The 'missing link' Found

reply to post by Seektruthalways1


Thank you for posting Bible verses. That seems to clear this all up.



BTW. Just so you don't continue to incorrectly comment on evolution; the theory does not state that we came from apes, but that we share a common ancenstor. That's kind of a big deal, and frankly one which sealed the deal for you long ago.

where's the dog's missing link, or the cat, or the skunk, or the beetle, or the shark or the goldfish, or the sparrows, or the carp's or the budgies or the kangaroo's or the whales or dolphins or the zebras or the lions or the giraffe's or every other animal that idiots believed have evolved from something else.

use your head. none of these animals have missing links. neither does man. according to evolution every single of the billions and billions of species of life on earth should have one.

therefore proof should be extremely easy to find. yet no missing links of any animal has been found.

Originally posted by randomname
where's the dog's missing link, or the cat, or the skunk, or the beetle, or the shark or the goldfish, or the sparrows, or the carp's or the budgies or the kangaroo's or the whales or dolphins or the zebras or the lions or the giraffe's or every other animal that idiots believed have evolved from something else.

use your head. none of these animals have missing links. neither does man. according to evolution every single of the billions and billions of species of life on earth should have one.

therefore proof should be extremely easy to find. yet no missing links of any animal has been found.

edit on 9-9-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Apparently you haven't cared to actually look. Here is just a small sample.

nature.nps.gov...

reply to post by randomname


I like the evolution of dolphins and whales, it's even more complex than ours. They started in the ocean, became land animals and then went back to the ocean.

Cetacean evolution

In fact, one way that physical anthropologists (those who study human evolution) date humanoid fossils is by looking at the surrounding, nearby animal fossils which also have a evolutionary history.

reply to post by Heartisblack


evolution is a lottery of sorts. most animals don't change much over the span of millions of years. with humans a couple of key changes led to an explosion up the evolutionary ranks. those changes were walking upright proper, and speech, coupled with a massive brain which surely scaled with the aforementioned changes.

we now know animals learn and teach, this is culture, but for them it is inhibited. with humans advanced communication sped up evolution/culture at a tremendous rate. besides in those millions of years, the dinosaurs did become more streamlined and more intelligent. the raptor branch is ranked high for symbolic intelligence, and not to mention all the avian strains that followed.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


That skull could have been made over a weekend by Hollywood makeup artists. The media would do the rest...and we know it would be the truth because it's the government run, propaganda machine that hypnotizes us to believing whatever they say.

Old meets new: technology determines age of fossils

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/771999ab5920.jpg[/atsimg]

Beginnings of our own genus

The international team of 60 scientists who worked on the project believe this previously unknown species was a transitional form between early ape-like australopithecines and the beginnings of our own genus Homo, replacing other candidates such as Homo habilis as the distant ancestor of Homo sapien. The findings were recently published in the prestigious Science journal.

Uranium lead dating

Found in cave deposits in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site near Johannesburg, the skeletons themselves were too old to date, but University of Melbourne geologist Dr Robyn Pickering confirmed the age of the sediment surrounding the fossils using a recently-developed uranium lead dating technique.
Her PhD supervisor Prof. Jan Kramers at the University of Bern in Switzerland tested the sediment using the same method with a slightly different process, thus providing a 'blind test' of the dating technique. Both found the fossils were aged from 1.99-1.75 million years old.

potential to find more

Further field work will also be conducted where the fossils were found in blocks of material dislodged by miners early last century. "There has been no excavation at the site…so there is great potential to find more fossils once systematic excavation begins."

University of Melbourne press release on this topic, visit: newsroom.melbourne.edu...
www.theage.com.au...
cms.unimelb.edu.au...

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


How many missing links are they gonna find? It seems you people forget easily. They find THE missing link every year or two. It's also funny how missing links would actually prove Darwin wrong.

We've moved far beyond that, and have a much better understanding of evolution today.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

As you see, we've found THE missing link time and time and time and time again. Many times they've even turned out to be fraudulent discoveries. But we already have proof of evolution regardless.

That's not the point though. The point is, these news articles are propaganda pieces. THAT'S RIGHT. Their purpose is to try and convince the people that don't already believe in evolution. It is not to tell you about the missing link. We've already found plenty of those lol.

Remember, lots of religious people. Even if there is evidence, it won't matter to nobody. You need propaganda to back your story up. And that's what these announcements are really for. To convince, to get people worked up and argue about it. All that good stuff.

However, If you understood Darwin's version of evolution, that kind of evolution has already been disproved.

The thing you have to understand is why we're looking for missing links to begin with. Once you understand, we're good to go. The reason they're looking for missing links to begin with, is because Darwin was wrong.

Darwin's version of evolution didn't have missing links. He said the fossils would be transitional. That means many small changes of each fossil over time. Not large big changes or LINKS.

Nope, it should be very small changes. Well, guess what? When we looked at the fossils we didn't see very much gradual change. We saw MISSING LINKS! Or sudden JUMPS to a new animal. We've even observed this!

Now, I know a lot of people would argue with me and say, yes they do find transitional fossils, but in reality they don't. That's just more propaganda they've fed you. If you don't believe that, then you have to explain why the following was even invented in the first place.

They invented a completely new theory to explain why they don't. It's called Punctuated Equilibrium. And while it's not proven, and some critciize it the whole reason it even exists is because scientists couldn't figure out where all the transitional fossils were.

Punctuated Equilibrium states that though animals evolve, a species spends most of time in stasis, with no real net evolutionary change. Just random mutations that don't really go anywhere. Unless something major happens like a change in the environment or food source or something of that nature where one of those mutations makes some of the animals more adapt than others. But MOST of the time, no change is happening whatsoever.

Turns out, it actually works this way. Here's a link to an example and if you Google, you'll find many more. www.wired.com...

That's right, while they tell you that transitional fossils do exist, in the backroom they're trying to figure out why they don't! Feel tricked yet?

All the while telling you they found the MISSING LINK! lol, if they had transitional fossils, then they don't need missing links. The two just don't go together.

In other words, the reason they're looking for LINKS is because Darwin was actually wrong. Species stay pretty much the same for a long time, but then you might have a certain jump to a new species and that jump may happen very quickly. This we have observed in nature.

If that's the case, then what would you expect to find in the fossil record? THAT'S RIGHT! MISSING LINKS! And not transitional changes.

So, when the media tells you they've found the missing link! They're really saying, you're right. No transitional fossils from another species to human. We had to go around and start looking for links instead. Just something to keep in mind.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


You know what gets me is the fact we cant find links to our evolution but we can find links to many species evolution's who have been extinct for millions, even 100's of millions of years. NOPE, not us who have supposedly been around for 200K+ years!

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


Interesting

Or what if it is just another species of ape... that has now been allotted a place in the evolutionary line of descent and is being hailed as a missing link.

I love how all this information is being released...just around the same time that a certain planet or asteroid is close to our own atmosphere. HHHmmm....do they think we are stupid....... obviously they do. Connect the dots........TPTB are less to blame if something just so happens.........that in itself is a thread all on its own.

Great find! Very interesting. But, as some would love to think, this still doesn't disprove a higher consciousness. In fact, if an intelligent higher consciousness exists I would suspect it to use evolution, so things are constantly changing, like the universe itself (Not saying it steers evolution in the way it wants). rather than just create some stuff and be done with it.

More to discover, more to learn, more to admire.

reply to post by xBWOMPx


Pretty sure it all comes down to how fossils are formed, its not as easy as most people think

Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. Indeed there may be whole species of land animals in which no fossil record has been discovered. We may never know how many and diverse these animals were.

fossilformation

Great post OP.
on a personal note, I believe evolution theory has been refuted. He put a note in his book something along the lines of if a creature cannot be simplified down to a single cell organism then his theory would fall apart - there's a few.bacterium that for this bill - flegillus(sp?) is one.

I'm not religious per say, but the stepped evolution theory which ties in with one of David Wilcocks talks is quite interesting and as it requires a degree of faith it could be construed as a form of religion I guess. BTW I don't agree with everything that comes from Wilcocks, I formulate my own theories based on my own research into religion, spirituality and sciences etc.

If evolution is how things actually happened then that means

There was no Garden of Eden and no talking snake, if there was no snake to talk eve into eating the magic knowledge fruit then there was no original sin
If there was no original sin then there is no reason for the Jesus character to do his thing 2000 years ago

So its small wonder Christians don’t like TOE

I say BS because the three races of man all come from the tree species of ape.
The missing link has always been the blonde haired, blue eyed gene that was injected into each of the indigenous primatic DNA environment.
Please forgive me but this missing link was originally demonic in nature, evil.
Without this interjection, we would all still look like the modern primates, ala gorilla (negroid), chimpanzee (caucasoid) or orangutan (mongoloid).
All you need to do is look at the signs from Hollywood.

Ever notice how all references to evil in Hollywood movies have always had an English (Brit) accent?

This video lost me on the very first sentence, 'History could be about to be rewritten.." ???

An interesting fact none the less; the thing however what bothers me is that it has been left vague. ie "HERE IS THE MISSING LINK! I FOUND IT! HERE YOU GO! I WIN!"

I have yet to see a video challenging this discovery and I can assure you that I hope to see it soon.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


The only reason atheists get butt hurt when evolution is attacked because they are afraid of the thought of God.

If evolution is really a "science" then treat it like when instead of crying about it. There are tons scientists who are skeptical about evolution. Get with reality already.

Originally posted by racasan
If evolution is how things actually happened then that means

There was no Garden of Eden and no talking snake, if there was no snake to talk eve into eating the magic knowledge fruit then there was no original sin
If there was no original sin then there is no reason for the Jesus character to do his thing 2000 years ago

So its small wonder Christians don’t like TOE

Well that's not really true. There were many other things Jesus' sacrifice paid for. Not just original sin. But all sin. Sin would have still existed. It's just the original sin was the original sin. All that means is that it was the first sin. If not that, then there would have been another first sin.

He also died so that he could give the sign of the messiah and fulfill the covenant and the reasons go on and on. So even without original sin, there would have been other reasons. Anyone that doesn't know that probably never read the Bible. They just took the catchy atheist phrase and ran with it thinking it meant something.

The apple could just be a metaphor. Even if there was no literal apple. It could still be a metaphor for something that humans did wrong.

Some believe that the story is really about when humans developed consciousnesses and therefore the ILLOGICAL concept of right and wrong. Or more specifically that we know right and wrong better than God.

For example, an animal that kills another animal. That's not a sin. That animal doesn't understand what it's doing. But if a human kills another human, it's a sin. It's not the action, but the knowledge of the sin. Simply because we know it's a sin, it's a sin. And therefore, knowledge of right and wrong brought sin into the world. Well, that's what some people think.

Like when Adam and Even hid from God and were ashamed to be naked. God made them naked. But now all of a sudden there's something wrong with it right?

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is never talked about in the Bible. Not at all. That's just a myth.

There's nothing in the Bible that's incompatible with evolution. it says God created the animals, but it also said that God let planet earth bring forth animals and plants. Most people skip that part though. It also says he created the world in 6 days. Many people will tell you that we're still on the 7th day. There was no 8th day yet. Still stuck on day 7 in God's time. So how long is 6 days?

It also says, that animals will give birth to the same kind of animal as it, but that has nothing to do with evolution. First of all the word species isn't in the Bible. They don't mean the same thing. Besides, that's how evolution works also.

In evolution you never have an animal that's just BAM new species from its parent. Evolution doesn't happen that way. It happens in groups, as the whole species changes. It has to happen that way. If a mommy bird just randomly gave birth to a bird that was a completely different species, it would just die off. There would be no other birds for it to mate with.

Eventually you get two groups of animals that stop mating and since they're not mating anymore, they THEN divulge into two different species. They don't stop mating because they became two different species. They became two different species because they stopped mating. Many species that we have today can still mate across the species boundary. They just don't. But we still consider them different species.

When they stop mating their mutations stop getting passed back and forth between the two groups. And since they're random mutations, you eventually wind up with two different animals that went through completely different mutations. That's how you get new species.

But that has nothing to do with the Bible. All the Bible says is if two animals do mate, they'll produce the same kind of animal. It never says new animals wouldn't form if two groups broke off and stopped mating.

However, you have to understand the context of the story. If you read it again you'll see that the context of the story is that Adam and Eve were going to become the first farmers. Not just farmers, but the FIRST farmers.

When it says the animals will reproduce after it's kind, think of a farm. Imagine you're trying to teach kindergarten students how to run the farm. They don't even understand that when you mate two sheep you get another sheep yet.

Are you going to teach them that millions of years later after they're dead those sheep might turn into different animals? Maybe you will maybe you won't. But it would be out of context. First you need to teach them how to make another sheep.

So, it's not that the Bible is against evolution. It just never gets into it at all.

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery

The 'missing link' Found

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fdf2a34a6f1.jpg[/atsimg]

Yes Yes, I can see it now.. the guy with the blue shirt really DOES look like the missing link! Gee.. I wonder what that nice skull is doing with that creature.