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.

 

Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

page: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Okay, so they found the skeleton of a dead monkey. I fail to see where the link with Mankind is. That skull doesn't look human, the tail definitely isn't human, the feet have the thumb-toes.... exactly WHERE is the link, except still missing?




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by J.Smit
 


I'm assuming you've had the opportunity to run the tests on this specimen necessary to back up your claims. Good thing we have an expert in human evolution archeology on the boards to straighten that up for us...



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by J.Smit
Okay, so they found the skeleton of a dead monkey. I fail to see where the link with Mankind is. That skull doesn't look human, the tail definitely isn't human, the feet have the thumb-toes.... exactly WHERE is the link, except still missing?


Then I take it you've never met any of my wifes family from Indiana.


Seriously, the christain side will say God put it there and the Darwinists will claim their ideas were right all along. But in the end it won't matter because all they are going to teach in school is proper condom use and how everyone is a winner.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by J.Smit
Okay, so they found the skeleton of a dead monkey. I fail to see where the link with Mankind is. That skull doesn't look human, the tail definitely isn't human, the feet have the thumb-toes.... exactly WHERE is the link, except still missing?


First, it isn't a monkey, it is a bridge between prosimians(Lemurs) and simians (Monkeys, Apes, Humans). It's not a missing link as the term doesn't exist in science, but only the popular media. The main thing that makes it special is that it's the earliest species to have opposable thumbs. Those lovely things that let us grasp and make tools with.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by J.Smit
Okay, so they found the skeleton of a dead monkey. I fail to see where the link with Mankind is. That skull doesn't look human, the tail definitely isn't human, the feet have the thumb-toes.... exactly WHERE is the link, except still missing?


The link is an arrow pointing to 1979.

static.guim.co.uk...

www.digital-toys.com...

Science compares and concludes . . .

terrorifico.fortunecity.com...



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
as with every missing link found through out history. I personally do not believe there will ever be found, the missing link between human and ape not for relgious reasons but more practical reasons. You figure, civisation is approximately 6000 years old. the oldest documented religion, is 5000 years old. but civilisation, cities and great works are supposed to have started 6000 years ago. Why then do we have structures in south America over 24000 years old? cities, and buildings held together, not with mortar, and brick, but brick and metal staples. We started playing with molted metals about 2500 years ago, and these staples are clearly man made, from refined metals.. BEFORE the first accepted civilisation. I am starting to believe more and more with these new finds that one REALLY has to look for that we are not created... not like the bibble says, but, planted. From where? who knows? I shall call our home planet Haedion-6 after a song done by the band Angel of VIolence. grant it, its about a civilisation bent on war, and the remaining peoples left as they grew tired of the constant fighting amongs politicians, they left for somewhere else... still its a smashing song.
cheers all.
May jesus be left aside for this current debate and intellect, wisdom and common sense be used instead.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This is a lot less than it claims.

Not that I disbelieve it or don't appreciate it, I am always glad to have one more gap filled in, but the discovery of DNA and then the unlocking of human and other genomes were the uncovery REAL missing links. Even without this fossil we have too much evidence of our link to all other creatures on the planet in very specific hierarchy.

I have to suggest the book WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE by Jerry Coyne for an excellent summation of, well, why we know evolution is true, all the proofs for it and answers to all the creationist objections.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Con Science
 


in evolution they propose more complex organisms come from simple ones. Through mutation/natural selection. The fossil record massively supports that idea.

I find that alot more believable than a new species appearing in a puff of smoke.




[edit on 25-5-2009 by yeti101]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


but the creator made the first simple organism that has the programming to evolve.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by theflashor
 


thats still evolution. ID claims evolution does not happen.


how we got the very first living things (abiogenesis) nobody knows you could say a designer put them there but we still got all the species including us through evolution.


[edit on 25-5-2009 by yeti101]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


But we do know. In fact, we are creating life from nothing but chemicals in labs right now. In the right conditions, life will spring into existence.

Here's just one article about it: en.wikipedia.org...

deny ignorance

[edit on 5.25.2009 by Avarus]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrevorALan
 




I have to suggest the book WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE by Jerry Coyne for an excellent summation of, well, why we know evolution is true, all the proofs for it and answers to all the creationist objections.


Hey there.


Maybe you missed my post...

I asked for someone to provide JUST ONE example of evolution of a species as described by El Darwino.

Curiously, there have been no takers.



Velikovsky clearly and concisely discredited Darwins 'theory of evolution' in Earth in Upheaval... MANY years ago.

Why is it that Absurdists NEVER seem to be able to provide an answer?



Maybe they are so enamored with preaching the Law of Evolution they're just too busy to be bothered with the FACTS?

When scientists became SO devoted to the theory, instead of letting the facts do the driving, they became Absurdists, behaving more like religious zealots than men of Science.

And this 'missing link' is YET ANOTHER square peg they are so intent on driving into a round hole, that the almost flawless preservation of this creature (from a bed with NUMEROUS other samples) just gets ignored.

Velikovsky is STILL snickering.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I watched the show last night and they said that the fossil didn't match a lemur because two features. One the comb effect of the front four bottom teeth. The other was the pick on its hands. In wild hogs they have the comb type effect with the same front four bottom teeth but at the same time a domestic hogs does not. The reason for this is due to in the wild the hog has to chew and scrap to get to the edible portions inside. The domestic hog does not have to. So do to diet the teeth change. If they want to decide a new species or declare a totally different species do to that I can't help but laugh at them. Now the pick on the hand Im not sure of did the giant lemur have one they didn't have the comb effect with there bottom front teeth. They show a skull of a giant lemur on that same show and you can cleary see it doesn't havea comb.Now take the differences between a monkey and the fossil. The differences are to many to count.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Perhaps you don't understand evolution. There have been several cases that prove evolution on the scale that we can measure.

One such experiment introduces a modern newt to a cave environment. This environment has no light, and so, in several generations, this amphibian has adapted to thrive.

You can also look to viruses and bacterium. Because their lifespan is brief, you can measure how often they change. Most scientists say they've 'mutated' to adapt. This is the same basic principle behind evolution. By mutating, they've become stronger and more resilient to avoid extinction.

here are a few other sources:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.newscientist.com...

What bothers me most, is that you will probably not research this. I often feel like my posts are falling on deaf ears. Believe what you want, I'm tired of your misinformation/disinformation.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 




Perhaps you don't understand evolution.


Good one!

Actually... It's about a new species evolving from an existing one.



[edit on 27-5-2009 by golemina]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Let's see what has been the fate of the other so called missing links of human evolution:


Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)



The missing link is a desperate attempt of scientific atheism to justify their rejection of deity. Evolutionary science as most of science, is biased with an agenda that is difficult to push beyond. I hardly believe anything so called scientists claim these days and I have a Ph.D and two other degrees in a hard science.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Beautifully preserved fossil of a prosimian! Wow, whodathunk that pouring resin over it would keep it in such great condition?

but as to the "missing link"...

Even Lucy was eventually proven a fraud as a missing link (by reputable scientists at least). Not enough real study has been done to this specimen to make a definitive conclusion.

here is at least one dissenting opinion

Many primates have opposable thumbs, including most simians, and some prosimians. Most of them grown fingernails rather than claws. Tarsiers are a perfect example. They ALSO have no toothbone.

Fingernails are nothing more than keratinized cells, not that much of a biggie folks.

And MOST primates have a talus bone similar to the human talus bone, infact, most mammals have similar talus bones, again the tarsier has a very close, albeit smaller, shaped talus.

Too much study yet to be done for the History channel to be proclaiming the "missing link" has been found, but the same mistake was made with Lucy, to the embarrassment of the evolutionary scientific community.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I watched the show. It was amasing to find out that scientists are as corrupt as everyone else. The main scientist who bought the fossil(forget his name) said there is a huge black market of fossils going on away from the public view. The man who had the "Ida" fossil first, i think it said he had it for almost 20 years. what the hell. There is obviously more fossils like this and more meaningfull one's I'm sure, Just hanging on some rich smucks wall, keeping it from humanity, testing, and meusems. I still can't get over it. while the main guy on the show was talking about how big the underground the black market for fossils was, he was grinning the whole time like it was cool. "Shut up you prick scientists and stop hiding our heritage!!"



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


dear sir, just because they have a bone that is like a humans means nothing, you will argue it does. people are always to quick to make their claims, why do lemurs no longer have the same bone?, so many questions still unanswered, why do scientist find something then make all these testaments?, for recognition of course, why is that little lemur just another extinct species?, can anyone say that they are 100% certain that it is what these people claim it to be, no!, if they say yes then they are the ignorant ones



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
If man has evolved so drastically then why haven't we learned to live in harmony with the planet that we live on?

Every species on this planet lives and contributes to the circle of life and even in death gives back to the planet.

Except man; we are polluters and destroyers of the very world that sustains us.

This does not sound like an evolved species to me.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join