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: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
This is not a missing link. The same thing was said when lucy (3.18-million years old) was found, it is just a hype to get people to see it so they can make some and recover all the money spent on buying the fossil.
So we have this new 47million year old fossil and it fills in the gap for all the time up to 3.1 million years ago? There are still human footprints in the Paluxy River river in texas that are next to dinosaur footprints, but hey those are a hoax untill they find some older fossils then they too will be evidence of missing links.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
If you think Ida is about the same in terms of importance of Lucy, then apparently you are well beyond explaining anything to.




[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
also, i thought that the so called "missing link" was the ?? that connects homo sapians to other closely related ancestors such as austrolopithicies Neanderthal or cromagnon

now you explain to me how a Lemur monkey fits between Neanderthal and myself

this cannot possibly be the missing link that connects homo sapians to our ancestors

these guys must be talking about a Different missing link for some other species of primates (or something)



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
If you think Ida is about the same in terms of importance of Lucy, then apparently you are well beyond explaining anything to.




[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]


ill explain it to you in simple terms

Ida is not the missing link connecting Homo Sapians to our ancestors

Far from it in fact, because the missing link will be nearly fully homo sapian



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Simple terms?

You mean how there is no such thing as a missing link, because you would literally need every single transitional species in order to fill in the gaps.

The missing link has always been known as a metaphor for finding proof in the fossil record that man did indeed descend from other animals or specifically primates.

Ida proves that by having traits that monkeys do not have but we do.

I will explain it to you even more simply, You have a talus bone yeh? well Ida's is shaped just like YOURS, and not like a monkey or ape's; and she just happens to be 47 million years old.

So how do you think that little bit of knowledge isn't a big deal?

But I know why it isn't a big deal to some, because Ida proves that their ignorance about the world they live in truly is real.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I'm going to move my comments over here from the History channel thread because it has more Bering on this subject.......


Doesn't the term "missing link" refer to a missing bridge in our DNA structure to monkeys?
I think this is a total stretch to think this old Lemur is the "missing link". More half ass science twisted to validate someones idea?

Have they linked Humans to the lemur via DNA analysis.
Just because the monkey has similar characteristics means nothing. The "Link" is in the DNA. But hey, they may revel this later and I could be wrong.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The "evolutionary chain" is constantly changing, not as in things being added but in things being rearranged. Things like the 1.44-million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old Homo erectus found in 2000. So this ida will be hailed as a missing link untill they find a more advanced older fossil. Then things will be rearranged unmtill they keep going back and keep finding out that some of these "links" co-existed witheach other and were not links at all.



"But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin



To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould


[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I believe that the May 25, 2009 History Channel special in which we've seen several thread on ATS about is for the missing link.

As most of you know, they've been calling it "the most important find in 47 million years."

If this is what the History Channel is showing, then IT'S BIG.

If this is the missing link, it'll mean a breakthrough in science. It'll revolutionize human evolution for the first time. This is what the History Channel will be discussing!

MWAHAHAHAHA!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Digital_Reality
 


Exactly,

This is the big Darwin lie when it comes to evolution. Evolution occurs in huge leaps not small steps. This occurs on a genetic level not a biological level.

This is why you don't find small steps in the fossil record but huge leaps and well defined species.

Darwin looked at the fossil record and he was puzzled that he didn't find these small steps all through the crusts of the earth. He and others who follow him then came up with a theory that has never been verified because it's wishful thinking. Darwin and others have tried to explain why we don't see these small steps and this is the theory of evolution. It's false and just pie in the sky wishful thinking from hardcore darwinist.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin

Again, Darwin came up with a theory to try and explain why he didn't see the chaos in the fossil record and only well defined species appear. This is just wishful thinking.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Yes these huge leaps is where the debate begins. so a species is going along then all of a sudden BOOM they are somthing ore advanced. Could there be some kind of intelligent design? Oh no that is CRAZY right? It must be some random unproven genetic mutation for which there is no explanation, now that is more scientific.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Yep, read about this on link from Drudge report awhile ago. I was blown away. "finger nails like humans and that bone in da foot that we still have etc...

I now wait for all the creationist nut jobs to come out of the word works and the wide eyed "believers from christian sciences studies trying to knock holes in another great advancement in a "great find" by scientist and researchers that "really" are looking for the truth/

Because they have similar fingernails doesn't mean it's the missing link lol. For god sakes we can have heart transplants with pegs does that mean pegs are the missing link due to the fact that we seem to have compatable hearts? It is a rediculouse argument. If transitions did exist we should see it every where inbetween every specy, that means that there should be more half developed species than fully developed instead every fossil we discover is fully developed.

Stop closing your brain just because you don't want to believe. You don't have to believe in one thing or another to be human that is an advice from me.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Very well put. It speaks to both intelligent design and evolution. However, where the intelligent design comes from may or may not be what you or I believe.
I just had to give you a S&F for your well thought out reply.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


Well said.
In biology class students disect frogs because there internal layout is so simmilar to a humans. Is this proof of frogs being on the evolutionary line? Is that proof of a possibility of the secret humanoid reptilian race?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
And why are we supposed to believe them this time?

It is serendipitous that I just wrote a post speaking to this very situation.

You will believe whatever you choose to accept and that alone makes it fact.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


well that is the miracle of science. It is always changing. Evolutionists are not like all those "sheep" people with their religions. Evolutionists take a more scientific approach that constantly changes according to what they are told.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
Yes these huge leaps is where the debate begins. so a species is going along then all of a sudden BOOM they are somthing ore advanced. Could there be some kind of intelligent design? Oh no that is CRAZY right? It must be some random unproven genetic mutation for which there is no explanation, now that is more scientific.


Exactly,

This is intelligent design. It's all in the code within what's called Junk DNA.

If we figure out this code we would be able to close and cancel out diseases like diabetes just like we can close and cancel out lines of HTML.

I think Darwinist are hurting this process with this pie in the sky theory. There are no small steps because evolution is a product of design.

Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism's widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic "junk" is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that "Intelligent agents typically create functional things," and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, "From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk'." Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years:

www.evolutionnews.org...

Darwin's theory is a big lie based on false assumptions. He didn't find his chaos in the fossil record and he tried to explain it with this bogus theory.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Anthropologists, geologists, and archaeologists have introduced one missing link after another, and each time, it was just an extinct ape.

Because they could never find the missing link, and aberrations in the species such as Neanderthal seemingly came into existence without an ancestor, and died off without offspring, they began to resort to presenting "transitional species."

And each time, they were not transitional, merely a species gone extinct.

Now, another.

God, they must be getting desperate.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Yes i think this is the common misconception of intelligent design. People who do not agree with it just say it's religion trying to be science. intelligent design is really just a theory that these changes observed in a species may be the product of intelligence rather than chance. Now if the intelligent design is done by the spirit, god or the subconscience is up for debate. Both ID and evolution have their flaws and can't be explained at this point.
intelligent design would say the thumb was developed out of need for a thumb while evolution would say a thumb appeared.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think a really important part of this story is that critical scientific (and other) finds end up hidden in private collections.

How many pieces of our history remain behind closed doors?



But the dealer's asking price was more than $1 million (£660,000) - ten times the amount even the rarest of fossils fetch on the black market.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Yep, read about this on link from Drudge report awhile ago. I was blown away. "finger nails like humans and that bone in da foot that we still have etc...

I now wait for all the creationist nut jobs to come out of the word works and the wide eyed "believers from christian sciences studies trying to knock holes in another great advancement in a "great find" by scientist and researchers that "really" are looking for the truth/

Because they have similar fingernails doesn't mean it's the missing link lol. For god sakes we can have heart transplants with pegs does that mean pegs are the missing link due to the fact that we seem to have compatable hearts? It is a rediculouse argument. If transitions did exist we should see it every where inbetween every specy, that means that there should be more half developed species than fully developed instead every fossil we discover is fully developed.

Stop closing your brain just because you don't want to believe. You don't have to believe in one thing or another to be human that is an advice from me.


There's no such thing as a "half developed species" because we would have no way of knowing how a species that is in the process of undergoing speciation will look in, say 45 million years. We can only look back at the fossil records that we find and try to put the puzzle together.

Ida shows a species that shares common physical traits with great apes such as human and gorilla. It shows that at a point, there was a species that transitioned from lemur to great ape. Scientists do not claim that we evolved from chimpanzees or gorillas. Scientists theorize that the primate branch separated from lemurs at one point, and that all great apes and hominids share a common ancestor. That is what Ida shows: a common ancestor.

Here are some resources on transition species/speciation

A great breakdown on transition species and why it's hard to document complete lineages

Explanation of Cladistics and Transitional Fossils

Also, I'm unable to find information on pig hearts commonly being used for human transplant? I know there's been a lot of research because pig hearts are the basic size of a human's and they have compatible heart valves, but I was unaware that the surgery and become common, or even practiced at all.

To Mack (or whomever said the reason why kids dissect frogs is because they are similar to humans)...well that's just silly. Frogs have the same basic 6th grade anatomy of a human, but humans are quite a bit more complex. They are 'similar' in the fact that they have a heart, lung, stomach, circulatory system, and nervous system, but that's pretty much it.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join