It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 'missing link' Found

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Phenomium

Except we don't even need fossils to prove the theory of evolution. It is completely watertight. Even if not a single fossil was found, the theory of evolution would still be as true as it is now. Fossils are just a bonus

The genetic evidence that supports it is completely sufficient enough to confirm it's authenticity.

Of course it's water tight, because they rewrite it every time they're wrong. Because that's how science works. Science revises. Science isn't water tight. It's full of holes. You just revise it when you find new holes.

We're already on our second version of evolution. The first one was disproved, but the media just never told you about it. If they get to change the rules every time they're wrong, of course they'll never be wrong. That's EZPZ, I could do that. Actually I DO DO THAT. Just in another field.

Now I'm not saying I don't believe in some form evolution, however Darwin was already proved wrong. He said there would be transitional fossils in the fossil record showing a slow gradual change from one species to another. Not MISSING LINKS.

The reason we're looking for missing links is because we never found enough transitional fossils from one species to another. What we found instead is that species kinda just pop out of nowhere. They even invented a new theory to try and explain why they never found the transitional fossils. It's the theory of Punctuated Equlibrium

And that theory, while not proven, states that animals don't change to new species gradually. They spend a lot of time in genetic stasis with little change. They have genetic mutations that are always occurring, but since they provide no benefit, those mutations get bread out of the population. Until a major change occurs. Like climate changes or something.

You could observe this in humans. Anyone with a mutation doesn't work well. Like someone with extra fingers or an extra head. Not as many people will want to date and breed with them and we try to breed them out. So genetically we stay somewhat the same and our fossils don't change for a long time because nobody wants to mate with the freak basically.

But if some major change came along, and having an extra foot, or extra fingers was beneficial, then all of a sudden you could get a new species rather quickly.

We even have observed this in nature.
A new species of bird, start to finish, in less than 30 years. And this is not the only example.

The very reason they're looking for a MISSING link is because Darwin was wrong. They needed missing links because the full transition wasn't there. They had to find where one species JUMPED to another species and also come up with a theory to explain why species are JUMPING instead of gradually changing.

They shouldn't be JUMPING and there should no such thing as a "A MISSING LINK". You should just have a slow gradual transition to the next species.

Which the media will tell you they have. But then they'll also turn right around and tell you they have "THE MISSING LINK". lol, both can't be true. It's got to be one or the other. Either it was a slow gradual change, or there was a LINK where one day one non-human just gave birth to a human.

Not saying evolution is wrong , just saying, that's not how science works. Every new piece of evidence refines the theory and the theory is constantly evolving itself. The theory of evolution has been wrong many many many times. But every time it is, they just refine their theory and then it's correct again. That's how science works.

Basically if evolution ever was proven wrong, they would just revise and come with a new theory and call that one evolution too. The average person would never notice and go along thinking evolution is water tight. Oh wait, they did that. Never mind.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by tinfoilman

I apologise if you thought it was an attack – but it is a fact that here on ATS there are many different flavours of Christian

Now if my memory serves me – in genesis 2 bible god makes a man out of dust then puts him in a garden – after some high jinks with a woman made out of ribs and talking snake the man gets kicked out of the garden

And that to me doesn’t sound anything like TOE

That's right, it doesn't sound anything like evolution. That's what I said before. The two don't have anything to do with each other. That's what I've been saying the whole time.

So, let me explain. Your job now, since you're the one making this argument that they do have something to do with each other. Is to explain HOW they're related. I don't know if you caught this. But you're supposed to explain to me how they ARE related. Not how they aren't. I'm the one telling you they don't have anything to do with each other lol.

Also, I must ask, are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis? Remember, we're not debating here about how life got started. That's abiogenesis, two different things. We're only talking about how life changes once it gets here.
edit on 10-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:11 AM
So they found another primate?!?! this is proof of evolution how?

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:23 AM
Wonder how it is that a nice informative post only made it to the FIRST reply before religion bashing started in?..Whats wrong with people?Has the hatred of religion made it so far that no idea can be posted w/o someone starting a debate/bash on religion?...The OP has no reference to religion in his information

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
Ah yes the butterfly effect,does anyone really now the absolute truth? But all this info does help us get to it,wheather it be one way or the other or a combination of all. Thats the beauty of it.You keep your mind open or you may miss the fun.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by StripedBandit

I had to reply to you as I believe in God. I don't think creation was accomplished in 7 24 hr periods though. I could go on and on but I think the most concise way to explain it is to say while I do believe God created things, I haven't ruled out that he didn't use a hammer

Ok it is annoying that this thread has become about religion as stated earlier that this is all totally of topic. However I really felt the need to ask you this for the sake of offering something to think about. Why on earth would a GOD choose to create everything within the human realms of a 24hour day? I mean sure you could say he(it?) created day and night but what about the rest of the planets where days last weeks...even years? Time is a human creation and it doesn’t make sense for a GOD to do his work with such human time scale.

/Off-Topic rant over. Dont mean to sound as though Im directing this at you, I mean the Bibles account of the creation.

edit on 10-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM

Misconceptions about evolution

Evolution is ‘just' a theory.

This misconception stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not ‘just' a hunch. ,learn more about the nature of scientific theories

Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory.
Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents.
This expectation has been borne out.
Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth.
So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record.learn more about testing scientific ideas, learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them,

edit on 10/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM

Misconceptions about evolution and religion

Evolution and religion are incompatible.

Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolutionlearn more about the relationship between science and religion,

edit on 10/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by tinfoilman

Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradulism (Darwinism) are probably happening at the same time.

Gradulism: for the first 3 billion years of life on earth, bacteria evolved very slowly and in a linear fashion.
Punctuated Equilibrium: Around 640 million years ago, there was the Cambrian explosion when more complex and multicelluar organisms appeared. Interestingly this is also around the time geologists claim there was a major climatic shift ( Snowball Earth )

Gradulism: the dinosaurs evolved slowly over 165 million years.
PE: after the asteroid impact 65 mya, dinosaurs disappeared (expect for birds) and mammals who were mostly small squirrel-like animals started to take advantage of the empty environmental niches suddenly left open. They diversified into many different types of mammals large and small. Some of their descendants are here today (including us).

DNA mutations occur, for various reasons, at an almost constant rate giving rise to Gradulism.
Drastic environmental changes cause Punctuated Equilibrium.

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are two ways in which the evolution of a species can occur. A species can evolve by only one of these, or by both. Scientists think that species with a shorter evolution evolved mostly by punctuated equilibrium, and those with a longer evolution evolved mostly by gradualism.


I'm not sure why religion has to be brought into these discussions. For all we know, "God" may be using evolution to unfold his plan.

edit on 10-9-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:36 AM
Religion has to be brought into these discussions to give the bashers a soapbox to bash from

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:45 AM

Man.. that looks uncannily like Mother Teresa!


posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Actually it looks like a thug I saw in WalMart yesterday....looking at the rap CD's...seemed partial to kanye and 50 cents,but I may be wrong there

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:49 AM

Look at the comments on the article. Half are from creationists.

And I thought those Telegraph readers liked to look upon themselves as enlightened.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by StripedBandit

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery

This is interesting stuff, I wonder what all the creationists have to say about this one,

Don't bait them into it, they will call the fossils a test of faith or something.

Very interesting post, but is it the Definitive missing link? Or one of many?

S&F OP Great Post.
edit on 9-9-2011 by StripedBandit because: (no reason given)

every few years they pull this #. Half of us don't even believe in evolution anyway, it's either god, aliens, buddha or the lion from narnia that created us.

Half of who,
Speak for yourself buddy
Only religious nut jobs deny evolution
True story

Wow. Is everything in this world so cut and dry for you?
Do you use logical fallacies exclusively when you speak?
There are more than a few people on this board who will take offense to your observation on
what they believe and I'm sure more than one of them will point out your ignorance on the matter.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:15 AM
the skull looks like the guy holding it LOL

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by CherryV
I'm not sure if we came from Aliens or fossils...but I am interested in this
s&f for great thread

Another point for the Ancient Alien theory!!!

It should be undeniable at this point.

Our 'missing link' is the race of beings that genetically engineered their DNA with primate DNA.

Humans, per say cannot effectively be traced back to a pure species. Thats why our DNA is 96% primate, and 4% 'missing link'.

I'll go deeper into this later today.

Amen, OP is trying to make this stick and it's not sticking. I know dinosaurs have been dead for over 65 million years but we supposedly evolved in less time then them ? What makes us so bloody special ?


According to evolutionists, mankind 'evolved, over a period of about 25 million years, and in anthropologic terms 'arose overnight' into modern man.....

As Sitchin presented, " The appearance of modern man a mere 700k years AFTER homo erectus and some 200k years BEFORE Neanderthal man is absolutely implausible".

Basically, how did the ancestors of modern man appear some some 300k years ago ....instead of 2 or 3 million years into the future, following normal evolutionary development? We should STILL be in caves, lerning how to plant crops and feed ourselves, according to evolution.

There hasn't been enough time, in other words, to be where we are at.

Mankind has QUANTUM Leaped the normal evolution process.

And, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon in 67 years......

There was obviously intervention...from a more advanced species.

There's no factual evidence anywhere right now of some sort of alien or godly intervention. That's all wishful thinking. Even chimps in the wild have learned to fashion simple weapons. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. The only animal smarter than us is the dolphin. When homo habilis first started using tools it changed our course of evolution. Apparently technology and evolution can increase exponentially.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Genophage

Originally posted by Genophage
Im not totally denying evolution...but ive always wondered...if we evolved from chimps/apes..why do we still have some running around? slow learners? -shrugs-

S&F thanks for sharing OP

Humans didn't evolve from chimps or apes. We both evolved from common ancestors

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:43 AM
What theatre and mystery this topic spurs!

The theory of evolution has holes that the Sumerian texts fill quite handily, if the translations can be trusted.

Major evolutionary leaps can occur within a small number of generations, in some living organisms.

Humans, on the other hand, have been rather stubborn in their evolution, from my perspective.

Perhaps that can be blamed on consciousness (or acute lack thereof)?

At any rate, this is just more kindling for the fire that rages on between scientists and the faithful.

But to hope some day for a world in which every subject is not fodder for extremists from all sides.

On that day, they will dig up our bones and wonder what kind of animal this was....

Ironic, no?

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
I think this "Missing lLnk" that science has been searching for all these years, has been alive and doing well all along. Before I go any further, I want everyone to know I am White, not racist in any way, and am simply calling things as I see them... something I have done during most of the 60 years of my life! If one compares African, Caucasian and Asian skulls with those of the Great Apes, the similarities of African skulls and those of apes are relatively easy to see.
Where did blonde hair and blue eyes come from? This and many other questions lead me to believe that without "outside interference", we might not yet have invented the wheel. Today's Asians, Caucasians and Blacks are probably the result of what was a many generations long experiment in the manipulation of a species' DNA. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I read somewhere that studies credit Asians as being more intelligent than Whites, who are more intelligent than Blacks, with the Geat Apes coming in fourth.
It is my personal belief that if a "Missing Link" is to be found, then those searching should be taking a look at Africa's lesser mentally developed tribes, such as one whose members are cannibalistic, and still take apes as sex partners.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

You said "Humans are the pinnacle of evolution"???????????


A bit arrogant, no?

That's the problem with why die-hard atheists( by the way, I'm in no way religious myself) cannot fathom 'any' being that is deemed 'higher' than them.

I support the Ancient Alien theory, and you frown upon that theory because that would mean that there are other civilizations who more advanced (and intelligent) than we are.

Arrogance breeds ignorance.....

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in