Missing Link Found. No, really.

Originally posted by sirnex

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.

Hysterical. Because I don't agree with you, it's because I can't grasp concepts. Nice argument.

Debate over.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


I'm merely pointing out that the process of fossilization requires specific conditions to occur and that you will never find a slow transition of fossils leading from one species to the next. Your argument about such is simply unfounded as an argument against Evolutionary Theory, which is an entirely different process from how fossils form.

Mamabeth refuses to give me a straight answer to the following question:

Astyanax: if the Bible had nothing to say on the matter and it was left up to you to believe it or not, how would you feel about having been descended from apes?

I'm not really surprised at her evasiveness. Answering me truthfully would mean acknowledging that, for her as for many other Christians, religious grounds are merely an excuse to deny evolution. The real reason why they reject it is because they cannot bear to accept that they are animals. From this root springs all their defiance of science and reason. It isn't about faith, about God's word versus Darwin's--it's about viscerally rejecting the thought that Great-Grandmother was an ape.

I believe the trouble people have with the concept of the common ancestor also has its origin in these feelings. Confused by their anxieties over carrying the taint of chimpanzee or monkey in their blood, they fail to make the distinction between ancestry and consanguinity.

The truth, of course, is that chimps and monkeys are not links preceding us on some imaginary Great Chain of Being; they are our cousins, more or less distant.

The chart below may help clear up the confusion. Think of it as a family tree, but one read from left to right instead of top to bottom.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f4ea6d3b2b47.gif[/atsimg]
The black line that enters the figure at top left represents one line of descent from the common ancestor of all simians (also known as 'the higher primates'). This line ends in the catarrhines, an order that includes the apes and all the Old World monkeys. The monkeys (baboons and the rest) then go off in one direction, the apes in another. The ape line splits and splits again, giving rise to the ancestors of chimps, gorillas and so on, as well as to our own ancestors. The monkey line splits over and over again too, but that branch of the tree isn't shown in the picture.

The animals listed on the extreme right of the tree are cousins, not ancestors and descendents.

The above chart is taken from an excellent page on human evolution, which also contains a detailed diagram of the human family tree as we know it today. A good look at this will clear up many of the misunderstandings people have about human origins.

Acknowledging our animal origins is not easy. It takes maturity and moral courage to do so. It shows that we have evolved sufficient humanity to be able to look back on our beginnings without fear and disgust. By contrast, those who continue to insist on our superiority to the brutes unwittingly emphasize our proximity to them instead.

[edit on 26/7/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


1.I was having problems with my computer's keyboard.
2.I have been sick.
3.My husband is home from work sick now.
These are higher priorities than answering your question.
I would not be too happy if my ancestors swung from trees.
Since I know that they didn't,no problem.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Astyanax

 

1.I was having problems with my computer's keyboard.
2.I have been sick.
3.My husband is home from work sick now.
These are higher priorities than answering your question.
I would not be too happy if my ancestors swung from trees.
Since I know that they didn't,no problem.

Excuses excuses....

Legit question i have here :

Did you consult a doctor regarding your and your husbands sickness?
If so, please realise that most of modern medicine is derived from and finds it's origins in Biology, a science which does recognize evolution as a fact...

Or did you just pray and got better?

So you selectively reject evolution when it comes down to the fact that your (very distant) ancestors swung from trees, but you don't mind using modern medicine which was founded on those same idea's you reject because of your religious upbringing.



What are fossils , and who put them in the earth, and why?

reply to post by XyZeR


I took you off ignore for a very short time...
It is difficult to type on a keyboard that WON'T type!(problem fixed)
I have been having a lot of headaches lately(you don't help).
You will never accept anything that I think is truth,why waste
time?
So,I am moooving on,tah tah!

To the poster of the second post I must say I admire you dedication to the bible but ever think Adam and Eve were really just 2 big hairy apes and god is a giant monkey eating a banana?

Xiamara
If there is a hell, and the bible is right, thanks to this post I will most likely be going there..

Originally posted by mamabeth
You will never accept anything that I think is truth

That's where you're wrong then, again. (nice deflection away from my questions btw)

On the contrary, I'll gladly accept your claims if you produce proof to back it up, that's how things work in the real world. Make claims> show proof> claim gets accepted... can't produce proof> claim is dismissed.

So as long as you keep making statements like "I'm SURE that I don't come from a common ancestor who swung from trees, because I just know" without any facts to back it up other then: i read it in the bible, or heard this in church, then you're right, I won't accept anything you choose to believe as "truth".

I'll hurl another tough question towards you in the hope of you finding the answer: Why did "god" equip us modern humans with a tail bone (which in the world I live in is a remnant of our human evolution) what's the deal with that? in your "truth"? why did god give us those?

Goodluck with your keyboard btw...

edit: added link to wikipedia page on tailbones








[edit on 26-7-2010 by XyZeR]

[edit on 26-7-2010 by XyZeR]

There is no missing link,we were created by the annunaki. We are a mix of annunaki and a hominid created to be slaves for the annunaki.And before anyone shoots this down,I suggest reading Zecheriah Sitchens books they make a lot of sense on this subject. But I know many bible believers will shoot it down any way without reading them, because they are not open to anything else. The stories of the bible were written several thousand years earlier and then loosley copied by the authors of the bible.If you look at the proof this fact is undeniable.

reply to post by starseed33

We're talking evolution here, not religious doctrine. Molecular biology is pretty advanced nowadays; we can see the evidence of ten-million-year-old viral infections in our DNA. Evidence of massive manipulation over a relatively brief period of time some thousands of years ago would be obvious.

Our genomes are not very different from those of our animal relatives. Our cousins the chimps share about 95 percent of our genes. With our first cousins the Neanderthals, the share is, as you might expect, even higher: more like 99 percent.

Scientists say they have recovered 60 percent of the genome so far and hope to complete it. By comparing that genome with those of various present day humans, the team concluded that about 1 percent to 4 percent of the genome of non-Africans today is derived from Neanderthals. NY Times

So your Annunaki pals--sorry, ancestors--wouldn't have had a lot to do, really. Jiggle a hundred and fifty or so genes about a bit, and hey presto, Adam and Eve!

Is it possible that I believe parts of *both* of the above posts?

reply to post by Astyanax

I wasnt talking bible doctrines. I stated my beliefs on evolution,and commented on the fact that bible believers want even give anything else a thought.I put that in there because I knew a it would get shot down pretty quick. That was a good post you shared,by the way.

reply to post by Astyanax


Not contradicting, just clarifying.

In evolutionary theory, every individual that breeds successfully is a link. There's really no such thing as a singular specific "missing link." "Species" is a pretty much arbitrary term that is there simply because we like to organize things neatly; there is no defined point in the family history when one species stops and another begins. , only a gradual divergence of two populations of the same species.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
In evolutionary theory, every individual that breeds successfully is a link. There's really no such thing as a singular specific "missing link." "Species" is a pretty much arbitrary term that is there simply because we like to organize things neatly; there is no defined point in the family history when one species stops and another begins, only a gradual divergence of two populations of the same species.

Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification; this kind of thing can't be repeated too often.

From an earlier post in the thread:

Astyanax:
Every unidentified species in the line that stretches back from your children to the beginning of life is a missing link...'species' is not a watertight definition of anything.