There is no missing link!

Creationists, and in fact, many people believe there is a missing link between man and its ancestor species. A transitional species it one that is between species A and species B, when B evolves from A. When people think missing link or transitional species in relation to humans, they think Big Foot or Harry from 'Harry and the Hendersons'. They think that the missing link will be a being exactly halfway between Humans and Apes. They are forgetting that humans are apes by definition, we have never ceased to be, - humans are to chimps what lions are to jaguars, apes and cats. But the half-man-half-chimp is not a human-ancestor transitional species at all. In fact the real "missing link" is not missing link at all.

From Aron Ra's 'The 9th falsehood of Creationism: “No transitional species have ever been found.”':
(youtube version)

“By the way, the missing link? It’s still missing!”

No it isn’t. Hasn’t been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, we’ve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle:

First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed.

The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct.

But more than that, the theory [creationists] also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.

Get all the vids of fundamental falsehoods of crationism here


On the man is ape thing:

Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

Uh... Like the title of this video says, everything you know is wrong.

video.google.com...

Now before you attack me saying that this vid is utter crap, I'm only offering the counterpart of the story. I'm not saying to which side i agree, since i don't know yet, but evolution certainly is far from complete and our psyche and way of living differs way to much from a regular "ape" to put us in that category.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by vasaga]

Originally posted by vasaga
Now before you attack me saying that this vid is utter crap, I'm only offering the counterpart of the story. I'm not saying to which side i agree, since i don't know yet, but evolution certainly is far from complete and our psyche and way of living differs way to much from a regular "ape" to put us in that category.

That's not how speciation works. A psyche and way of living doesn't constitute unique species. Man is ape.

I hope this video doesn't peddle stuff like that at me, cos it's bollocks.

Nice thread ... S & F for you.

There is so much testable evidence to support Evolution.

It blows me away that the Creationist movement still has any credibility, even among the faithful.

It seems to me that Creationistist need to do a Hillary.

Even the catholic church and the orthodox church like evolution over creation.


from wikipedia:

The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years.

Originally posted by Horza
Nice thread ... S & F for you.

There is so much testable evidence to support Evolution.

It blows me away that the Creationist movement still has any credibility, even among the faithful.

It seems to me that Creationistist need to do a Hillary.

Well I think its mostly ignorance fear and greed.
Because if there was a God that they believe in why would it be so impossible for God to have created and caused evolution?
It doesn't really debunk there faith at all.
We have proof of evolution but not what caused it.
But for the loony's who believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
They perhaps need some medication and counseling.
When scientists have found human remains from 1.2 million years ago.
And have used 8 different techniques to date them NOT just carbon dating which is so much refuted.

reply to post by Interestinggg


Abiogenesis covers the start of life.

It's a fallacy that creationists used that evolution can't answer the beginning of life problem. Yet evolution has never tried to as evolution is the process of reproduction with modification. not the start of life.

When questioned Darwin suggested; "maybe there was a primordial soup."

Or words to that effect.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Interestinggg

 

Abiogenesis covers the start of life.

like a 2 piece bathing suite.

There are no transitional fossils GWolf. Not because transitional species do not exist. But because they are simply not in the fossil record. To claim that there are fossils of transitional species is only deepening the hole of the mass grave that other misinformed people have already begun to dig for themselves.

Fine, JPhish, appeal to ignorance then. I don't care.

But since the scientific community is adamant that there is transitional species, then I can't really argue with them, although you seem to think you can.

They are there, in the physical throughout the record. The microraptor is a good example.

reply to post by Good Wolf


The scientific community is also adamant that the speed of light is the fastest speed obtainable. You might want to rethink your bedfellows’ reliability. An argument can only stand for so long when it is solely based on Ethos. Get back to me when you have some real evidence to verify your claims. Because the idea of wallowing in yet another histrionic youtube video, or perusing through yet another agenda driven scientific article, makes me nauseous.

It is commonly claimed creationists that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims are a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory. Prothero has called that claim the "favourite lie" of creationists and further said that it was "manifestly untrue".

A common, though fallacious creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Creationists often argue against this, claiming it is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. Their anti-evolution arguments continue to be undermined as progressing research and discoveries fill in gaps, and in modern thinking evolution is pictured as a bush of lines of development, not the simplistic ladder of progress imagined by creationists.

Cover your ears and start yelling because here are some examples of transitional species.

Evolution of cetaceans and the evolution of the horse, not to mention the very exhaustive evolution of humans.

[edit on 9/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by JPhish


Oh really? The sheer number of transitional* fossils discovered seem to disagree with your assertion.

*Every fossil representative of a distinct species that as a whole is able to reproduce is a transitional fossil. The term "transitional" is creationist propaganda, as the definition for "transitional" can, and frequently is, changed by creationists when needed, to ensure the believers don't get any evidence against their beliefs, which allows them to continue the charade that they are struggling to learn, when in fact their minds were made up before they even decided to stage a debate.

reply to post by Good Wolf


i hope you're not serious
'cause this is simplifying things

It is also plagiarism; you obviously did not write most of what you just posted. A quick filter search on wikipidea shows this.

Merely rearranging regurgitated wiki articles without citing your source does not ameliorate your argument; especially when the material is likely beyond your scope of comprehension.

ATS is not about copying and pasting wiki articles. Anyone can search for answers on wiki; we don’t need your help for that . . .

It’s especially aggravating to have a sudden feeling of de’j’a vu when reading your post, because I’ve read all of these articles already. . .

It is useless for me to attempt to refute any of these articles’ claims, until you can express to me that you understand them, so that you might retort with competence.

reply to post by dave420

Thank you for defining your terms. As for creationists changing the definitions of words; you might want to look in the mirror. Because evolutionary scientists bastardize their own scientific jargon a hell of a lot more.

As for your rebuttal of my claims. You might want to read in between the lines.


[edit on 9/12/2008 by JPhish]

Thanks dave, have a star.


Also JPhish, yea it was from wiki. But the points still stand.

There are fossils of transitional species, and no amount of yelling "They don't exist." is going to change that.
You can yell till you are blue in the face but that will not erase the parts of the fossil record problematic to creationists.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Please stop insinuating i have been yelling, was yelling or will yell; because i haven't, am not, nor will i.

Please stop addressing what some creationists use in their arguments. It is irrelevant because not all creationists are the same. In fact this is a genetic fallacy.

however . . . this is a cut out of the earth.

If you don't understand my last tract, you're failing to see my point.

Originally posted by JPhish
There are no transitional fossils GWolf. Not because transitional species do not exist. But because they are simply not in the fossil record.

Maybe not yelling but you do seem to think that the very real transitional fossils aren't real at all.

... and some people believe that the earth is flat.

reply to post by JPhish


That's all you can come up with? "But you started it!"? Fantastic.

Knowledge isn't about reading between the lines. It doesn't need interpreting. We have cold hard facts supporting evolution. You have none supporting your assertions. And yet, somehow, through some twist of cognitive stifling, you manage to equate the two positions. That's the really scary part in this. There is undeniable evidence, and yet you deny it, without a sound reason to do so. Weird.

reply to post by dave420


it is very much about interpretation, because your failing to see the understated point i was making with my initial post; this is glaringly obvious because you blatantly agreed with me in your own first post . . . in advance, i accept your apology when you grasp what has actually transpired. (feel free to u2u me if you're confused dave)

reply to post by Good Wolf


:shk: when dave figures it out, he can have fun explaining it to you.

[edit on 9/12/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


You said there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. I said there were, and provided some evidence. No interpretation is needed.