Missing Link Found. No, really.

reply to post by mamabeth


Have you not seen Dubya?...



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

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]]

Yes amazing how many people will put aside the obvious and logical conclusion in exchange for magic and wizards.

I used to be pretty devout Christian to I actually decided to use my brain. Remember the Salem Witch trials and how we now look back on those days and people of the time must have been backward and idiots? Modern religion is absolutely the same thing.

It is very scary that we allow people who believe in magic wizards to run countries with Nuke or other weaponry that could end us all. It is lunacy.

You seriously have to be fairly uneducated, brainwashed or susceptible to delusions to believe any of that crap. I MEAN REALLY.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

"The missing link" is generally referred to as the common ancestor linking late homonids and humans (Think chimp and human for instance), and this link has already been found.

Has it been found?

Was it this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or, possibly, this?

Every unidentified species in the line that stretches back from your children to the beginning of life is a missing link. Even if we restrict ourselves to the general reference, the common ancestor of humans and chimps has not been found; nor, in my opinion, is it ever likely to be, for reasons of probability as well as because 'species' is not a watertight definition of anything.

[edit on 17/7/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by sirnex


Alright...where did you get the impression I was religious(I'm not)? I merely pointed out you're being played by the very same 'scientists' you put above yourself as some kind of all-knowing people.

Kind of how religious people put their books above logic. How convenient.

Next time, please try to read and comprehend. I'd appreciate it if I was not likened to religious folk, thanks.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Zamini]

reply to post by Astyanax


there is no 'missing link' that will ever prove evolution - every 'link' that is ever found simply shows abrupt transformations, not slow transitions.

i've been an evolutionist my whole life, but it just doesn't make sense, anymore. sorry.

interesting find, though.

reply to post by Zamini

Alright...where did you get the impression I was religious(I'm not)?

You used a common ill thought out religious argument against homo sapiens origins as a species. Naturally one would be inclined to assume the person making such an argument is more religiously inclined.

I merely pointed out you're being played by the very same 'scientists' you put above yourself as some kind of all-knowing people.

What an ignorant statement. Scientists don't put themselves above anyone or act as if they are all knowing people at all. Science is simply not stagnate, it's an ever changing and evolving flow of knowledge and every scientists is well aware that current theories and 'facts' will eventually be replaced due to new knowledge and discoveries.

Kind of how religious people put their books above logic. How convenient.

You have a very weak understanding of what science is.

Next time, please try to read and comprehend. I'd appreciate it if I was not likened to religious folk, thanks.

It has nothing to do with comprehending what one is reading. Your argument simply contained language and logic usually put forth by one who is religious. Due to having no previous dealings with you and judging your beliefs based on your logic and language, I naturally made the assumption that you were religious.

Learn to think properly next time so you can put forth a more well thought out post. That's all!

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by Astyanax

 

there is no 'missing link' that will ever prove evolution - every 'link' that is ever found simply shows abrupt transformations, not slow transitions.

i've been an evolutionist my whole life, but it just doesn't make sense, anymore. sorry.

interesting find, though.

I would like to point out that not every dead thing is fossilized. Fossilization requires very specific conditions and if those conditions are not met, then a fossil simply won't form. For that very reason, you will never find a slow and progressive series of fossils. If your lack of not understanding the process behind fossilization is causing you to show disbelief in Evolutionary Theory, then perhaps you should consider learning more about the two processes rather than simply dismissing it due to your own inabilities to grasp them.

reply to post by mamabeth

So no honest answer then, just a joky evasion.

Unable to rise to the challenge as a Christian?

[edit on 17/7/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Right now I am sick,you will have to
take a number and wait your turn!

Man may have hybridized with Chimps and the offspring may have been viable....
Man those beer bottle botton glasses gotta stop....(Burp! hic!)
Gee Honey yer lookin good tonight...

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006

When the ancestors of human beings and the ancestors of chimpanzees parted ways 6.3 million years ago, it was probably a very long goodbye. Some of their descendants may even have gone back for a final tryst.

That is the conclusion a group of scientists has reached, using a comparison of the genes of humans and their closest animal relatives to sketch a picture of human origins far more detailed than what fossil bones have revealed.

According to the new theory, chimps and humans shared a common apelike ancestor much more recently than was thought. Furthermore, when the two emerging species split from each other, it was not a clean break. Some members of the two groups seem to have interbred about 1.2 million years after they first diverged -- before going their separate ways for good.

If this theory proves correct, it will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids. That is a new idea, and it challenges the prevailing view that hybrids tend to die out.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Harvard and MIT scientists I might edit to add

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by PublicDefenseCorp


I have enough IQ points that I don't have to
debase myself with using vulgar language!

I must really be important...you responded
to my post!

reply to post by Astyanax


One question for you...
What sources will you accept as being reliable?

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Astyanax

 

One question for you...
What sources will you accept as being reliable?

One would assume any source that has been confirmed to be true and accurate within the bounds of the scientific method thus disallowing any biased opinion and empty claim of accuracy and truth.

reply to post by mamabeth


Well, actual peer reviewed sources would be a good start. Some good places to start would be Nature and [Science. All of their articles are up online for free and they are two of the oldest and most respected scientific journals in the world.

im curently trying to find a link i read a while ago that eitehr the pope or one of the popes or some other high ranking member of the catholic church said that no longer can evoloution be ignored etc every time i search i just get a bunch of pages where church people were outraged etc if i can find it ill post it here or if any one is better then me at finding such things i would love to have it linked here by some one else cant for the life of me find it again....
and if this is the missing link thats cool im all for science discovering things i just hope they didnt just screw up and say they found it when they didnt

www.theregister.co.uk...
www.theregister.co.uk...
i know its old but its the closest thing i could find

[edit on 17-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

[edit on 17-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

reply to post by sirnex


I don't recall rattling your cage!
My question was for the op on what sources
he would consider reliable.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by sirnex

 

I don't recall rattling your cage!
My question was for the op on what sources
he would consider reliable.

I understand that and assuming from previous dealings with the OP, I assume that he would expect sources that are scientifically verified as being true.

Hey , there could be something to this, what about big foot? It still runs around all over. Maybe it is the missing link and bigfoot is so smart, it manages to somehow get away. I named bigfoot, CHEWBACCA. Maybe this missing link gets away, because chewbacca goes into his spaceship and flys away. who knows, MISSING LINK AND ALL.

reply to post by mamabeth

You don't need sources to answer a question about how you feel about something.

All you have to do is tell us.

You disappoint me, mamabeth. Despite your showy Christian posturing, you apparently cannot be honest enough to tell the truth when asked a simple question, but dodge and wriggle like a cheap shyster, quibbling over inane, irrelevant details. Are you too ashamed of yourself to give a simple, honest answer? Perhaps you should be.

So in the end, you are nothing better than an empty vessel...

[edit on 18/7/10 by Astyanax]