'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: schuyler

This is True . Homo Sapien Sapien is nothing more than a Hybrid Species Created by Alien Intelligence's 50,000 Years Ago . Please present Evidence to Refute this Claim Sir .

Thats not how science works
You make a statement its up to you to prove it

Imagine I say monkeys come from monkey wrenches, prove they dont

Its silly for anyone to argue because there is nothing to prove against

originally posted by: Murgatroid
That premise about having to read Science to understand Science is flawed to put it mildly...

Okay, you think you can understand it without even reading it or getting information from online preachers rather than actual research papers? Sure thing.

Studying Science to understand evolution makes just as much sense as reading "Dianetics" in order to figure out what Scientology is all about.

Sigh.... Replace "studying science to understand evolution" with "Studying the bible to understand God" and your statement makes sense. You can't compare evolution to dianetics. LOL! Evolution is backed by hard evidence, and I've never once seen you refute any of it and you tend to post mostly copy pasted arguments backed by nothing but youtube videos.

Just like ALL other cults, Science is a powerful form of mind control used by the ruling class to manipulate and enslave the masses.

You can keep telling yourself that but you can't prove it, nor can you refute any scientific research. RELIGION is what is used as a powerful form of mind control. What possible control can they have by lying about science? If they were looking to control people's minds, they would be fabricating evidence of a creator, NOT evidence that goes against it. That literally makes no sense because most of the ruling elite are THEISTS. Why would more than half of scientists believe in god/higher power, and also accept evolution if it was a scam?

In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways.

Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public

Thanks for describing Theists to a T.

Again, evolution is backed by evidence, theism is not. I know you hate this, but that's the fact.

talkorigins.org...

Are you able to refute even just one of them? Of course not.

originally posted by: cooperton
The Australopithecus Sediba skull has a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters. The average homo sapien skull is three times as large as that. This isn't a missing link, it's just a ape/monkey-like creature that evolutionists assume to be a step in their evolutionary fantasy.

It is backwards science. They assume evolutionary theory to be true, and try to fit all observable data into their theory. All facts that don't fit the narrative are ignored, or the goal-posts changed. It's mind-boggling that vast amounts of tax-payer dollars are used to try to prove that humans are ancestors of mutant apes.

Negative, ghost rider. They follow the evidence, and there is so much supporting evolution, it's childish to deny at this point, especially when you can't even refute a single piece of evidence, you just make fallacious statements based on assumption.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

No it was SPACE rocks and SPACE water as I was told and was constantly corrected by an evolutionist, not terrestrial but real space dust and space water
Like it could have been anything else.
Turning science into a new old age religion

LMAO! That's even close to true and people star your post. Creationists getting desperate these days, I guess.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: schuyler

This is True . Homo Sapien Sapien is nothing more than a Hybrid Species Created by Alien Intelligence's 50,000 Years Ago . Please present Evidence to Refute this Claim Sir .

How about you present evidence to SUPPORT it? Claims don't hold true by default, the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

And now researchers have established that they are closely linked to the Homo genus, representing a bridging species between early humans and their predecessors, proving that early humans were still swinging from trees 2 million years ago.

'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate

...I don't see much proof in the PDF, which is linked in the news article linked above.

Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures​—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics. (Note: None of the researchers quoted below believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.)

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.” (Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.) In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” (The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.) This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. (Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.)

Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.” (New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.) Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.” (The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009.) However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.” (New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.)

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.” (Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.)

Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.” (Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’​—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.” (The Human Fossil Record​—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.) Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.” (Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.)

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

The reconstructed image of Australopithecus sediba is quite attractive

Such pictures as this are based on the biases and assumptions of researchers and artists, not on facts. (Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.

a. Wonderful Life​—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.)

Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facial features, skin tone, and hair of these extinct creatures. Also note what's mentioned in the video below from 4:27 - 5:19 (and nothing else) and compare with the picture from the OP:

Still having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that they actually used that picture in the published article. Unbelievable! Brainwashing and indoctrination 101.

Coming back for a moment to why I bolded the word "proving" from the article in the OP in my previous comment, here is how the google dictionary defines the verb "prove" (only focussing on its primary definition since that's the relevant definition as the word is used in the article, that is the implication one gives to the reader when using that verb):

1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Now when you demonstrate the "truth" of something, you are demonstrating the "certainty/factuality" of something. And these are the synonyms for "true": absolute/certain/conclusive/factual/correct, without error (as listed under "accurate" on thesaurus.com). So pardon the redundancy in the next phrase, you are demonstrating the (absolute) truth/certainty of something. It is not claiming to have proved something while holding a joker card behind their backs that says: "science does not deal with absolutes" (or any variation on that general agnostic and contradictory philosophy that misuses either the word "science" or the word "absolutes", cause with the latter, they are clearly implying facts/certainties, so they're actually implying 'science does not deal with facts', which is a ridiculous statement if you clarify it like that without playing around with different definitions for those words while capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, a standard propaganda and marketing technique). There are many ways of advancing this agnostic philosophy about "science", as they use the word. Neil deGrasse Tyson has one of the sneakiest ways of painting a negative picture on anyone requesting scientists to stick to the facts they can actually prove, and not merely claim to have proved as the article in the OP does. I'll spare you the quotation I'm thinking about now, cause it's very poisonous to people's reasoning regarding this subject (but the same sentiment of seeing or describing a negative picture of people who actually care about the facts that are relevant to the stories being sold by those advancing this agnostic philosophy and often use arguments from ignorance that are well hidden behind technical jargon and other distracting ways of phrasing things, was recently expressed in one of the threads on this subforum recently, I think it might have been Barcs; and this pattern of behaviour can also be often seen on the philosophy & metaphyscis forum or any thread promoting unverified philosophies/ideas, stories, imaginations and the most ridiculous stuff about UFO's, aliens, reality being an illusion, or solid matter not actually existing, OBE's, reincarnation, supposed scientific breakthroughs that are being marketed as the next wonderful thing on the Science & Technology subforum, politics, for the purpose of spin where this whole idea about truth being relative and not absolute comes back into play, and so on).

The whole claim concerning what has been "proved" in the OP's article, is also quite incompatible with acknowledgements that for example nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) As referred to in my previous comment (among other things that we don't "know"). As a reminder, the word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia", meaning "knowledge". Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities* acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. *: i.e. things that are factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error

The thing claimed to have been proved in the OP's article has not been demonstrated to be true/absolute/correct, wihout error/factual/certain. It is not science/knowledge. Now the Law of Gravity, that's science/knowledge. The fact that 1+1=2 or that E=MC^2, that's science (E = energy, M= mass, C = the speed of light). Neil deGrasse Tyson's marketing campaign for agnostic philosophies in a sneaky support of philosophical naturalism and the accompanying evolutionary philosophies and storylines, is not science. And deliberately deceptive so he can continue selling unverified stories and ideas as "science" or under the marketing label of "science" (even those unrelated to evolutionary philsophies and storylines), just like his collegues who are also on the same bandwagon and in the same enterprise (business venture of selling themselves and their stories+ideas as "scientists" and "science" respectively). Stories about the multiverse are not science. Stories about so-called "string theory", "M-theory" and a certain part of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not science. Panspermia, macroevolution, "the chemical evolution theory of life", "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", mutations acted upon by natural selection being able to produce entirely new species (in order to fit the storylines involving the term "common descent" and or sometimes "Darwinian evolution" or "neo-Darwinian evolution" or "neo-Darwinism") are not science. It all belongs on the philosophy & metaphysics forum if we're talking about ATS (or it fits just as well there).

Drake equation, not science. Dawkins' books, predominantly not science (or let's say the key arguments in those books are not science, he can use all the irrelevant facts he likes to distract from the key issues in his storylines and claims, it doesn't make it honest to categorize or label any of these books as "science"; the same counts for Stephen Hawking's book: "The Grand Design" or his philosophies/ideas about the multiverse, M-theory and String theory or attempts to apply quantum mechanical language to the beginning or the state of the universe in the past, or to put it in Freeman Dyson's words: "The extreme exponent of the broad view is Stephen Hawking, who is trying to create a theory of quantum cosmology with a wave function for the whole universe.")

What these people are selling is not science. For some practice in telling the difference:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: schuyler

This is True . Homo Sapien Sapien is nothing more than a Hybrid Species Created by Alien Intelligence's 50,000 Years Ago . Please present Evidence to Refute this Claim Sir .

Thats not how science works
You make a statement its up to you to prove it

Imagine I say monkeys come from monkey wrenches, prove they dont

Its silly for anyone to argue because there is nothing to prove against

Correct , Good Answer . This is how Pseudoscience misinforms people . Facts Vs Fiction .

I like how no one here is addressing the actual exhibit provided in the opening post. Immediately went right off the rails and into middle school drama club. I hope phantom423 adds this to the evolution archive, looks like a good find. 👍

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie


Childish joke aside I agree, there is no need for a missing link, our evolutionary path is already well documented, there was no giant leap for mankind, evolution tiptoes, not leaps. Like the bird for instance.

If it wasn't for the ice age we might have had a good number of different homos all living in the same era.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Also note what's mentioned in the video below from 4:27 - 5:19 (and nothing else) and compare with the picture from the OP:

I noticed that the rest after 5:19 is actually about Australopithecus sediba up till 14:23, so anyone interested in the facts may want to have a look at that too. I was worried about too many remarks motivated by his belief in young earth creationism which is why I said "and nothing else", but it's allright, there aren't that many. Only a few of those in the timeframe 11:44 - 12:39, which you can therefore skip.

originally posted by: Barcs

"This is True . Homo Sapien Sapien is nothing more than a Hybrid Species Created by Alien Intelligence's 50,000 Years Ago . Please present Evidence to Refute this Claim Sir ."

How about you present evidence to SUPPORT it? Claims don't hold true by default, the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

Haha that was his point. that is exactly how the scientific process treats evolution. Evolution is assumed to be true, and pieces of observation are made to fit that narrative. It is backwards science. There is no reason to believe that Australopithecus Sediba is a missing link any more than it being just another kind of ape. Because you have evolutionist tunnel vision you see everything from the perspective that evolution is absolutely true. This distorts your objectivity and makes you go on angry rants that prevent you from seeing the humor and irony of Zanti Misfit's post.

I shouldn't even ask because I know it cannot be done... but show proof that this is a missing link between an ape-like creature and humankind, and not just another ape-like creature's skeletal remains.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Neil deGrasse Tyson's marketing campaign for agnostic philosophies in a sneaky support of philosophical naturalism and the accompanying evolutionary philosophies and storylines, is not science. And deliberately deceptive so he can continue selling unverified stories and ideas as "science" or under the marketing label of "science" (even those unrelated to evolutionary philsophies and storylines), just like his collegues who are also on the same bandwagon and in the same enterprise (business venture of selling themselves and their stories+ideas as "scientists" and "science" respectively). Stories about the multiverse are not science.

Sometimes, he even makes himself laugh about what he and some of his collegues are doing and spending their time on (0:34):

I guess occasionally Donald Trump has to laugh as well at some of his own entertainment performances where he's tickling people's ears selling them darkness as light, myths as knowledge or advanced insight or understanding, or presenting a positive picture of having an open mind if you consider what he is saying seriously (2 Timothy 4:3,4; Isaiah 5:20,21), denying the reality of having their minds closed off to the truths/facts that matter the most (while distracting from those and the related evidence and rational valid conclusions with their red herring styled imaginations and almost neurotic speculations). OK, somewhere halfway through that sentence I abandoned my comparison with Donald Trump tickling people's ears in true con-artist style (telling people what they want to hear, what intrigues or excites them, what draws their attention and makes them want to believe it, or in a manner that makes them want to believe it, marketing the ideologies and political views in Donald Trump's case, or better said team Trump, cause he's just the figurehead actor and clown doing the attention drawing performance, for profit).

Regarding the earlier mentioned phrase 'science does not deal with absolutes' (a variation as quoted further below by Vilenkin: "there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science"), sometimes the behavioural patterns (in reasoning) of those adhering to this agnostic philosophy is very reminiscent of this scene for me:

Especially regarding inconvenient facts for whatever they're selling at the time. Propagandists, politicians and con-artists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target. Here's Vilenkin and Krauss demonstrating the same agnostic Baldrick-style pattern (feign ignorance, with a minor difference with the way Baldrick is doing it above). At 1:45 and 4:09, 6:21 using the word "wrong" and again at 4:20 where Krauss uses the phrase "let's accept that fact" following that up with "but we don't know" (nice contradictory use of language and reasoning there mr. Krauss, OK, he changes up the fact he's talking about a little with what he's talking about that 'we supposedly don't know', making it a little harder to actually pin "contradictory use of language" on him on that occasion, but he does that on other occasions, the way of reasoning he's using there does easily give the wrong impression regarding scientific discoveries that have been made in the relevant fields, and when I say 'discovery', I'm talking about the discovery of facts/realities/certainties/truths; so I'm sticking with the term "contradictory use of reasoning" for what he's doing there at 4:20, since he seems to brush away all the evidence, the facts, in favor of his agnostic philosophy or way of thinking, or with one stroke of the agnostic brush that also paints the picture that supposedly "there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science", which is what he's referring to with "but we don't know" with certainty):

Argumentation from feigned ignorance or love of agnostic vagueness? I'd say that's a new one or that's original if it hadn't been done like that for centuries already by the Mother Nature worshippers teaching about an eternal cyclical or oscillating universe (oscillating between expansion and contraction, depicted as a snake with its tail in its mouth and numerous cycles of death and rebirth of the universe), or those also talking about a multiverse sometimes called "many worlds" in Hindu and Buddhist ancient texts. Demonstrating the truth of Eccl.1:9,10. Notice how W.L.Craig goes right along with it with his comment about "known with certainty", or at least not addressing the flaw in reasoning and talking there (of course, he's got other things on his mind there and likes to keep on track whereas Krauss wants to distract with his red herring philosophies and obscure matters with vagueness and the promotion of vagueness in the sciences, especially regarding the subjects he publishes about and makes money on or has build his career around).

As earlier mentioned, honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. And that doesn't just count for human evolution (as referring to the subject I was talking about there).

Here's a variant way of reasoning with that pattern when it's used to promote attention-grabbing and eartickling entertaining stories (0:15 - 0:21, that one is a lot more blatant and obvious):

I'm wondering if I should leave another reminder that "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum-mechanical language" (quoting Freeman Dyson) in relation to the main point made by Vilenkin and Krauss in that video regarding "at the beginning of the universe that's when quantum mechanics matters" (notice he's talking about a beginning there, funny isn't it? Anyway, that's a statement about the past that directly contradicts what Freeman Dyson states when he presents the evidence for this general conclusion by inductive reasoning on established facts.) "As a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms." (quoting Dyson again) Unlike what Vilenkin and Krauss are arguing for. If these conclusions regarding QM would be more popularly accepted, a whole lot of theoretical physicists and quantum cosmologists would suddenly have a lot of time and research grants on hand to spend on making actual/factual discoveries. Of course, that would cause their competence to be evaluated based on success in this area rather than marketing fancy elaborate philosophies/ideas and speculations that they are hoping most of their readers will not fully understand or be too critical about because they're doing the same routine themselves, writing one paper after another, satisfying the 'publish or perish' pressure and "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Tim. 3:7)

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

No it was SPACE rocks and SPACE water as I was told and was constantly corrected by an evolutionist, not terrestrial but real space dust and space water
Like it could have been anything else.
Turning science into a new old age religion

LMAO! That's even close to true and people star your post. Creationists getting desperate these days, I guess.

LMAO! That's not even close to the questions I raised previously, sidestepping 1 and 2, 1 and 2, its barcs dancing away from a tune.
Desperate to deny any question and hiding from offering answers

Vestigial organs, I have a whole thread on the stupidity of vestigial organs, its stupid
You get 5 stars because people are stupid.

Talk origins, your religious site with your religious kin, you hate science and poison it with your religion

Talk origins seriously, dummy fodder

Now lets go back to the same old same old as usual

Repeatable observable and testable not debatable
CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERIMENTS
TESTABLE DATAIS SCIENCE

Not dummy sites with no TESTABLE DATA

I dont understand why you have a mental block re TESTABLE DATA

originally posted by: whereislogic

"As a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms." (quoting Dyson again) Unlike what Vilenkin and Krauss are arguing for.

Krauss at 1:48 and more from Vilenkin at 12:30, both promote this notion that it's fine to make "statements about the past... in quantum-mechanical language"* and that it's an 'assumption' to express "knowledge about the past...in classical terms" (Vilenkin at 12:30, but applying Dyson's quotation to what he says there, i.e, I was quoting Dyson just now). Swapping out darkness with light and vice versa (well, let's say obscured light, sort of a foggy state of mind).

*: even going one step beyond that at 1:48, saying "that's when quantum mechanics matters" and "in the case of quantum mechanics it's out the window"; when actually quantum mechanics is out the window in discussions about past states of the universe or the beginning of the universe, not the habit of expressing things in classical terms in these types of discussions about the apparently already acknowledged "beginning of the universe", quoting Krauss seemingly paraphrasing Vilenkin and referring to his other commentary on the subject.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

The reconstructed image of Australopithecus sediba is quite attractive

originally posted by: whereislogic

Such pictures as this are based on the biases and assumptions of researchers and artists, not on facts. (Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.

a. Wonderful Life​—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.)

Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facial features, skin tone, and hair of these extinct creatures. Also note what's mentioned in the video below from 4:27 - 5:19 (and nothing else) and compare with the picture from the OP:

Still having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that they actually used that picture in the published article. Unbelievable! Brainwashing and indoctrination 101.

You were saying Mr. Dawkins? About pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters?

No need to watch beyond 0:21. Getting flashbacks to the story about mermaid evolution in a marketing documentary on Animal Planet again (a.k.a. the aquatic ape hypothesis, or was that aquatic ape-men? Whatever, might as well be man-bear-pig, or the 'walking whales' in the evolutionary storylines concerning whales):

From the article quoted in the OP:

Early humans...
...represents a "missing link" in humanity's family tree.
...representing a bridging species between early humans and their predecessors, proving that early humans were still swinging from trees 2 million years ago.

So they are really pushing this application of the term "early humans" on this ridiculous drawing, picture (ignoring for a moment that this contradicts the statement that tries to put this species in "between early humans and their predecessors", nicely blurring the lines as to what can be honestly described as "humans", as they do regarding the lines between fact or fiction, or numerous words such as "species", "information", "nothing", "science", "know or knowledge", "facts/certainties", absolute, etc.). Madness. Just like AronRa's (another typical entertainer and tickler of ears, having his ways of drawing attention from a particular segment of the market) argument I heard in a ReasonRally debate: "humans are apes". Nonsense isn't going to help you out here, no matter how popular or how it affects the crowd (they cheered him on as he said that, come on, is this how bad it has gotten?). Somewhere after 19 minutes in this video perhaps (it seems to be the conversation I remember but I can't find the phrase anymore and I'm tired of looking):

originally posted by: Barcs
"Missing link" is MIS-nomer. Every fossil found is a link between something. They already found like 24 different species that are links between modern human and ancient ape. You don't just have one single link that's an exact 50/50 blend between the 2. The article title is misleading.

Correct. And related to the idea that evolution has no need for a missing link, there was also no first human (no first specific organism that was born as Homo sapiens from non-Homo sapiens parents). Nor was there a "first" of any species; evolution from one species to another happens gradually, and there is not one single direct offspring of an organism that suddenly can be said to be a new species.

Every organism was born from parents who were the same species they are, and every organism will have children who are the same species that they are.

That seeming paradox that there was no ceature that, when born, was the first of its species is explained here, which is connected to the idea that "missing link" is a misnomer:

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

No faith needed when you have testable data and conclusions from experiments.
.

Can you show me ANY TESTABLE DATA Barcs, you are a liar

Here's your link to the testable data - 361.44 kb. I'm sure that you'll find it most enlightening. Be sure to let us know what your conclusions are.

Data Source

I am jumping in here because the testable data is based on a new baseline dataset which, to me, seems to be creating new methodologies and testing to dismiss previous datasets and hypotheses that were and still are controversial. Point being, creating new datasets from previous controversial (not completely accepted scientific evidence) datasets and hypotheses seems, to me, to lean more towards creating new baseline datasets to obtain desired results for a new hypotheses.

a reply to: InTheLight

You may be absolutely correct. I only linked the available data to this particular poster because he/she doesn't believe any testable data exists for any experiment involving evolution - not that he/she understands a iota about data and how it's analyzed.

In any case, regarding your comment on new data vs old data sets, yes, there are certainly cases where changing a methodology will give better results. This, of course, should be explained in the published paper.

Can results be manipulated with "new data"? Of course. I would say that for well recognized publications, the peer review staff would probably catch that. But crap happens when you're not looking!

Thanks for your comment.

a reply to: Phantom423

I am also questioning the Bayesian analyses, in that, the event is considered 'true', however it is really a 'true' or a 'probably'? What is the prior to that event?