Missing link between man and apes found

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

The new species of hominid, the evolutionary branch of primates that includes humans, is to be revealed when the two-million-year-old skeleton of a child is unveiled this week. Scientists believe the almost-complete fossilised skeleton belonged to a previously-unknown type of early human ancestor that may have been a intermediate stage as ape-men evolved into the first species of advanced humans, Homo habilis.



Read more

Pretty damn interesting. Wonder how the religious types who claim the planet is only a few thousand years old will respond to this.




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I don't get it.

There are no missing links in existence.
There are only missing fosile remains.

It would be cool if this one would close the gap tho



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Very intresting
Some evidence to show that maybe we did evolve form apes



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GalaxyKB
Very intresting
Some evidence to show that maybe we did evolve form apes

Before this it was in question? I'm pretty sure human evolution is pretty firm in saying we evolved from an ape like ancestor.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Im not very good with the whole evolution theory
but wouldnt evolution keep going on?
so that the apes would have kept evolving?

Best Regards
KB



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GalaxyKB
 


And they have. You won't find fossil records of Chimpanzees or Gorillas dating back 2 Million years, as they too evolved from earlier ancestors.

We evolved from Apes, but not the Apes you see today.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

Ok ill be sure to keep my eyes open on this topic


KB



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I thought the missing link was my old boss?

I still think i'm right :-)



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think both man and apes are come from Adam



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
I think both man and apes are come from Adam

But you have no evidence.
Evolution from a common ancestor, on the other hand, has alot of evidence.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
In your face Creationism.

In..... Your....... Face !!!!



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Evolve from apes? I think not.
But I do believe there may have been some cross breeding amongst early hominids..especially as they died out.
Food for thought...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Wow!

That's it chaps, pack up and go home. This man has cracked it!

I don't suppose you care to elaborate?



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by masonicon
 


Wow!

That's it chaps, pack up and go home. This man has cracked it!

I don't suppose you care to elaborate?

Adam was quite obviously a geneticist who managed to manipulate the DNA of modern man to make...A hairier, dumber modern man..?
Please mason, elaborate, how did Adam make BOTH man and ape?
Did he fancy a few gorillas in the jungle?



[edit on 3-4-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Why does it have to be an "either/or" choice between evolution and creation? I find it equally plausible that evolution is the means of creation and the timeline was not measured by our current definition of years.

For the sake of argument, if the Old Testament were written by men why would it be necessary to explain every step of how man was created from dust need explained in the books / scrolls, when the important aspect is that we and everything else "were" created from dust, star dust if you will? Isn't that, in essence, what evolution seeks to explain: "how" we were created- the jump from simple molecules to complex life forms?

The great fallacy, in my opinion, is the confusion surrounding the definition of years. According to Relativity, time is experienced differently based on the frame of reference. Is it not possible that to someone outside of the Universe, our evolution took place in ~6500 of their years, while to us inside the expanding Universe, it took nearly 14 billion years?

And for the record, I'm not religious. I just have an open mind.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
dont believe anything you hear...



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
Why does it have to be an "either/or" choice between evolution and creation? I find it equally plausible that evolution is the means of creation and the timeline was not measured by our current definition of years.

For the sake of argument, if the Old Testament were written by men why would it be necessary to explain every step of how man was created from dust need explained in the books / scrolls, when the important aspect is that we and everything else "were" created from dust, star dust if you will? Isn't that, in essence, what evolution seeks to explain: "how" we were created- the jump from simple molecules to complex life forms?

The great fallacy, in my opinion, is the confusion surrounding the definition of years. According to Relativity, time is experienced differently based on the frame of reference. Is it not possible that to someone outside of the Universe, our evolution took place in ~6500 of their years, while to us inside the expanding Universe, it took nearly 14 billion years?

And for the record, I'm not religious. I just have an open mind.

That seems like a cop-out to me, and it isn't supported by any holy books.

Another interesting question would by why does the OT never give any helpful advice? Such as bacteria and viruses causing disease, it would have saved billions.

If God had experienced our evolution in 6,500, why would he give US HIS time? why not tell us the correct time? Surely a God could do that? Unless this god is a tad weak.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Well the bible is correct. We are all made of dust. Star dust to be more precise.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie
dont believe anything you hear...

Then we would know nothing.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Before this it was in question? I'm pretty sure human evolution is pretty firm in saying we evolved from an ape like ancestor.


Not really. Evolution seems to work reasonably well (though many holes still remain in theory) for most species but it tends to fall apart to a degree for us, man.


Also, surprised no-one has mentioned this yet. It is not a complete skeleton as the opening paragraph suggests.


from linked article in the OP
"It is not a single find, but several specimens representing several individuals. The remains now being brought to light by Dr Berger and his team are wonderful."

The new fossil skeleton was found along with a number of other partially-complete fossils, encased within breccia sedimentary rock inside a limestone cave known as Malapa cave.


So at best this find is a estimation based on assume knowledge by the scientists involved. Yes, it is certainly an interesting find and one which will help fill in some holes in the text books.

Undeniable proof of man's evolution from apes? Not for me, many serious questions still remain.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join