandparents we share with other animals, meeting first of course the great apes and then working backwards right through the generations right to our earliest living form. Might help some of you who are confused about the issues get a clearer understanding of how we came to be here now.

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 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]

Originally posted by Shamrock87 Where are the pictures? Who else examined it? ..

I know.. I'm excited myself,but the program isn't due to air for another week or so apparently.. hence the 'watch this space'.

It's a bit like the build up for the Hatton Pacquiao fight..
I just hope evolution doesn't get knocked out with a second to go in the second round.
I'd like to see it go the distance.

Documentary to reveal 'missing link'
.......
More details about the BBC documentary will be revealed later this month

news.ninemsn.com.au...

'Top secret' documentary.. So 'top secret' it still hasn't given a date or time yet

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]

Sounds Remarkable.

I'm going to watch this Documentary and see exactly what's said, by who, with what credentials, with whom are they related, etc etc. . . I can full heartily tell you that despite the fact that they're making a documentary, and that this could be the BIG one! Doesn't cut it for me, it could still be a lie. I mean after all. Doesn't you government lie to you all the time?

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!

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]

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]

Originally posted by Shamrock87
this is assuming that nothing in the history of the world (except contemporary times) has been deformed?

Are you saying that all the hominid fossils ever found look the way they do, because they're deformed Homo sapiens? Quite a coincidence, that not a single as old normal H. sapiens fossil survived. Yeah, no bias at all

The 90-minute programme is top secret but The Mail on Sunday has learned from sources in America that the results of the study on which it is based will be revealed by a team of scientists and broadcasters in New York on May 19

Any chance of getting the ATS news team in there?
link

Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.

She was cleaned and set in polyester resin - and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector's wall for 20 years.

Sky News sources say the owner had no idea of the unique fossil's significance and simply admired it like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.

But in 2006, Ida came into the hands of private dealer Thomas Perner, who presented her to Prof Hurum at the annual Hamburg Fossil and Mineral Fair in Germany - a centre for the murky world of fossil-trading.

MAN!!
Hung up as an ornament.It could have so easily been lost/overlooked/destroyed even.

The news seems to be spreading rapidly,I'm guessing around 50 threads on this by the time they release the bleedin documentary

link

Among Ida's features are human-like opposable thumbs. She also has nails as opposed to claws and teeth, much like a monkey. Scientists also noted that her forward-facing eyes are like ours, allowing vision to overlap and allowing the creature to judge distances.
Dr Jorn Hurum, who led the investigation, said: "This is the first link to all humans. This fossil is so complete. Everything's there. It's unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that's this complete.

news.uk.msn.com...

Just some more clarification as to why this is such an important discovery

Also more pointers that this ISN'T the upcoming May 25th announcement.as it is the BBC that has 'sponsored' this documentary.

(The other is the History channel)

An exciting month all round methinks.