It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

Just like in a person's arms, in a frog's front legs are bones called the humerus, the radius and the ulna. However, a frog's radius and ulna are fused into one bone. The same is true for a frog's legs -- the femur supports its upper leg, and the bones of the lower leg, the tibia and fibula, are fused. A frog has two scapulae, or shoulder blades, and clavicles, or collarbones, that are shaped a lot like the same bones in a person's body.
A collection of small bones makes up a frog's digits, or its fingers and toes. Most of the time, a frog has five toes on its back legs and four toes on its front legs.

They are simmilar. And if a mammal skeleton like this was found that was 50 million years old it would be close enough to be called a missing link. missing links 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 fingernails, heart, lung, stomach, circulatory system, and nervous system, but that's pretty much it.

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

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:33 PM
granted this may be great information and will lead to new discoveries or ideas, i highly doubt this has any "missing link" credibility to humans.

Fingernails and a bone in its foot that humans have..

Well, slightly altering one genome or messing with one chromatin structure from a strand of DNA has produced extra limbs, different organs, or improved/decreased senses in birds and other mammals before.

I'm no expert, but in my opinion I think this is just more proof that we don't understand DNA and RNA fully enough yet to decipher whether humans evolved on this planet or if there was another force at work as well.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by The Mack
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.

I would just like to point out that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID are in two completely different categories.

The theory of evolution has constantly changed and undergone scrutiny of the scientific community. You will not find one person in the scientific community who is unwilling to say that the theory of evolution is perfect and completely understood, because they all know it's not.

It is a theory with evidence that allows for testing and observation. You can not test "intelligent design". You can only suggest the possibility of a creator. Scientists don't give two flips whether or not people believe in the two theories; however, when people who support ID try to teach it as an alternative in a science class (once again, it's an untestable theory and therefore unscientific), or as a general alternative to evolution, people get touchy because it's frustrating that so many people refuse to educate themselves on why one theory is scientific and the other is philosophical.

If the thumb was really needed, why doesn't every species have it? If it's needed to make tools, why are lemurs too unintelligent to make primitive tools, and yet they have a thumb? Why do we have a tail bone, and no tail? What about our unnecessary appendix?

FYI, I'm not an atheist...just trying to shed a little light on the subject.

Edit to add:
About the Frog's fused bones in its appendages....dude, c'mon. That's just another very, very basic anatomical structure for terrestrial vertebrates. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting in any way, but frogs are dissected not due to their similarity to humans, but so 6th graders can get a good look at what common features terrestrial vertebrates have.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Avenginggecko]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:44 PM
Personally I don't believe that this is any missing link...but the following does gets my attention...

from the article...
"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.
Eventually, after six months of negotiations, he managed to raise the cash in Norway and brought Ida to Oslo."

If I paid a million bucks for some 47 million yr old bones...your damn right I would call them the "missing link"..hell if it would make my money back plus some, I would call it the Queen of Sheba, whatever drew the I mean paying customers...

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

So please shed more light on the subject how is evolution observed and tested? Science can only suggest the possibility of a missing link. Evolution can not explain diversity of life. And if evolution is true there should be a missing link between plants and animals.
Evolution just has a collection of species that they are always trying to find links to. When they find a more advanced link earlier than their primitive one they step back and say "oh well they must have a common ancestor then it is back to square one untill they find another missing link.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

Of course there's going to be links between species this doesn't mean that these things occured through small steps like Darwin theorized. This just means that a well defined species came into existence because of design not some random process.

The fossil record doesn't show species transitioning in small steps, that doesn't occur. Again, this is what Darwin and his followers pushed.

These things occur in leaps and this is a product of design.

Intelligent Design is only excluded by people because they start with the assumption that the intelligent agent is not a fundamental property of the universe.

How can you say intelligence or consciousness is not a fundamental property of the universe? Darwinist exclude this based on their belief not science. The intelligence can be an information process that underlies reality. There's more evidence for this when you look at things like the holographic principle and quantum computing.

The problem is that many in science start with the priori that everything is based in materialism when we are the best evidence for Intelligent Design.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:58 PM
calling ID a philosophy is not really correct. It is just rejected at this time. One is no more scientific than the other. According to science the earth was flat and this was also tested. See the horizon over there? See it on the other side of you? when i put the ball on the ground it stays still. See? The earth is flat.
The only thing ruining the ID theory is the christians that try to bring their God and genisis into the picture.

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

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

missing link definition: "A theoretical primate postulated to bridge the evolutionary gap between the anthropoid apes and humans."

what I meant by half developed species is the one between anthropoid apes and humans. Just because two species are somehow compatible doesn't mean they derived from the other. That is why it is a theory, because it can never be proven. Unless they physically manipulate human beings or other animals and create another specy. Get what I'm trying to say?

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by The Mack

NOT exploring every possible avenue in the attempt to find truth in our world is just as despicable as skewing truth in order to fulfill a personal agenda against a group of people you do not like.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:12 PM
totally ridiculous !!! Only 1 news source is stating this plus, well.. yea.. it's a lemur monkey and..."oh look, it has .. fingers and EVERYTHING.. "

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:13 PM
edited to remove my remark

[edit on 19-5-2009 by observe50]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by on_yur_6
Seriously? It's just a monkey. Amazing how life was created by accident in some primordial soup. And everything evolved from an accidental single cell life form. For some reason, we can't recreate life in the most sophisticated science labs the world has ever seen.

Unless someone invents a time machine we will never answer this question. Creation and Evolution both require a lot of faith.


posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by The Mack

Really?? ! Well go see the documentary called "Expelled'.. and do you're own research and then come back here and debunk the ENTIRE documentary and .. while your at it..

Might want to talk to the host of the movie as well..

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
In looking over their site (the "scientists") there is a clear indication that a lot of this is marketing hype.

They timed the press release, the research paper, the History Channel show and the book to all be released at the same time.

This DOES give me an idea though. I have a bigfoot and an alien burrito in my freezer.... I just need me a website and a book and I'm gonna blow the lid on this mofo!

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by The Mack

Evolution is observed

Evolution makes testable predictions

How plant cells and animal cells diverged

I believe that addresses all of your questions. If you're truly wishing to educate yourself on your topic, there ya go


Natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).

"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

Darwin's own words on the subject
I believe that addresses your concerns?

Here's a list of "slow transition" fossils


They call it the Theory of Evolution because it is a testable hypothesis, with observable results, that best fits all known facts at the time. It isn't the Law of Evolution because we're not sure if it fits all of the facts all of the time in its current state, and there isn't one scientist out there that will disagree with that.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

The funny thing about natural selection is that the reason most people are not satisfied with the idea is that it involves too much dying. Limiting your thoughts on natural selection to a single mode of operation, you quickly realize how ridiculous that becomes. Ask yourself a simple question, "Why do I have oh so many hairs in my nose?" Well, self, millions of generations of your closest ancestors got mauled by sabretooth tigers because their nose hairs were ever so slightly long, and they often got caught sneezing at the most inopportune of moments...

The biggest problem with understanding evolution is that it we don't really know what it is. There are no universal laws of evolution, just as there are no truly universal, reducible social laws, such as, for instance, supply and demand. Likewise, the theory of natural selection can not ultimately be reduced to the axioms of scarcity, and rational-self interest, contrary to what many economists would like to believe. The natural scientists are trying to subsume what is obviously a much more complicated social science in evolution. Electrons and protons that stay still and don't do anything can be subject to universal, reducible laws. Electrons and protons that make choices and have feelings and preferences can never be reduced to pure mathematics.

There is no reason that even a single fossil should have at all ever been preserved. The veracity of an evolutionary theory is not ultimately contingent on that famous statement, which questioned the clear deficiency in the fossil record; that was merely humbling rhetoric, a courtesy if you will, not an ultimatum (for that a mere student of nature could account for all of creation was surely a presumptuous claim, especially in that most political of times when science was not nearly as respected as it is today). All the proof you should ever need lies in the existence of one fossil in time some millions of years ago and the existence of any other in the present, and a mind that is capable of wondering what allowed that first creature to supply for the creation of its eventual predecessor.

Sure, some benevolent creator, who cares for you very deeply and who will ultimately extract your soul at the time of your death so that you may live with him for an eternity of service, could have put it all into motion...

But why does "Darwin's version of evolution" strike such a belligerent chord in the minds of creationists? It's "random"? It's "purposeless"? What does "random" actually mean? Some very simple, "random" mathematical functions are capable of producing incredibly "complex" objects. But then ask yourself, what does "complex" mean? "Complexity" might just be a set, which is defined as all the possible objects and their patterns imaginable in the human mind in some sensible form, or those that we have merely evolved to understand. If that isn't convincing enough, I would go on to conjecture that we were destined to fall within this "design set" because of the way the universe operates at its most fundamental level. We interpret reality as designed because the probability of life ever existing in a state, which is not subject to the fractal nature of the universe would be exceedingly low.

Creationists employ a wide variety of logical arguments but their best one by far is the transcendental dialectic. It is the perfect example of how pure reason can be employed to the greatest of extremes, and how the delusional immaturity of the ego and its relation to self often infiltrates sensible thinking.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
I do not think evolution is 100% wrong it just does not explain and does not make as much sense to me as ID. Evolution is true in the respect of a species changing over time as pointed out in one the links provided. But evolution does not explain complex structures like the eyes,brian and liver. Evolution can not explain morality in humans. Evolution cannot explain to me how rocks gasses and water turned into self replicating bits which eventually turned into dinosaurs. It is a self-fulfilling theory, an evolutionist can put things into the "order which they evolved" then put them as seperate species with a "common ancestor" when new evidence comes to light. Just as christian IDers can put everything into the category of things god created.

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

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by Avenginggecko

Of course Darwin came to these conclusions after he saw that his initial theory didn't work. He was surprised not to find chaos in the fossil record so the current theory of evolution is based on assumptions to try and fill this gap. This is a big lie.

"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, it's easy to change a theory to fit your beliefs but this is just wishful thinking. There are no small steps when it comes to evoluion. People can take raw information and make anything up and claim it supports Darwin. In science they have a sympathetic ear that will accept this nonsense.

I will quote from a page that you linked to.

Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

All this says is that a plant existed without a solid seed coat and eventually plants with seed coats came into existence.

It doesn't show any small steps between these two and this is a product of design. Evolutionist will always come up with theories why we don't see this transition in the fossil record. Maybe the dingo ate the fossils but they are not there.

Darwin's Theory Evolution is based on wishful thinking. We evolved but it's a product of design.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by platosallegory]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by The Mack
I do not think evolution is 100% wrong it just does not explain and does not make as much sense to me as ID. Evolution is true in the respect of a species changing over time as pointed out in one the links provided. But evolution does not explain complex structures like the eyes,brian and liver. Evolution can not explain morality in humans. It is a self-fulfilling theory, an evolutionist can put things into the "order which they evolved" then put them as seperate species with a common ancestor when new evidence comes to light. Just as christian IDers can put everything into the category of things god created.

The eyes.

Some reading on the brain.

Some on the liver.

Morals really likely stem from basic survival. We know it's bad to kill, because there is power in numbers. We don't hurt our children, because we know that they will grow up to carry our line. Things like that. If you look deep enough, you'll probably find that a lot of our morals are linked to basic survival instincts.

And I'm not trying to prove you wrong, it's just that you need to look harder when you question things. This is the information age after all, and we have an instantly available library available to us at all times.

And no, I'm not an athiest or anything (I find them to be just as annoying as religious people, really). My belief is a bit more complex, and I haven't slept in a while, so I won't delve into it. Lol

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by The Mack

Mack, you're confusing evolution with the sociology of evolution or sociobiology. I agree, in that it's not a very satisfying way to think. It's definitely not a sound foundation to base one's conscience.

Just because a species survives to reproduce more often than another doesn't mean it's better. This is a fine example of how our ego infiltrates our sensibilities. Just because some species is more suitable to some environmental niche and therefore dominates within that phase space more effectively than some other, doesn't mean that the other is ultimately inferior. Bigger is better, right?

Where does this mentality of judging everything come from? The same place where all our insecurities originate; in the ego, which is further perpetuated by the delusion of discrete, separate selves that is so ingrained in the everyday language and thoughts and vanities of modern culture...

If two babies were born, and you were given the power to choose only one to survive; which would you choose, considering one would become mentally deficient and the other grow to be a star athlete? Which one deserves to live? It's a ridiculous question. If nothing is inherently better or inferior, then we are not a loss. If we impose such extreme qualifiers on everything then we will inevitably, and I mean absolutely inevitably, find ourselves trapped within an indisputable logical argument.

"Darwin's evolution" is a cause for anxiety. I've come to realize that few here are interested in discussing evolution as a scientific fact, but that most of these arguments are riddled with a subtext so pervasive that it affects our most sensitive emotional and mental faculties. Evolution can be disturbing... We've seen how in Hitler's Third Reich eugenics were inappropriately applied to society. We know it's not a good way of thinking... let's leave it at that and finally drop the arms and settle on a discussion that actually involves what we physically observe, because those discussions are much more interesting.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by cognoscente]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in