Where Is The Missing Link?

i believe this is how evolution and creationism combine.

When an alien species that could have survived and evolved on a planet with the conditions to create an intelligent bipedal humanoid through natural selection... these Alien creatures then travel through the galaxy using their knowledge and genetic database of a planet that naturaly created intelligent bipedal humaniods they created man on earth... who is as you can see so perfectly suited to evolve beyond this planet.

Evolution is not a "given."

Its an oppionated theory and nothing else unless by some miracle is proven otherwise.

It hasn't yet!

In all honesty it may never. Fossilization is an extremely rare event. To even have complete dinosaur skeletons is almost an impossibility. What we will most likely find is a group of common ancestors, rather than the one specific point of division.

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

Actually there are many examples of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a fantastic example.

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..

The fossil record shows this. So does archaeology.

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."

Actually, the creature shares unique traits that are only found in primates. As for the disposable thumbs, I don't think any creature has evolved thumbs that they can just throw away when they are done with them. We humans do have opposable thumbs though, which is something else primates share.

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

A sadly common misconception. The Theory of Evolution is a working explanation to why and how evolution works. The scientific definition of a Theory is extremely specific.

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

Again, we know through genetics and the fossil record.

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!!

www.sciencedaily.com...

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

It's actually the exact same thing.

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

Iono what a processoses is, but she's explaining why species adapt to their surroundings. A tiger with camouflage is a much better hunter than a bright pink one. Natural selection weeds out the individuals who are less suited to their environment. The ones with beneficial changes have a higher probability of surviving, and pass on these beneficial traits to new generations.

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.

No. Individuals cannot evolve because this would involve changing their genes. Gregor Mendel's work serves as a model for genetics among species, and how they change with time.

Evolution is not a "given."
Its an oppionated theory and nothing else unless by some miracle is proven otherwise.

I don't know what oppionated means, but I have already explained what a theory in scientific terms is.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by PieKeeper]

Ida, the fossilized skeleton of the lemur is probably about as close as you'll get to a clear "missing link".
When it comes to finding a fossil, you have as much luck finding them with a dowsing rod as actively searching. Many of the most famous and popular dinosaurs were found by accident.
Trying to find a specific fossil would be like trying to find specific needle in a pasture of haystacks.

i forgot to mention this a couple of days ago, which shucks i cannot beleive i forgot, but regardless. if darwinism had any kind of creditablity, then how do you explain the 16-24 foot 2 rows of teeth giants, that they have discovered? because if you put these giants into the equation, it would throw darwinism and the rest of his evolution theory in the trash. i too went threw school and college, pondering this, but when the common sense finally sunk in. it became apparent, that darwin's ideas, shouldn't of even been in the history books.
no the true history of us humans has been burned at every given chance and the rest is speculation!

If you could post a link as to the discovery of these giants, it would be greatly appreciated.

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.

You mean australopithecus afarensis?


edit: it became extinct But not before one group had evolved into a new species. And so on and so on leading to Homo Erectus - some isolated groups of which evolved into homo sapiens neanderthalis and homo sapiens sapiens.

Only the later species survived though, later evolving into homo sapiens idiotii (modern man)

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Essan]

btw being a predominantly forest or savannah dwelling species, it's remarkable just how many human ancestors have been discovered. It's unlike that in 10 million years time a single specimen of homo sapiens sapiens will ever be found because we have a tendency not to drown in floods and be buried in estuarine deposits, or be buried by volcanic ash.

reply to post by Essan


Looking at some graveyards, I think there's a pretty good probability that there will be several locations with a good yield of remains. Many of the ones I've been to consisted of red clay, that and the fact the bodies are preserved with embalming fluids, and then put into the coffins, means the bodies are in some pretty good locations for preservation.
You figure the bodies that are buried in permafrost further North, and the ones buried in the fairly dry areas of the middle east, as well as the ones buried in various parts of mountainous areas, there will be a good deal of remains.

reply to post by RuneSpider


It's possible some will survive - it depends on how far in the future we're looking. A lot of the current land surface will have been eroded by glaciers and rivers and changing sea levels over the next few million years. The fact we do physically intern bodies in the ground - instead of leaving the dead on the open savannah to be scavenged by predators will I suppose mean a greater chance of remains surviving.

Plus of course there are more humans alive today than all our various homonid ancestors put together. If 0.001% of all Australopithecus skeletons survived it might only mean 1 or 2, but the same survival rate of the skeletons of homo sapiens sapiens alive today would mean 6.8 million surviving to be found by future paleontologists.

In other words, you're right!

For those who don't know it, 'Lucy' is the 'missing link.' but of course creationists will never be content with any evidence no matter how much is presented to them.

www.pbs.org...

In 1973, when Don Johanson found a surprisingly human-looking fossil knee at Hadar in Ethiopia that tuned out to be more than 3 million years old, it was the one of the most compelling pieces of evidence yet found that our ancestors first stood up, and did not get smart until much later. The knee was much older than the earliest known stone tools.

The following year Johanson's team discovered another fossil that is still a landmark in the story of human origins. "Lucy" was the most complete hominid skeleton that had been found up to that time. Although Lucy's skull was incomplete, enough of it remained to show that she had a small, apelike brain, and other skulls of her species found at the same site confirmed it.

Some experts argue that Lucy was in some ways more adapted to walking upright than a modern human, whose pelvis has to be a compromise between bipedal locomotion and the ability to give birth to large brained babies. Others point out that her arms were longer than a modern human's, and the bones of her fingers were curved -- features seen in tree-dwelling primates. How much she used her climbing abilities, or whether they were simply evolutionary leftovers from arboreal ancestors, is a matter of debate.

reply to post by andre18
The problem with missing links and transitional fossils is that the guys that don't want to 'believe' in evolution or natural selection are never satisfied. They want transitional fossils between transitional fossils. I realized a while ago that some people don't want the evidence to interfere with their conclusions. It's worth showing people the supporting evidence, but a minority have 'fossilized' belief systems.

Funnily enough, they'll accept the word of a website and question the collected works of respectable science library

reply to post by Essan
Another limitation to finding evidence of our earliest ancestors and other remains is due to the places they lived and died. Our major population centres have always been population centres. Notwithstanding coastal erosion and sea-level changes, Cairo, Paris, Rome, Baghdad etc are built on thousands of years of strata that will contain 'gold mines' of archaeology.

A recent example is the LA Brea Tar pits that have been excavated and are currently being cataloged. A good link is Vast Cache Of Ice-age Fossils. I posted a thread that had less life than the fossils...Zed the Mammoth

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/56aaa31bf780.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ParaZep


the missing link is in genetic DNA manipulation. homo erectus man's DNA was genetically manipulated by the ''Annunaki'' and then became homo sapiens. This has been deciphered from Sumerian texts, the oldest texts known to man. the Sumerian people looked to the Annunaki (those who from heaven to earth came) as gods. they were highly evolved ETs from planet Nibiru (planet X) and created the humans as a slave race in order to mine gold which they took back to their planet. this is a fascinating subject and i would recommend looking up "Annunaki" or "Sumerians" on youtube to get the full story.

reply to post by jeenie


I honestly hope you don't truly believe all of that. Those are myths, all ancient civilizations have them.

It is Not my intention to take sides on this but merely to raise some questions on the subject.

Why is Humanity so Obsessed with the Idea that a "missing Link" exists???

No... I am Not Religious, nor do I follow any religious ideas, but I do observe human expression, in the philosophy of Science and the philosophy of theology including the religions of the Earth.

Perhaps some are looking, for something that simply does Not exist and the Idea of a "missing link" is only an expression of some, whose philosophy of science, demands the existence of a "link" to something ???

Just as there are many species of the cat family, such as cheetah, lion, tiger, leopard, etc etc, there are many species of the Primate family which the human race is only one of.

To suggest that we all came from a common species, if we believe we can go back far enough, sounds just like another human obsessive religion to me, under the disguise of science.

Perhaps we should be finding out more, about what this environment we experience really is, instead of trying to judge or find its origin, by just trying to put together, the pieces of theoretical history.

The universe probably appears in a different way to us, than its true structure, that causes what we supposedly see and experience.

And the True function or purpose of our experience may have nothing at all to do, with the so called progress or development of the species.

The environment may in fact have another purpose that humanity doesn't even know about, that does not relate to our understanding.

One thing for sure, there has been much variety of the species but this does Not necessarily say we have come from a common entity ???

There is more to it than what we observe, so humankind is only looking at a very very small part of a huge picture.

If you look only, at say .00000000000000000000000000000001% of a picture you can Not possibly see or understand the whole picture can you???

But in saying this, there may very well be an underlying them, but it may not necessarily be of an origin of human understand and it may Not have even Dimension or energy, according to demands of human understanding.

After all, science is only a human interpretation of what he experiences that changes from age to age in history, according to his beliefs and politics of the day, determined by his philosophy of science and himself as a whole.

If there are other races in this Universe, is our Science correct and theirs Incorrect!

Hmmm I do think the "Human Primate" is a little arrogant don't you???

And perhaps a little self indulgent and deceived by his own self (Humanity) proclaimed science.

Perhaps what is behind existence has another point of view that no one including the religious person wants to ask about ???

I guess humanity is just trying to tell existence, what the rules or laws should be according to humankind....

Again, prove there has to be, a "missing link" if you can, before looking for it.

It is absurd to look for something, if it idoesn't exist, isn't it ???

So first determine if such a thing exists, and Not just believe or hope it exists....



[edit on 26-6-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

For those who don't know it, 'Lucy' is the 'missing link.'

Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

ROFL - yeah sure thing. Lucy is more like a sculpture ~ manufactured evidence. :shk:

Make sure you see what they do at 2:00. Now that's evolutionary "science" for you.

www.allianceforscience.org...
Creationist Claims About the Reconstruction of the “Lucy” Pelvis

I'm not going to quote from the article simply because anyone that has an interest in it needs to read the entire thing.

However, I will point this out, so no one misses it: "The original configuration, he writes, was anatomically impossible because there was no space in the sacroiliac joint – the pelvis would have been immobilized."

reply to post by Bigwhammy
I'm impressed by the Creationist sense of humor. I laughed along with the crowd as Lovejoy was seen to be 'correcting' the hip bone. Quite funny!

Ultimately, the video is designed to question the honesty of the science that says Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) walked upright. If they can cast doubt that she walked upright, it's one less brick in the wall of human evolution.

The problem with that particular argument are the other fossils from the same species. The arguments in this extract have since been pointed out as features of sexual dimorphism...females smaller than males...

The Hadar site in Ethiopia is the largest, latest, and most variable site attributed to the species, with some researchers recognizing only afarensis, and others seeing more than one species. Most seem to have accepted that there is only afarensis, and so the whole sample will be discussed as afarensis. The sample ranges from 3.4 to 2.96 myr, over several different sites, and includes many of the better known afarensis specimens (e.g., AL 288-1, AL 333, AL 444-2, and others.) The sample consists of fossils representing from 40 to 100 individuals.

Australopithicus Aferensis

Leg and foot bones demonstrate they were bipedal. Teeth have more in common with humans than other apes. The only people in dispute about Afarensis walking upright is the Creationist.

"That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute."

"... we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern, Jr. and Susman 1983)

"The most significant features for bipedalism include shortened iliac blades, lumbar curve, knees approaching midline, distal articular surface of tiba nearly perpendicular to the shaft, robust metatarsal I with expanded head, convergent hallux (big toe), and proximal foot phalanges with dorsally oriented proximal articular surfaces. (McHenry 1994)

Rebuttals to Creationist claims...

The Creationist theory is totally off the wall but to try to apply evolution theory to the way we developed is equally as crazy.