Missing Link Found. No, really.

A 29-million-year-old fossil skull, recently discovered in the Hijaz mountains of Saudi Arabia, turns out to bear resemblances to modern monkeys and modern apes. The skull is likely to be from a species that was a common ancestor of both apes and monkeys.

Researchers have discovered the skull of a 29 million-year-old animal that could be a common ancestor of Old World monkeys and apes, including humans. It indicates that apes and Old World monkeys diverged millions of years later than previously thought, say the scientists.

The discovery was made in Saudi Arabia by researchers from the University of Michigan. They described the primate, Saadanius hijazensis, in the journal Nature. Dr William Sanders from the University of Michigan, who led the research, said this was "an extraordinary find".

The skull of this previously unknown species had some features that are shared by Old World monkeys and apes, including humans, today. "Saadanius is close to a group that eventually led to us," said Dr Sanders.

Fossil links humans and monkeys

Just to explain the title: we are descended from apes. Apes and ancestors are descended from a common ancestory: this one, perhaps.

An important 'missing link' has been found.

How about the evidence that Humans are comes from Adam and Eve?

there is no evidence adam eve were ever alive .
and even the bible says cane went out to another land to find his wife.
which he would not have done if there were only mom dad sisters and sons/
theres lots and lots of evidence humans evolved .
just the fact our dna matches the chimps 99.9% is good evidence we are kissing cousins.
of corse I am sure you also think the universe is only 7k years old and the whole space program is faked

[edit on 15-7-2010 by xxcalbier]

Every now and then the "missing link" is found. Which link in the chain are you exactly talking about? What methods of dating were used to date this skull back to a whopping 26 million years ago? Who is this professor? Why in Saudi-Arabia?
And just because it was discovered doesn't mean evolution is true.

Something smells fishy.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Zamini]

Wow, 2 out of three replies at this point refute the find based on evolution being a fraud (ie religion is right)?

We really are on the verge of another dark age.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by Zamini
And just because it was discovered doesn't mean evolution is true.
[edit on 15-7-2010 by Zamini]

Creationist: We can't believe in "Evil"ution in show us the goddamn missing link!!
Scientist: We found it here it is...
Creationists: Not good enough as evidence, evilution is still a fairy tale...

Even if science provides all the missing links and fill the gaps between the fossils, fundamentalist religious zealots will always find a way to dismiss it.

I for one am hyped about this news!

Here's the graphic

I still cant believe that in this day and age people still think that what the bible tells them is true. Hasn't science proved enough to us?.

reply to post by Astyanax


Well, your ancestors may have swung from trees,
mine didn't,mine were created by God!

Originally posted by [davinci]
Wow, 2 out of three replies at this point refute the find based on evolution being a fraud (ie religion is right)?

We really are on the verge of another dark age.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by [davinci]]

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong and right at the same time. My point was not that evolution is false or correct ( or religion for that matter). Rather; just because someone sticks scientific behind an article doesn't mean it is any less propaganda than previous articles.

Furthermore you should look into this thing they call "science" and you will find a lot of these scientists oppose eachother more so than you oppose religion, for example: methods used to date archeological findings.

You guys do realize every year they find a skull or skeleton that promises to be proof of THE LINK between humans and apes, right? And you realize it simply can't be proven, right?

You're making me wonder who the zealot is, you should notice how the militant atheïst approach is very much the same as the religious approach, it's just the story that is different. Oh, don't forget to NOT kill in the name of science when you come across a more intellectual person than yourself in real life. One who doesn't eat third rate propaganda articles as scientific fact.

Deny ignorance?

EDIT:

"Researchers have discovered the skull of a 29 million-year-old animal that could be a common ancestor of Old World monkeys and apes, including humans.

Note the word "COULD". See it yet?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Zamini]

reply to post by XyZeR


So, do you typically divide everyone with an opinion into two groups? Evolutionist or creatonist? You don't see ANYTHING wrong with that?

reply to post by XyZeR


If you don't believe in God,then stop taking His
name in vain!Also,can't you post without cussing?

reply to post by Zamini


Thank you for the lecture, I'm going to call the registrar and demand all the money I spent on my biology degree back.

It's funny that you made the comments that you have even after the post showing that at 29ish million years this is a distant ancestor to all primates, not just humans. As far as proof I'm going to go out on a limb and say that dating methods are pretty reliable.

It's a pretty sturdy limb too; I have personally collected, catelogued and prepped samples for dating (sadly my university didn't have it's own lab or I would have done that too) so I am fully aware of the limitations.

It's odd though, I Googled the dating methods that are used by science and it wasn't until the bottom of the second page that I came across something actually presented by a scientist/lab...everything else was religious sites explaining why the science is wrong.

Seems like a lot of effort expended by people who are supposedly secure in their beliefs.

I also find it curious that scientific debate on issues is a key factor in people's dismissal. The defining quality of science is to question and argue ideas, not blindly accept what they are told. Unlike religion where everything is an unquestionable fact, science has theories that can be proven wrong or incomplete.

My post made no comment beyond the fact that 2/3 responses questioned evolution. I find this odd because most of the educated believers that I know can at least concede that GOD probably used evolution to create us instead of *POOF* here we are.

Perhaps though before calling me a militant athiest (which I am not) or a scientific zealot (which again I am not) you should take even just a moment to find out which one of the two of us has the problem.

The funniest part of all this is that if the Garden of Eden was discovered and dated it to 6000ish years ago there wouldn't be a peep about how biased or inaccurate the methods are.

Odd.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by XyZeR

 

If you don't believe in God,then stop taking His
name in vain!Also,can't you post without cussing?

Boy, you're truly rich, you come in this thread, belittling people who have their opinion based on science, to claim that "god made me"

Well, your ancestors may have swung from trees,
mine didn't,mine were created by God!

Yeah looks like he rushed it....where teh evidence for that, there's not even 1 missing link for that you can show me.

But....Ok then, we should all just ditch evolution altogether, because Mamabeth said so...God made everything, case closed!

You've stepped into this thread, posted 2 posts that contribute absolutely nothing at all, and then you call me out for using "his name in vain".. Which god are we talking about ... Vishnu, Thor, Wodan, Apollo? FYI i can use the "lords" name in as much vain as i decide to.

Meanwhile the topic of this thread is about the "missing link", something that goes way over the heads of people who decide to use a 2000year old fantasy book as evidence for creation...

So, do you typically divide everyone with an opinion into two groups? Evolutionist or creationist? You don't see ANYTHING wrong with that?

Nope i don't, you seem to think i do based on 1 posts...judgmental much?

You can't debunk a scientific claim with 1 line of religious bs, at least not in the world where I live.

Edit: spelling








[edit on 15-7-2010 by XyZeR]

reply to post by mamabeth

If you don't believe in God,then stop taking His name in vain!

I dont think he mention any names of gods at all. Isnt your gods name Yahweh? There are many gods you know.

God is a title to descibe any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

[edit on 15/7/2010 by Daniem]

I like to explain to xians that:
Man shares 50 percent the same DNA as a BANANA*,
let alone sharing a common ancestor with apes, monkeys, and chimps.

*Might explain the current state of affairs.

reply to post by XyZeR


I have dealt with the op before this thread.
I don't know you from any previous threads!
I couldn't finish reading your post because
you had cussed in it.

Study the brain neurons between ape and man.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by XyZeR

 

I couldn't finish reading your post because
you had cussed in it.

Oh my.... lol
Care to show me where I did that (cussing i mean), or are you talking about me using the word "goddamn" if so: that's not cussing, if it would be, it would be censored by this site and translated into "**##"-signs .

Like so: "# off"(merely posting this as an example)
You see, bad (swearing and cussing) words are put trough a word filter on these boards..

So first you react to me posting that I "used the lord's name in vain" and then you post that you couldn't read my post because there's cussing in it..
when asked which "lord of god" you're reffering to, you dodge the question.

You still have yet to react (and show 1 piece of evidence) to the claim you made that "god" made you. (which is an bold claim and requires bold proof)
My bet is you can't produce even a single shred of evidence towards that. Except with bible quotes, which to me are not evidence, just as 26 year old skull fossils don't register as proof in your book.

Let's hope we can get back on topic: ie the missing link which was recently found.

reply to post by XyZeR


Since you seem to lack the ability to post without using profanity,
I will explain to you why I can't read your entire posts.The "D"
word you use after God is PROFANITY!

I mentioned, in a previous post, study the differences between
an apes brain neurons and man's.That,is staying on topic

T&C rule #1b:profanity

[edit on 15-7-2010 by mamabeth]

reply to post by mamabeth


So you can't read the Bible because it uses the "D word?" As for the neuron thing all I'm really turning up is that we have more mirror neurons and that our neurons have more connections. Knowing the evolution of the brain and the principles of neuroplasticity this all makes sense.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by XyZeR

 

The "D"
word you use after God is PROFANITY!

No it isn't, only to you who choose to be offended by it. It's well within the t&c's of this site
I can post as many god-damns as i like on this board, and if not a mod will remove it or the word filter would intervene. No need for religious back seat moderating like your doing here. that'll be a sad day for ATS when the fanatic religious here determine what can be said and what not...


anyway.... to stay on topic ...When you say study the difference between apes neurons and human neurons, where did you get that information from?
Care to link it for us?

But you got it from a scientific study I presume... So if not for science, you wouldn't know
neurons exist in the first place.... Oh the irony...

So it's ok to accept scientific claims if it benefits your views
but it's also ok to dismiss them with a simple "god made me, i don't come from a common ancestor" if they are in conflict with your acquired belief system.

Ok i get that now, handy i must say!

And to be clear: i'm not attacking religion, I'm defending science...