Missing link between man and apes found

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Izarith
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Why the hell do so many people have such a hard-on to find out and prove we came from Apes?

You all clap and eooooooo and ahhhhhhh over any old ass bone that only adds more questions to the age old mystery of "did we come from a monkeys stinky vagina?".

Why?.....WHY?

LOL you guys remind me of crazy religious nuts who crumble to the floor in a fetal position every time a peperoni looks like Jesus on a pizza.

I'll tell you one this if by chance I some how by total mistake discover I am a descendant of a god damn ape.....I'm keeping that in the closet.....

Some things are just to embarrassing for people to find out about.

Just because you embrace ignorance doesn't mean we all do.


Dude as a 100% heterosexual man I can honestly say I would gladly take ignorance up the poop hole if it meant that my secret of being a chimps descendant did not come out to public consideration.

God Man! I'm a human not a monkey!

Sure I pick my butt once in awhile and can admit to eating a few lice as a kid but I have never in my life jerked off while smoking a cigarette.....while in a Zoo. NEVER!

I mean really, why a monkey? What is this sick fascination, this ravenous hunger to discover a missing link to a God Damn ape?

Why not something cool like a lizard or a turtle, Dinosaurs even. It could be a theory just like the one that say we came from monkeys.....

But nooooo, every one will spend the rest of their lives hoping that tomorrow the missing link to a stupid monkey will be found.

I could just see the day the unveiling of some bunch of bones is shown to the world, all the children let out of school early, family members flying in from across the globe to rejoice and bask in the glow of the newly declared holiday of "I'm proud to be a tree monkey day"...*Facepalm*

Would peace will be declared on that day because every one will be too busy picking bugs out of their fellow neighbour hair to fight wars......

Hell, you know what I'm going to dump my life savings into Banana stock right now!

In the words of our beloved forefathers "ooo! oooo eeeee ahhh ooo eee AH!, AH! AHHHH!




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300
That is the Holy Trinity. All three were active in the creation. One God, 3 persons.

The original Hebrew bible, the Torah, says "gods" in the form of the plural noun "Elohim"


"Elohim" is the Hebrew plural word meaning "goddesses and gods", or in simple form: "the gods".


In Genesis where it says in the english bible that one "god" said let "us" make man in "our" image, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Religious fanatics like to make up trinities or ghosts and goblins to create the pluralized part. But using the word from the original Hebrew bible "Elohim" makes more sense: Elohim (the gods) said let "us" make man in "our" image. See? Simple, and no trinity or ghosts, goblins, etc.



Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300
I enjoy real history, and real science.

If you enjoyed real science, you would see that the "gods", or "those that came from the heavens (sky)" came to this world in their chariots and created us in their image and likeness. There isn't some magical, mysterious, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent being that created life, the universe and everything.

There could very well be a race of omnipotent beings in the universe, but gods they are not. They would seem like gods to our ancestors, but not to us in this day and age.







[edit on 5-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Religious dogma has nothing to do with this thread, take it elsewhere.

I would beg to differ. People are trying to claim that this is "definitive proof" of evolution. What you're trying to do is keep people that believe in creation from responding. Religious texts are some of the very foundations of the creation theory.

Sorry, but you're not the dictator on who can and cannot respond to these evolution theories.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Bare in mind that Noah was supposed to have lived for 900 or so years.
I think the Chinese counter parts lived in similar long life spans and believed in the judgement of individuals by these supernatural Gods/Emperors .
Science today is merely ----better tools and thousands of years of developmental evolution.
It's all good except for the bashers.



I actually find both the bible version and evolution to be very limited in explaining who we are and how we got here. We are just realizing that there has been other off shoots of an intelligent “man” that just didn’t make it that we once thought were actually a phase of our evolution. We have a long way still to go, as we see that people in the past maybe lived 10 times longer than what we do today. I always believed that we are either completely alone in the universe due to the inaccessibility and sheer size/distances we are talking about, or aliens have not only been here as long as we have but maybe helped create us. In any case it is a interesting twist to evolution that speaks more of religion/intelligent design.

Scientists hold on to their evolution dogma as tightly as those with their religious dogma do, and though the theories of evolution are sound they only explain the very basics of some influences in life, and only those influences that are a slow and long process. We can all agree with them, but how does evolution explain the apple pear hybrid?


We also see the world has not been a slow, long and stable platform for evolution. Even in modern times of us humans there is much evidence of this, but evolution dogma prevents people from seeing it. How does one explain “the great flood” that is throughout all surviving cultures around the world, or explain heavy vegetation in Antarctica, or ancient cities impossible to build or survive in at the high altitudes they are today, or great extinctions of animals over very short periods of time, even with some flash frozen that preserved their meat and last meal for 1000s of years.

Chapter one of the very big book of life should be evolution, and chapter two should be intelligent design, since we have much proof of both. Humans are gods in their own right for we are the creators of many alternate life forms that throw evolution out the _ We are the prime example of intelligent design by our crud manipulation of evolution.

So one can say that man is related to all other animals on earth through evolution, but also one could say we are an enigma too with other parts of us that evolution just can not explain.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Izarith

I mean really, why a monkey? What is this sick fascination, this ravenous hunger to discover a missing link to a God Damn ape?

Why not something cool like a lizard or a turtle, Dinosaurs even. It could be a theory just like the one that say we came from monkeys.....

But nooooo, every one will spend the rest of their lives hoping that tomorrow the missing link to a stupid monkey will be found.



Rhesus monkeys have like 93% of our DNA with a branch off of like 25 million years, Chimps are like 98 to 99% with a branch off of 6 million years, but then the horse has like 80% of our DNA, so what this tells us is some very strange animals were copulating like crazy sometime in our past...



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Religious dogma has nothing to do with this thread, take it elsewhere.

I would beg to differ. People are trying to claim that this is "definitive proof" of evolution. What you're trying to do is keep people that believe in creation from responding. Religious texts are some of the very foundations of the creation theory.

Sorry, but you're not the dictator on who can and cannot respond to these evolution theories.




I know I'm not, the board is, and it would be off-topic to put religious dogma in a thread about finding a new ancestor, no?
Just because people taunt this as proof of evolution doesn't mean you can post religious verses, you could refute it though, go ahead and refute evolution, your religious texts don't do that though, I don't know why creationists can't refute evolution without bringing up biblical verses..

[edit on 5-4-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Wow I came here to read about a fossil and walked into a debate on creation vs evolution. Lately everywhere I go to read about archeological, Paleontology, Anthropology or anything else related to history it breaks into this pointless debate.

I feel like I'm the only person that has a mind set where theism (not religion that is an institution based on rituals) and science can co-exist. That's why often times when such debates come up I argue both sides. Mind you in neither case am I an expert. I dislike all this name calling on both sides.

First off to these people spouting the bible as there truth how unchristian of you to condemn these people for there non belief. Leave them to the judgment of your god who may or may not exist if they choose not to believe. I mean really is the black book if you take it literally not specific enough on what happens to non believers? I wish I had some bible reference to push in the right direction but frankly I don't need the good book to fight my choosen battles.

Now to evolutionist that anger me just about as much as those religious fanatics they so love to bash. (mind neither of witch anger me as much as those people who see aliens in rocks on mars but that's a whole other rant.) Folks it's call a theory of evolution for a fact. The fact is is evolution is not a fact nor is proven it was it would be called the Law of evolution. It is all theory an Idea a concept if you will. This not to say it does not have a few facts with in much like the general theory of relativity has a few facts with it but as a whole is not proven. Allot of you seem to forget this. Also to note like those religious fanatics you so love to hate on you are fanatics yourself with the way go about saying bamf proof in your face.

Just like fighting over whose god is the right god that has gone on for centuries. Your fighting the same battle weather you want to admit or not. You trying to them they shouldn't believe this because of these set of facts and there telling you your wrong because of another. Eventually someone will pull out a gun and it will be the crusades all over again. (if you are not where the original point of the crusades was to push the Muslims (the rival god) out of Europe and out of the holy land. Same battle new gods, new battle field, no holy land to protect.

I applaud those alien creationist people I mean I don't hold there belief but at least they just share there idea with out having to bash someone else to prove what they believe.

To the OP thanks for the post I love reading things on fossil finds. As for it being the missing link well like a few other people have said there have been many missing links. It's just probably one more piece to puzzle but still an excellent find.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OWoutcast
Now to evolutionist that anger me just about as much as those religious fanatics they so love to bash. (mind neither of witch anger me as much as those people who see aliens in rocks on mars but that's a whole other rant.) Folks it's call a theory of evolution for a fact. The fact is is evolution is not a fact nor is proven it was it would be called the Law of evolution. It is all theory an Idea a concept if you will. This not to say it does not have a few facts with in much like the general theory of relativity has a few facts with it but as a whole is not proven. Allot of you seem to forget this. Also to note like those religious fanatics you so love to hate on you are fanatics yourself with the way go about saying bamf proof in your face.

A few facts with it? It has everything going for it. There's nothing (absolutely nothing) going against it. You seemed to have forgotten this.



Just like fighting over whose god is the right god that has gone on for centuries. Your fighting the same battle weather you want to admit or not. You trying to them they shouldn't believe this because of these set of facts and there telling you your wrong because of another.

Yes, I am showing facts. They on the other hand are telling me I'm wrong because there's a book (there's usually a book). For example there's this one book that was put together by bunch of guys who got together and decided what was fact and what wasn't. I often wonder (not really) why they chose to include these texts that talked about some undead man-god hybrid thing over some other texts that lead the reader believe that there is no afterlife (or undead man-god hybrids), but lots of enlightenment instead.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I just wanted to point out that not every "religious type" is a creationist..... Not completely..

Personally I think we have found too many fossils that have been called "the missing link" that it's hard to tell if there is really enough evidence to back up the statement that this is the one....

Remember they thought it was a lemur at one point....



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I just wanted to point out that not every "religious type" is a creationist..... Not completely..

Personally I think we have found too many fossils that have been called "the missing link" that it's hard to tell if there is really enough evidence to back up the statement that this is the one....

Remember they thought it was a lemur at one point....

The idea of a missing link is rather bad as technically we're all transitional fossils



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
Personally I think we have found too many fossils that have been called "the missing link" that it's hard to tell if there is really enough evidence to back up the statement that this is the one....

Remember they thought it was a lemur at one point....

The one? Are you suggesting that there might be a pile of bones out there that would upon discovery end all the talk? BREAKING NEWS! THE MISSING LINK FOUND! You have to be specific when you talk about "missing links". You have to define them. You say "missing link between species A and B".

[edit on 5-4-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by DaMod
Personally I think we have found too many fossils that have been called "the missing link" that it's hard to tell if there is really enough evidence to back up the statement that this is the one....

Remember they thought it was a lemur at one point....

The one? Are you suggesting that there might be a pile of bones out there that would upon discovery end all the talk? BREAKING NEWS! THE MISSING LINK FOUND! You have to be specific when you talk about "missing links". You have to define them. You say "missing link between species A and B".

[edit on 5-4-2010 by rhinoceros]


A very solid point you've made here. the phrase "missing link" has been so overused to describe so many fossils that it's a bit misleading. generally when paleoanthropologists refer to the missing link they are talking about the common ancestor between homo sapiens and the rest of the great apes. in this particular case it's even more misleading because it's not so much a missing link as it is something that fills in the gaps in the fossil record we have for this particular species as we had previously not found anything remotely resembling a complete skeleton.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
A few facts with it? It has everything going for it. There's nothing (absolutely nothing) going against it. You seemed to have forgotten this.


I'm not going to argue it didn't happen or isn't happening right now. There are facts that support the theory of evolution it is still however a theory. It has opposition or else it would be a law of science like the law of motion or gravity. If it had absolutely nothing against it would be law and therefore proven.

You might try to argue religious nutcases prevent it from being made the law of evolution but that isn't true. Because really the common person has no say in what the scientific community makes law and never has. At one point and time religion had influence over what could be made scientific law because they had more power then kings but not anymore. You see there are these nifty little boards in the scientific community they decide what is science, what is acceptable science and what is fringe or pseudo science.

That same board is what decides what is scientific law and what is still theory. It deems evolution to theory and there for it has not reach the right amount of evidence to be proven as law. Truth being allot of it has do with the fact there competing versions of how certain evolutionary events happened and how some biological anomalies occur. There are still flaws that need to be worked out before the scientific community will give it's seal of approval to make it law. How ever you want to argue the facts it's still comes to yes you have those facts are awesome (I love the facts but then I don't deny evolution either) but its still a theory it isn't proven. When you go proven in your face and childish acts like makes question just how well evolution really worked out for us homo sapiens. That maybe just maybe the simplest of organism is the smartest not the most complicated one.



Yes, I am showing facts. They on the other hand are telling me I'm wrong because there's a book (there's usually a book). For example there's this one book that was put together by bunch of guys who got together and decided what was fact and what wasn't. I often wonder (not really) why they chose to include these texts that talked about some undead man-god hybrid thing over some other texts that lead the reader believe that there is no afterlife (or undead man-god hybrids), but lots of enlightenment instead.
[edit on 5-4-2010 by rhinoceros]


There wrong for arguing not for believing what they believe but just for the act of arguing. Then again your just as guilty for adding fuel the religious fervor by arguing back. You believe we came single celled organism, that latter turned into a fish, then turned into a reptile, then a small mammal, then an ape, then into us and not in some dude upstairs who is slightly stalkerish created us out of dirt. They believe in later. Me I find both intriguing but also both slightly creepy in there own right.

Now as for them hold up a book (I will use the christian Bible since that is the one I know best) as the proof verse the facts you have on evolution. Well the Black book I read even though severally edited by churches over the centuries to benefit there propaganda does still have it's facts in it. I mean it's not proof of god and yes it is a horribly in accurate history book but give me a history book written by men that isn't inaccurate in some manner?

The story of Noah for instance there is a flood story in almost every culture world wide. I mean even older text like sumer mention a huge flood of course it didn't cover the world but it was still a huge flood. Heck the sumer flood even has a guy like noah in it although he was a trader of live animals and was on a sailing barge with his trade goods when the floods happened. I'm just saying the bible has facts is proof of god well you need faith for that. faith is something you either got or don't. It can't be taught.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OWoutcast
I'm not going to argue it didn't happen or isn't happening right now. There are facts that support the theory of evolution it is still however a theory. It has opposition or else it would be a law of science like the law of motion or gravity. If it had absolutely nothing against it would be law and therefore proven.

Law of gravity? You mean Newton's law of universal gravitation? There's stuff against it. Actual observations disproved it (but it's still good for approximation). Nowadays we have general relativity (so far all tests have failed to disprove it). Why we came to call Newton's theory a law I don't know. Just like gravity, evolution is both fact and theory. The fact part is: evolution happens. The theory is an attempt to explain the mechanism. Every now and then some discovery makes us adjust evolutionary synthesis (epigenetics is a relatively recent example, it sort of killed the Weissmann barrier and gave Lamarck back a little). The basic idea however has remained the same for a very long time now and it's irrational to expect that it would ever change (it's about as likely that gravity will seize to exist).


Originally posted by OWoutcast
You see there are these nifty little boards in the scientific community they decide what is science, what is acceptable science and what is fringe or pseudo science.

That same board is what decides what is scientific law and what is still theory. It deems evolution to theory and there for it has not reach the right amount of evidence to be proven as law. Truth being allot of it has do with the fact there competing versions of how certain evolutionary events happened and how some biological anomalies occur. There are still flaws that need to be worked out before the scientific community will give it's seal of approval to make it law. How ever you want to argue the facts it's still comes to yes you have those facts are awesome (I love the facts but then I don't deny evolution either) but its still a theory it isn't proven. When you go proven in your face and childish acts like makes question just how well evolution really worked out for us homo sapiens. That maybe just maybe the simplest of organism is the smartest not the most complicated one.

That's not how science works. There are no boards that decide what is a law and what isn't (feel free to prove me wrong with a link to the board that will give seal of approval to evolution once it's "ready"). There are societies that give definitions (like what a planet is), but that is totally different. You have a really twisted idea of what science and academia is. When you set up an experiment you try to "prove" something by disproving it. If you fail to disprove (if it's your own hypothesis this is what you wanted) you've succeeded. Then you try disproving it again with some other experiment. The more tests your hypothesis stands the better it is. At some point you start calling it a theory. After 150 years of failed tests (or your words: "a few facts") you start thinking, maybe it really is like this, but still you call it a theory for in science (maybe apart from mathematics thanks to induction, etc.) things cannot be proven (the same way you can't prove that thrown rocks always eventually come down in Earth gravity).

[edit on 6-4-2010 by rhinoceros]





top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join