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.

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?

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]

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

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

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.

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?

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

It's bigfoot dammit..
He is all over the place and we just need to find him.

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]

...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]