Where Is The Missing Link?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 27-6-2009 @ 04:51 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Pauligirl
Good link and very pertinent to the discussion...it would have made my post more succinct. You remain the the most understated member around here. Maybe you should change your avatar to a bright yellow alien with a flashing UFO?

OT...the link illustrates the selective nature of Creationists as they seek to increase the element of doubt in human evolution by cherry-picking small points. They seem to equate the theory of human evolution with an old sock...pick a loose thread and it all unravels. It's hard to understand why critical thinking is applied to that objective and neglects to focus on the inherent problems of a universe created in days by a God...each to their own, I guess.


reply posted on 27-6-2009 @ 06:37 PM by Pauligirl
reply to post by Kandinsky


Thank you for the kind words. if I had a blushing icon, I'd use it.

And I think you are spot on about the cherry-picking. I'm afraid that a good of these people equate believing with knowing.


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 06:30 PM by Aslinitato
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?


I personally dislike the term "missing link", because of the fact that that implies that evolution works in a chain, something that is not true about Darwinian and Neo-darwinian theory. A tree is much more apt. Therefore could you please dip into scientific parlance and use the term "transitional form" when discussing this with me please? It means basically the same thing, without the misconception.

As for a "living" creature, that is something that you wouldn't locate if evolution was true. If natural selection is utilized in reality, such a creature would be selected out, as they would be less likely to live and reproduce than humankind, as their niche would be taken over by humans. Exactly what occurred with the Neanderthals, they lived for some time, but then competition brought by human beings drove them to extinction.

You are actually asking for something that would be very unlikely if Darwinian evolutionary theory was true.

And be careful about the whole "monkey" term, since that would state that you were looking for monkeys like we see today. Such an organism as we describe would be rather unique, at least physically. We did not branch from modern "monkeys", our geneology with primates split, and we share a common ancestry with organisms that share a closer common ancestor with modern primates.

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


Honest curiousity is always nice, but you're looking for a creature that is not predicted to still exist by evolutionary biology. As I said earlier, such a creature would be less likely to live to reproduce than humans or other "missing links", which would intrude on their niche.

On the Neanderthals and why they are an example of this- (www.ecotao.com... see the section entitled "Extinction")

(I am going to respond to other users as well, but have a 4000 character maximum. As a result, I will have to spread my responses out. I apologize for the inconvenience.)



reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 07:00 PM by Aslinitato
Originally posted by ChemBreather
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..


There are transitional forms between the primates and human beings. (Again, the term "monkey" creates false perceptions.)

Homo antecessor (www.jqjacobs.net... and here's an article from Nature on the organism, although you do have to sadly pay for it www.nature.com...

Australopithecus afarensis
(anthropology.si.edu...)
www.archaeologyinfo.com...

And these are just two quick examples. I can definately get plenty more, if you really want me to.

Fossilization is an extremely rare process, so you can't expect to see every single organism fossilized. It is extremely dependent on the location of predators, the environment, and the issue of soft tissue. It's fortunate that we have been able to recover as many samples as we have.

On fossilization, see-
anthro.palomar.edu...
www.acad.carleton.edu...

Originally posted by ChemBreatherLike 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..


That is a result of logic. Let's assume that we have fossils A and B, and then fossil C is discovered. We now have a gap between A and B, B and C, and the larger gap between A and C.

Let's assume that scientists discover fossil D, which bridges the gap between B and C. We now have even more gaps!

The gap between A and B.
The gap between B and C.
The gap between C and D.
The gap between B and D.
The gap between A and C.
The gap between A and D

Since the fossil record does not preserve every single organism, or even every single species, there are going to be various gaps that will never be filled.

In this text, scientists calculated that approximately 1% of the species that ever lived were accounted for in the fossil record. Just an estimation, but shows how rare fossilization really is.
books.google.com... is=&as_brr=3&as_pt=BOOKS&ei=lPdLSruaEI2GkQTfpJTuCg

Originally posted by ChemBreatherIt is quite obviouse why they spread that theory around, cause it will be impossible to prove..


Science doesn't deal with prove. It deals with evidence. Evolution is the theory that is best supported by the evidence at this time.

On science-
www.digipac.ca... (An educational text on science.)

www.grist.org... (A good educational piece that utilizes global warming as an example of how scientific theories operate, and shows how there is no proof in science.)


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 07:24 PM by Aslinitato
Originally posted by Solofront
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.


I'm not certain what you are expecting. Of course we have individual species. The skeletal similarities and DNA similarities however, help demonstrate a transition. For instance, afarensis demonstrate bipedalism (the use of an organisms hind legs to move), which was abnormal in primates at that time. (See my previous link). In addition, certain bones (in this case the superabortal tortus) were thicker than other primates. Ergo, it can justifiable be referred to as a transitional form.

Good books on Lucy include "From Lucy to Language" and "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind", which were by it's discoverer, Mr. Johanson.

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Originally posted by Solofront
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.


Keep in mind that "recently" is in geological terms. At this moment, it is believed that modern humans originated approximately 500,000 years ago, since that is when Neadanthals diverged from our genetic line(www.nature.com...

Homo sapian sapian bones have been dated to 195,000 years ago.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Both of these seem like a long time, but in a geologic time frame, it isn't particularly long at all.

Oh, and "descendend" might be the wrong term. But we do share a common ancestor with the precursor to modern-day "monkeys" and lemurs, and we diverged from this common ancestor more recently than, say, the precursor to the modern elephant.

(I'm sorry if any of this is confusing to anybody, but evolution is rather complicated when you get into details, and I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. Just ask for clarification and I'll try to give it to you.)

What questions do you have?

Exactly what about what you learned made you skeptical of evolutionary theory?


Originally posted by The Killah29
Originally posted by Solofront
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..


Then we would expect to see fossils of modern humans with our supposed precursors, or with other ancient organisms, such as dinosaurs. We don't. The fossil record supports the evolutionary theory of "simple" organisms developing as time goes on, and more and more unique species emerging.


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 08:01 PM by Aslinitato
Originally posted by ParaZep
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?


i am probable extreamly misguilded in this as im a non-believer though


I'm sorry that this makes my commentary out of order, but I missed this when I first read it, and is a common misconception, so I want to correct it. Evolution is not a "belief". Science doesn't work by belief, because to believe in something, you have to have faith in it. Science doesn't have faith in it's scientific theories, because it's always looking for evidence that either supports the theory, or doesn't.

If the evidence doesn't support a theory, it has to be reworked, the evidence explained, or the theory, in extreme cases, has to be thrown out.

Darwinian evolution has had 150 years to be debunked by scientists, and many have tried. However, it has withstood all scientific scrutiny, and adapted to the new scientific evidence that emerged quite adequately.

That doesn't mean that we can just believe that it's true, we have to have evidence to back it up. So scientists and the public continue to peruse the evidence, and judge whether evolutionary theory is valid or not.


If evidence comes along at any point that debunks current evolutionary theory, (And I don't mean specific parts of development, as those are debated and challenged all the time. I mean the general theory of evolution, as that is what creationists dispute). it will have to be thrown out or revised.

Ergo, evolution can not be considered a belief or religion. It is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. That's it.

Originally posted by Solofront
...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.


A scientific "theory" can almost never develop into a scientific fact or law. In a sense, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that alleles (Or a pair or sequence of different forms of a gene) in a population change over time. This is accepted by almost everybody, including most creationists.

Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the fact of evolution. Darwinian evolution does this through processes such as natural selection or genetic drift. Evolutionary theory is no less of a fact than the theory of gravity. We in fact understand evolution more clearly than we do gravity.

Evolution- Fact and Theory Links
www.actionbioscience.org...
people.delphiforums.com...
www.stephenjaygould.org...
www.stephenjaygould.org...


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 04:05 AM by Beneia
When scientists speak of a law in science, they are talking about something which has been shown to be true all the time. In science, a law means there are no exceptions to the rule. The Law of Gravity is one example of this. Everyone knows that gravity holds things down—no exceptions. Gravity is not just a theory, it's a law.

There is another well-known law in science. It is known as the Law of Biogenesis (bye-oh-GEN-uh-sis). This law says two things: (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.

For example, to get a cow, you must first have a living thing. But, that living thing cannot be a horse, or a donkey, or a whale. It must be a cow. To get a rose, you must have a living rose. To get a dog, you must have a living dog. That is what the Law of Biogenesis says. And remember—there are no exceptions to this scientific law.

Evolution is against the Law of Biogenesis! Evolutionists tell us that living things came from nonliving matter. They also tell us that one kind of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal. Further, evolutionists tell us that this happened over and over again to produce all the millions of animals which have ever existed. But that would break the law!

The Law of Biogenesis is real, and accepted as true by all scientists. Evolution cannot be true, because it is against this law.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 07:08 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by PieKeeper


The offspring of most animals are not exactly the same as their parents.


This is very true but at the same time the offspring only contains the DNA of its parents unless artificially or by outside influence (Invasive input) mutated.

If Evolution is a chance generated phenomena, then this would have to have provision within the DNA, if Not then Evolution is Not a product natural selection, but rather is invoked from Outside this Program, we refer to as this (little) Universe.

Don't misunderstand me, I do Not deny Evolution but merely question where the Root of Evolution is to be found.

In other words within the Universe you experience, or is it to be found in the entity, that has produced this (little) universe you experience, and I am Not referring to the entity, as being a human invented god.

I am Not Religious.

But rather the Root of The All, that is "Consciousness" or "Awareness", which had to be the First, or we would Not be Aware of anything at all, and thus Not exist.

Your Consciousness, is a little droplet of the All, and is actually not entirely separated, from all the other droplets of Consciousness, that is responsible for your own existence.

You still have access to the All, as you are a part of that Consciousness.

Without Consciousness, or another word for it being Life or Awareness, Nothing at all would exist, as nothing at all, would be aware of anything at all.

But just remember I am only pointing out, the Root and origin of the story (you and the Little Universe) you experience that suggests that Evolution exists.

To discover the Truth we must all learn to dig much, much, deeper !

[edit on 3-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags