There is no missing link!

They have some monkeybones and combined them with human bones to get a half monkey half human creature.. Now they say they found it.. But if they had to do that in the first place, that doesn't add much credibility...

[edit on 12-9-2008 by vasaga]

reply to post by vasaga


That is not sound science. Care to explain what you are talking about?

Evolution still stands as the best, and only, explanation of how species came to be, including us. No evidence has been found that can possibly topple it, and so much evidence has been found that demonstrates it to be accurate. Unlike creationism, which has no evidence for it except anecdotal evidence in a self-referencing book written by bronze-age farmers.

reply to post by dave420




There's really no point for me to post in here if i need to spell things out for you . . .

have fun arguing with the next bloke that tries to help you out.

reply to post by JPhish


You didn't try to help me out. You made a baseless assertion, easily demonstrated to be false, then succumbed to being incredibly vague and using the venerable Jean Luc Picard to do your dirty work.

On this subject, there is nothing you can help me out with. Clearly. You are lacking some very, very basic knowledge about evolution. I wish it wasn't the case, but it seems so.

Evolution happens within a species... But a fish doesn't become a mamal.. And there's no proof for that, even though they claim it. But whatever..

[edit on 12-9-2008 by vasaga]

It does if it goes through enough stages.

If you add up the small changes, over millions of years, they become big changes.

reply to post by vasaga


Well the creatures that mammals evolved from weren't exactly fish, but for the most part those evolutionary charts where one creature becomes another, it's fair representative in the fossil record. The further back you look, the less recognisable the organisms become.

On the topic of the "missing transitional fossils" myth, this is a good resource that everyone should look at.

Now, lets put this bunk claim to bed, please.

The THEORY that Man evolved from Ape is only partly true.
Considering the fact that there are three races of Man (Caucasoid, Negoid and Mongoloid) then it's safe to assume these evolved from the 3 species of Ape (Chimpanzee, Gorilla and Orangutan), with a littlehelp of course.

If you also consider the fact that Man also has an R-Complex brain that is reptilian-like then something must have introduced this element to Man and in the process allowed Man to rapidly evolve to where we are now.
This introduction probably occured when Man was told to stay away from "The Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) by, of all things, a serpent.

Ever notice how Hollywood usually always portrays the d-Evil, Satan with a British accent?

That's probably because some folks in Hollywood are only hinting at the truth that the missing link is this Devil element, in the form the Blonde Haired-Blue Eyed gene.

reply to post by Alxandro


You're talking smack. The R-complex is for all intensive purposes the brain stem, which is present in vertebrates including the other types of apes. One should be reminded at this point that Man is Ape.

Although I'm not exactly sure where you get this idea that it is inherited from an encounter with an intelligent serpent from a myth.

And what hollywood has to do with anything, they certainly are no authority on the matter, just look at the movies X-Men, Underworld and Evolution.

reply to post by Good Wolf


No smackin' goin' on here.

The R-complex: the Reptilian Brain

These are the oldest parts of the brain: the ones that we share with reptiles and birds. They are thought to be the location of basic drives and instincts, basic needs and avoidances. This is "Brain One" in the "3 Brains in One" model

Originally posted by Alxandro
The THEORY that Man evolved from Ape is only partly true.
Considering the fact that there are three races of Man (Caucasoid, Negoid and Mongoloid) then it's safe to assume these evolved from the 3 species of Ape (Chimpanzee, Gorilla and Orangutan), with a littlehelp of course.

This reveals a profound lack of understanding on your part.

If the races of humans (and there are far more than three) had descended from three different types of creature, they would not be able to interbreed.

All races of man are just that: man.

You may continue to believe that you are apes, if you wish.


But I was created by God. In the image of God. And to God I will one day answer.


So will you.



So maybe that's where we differ.

.......or where we don't.



Time will tell. We each have only a few years left, at maximum. Once that sand has run out, then we will know for sure.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by Old Man

Time will tell. We each have only a few years left, at maximum. Once that sand has run out, then we will know for sure.

Time will tell.

The only way you will know for sure, is if God really does exist. If he doesn't exist, then you will never know, you'll just die. I think that is what scares people the most, that they might not live forever. The belief in a soul is the most important aspect of religion and we are the only creatures lucky enough to have one according to the Bible. But if we evolved from earlier lifeforms, how can we have a soul? That is why people deny evolution. They can't imagine not having a soul that will live forever. In my mind, it just shows how much of a fear of death we really have.

Well, like I said earlier..........we each have only a limited amount of time to make our decisions regarding what we believe in.



I've made mine.

The problems with evolutions are this..

- Pre- Aboriginals had larger brains, our brains shrunk and we got smarter. Figure that out

- Out of body experiences are utter crap if you consider evolution to be true because then we don't have a soul

- Evolution still does not explain how life started and neither does abiogenesis, so the possibility of a God can still not be excluded, even though evolution is used for that, even though that is plain wrong, even from a scientific or philosophycal point of view.

- Humans have the ability to create ideas out of nothing, which defies our current laws of nature, which also defies that evolution can be true

- How can "coincidince" make larger smarter beings? don't feed me that crap that it's "natural selection". If you leave anything organized in nature for some years, when you come back, it's destroyed. It's not like you leave your old rotten camaro in the desert and come back and find a bumblebee. That's what evolution is like.. So unless there is some consciousness or God or whatever, it's impossible for the first cell the start working together with another on coincidence, which then also starts forming a bigger lifeform on coincidence, and then which also forms organs on coincidence which cannot live by themselves and therefore start working together with totally different organs on coincidence to form a larger being on coincidence, which on itself also starts getting smarter on coincide..

PLEASSSSSSE.... In some ways it's even more ridiculous than religion....

[edit on 13-9-2008 by vasaga]

reply to post by vasaga



Well, that's absolutely right. A good summary, you presented there.


So simple, a fifth grader could understand it.


Not so the 'intellectuals'..........it would seem.

Originally posted by vasaga
The problems with evolutions are this..


- How can "coincidince" make larger smarter beings? don't feed me that crap that it's "natural selection". If you leave anything organized in nature for some years, when you come back, it's destroyed. It's not like you leave your old rotten camaro in the desert and come back and find a bumblebee. That's what evolution is like.. So unless there is some consciousness or God or whatever, it's impossible for the first cell the start working together with another on coincidence, which then also starts forming a bigger lifeform on coincidence, and then which also forms organs on coincidence which cannot live by themselves and therefore start working together with totally different organs on coincidence to form a larger being on coincidence, which on itself also starts getting smarter on coincide..

I agree...

I would like to understand how evolutionists' come to terms with the contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and natural selection?

Quite simply. I'll even use a website on your side to prove my point...

Link to Christian Science

It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever.

So for example, all of the elements past iron on the period chart were created in the early stars of the universe, which after exploding left behind the elements needed for life. Like Carl Sagan said, we are all children of stardust.

What you fail to see is that the order of natural selection is still going on because there is still energy enough being put into the system for it to continue. When the sun burns out, that energy will no longer be present and life will disappear with it. So, there is no contradiction, you just haven't waited long enough. "For a time" could mean billions of more years in a universe that might last for another couple hundred billion years.

Originally posted by mhc_70
I would like to understand how evolutionists' come to terms with the contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and natural selection?

Because life is desperately striving to exist, doing everything it can to propagate itself, and it is doing a good job of it.

If it were simply a closed system, unconcerned with whether it exists or not, then yes, it would eventually decay to the point of non-existence, but life wants to exist and it can actively work to ensure that it does.