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.

 

Where Is The Missing Link?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I'm not taking any sides when i say this, but, where IS the "missing link" in evolution? i don't mean with fossils or such like but i mean the actual living half-evolved monkey? The one that is completely hairy and walks on their hind-legs most of the time. And don't give me any stuff about tribes on the amazon, i'm not interested in that because they are still humans.

Like i said, i'm not starting an argument or anything... just interested to see what peoples views on this are.




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Not many will read the above post (deleted post) by Special Officer Doofy. But my god!!

Anyway...I don't think it will just pop up (the missing link) in a dig for bones etc..

Its all in the transitions over the eons of primates (and the branching off of primates..) some stopped ..some kept going..

know what I mean?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Im sticking with lloyd Pye on this, there is not one missink link, like in Monkey, Monkey-man and Man.

Pye say that there has to be a whole range of links evolving from monkey and to Man..

Like this new 'missing link' they found just created more missing links.
You must have links from monkey to that wierd long-tailed thing,and from that long-tailed thing to Man..

It is quite obviouse why they spread that theory around, cause it will be impossible to prove..

While some pseudo-researchers are wasting every bodies time, the real story about you and I are being burried with false stories that devides the 'word' written and sciense pseudo-facts to make it fit the official 'story'..

About ..


Grammar

[edit on 21-6-2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RUFFREADY
 


Doofy? Pffft! He's outta here.

OP, you don't see these what you called 'missing links' walking around because there aren't any alive.

Only fossils of many, many, many now extinct transitional creatures. Really, this is a question very easily answered in other venues.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The missing link(s) has probably been discovered long ago. Then it was probably then destroyed/ or kept in a vault by the Vatican.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
if i bought a 1000 piece jigsaw of an elephant but lost 200 pieces, (got carried away with the hoover), I could still see it was an elephant. I could hunt through the hoover bag and find some strange looking bits that might just fit. But maybe I will never find all the bits and the picture will never be perfect. It seems to me that whether you believe in evolution or creation, both sides of the fence have to rely on a certain amount of faith, that the whole picture is what they imagined, even if the proof is never going to emerge.

Personally, I can't see why evolution and creation have to be opposite sides. We live in a universe that has been here a long time, (i have no idea how long), who is to say that God hasn't created that, but 'it' didn't hurry and it took 'it's' time, like an artist, 'it' created things in a way that scientific rules obeyed. Maybe, we were what it wanted to create but, in 'its' wisdom, 'it' had to do it slowly over time. just thinking out loud....... and it would get the two opposed sides working together in a common goal, lets find the pieces that prove what ever 'it' was 'it' did it in 'its' own time.

God, will never be for me, a 'he'. It is so much more than the white man with a long flowing beard thing. God is an essense, a thought, a concious decision to believe that I am, here for a purpose, and that man in his vanity, decided, would have to be a 'he' talk about taking something infinitly huge and scaling it down to the size of a mere man (sorry all those men out there who think they are God!!)_javascript:icon('
')

So I believe in God but I also believe in evolution and the missing bits may turn up and may not but I for one have faith with the picture I have created.

scared angelxx



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
the missing link is a farse. darwinism is a farse. a monkey is a monkey and a man is a man.

if darwin was right, then why have we not seen any ape species turn half way into a man, since before 2500 bc?

the reseason is its not possible unless you genetically manipulate the species.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaZep
I'm not taking any sides when i say this, but, where IS the "missing link" in evolution? i don't mean with fossils or such like but i mean the actual living half-evolved monkey? The one that is completely hairy and walks on their hind-legs most of the time. And don't give me any stuff about tribes on the amazon, i'm not interested in that because they are still humans.

Like i said, i'm not starting an argument or anything... just interested to see what peoples views on this are.


Why are you thinking there should be a "living half-evolved monkey? What have you read in evolution/biology that leads to this question?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by ParaZep
I'm not taking any sides when i say this, but, where IS the "missing link" in evolution? i don't mean with fossils or such like but i mean the actual living half-evolved monkey? The one that is completely hairy and walks on their hind-legs most of the time. And don't give me any stuff about tribes on the amazon, i'm not interested in that because they are still humans.

Like i said, i'm not starting an argument or anything... just interested to see what peoples views on this are.


Why are you thinking there should be a "living half-evolved monkey? What have you read in evolution/biology that leads to this question?


Well when we where being taught evolution in school i got the impression that monkeys were constantly evolving into humans. i am probable extreamly misguilded in this as im a non-believer though



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 


The enviromental or social challanges REQUIRED these mutations to survive. Therefore only the mutations would survive in that enviroment. You would still need an area on the earth that required the initial mutations that lead to humanity.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 



Well when we where being taught evolution in school i got the impression that monkeys were constantly evolving into humans. i am probable extreamly misguilded in this as im a non-believer though

Maybe if you'd paid more attention in school your 'impression' would be different?


An Introduction to Evolution:101



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ParaZep
 


The enviromental or social challanges REQUIRED these mutations to survive. Therefore only the mutations would survive in that enviroment. You would still need an area on the earth that required the initial mutations that lead to humanity.


Yes, that was Darwin's theory, the evoultionary changes were needed in order to survive.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
A possible piece of the puzzle was just recently announced actually.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
It's bigfoot dammit..
He is all over the place and we just need to find him.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The problem with missing link is that it presents evolution as a chain, with a clear beginning and a clear result.
But that's not the case, instead you have more of a web, and some things don't necessarily advance.
An example would be the sturgeon, for example. Went from being a aggressive fish with shark like teeth, to being a a bottom feeder.

Others stay the same, nature works off of a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Now, these creatures don't necessarily stay exactly the same. Crocs are recognizably similar to early crocs, however, the obvious difference is that their nostrils have migrated over time.
The coelocanth, a popular relic species, is survived by one species, it to has changed, though slightly.

We have numerous fossils of proto-hominid species, several that are close to our family tree, but not necessarily our direct ancestor, while others are definitely hominid, and some are, or some may be direct ancestors.

Edit: Forgot to mention that we ourselves in our current state, as well any other life form, are considered links.


[edit on 21-6-2009 by RuneSpider]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaZep


Well when we where being taught evolution in school i got the impression that monkeys were constantly evolving into humans. i am probable extreamly misguilded in this as im a non-believer though


Oh. My goodness. Kinda slid through that class, eh? Well, I’ve seen enough debates on the subject to know that others not only slid through, but did so with eyes shut and hands over ears. At least you know evolution happens. Kandinsky has given a good link to browse through.

Here’s some basics:

Modern humans have not evolved from modern apes: both have evolved from a common ancestor. The ancestor we evolved from was a type of hominid, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes or humans

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The different mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow. Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time

When the environment changes, species migrate to suitable climates or seek out microenvironments to which they are already adapted for. Adaptation is brought about by cumulative natural selection - the repeated shifting of mutations by natural selection

Populations evolve. Individual organisms do not evolve


Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution
www.pbs.org...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tatersalad
 


the reseason is its not possible unless you genetically manipulate the species.

We're making progress. A generation ago your Uncle Tatersalad wouldn't have had to add 'unless' and all the words that come after it.

Once I found myself picnicking with friends on a sandbar while the tide rose. Strange was the feeling, watching the patch of dry land I sat upon on slowly melt away and disappear beneath the waves.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Anyway...I don't think it will just pop up (the missing link) in a dig for bones etc..


It hasn't yet!


Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Its all in the transitions over the eons of primates (and the branching off of primates..) some stopped ..some kept going..


All we have are individual species, nothing inbetween them.


Originally posted by RUFFREADY
know what I mean?


No, I don't


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Only fossils of many, many, many now extinct transitional creatures.


They'r "Species" individual species, not transitional creatures...those creatures are the ones that are missing!


Originally posted by The Killah29
The missing link(s) has probably been discovered long ago. Then it was probably then destroyed/ or kept in a vault by the Vatican.


It has to be somewhere, it has to!! I just know it does...lololol


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Why are you thinking there should be a "living half-evolved monkey? What have you read in evolution/biology that leads to this question?


Well I read in evolution/biology that I desended from a tribe of monkeys, and just recently, lemurs.
That is where I begin my questions.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
Maybe if you'd paid more attention in school your 'impression' would be different?


You mean, my impression would be one of a "close-minded" type, one that believes in a theory that is preached as fact?

I paid enough attention in school to get straight A's, not for believing in everything I was taught was fact!


Originally posted by The Killah29
Yes, that was Darwin's theory, the evoultionary changes were needed in order to survive.


How do you know "we changed"

Whats to say that humans didn't always exist, and we kept on existing since we are better suited for this planet than the species that died off..


Originally posted by PieKeeper
A possible piece of the puzzle was just recently announced actually.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Neither does the article, nor the paper, nor the "scholars" prove that this lemur is proof, or one more proof of human evolution.

All they do is describe the dissposable thumbs, tail, etc... which absolutely proves nothing in supporting "human evolution."

cont...

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Solofront]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
...cont...


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Kandinsky has given a good link to browse through.


It describes a theory and only a theory, a theory that is preached as fact when in FACT it is only a theory.


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Modern humans have not evolved from modern apes: both have evolved from a common ancestor.


How do you know?
What proof do you have with out explaining the concept of the theory of evolution?


Originally posted by Pauligirl
The ancestor we evolved from was a type of hominid, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes or humans


How do you know whether it was the same or not, we haven't been able to study "it" because it is still MISSING...


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.


Why is it that when evolutionists are confronted with questions to back up their theory they preach as fact, that all they do is re-mummble how evolution works...

We all know, how it suppose to work, the only problem is that we have no evidence of it actually working!!


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings.


Thats called "adaptation"
Why are you bringing up adaptation in an evolution-type thread?
Adapting has nothing to do with "evolving."


Originally posted by Pauligirl
When the environment changes, species migrate to suitable climates or seek out microenvironments to which they are already adapted for. Adaptation is brought about by cumulative natural selection - the repeated shifting of mutations by natural selection


God, quite describing the processoses, and start PROVING how they work.

"evolution" that is.


Originally posted by Pauligirl
Individual organisms do not evolve


Actually they would have to, according to your above descriptions and descriptions regarding the theory of evolution elsewhere, they would all have to evolve individually through mutations.




[edit on 22-6-2009 by Solofront]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join