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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I think evolutionists bring god into this more than anyone. It is just a stable piece of information they cling onto like the theory its self. If a person does not believe in evolution than they MUST belive in god. I do not believe in god any more than i believe in evolution, i think both are self fulfilling and just give outmore or less the same useless answers with dfferent terms.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:07 PM
Any scientist worth his title will attest that this fossil is only a "snapshot" so to speak, of a particular moment in time. In NO way, does it prove the bigger picture of anything other than the fact that they unearthed bones that happen to share similarities with other species. So what? One can prove today that certain animal species share similarities with others existing today.

I guess in essence, what I'm trying to say, is that this fossil doesn't PROVE anything as to being the "missing link" as the ONLY thing that these scientists have to go by, is bones. The ONLY thing they CAN do, is simply SPECULATE, make "educated guesses" or in other words... make ASSUMPTIONS.

Now I myself do NOT discount science completely as that would be completely and utterly ludicrous. That being said, I have found so called "scientists" think that this somehow "proves the origin of all species/life etc." which only makes them look incredibly arrogant and ignorant. You cannot say WITHOUT A DOUBT that, that statement is true unless that person was actually present at the day that everything was created. Which is why I've always had a problem with the whole "primordial soup" fairy tale. Nobody alive today was present at the time of the earths creation, so NO ONE (not scientists, not christians etc.) can say without a shadow of a doubt "This is how it happened" You're being arrogant and ignorant by stating this as "fact"

I remember an interesting quote somebody had here in ATS on their sig. Sadly I don't remember it completely.

One day, God decided to talk with Darwin "So, you think that your theory proves the existence of all life and I'm wrong eh?" God asked "Yes" replied Darwin. "Very well then... if you're so smart, then you go ahead and create your own human being" he said. "Ok" replied Darwin, and proceded to gather some sand. "Nah ah" interjected god. "Get YOUR OWN sand"

I think it an interesting quote, because it does try to portray the silliness of certain people (not all) who try to claim to be all and know all. "Playing God" is dangerous, especially in the hands of people filled with smugness.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Question]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:08 PM
From a programmers point of view, I see signs of programming when I look at species and such. All that you see, including junk dna happens in programming as well. My programs even evolve over time, and run off the same code. In fact, many programs share the same code even among different libraries. They are called .dll files, which stands for dynamic link library, or otherwise known as "drivers".

So, if I design a stomach one day, I'm not going to rewrite that code over and over, I'm going to use the same code I did before. With a few simple changes in the configuration you can change the way something looks and it's size, but keep the overall function. So if you change a single configuration line, the entire program looks different. Change a gene, and the color of somethings skin turns from yellow to blue. Just a configuration. From 1 single piece of code, you can generate tons and tons of unique configurations and get different things which in general function alike. AKA a species. Take a video game, it's code is written once, but each PC that runs it has it's own configuration for it.

Sometimes in these libraries we get code that isn't used, or junk code.

So, if I design a monkey 1 day, and a human the next. Good chance they are going to be a good bit alike.

Your body is a very advanced technology. The cells are basically organic self reproducing nanobots, and the DNA is the code those bots read and follow in order to build the body, or whatever species.

The study of genetics is basically trying to reverse engineer the technology. Try configuration changes here and there, and then you can eventually see - ahh, this one here changes the color. etc.

Not sure what the big argument is about honestly.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by badmedia]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
Holy crap! I found a picture of Ida!

It is true!

Her mate just announced!!

Funny eh? (2 lines

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Tyr Sog]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
A lemur is the missing link? when i first read the thread title i was expecting to see bigfoot haha.

In my opinion a lemur is still far too monkey-like to be considered the missing link even with its opposable toes.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:22 PM
*non religion person posting*

How is this in any way proof of evolution?

My mind goes to the debate about Homo floresiensis, which doesn't really fit into many evolutionists preconceived ideas and plans. They are still arguing and debating the whole thing, and its relation to the current ideas of evolution. It shares a few more human characteristics than than this thing, but they don't know where to put it in their time line, so for now, it is on hold.

Yet there is no debate on this newly discovered fossil? It is just a "fact" now.
It proves Evolution!

Kinda cool how that works.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:23 PM
New species are introduced to meet the karmic need. It isn't the result of some random impose lucking out. Mr. D has nothing to do with it. Besides if such a little guy does exist, it's pretty damn amazing that of all the lems in the world this one would pop up on the radar.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:28 PM
Scientist first thought we were only a few hundred years old.....but hey wait a minute they found Lucy so we are now somehow connected to her and are actually around 3.8 million years old........Ah wait just another minute we are actually Linked to Ida [lemur/Monkey - or whatever] and we are 47 million years old!!!

Cut the BS, you [scientists] really haven’t got a clue! Like all will change your mind when you find something else. Probably this time 5 Billion years old!

Remember the one about only Nine planets out there and that there was No Black hole in the Centre of our Galaxy!
One other thing, so what if bones are the same as humans, so what if other features are are in monkeys and other mammals who are closely associated.

Ancient civilizations believed in Cycles of Ages and we have always been here but each Age of existence was destroyed through natural events [i.e. comets etc] and new one commenced.....

I am an atheist and have an open mind BUT this is definitely NOT the missing link and proves absolutely Nothing, Naught, Nada!!!

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:33 PM
LOL It's great we can still find extinct animals and all but I refuse to believe we evolved from anything..animals are born and they die as the same species they were born as, when in any animals life have we witnessed with our own eyes a genetic shape shift of physical appearance into a human? This sounds about as far fetched as shape shifting Reptilian political figures...

Regardless of the fact I'm not talking about growing a few inches and shedding some baby-teeth here either folks.

If we in fact did evolve, why aren't there only humans in existence here? Wouldn't there in fact be no such "animal" kingdom now and more of a just Human Utopia? Especially considering most of these supposed animals have long been extinct?(but I guess it's going to come to that soon considering most of what we're use to is being contaminated due to Codex, so people are most likely gonna start eating off the land FOR REAL, Hannibal anyone?? lol)

But anyways, Why are these animals we supposedly evolved from still in existence? Why are our supposed ancestors the chimpanzees and gorilla still in existence? I'd expect they would have turned into humans or would've began to at least reproduce a new kind of embryo over time that would have been somewhat human that behaved as monkeys much less and less overtime as the supposed theory in question suggests.

But are You guys are still under Darwins indoctrinating hypnosis? You did know he was hypnotized as a child right? So just keep in mind your believing in theories from a documented whacko and that even rulers of society know is false. (Ted Gunderson Retired FBI "Pawns In the Game")

Scientists haven't even gathered the supposed evolution species subjects and actually tried to make the transition play out the way the theory suggests so there's no way of telling this theory is credible no more than how you can tell if the Bible is credible. (although I'd have to disagree it is and there are some scientists who dedicate their careers to prove things on behalf of the Bible itself THANK YOU!)

All in all just like this never-proven theory of evolution it's just like the Bible, both require faith, I guess some go for the new age rather than what was documented ages ago from ADVANCED civilizations that YOUR scientists are still trying to figure out today.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by anarcissus]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:49 PM
Looks like it is case closed on Creationism. All hail Darwinism. Finally proved.

Woot for Darwin! Woot for Lemur Gurl! Thanks Lemur Girl for making the leap across time to help us understand our origins! Woot Lemur Girl!

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Hm, Hardly Doubt That One.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:57 PM
How about if it were referred to as "A" missing link, rather than "THE" missing link? I mean, we can go even further back, and find transitional reptiles too. Those would be links, mammalian links. I'm pretty sure it was the differentiated teeth in reptiles that gave rise to the mammal branch that eventually developed from there.

It appears to me that there are transitional features right in front of us.

So we have a short-faced, fingernailed Lemur, part of a new branch of primates, that, over time became even more successful due to some unique skeletal structures.

There are an awful lot of "links" missing in all evolutionary chains. For some to be satisfied, every link from YOU to YOUR Great (the the 8th power) grandfather, would have to be fossilized, and rediscovered at a later date.
That will never happen, fossilization is rare. I think that asking for more links, is a cop out. We'll eventually find more, but we'll never find them all.

We were certainly lucky in finding this one. It is a VERY well preserved specimen, with a skin shadow and stomach contents intact. I think it's very exciting.

It also occurs to me after reading through the thread, that many of you have reacted to the news, but haven't actually read the story. A little peek through "Galileo's telescope" never hurt anyone, except maybe Galileo himself.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by spacedoubt]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
And people will still refuse to believe evolution.

I really don't get it, I don't see how evolution threatens religion. I think people can believe in both, science and religion can co-exist peacefully, it's the people behind either issue that keep beating this dead horse instead of using common sense.

100% agree.

I think that if Religion and science worked closer together on this issue then common ground could be found.

For instance, who is to say that God, in all his infinite wisdom, didn't create evolution?

Why is it that much of a stretch to believe that in was some predetermined 'leveling up' process that started millions of years ago? How is that contradicting religion?

You can still have your Adam and Eve in their garden, but who is to say, maybe God got sick of his apes and decided to bounce them forward one last step and he was finally happy with the result?

Personally, I don't subscribe to either theory. Just throwing it out there.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by anarcissus

Well Lemur girl could be proof of HOW god did creation? Maybe when he was making the species he created like the Lemur girl and got his IDEAS for other creations from the ones he already made?

Like he was making Lemur girl and thought WOW these fingernails are SICK! I am gonna throw these dubbs on those Monkeys I have been working on. That would be SWEET!

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:59 PM
Why don't you all wait till you see what the show is about and exactly what they are implying here? Beforemakeing baseless statements.

This the missing link from the animal world to the first primate for all we know.

As far as creationalists. I hate to break it to you, but scientifically, the bible is shot to swiss cheese. Yes, yes, you can argue back and forth with me for about 3 minutes before you give up, and tell me, well it all comes down to "faith". Faith, heh thats religions "out" basically theres no science to it, it's a pointless argument in a scientific discussion about all the inconsistancies in Main stream religion. It's akin to saying I'm takeing my ball and going home.

Just wait for the show to air. Don't base all of these argument on 4 paragrapghs, which half half about a broken left wrist, and a German guy who had this in his possesion for how ever many years, we have no idea, what exactly "Ida" is supposed to link. I think common sense rules out Neandrathal man or what have you to Human. So it must be something else.

Darwin was way ahead of his time, sure he was off as we learn more, but the same goes for Einstein.But yet Einsyeins theories, and Evolution are still taught in every public school in the United States.

I refuse to believe there is an old man living in the sky who watches everything everyone does every single second of the day. Pretty silly when you say it out loud eh? Oh wait that's right I need more "Faith", lol.

I hate shooting down the bible in particular causeit's so darn easy, but until they stay out of Evolution threads, I'll do it.

Watch this and use some critical thinking and then tell me with a straight face, god and heaven exist.

**WARNING** a good deal of profanity in this clip (you can just watch the first 2 minutes to get the point, but the rest is great as well), it is George Carlin afterall, but I'd imagine even religious people have a sense of humor. I mean they must)

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Nola213]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Nola213]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by anarcissus
LOL It's great we can still find extinct animals and all but I refuse to believe we evolved from anything..animals are born and they die the same species, when does the animal ever turn into a human?

If we in fact did evolve, why aren't there only humans here? Why are those animals we supposedly evolved from still in existence? Why are our supposed ancestors the chimpanzees and gorilla still in existence? I'd expect they would have turned into humans or at least would have been some humans that indeed look like and behave as monkeys.

You guys are still under hypnosis eh?

I would suggest you read the article or even do a cursory study of evolution. Scientists don't believe we evolved from chimpanzees or gorillas. Chimpanzees and Gorillas are not our supposed ancestors. Scientists believed humans and African apes evolved from a common ancestor. No real scientist believes we evolved from Gorillas or Chimps. The evolution of species depends upon environmental factors, natural selection, and mutations. If the species is well suited for its environment, then it will stay well suited because it isn't forced to adapt. That's why apex predators like Great Whites haven't really changed in awhile.

The Mack:

no. The current theory is there was nothing then nothing exploded for no reason and created everything and from this sterrile environment came single celled froms of life which self replicated for no reason which turned into dinosaurs they all died then there were monkeys and lemurs then lemur monkeys then human monkeys and then just humans.

The theory of abiogensis and the theory of evolution are different. Abiogenesis is a theory on how life came into existence, and evolution is a theory on how species change and adapt over time.

To reiterate (for the last time, and not to you Mack, but everyone jumping to conclusions)

Evolution does not seek to disprove religion, nor does it seek to disprove Intelligent Design. It is a theory that anyone can change with new evidence and facts.

Evolution constantly changes, as all scientific theories do, to fit new evidence. That is the core nature of how science works.

Scientists do not believe we evolved from chimps and gorillas.

Scientists believe humans, chimps, and gorillas evolved from a common primate ancestor.

This fossil is evidence of a common primate ancestor, because it displays qualities the main primate species we see today.

Most people on this thread are quick to judge, slam, and generally degrade the theory of evolution, yet not one among us has suggested a way to scientifically test any aspect of intelligent design.

Evolution is a theory. Not a dogma. Not a religion. It has no ulterior motives. It is free to be changed by anyone willing to scientifically test it.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by light_sound

Cut the BS, you [scientists] really haven’t got a clue! Like all will change your mind when you find something else. Probably this time 5 Billion years old!

You don't have a clue either.

You're just as worthless as Science if you don't have the answers.

... or would you rather just live life with your head in the ground?

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by anarcissus

Certain chimps,probably chimps that were closer to flat land or in areas where there were fewer trees took to the land a bit more than those chimps deeper in the jungle.These chimps took to land ,over time,bit by bit until they evolved physical traits that better suited them for both trees AND land.But the more time they spent on land,the more their bodies adapted, until they started to walk upright.Animals can be forced to change their environments and geographical locations for many reasons.Change in weather, the introduction on some new predatory species,or just plain curiosity.Why is it hard to understand why chimps and humans coexist? The chimps that never left the trees stayed chimps,the ones that started beatin their feet became us.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by badmedia

Sounds logical to me... If I was writing a program and refining it I wouldn't re-invent the wheel if I could use parts of the beta code for the improved piece of software. Nice job on the analogy...

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:15 PM
Well who can forget the great evolutionary "proof" in the past. Piltdown man(hoax), nebraska man(donkey tooth),orce man(donkey skull),Archaeoraptor(thie missing link between reptiles and birds also a hoax) and all these were hailed as "proof".

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in