Missing link between man and apes found

Originally posted by srsen
But it flies directly in the face of gradualism - a theory which in central to theory of evolution. From the horses mouth. I just question why issues like this have not been explored by the scientists. Suspicious to me

You're wrong and as soon as you give me examples of "issues" I'll show you exactly how you're wrong.

Originally posted by abecedarian
The Bible says man was created from the dust. To assume the hominids weren't occupants on the varied steps and branches on the ladder of evolution without attribution to history is very short-sighted.

Man was genetically created from the "dust" of this world, the DNA of the humanoids that walked this planet before us, and the DNA of the gods. And they created us in their likeness and image.

In order for a race to survive on a planet, they have to have the DNA from the species that lives on that planet.

If we traveled to another solar system to visit a planet, there could be any number of things on that planet that could make us sick or kill us because our immune system and bodies aren't ready or accustomed to those threats. But an individual that was created from our DNA and from the DNA of the species on that planet would be able to survive on that planet, and still have a resemblance to us.

There is little to no evidence that modern human evolved on this planet from the humanoids that walked before us. There is, however, abundant evidence that our creators came to this world from the heavens and created us in their image and likeness.

The use of the term 'missing link' is misleading. Gradual changes are called micro-evolution which no one disputes(not even the Catholic Church). It's what Darwin called 'survival of the fittest'. So 2 million years ago an ape-like creature took on some new characteristics but still remained essentially ape-like.

The aspect of evolution, which Darwin could NOT explain by the way, is that over time you get a completely new species and the problem with this theory from the point of view of fossils is that there aren't ANY intermediate fossils that are half one thing and half another thing. I'm not just talking about human fossils. I'm talking about ALL fossils. There are thousands of fossils of trilobytes of varying sizes, some longer, some shorter but they're all trilobytes, not half trilobyte and half something else.

After the mass extinctions that happened every 65 million years or so, you get an explosion of completely new species but no 'missing links' of any kind.

The problem with Evolution is that it's proponents point to it's successes like micro-evolution and ignore it's failures like missing links.

Take apes and humans. All apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Evolutionists would have you believe that somewhere, somehow an ape-ancentor was born with only 46 chromosomes and was somehow able to mate with a 48 chromosome partner to produce a whole new race of 46 chromosome offspring ie. humans. There is another identical situation that demonstrates how ludicrous this is.

Horses have 48 chromosomes and donkeys have 46(or vice versa I forget which). When you mate a horse with a donkey, you get a mule. Mules have 47 chromosomes and are sterile. Mules can mate with other mules all day long but will NOT have any offspring.

You ask any evolutionary geneticist or biologist how they can explain this discrepancy and their eyes glaze over and they mumble something that sounds like 'I don't know.'

I wish I could remember the name of a Nobel prize-winning scientist, who said that if the theory of evolution were tested the same way with the same rigor as any other scientific theory was tested, it would fail miserably.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Good attempt at promoting misinformation and ignorance, but it doesn't cut the mustard. There is a good deal of misunderstanding on how evolution works. Thinking that there would be some sort of half dog half cat evolution missing link is sheer nonsense. Species evolve over time and there are a number of intermediary ancestors in a variety of species that have been found. Look and you will find them in abundance.

Your point on the number of chromosomes shows that you haven't researched the material very well. Fused chromosomes are not something where scientists shrug their shoulders and say "I don't know." It is simply a case of YOU not understanding the material, or perhaps not bothering to learn about it. This is much like the case with so called "Junk DNA" No such thing, it is simply a misunderstanding by people who do not know what they are talking about.

The science of DNA and Evolution has gone under a great deal of expansion in the past few decades and there is a great deal of new information available to those who truly wish to learn.

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by AccessDeniedNot what I was referring too..
The point of both Humans and Apes coming from Adam..THAT FACT would have been stated in the bible just as the lineage of all others is noted.

When did I imply humans and apes came from Adam?

Where does the bible state that scorpions and spiders are descendant from isopod and other crustacean?

The relevance being in that the bible does not state those things, leaving us to fill in the blanks.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by abecedarian]

I was quoting the member masonicon..who stated he believed man and ape both came from Adam.

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

and modified by the Anunnaki, Nordics and Greys.

reply to post by Terapin


My understanding of human versus ape chromosomes is well researched. I've tried to find a convincing explanation of a) what caused two ape chromosomes to fuse in the first place and b) how could a single individual either male or female with 46 chromosomes, produce more 46 chromosome offspring and I have not yet found any kind of detailed explanation. Take the fused chromosome for example. It isn't just two chromosomes sticking together. Oh no! There's more to it than that. Let's call the two chromosomes A and B. What apparently happened is that A lost a few of it's base pairs on one end and B lost a few of it's base pairs on one end and then a chunk of DNA, which doesn't match any DNA in any of the other chromosomes, somehow appeared out of nowhere and just happened to connect to both of the shortened ends of A and B. So this fused chromosome does have a lot of the same genes as the two chromosomes that preceded it but it's not exactly the same because of the changes in the middle. This information I did find in a scientific journal. The author describes the missing bits on each end and the fact that the piece in the middle isn't a copy of, or broke off of, any other chromosome. The author did NOT go into the implications of this information nor did he explain why or how it happened.

In any case, if horses and donkeys produce mules then how can apes and 'humans' produce just humans? You explain that.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Studenofhistory]

reply to post by Terapin


Here's another 'miracle' that evolutionists are unable to explain. How did millions of single-celled organisms, that are not specialized in any way, suddenly all decide to 'stick' together to form the first multi-cell creature, with some of the formerly single cell organisms now specializing as muscle, others as lungs, others as skin, others as...etc. ? If you or anyone else has a scientificly accurate explanation of how that happened, I'd very much like to hear it.

reply to post by Terapin


You say missing link fossil evidence is abundant? Here's your chance to shut me up.

I'm issuing a challenge. I dare you to find a photo of a fossil that has some of the characteristics of a species that existed prior to the last mass extinction AND also has some of the characteristics of a completely new species that appeared after the extinction. THAT'S a missing link. If you can do that, I'll concede your point.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There is little to no evidence that modern human evolved on this planet from the humanoids that walked before us. There is, however, abundant evidence that our creators came to this world from the heavens and created us in their image and likeness.

+90% similarity with higher primates DNA is no evidence of common evoluition?

And yet there is no evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation and still you claim our creators came to this world from the heavens? You don't believe in god but believe in alien creation? An alien creator of our race would be no less than a god, in our eyes.

Fair enough. By your admission, humans are neither the result of evolution nor religious creation.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


if you want fossil records of intermediary species from before mass extinction and after mass extinction such as occurred with the Dinosaurs, I suggest you look at rodentia. I am not doing your homework for you.

reply to post by Terapin


No. Sorry. Challenges don't work that way. You made the claim that fossil evidence is abundant. I gave you a chance to prove. You can't or can't be bothered to, prove it so YOUR claim is unsubstantiated.

OK lets go back to the Horse/Donkey thing. The proof that Horses and Donkeys had a common ancestor lies in the fact that they can breed. The proof that they are diverging lies in the fact that their breeding is unsuccessful. They only produce broken offspring than can not reproduce. The Donkey is a living divergent species, or future "missing link" between horse and what ever comes next. Take a look at the fossil record of horse evolution and you will see quite clearly what I mean.

The common domesticated pet dog can breed with the wild wolf as they have not diverged that far yet, but a bear and a fox can not breed because they are too far apart on the tree of evolution despite having common ancestors in the canine family branch.

Take a look at the evolution of the horseshoe crab if you want to see where the trilobite descendants winded up.

And once again for those who continue to get it wrong, Man did not evolve from Gorillas or what we call Apes, we share a common ancestor. People who ask why Apes still exist really have no clue.

reply to post by Terapin


I notice that you didn't respond to my detailed description of how the 2 chromosomes fused or my question concerning the miracle of the first multi-celled organism. Don't have an answer for those? You're not alone. Nobody does.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


I see you, are too lazy to actually bother to learn, therefor you deny all knowledge that you do not possess. Way to go in promoting self ignorance.

The material is easy to find. If you choose ignorance that is certainly your right.

If you wish to learn, try searching "Transition Fossils"
Here, this LONG list will get you started Transition Fossils FAQ

Here, this link will help you to understand the concept of Fused Chromosomes, which still happens in some Humans today on a fairly regular basis (about 1 in every 1000 babies) It is simple enough that even you can follow it and you do not need a university degree.Understanging Genetics

[edit on 4/4/10 by Terapin]

reply to post by Terapin


I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear about the horse and donkey thing because you clearly don't get it.

Modern apes still have 48 chromosomes just like their distant ancestors that evolution claims are also our ancestors. So somewhere along the line, there had to have been the first 46 chromosome version. How exactly that happened is one of the 'miracles' of evolution but the point I'm trying to make is this.

How can that first 46 chromosome version have more 46 chromosome offspring if he or she is surrounded by 48 chromosome potential mates? Why didn't that one individual have sterile offspring the same way that horses and donkeys have sterile offspring? It's not entirely clear that apes and humans could produce any offspring at all. Evolution should be able to come up with at least a plausible theory of how this could happen but it doesn't. I know because I've looked for one.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Look again as I provided you to one link and there are many more. The concept of fused chromosomes is not magic. See above link on Genetics

[edit on 4/4/10 by Terapin]

reply to post by Terapin


I see that you've descended to name calling. Very intellectual of you.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
It's what Darwin called 'survival of the fittest'.

No he didn't. That term is actually misleading and was coined by Herbert Spencer. Nice to see you've scratched further than the surface...

Such a shame that such an interesting archeological find,instead of being debated scientifically, is immediately used as evidence to jab at creationism, deliberately creating a back and forth arguement.

How sad, that such a discover being posted on ats is immediately shrouded by such pettiness.