Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

Those links are interesting however they are like most evolution evidence mostly just crossed fingers hoping that somthing will eventually prove it right or huge leaps, like the brain one for example.
starts out by saying that worms had brain like cells then it just lists the animals that have brains.
I think one school of thought in ID makes sense, if a species is going to change over time it has to occur after the death of an animal. I mean to say if a new threat comes into the area of a species kills it, when it comes back it designs its self slightly to deal with the new envrionment next time.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

Religion has thus - at last - been debunked. Wholesale.

Can we stop with the religious wars now, please???

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


????
what?
how and what religion has been debunked.

Originally posted by platosallegory


The fossil record doesn't show species transitioning in small steps, that doesn't occur. Again, this is what Darwin and his followers pushed.

I happen to agree with you on this part.

You cannot look at the human evolution chain and tell me that the physical differences between genus' are small. The cranial shapes, sizes and formations change dramatically between members of the homo genus. They're not minor nuances. It's as if they're destroyed and re-made into something entirely different.

And before anyone starts accusations - I'm not a creationist and yes, I do believe in evolution.

It's an interesting fossil, that's all. It won't provide any clue to the crucial stages of human evolution.

Ezekiel's visions would be most likely more rational than the "theory" describing how the Nature (the modern God) cut the monkey's tail off.

Yes we do not have "transitional" fossils only whole complete species with no in the middle or "under construction" animals. Evolutionists will spend large ammounts of time adjusting the tree of life everytime new evidence hacks off its branches.
I remember reading about how they were looking for their other missing link that would explain how fish came to the land then they found it, but it was alive : ( it was the Coelacanth. so i guess the Coelacanth, the african ardvark and opossom are exempt from evolution as they have all survived without being changed so they must have reached the height of evolution.
DNA and RNA dissolve in water so the "soup" had no water.
Just for kicks sometime ask an evolutionist why something evolved a certian way, like why do we have eyes? You will get an answer that sounds like something an inteligent designer would say. But oh no it's random no ID there.
This thing has a talus bone, finger nails, and thumbs on its feet? That is amazing, a frog has a humerous, whales have ear bones and sharks have teeth, why are they left out of the evo chain?
[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]

reply to post by The Mack


I like that term, under construction animals .

This is truly the missing link of Darwin and others wishful thinking.

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Avenginggecko



I think we have a disconnect here on what exactly a scientific theory means. When a scientist finds evidence that falls outside of the predictable hypothesis of the theory, the scientist changes the theory to include the new evidence, or creates a totally new testable hypothesis to take the old theory's place (see the Big Bang theory vs. the Solid State theory). That is what science is, at it's core.

There are small steps to evolution, and there are large jumps in evolution - the evidence is out there. And yes, the fossil record is very incomplete - after all, we are trying to record millions and millions of years of fossil record, and we've only been doing so for what, a little over a century? Add the fact that the conditions to create fossils are also very rare, and you have quite a mountain to climb before you reach the top.

Once again, science does not ever attempt to attack religion or "intelligent design". There is no accepted book of science that says why any religion is wrong. Science is a methodology that attempts to explain how and why things work or worked using testable hypothesis with observable results. Sometimes, the results of this methodology conflict with religious dogma and people's faith. Sometimes, science is wrong, and scientists accept that and change the theory to fit the new evidence. How often do you see religion or dogma changing itself to fit new evidence?

If we were designed by some ultra-intelligent deity(ies), why are there so many branches of failed hominids? Why do we have a tailbone when the end result was that we would not need a tail? If we needed it at one point, why did the designer put us in an environment that we would ultimately not be suited for? How do you test for "intelligent design"? What are the parameters? Who is the intelligent actor? God? Yahweh? Zeus? The enlightened beings with Buddha? Aliens? A previous intelligent race? Also, if we were intelligently designed, why were we given the capacity to annihilate ourselves and the planet when our civilization is unstable?

Ultimately, all of those questions either end with "It's too complex to understand," or "I don't know", or "It's in the Bible." Nevermind the fact that there's no way to create a scientific Intelligent Design hypothesis, because there's no way to test it.

I'm not arguing that Intelligent Design is completely wrong, and evolution is completely right. I'm also not arguing that there is no God and science is always better than religion or faith. I'm just trying to get the point across that until ID can be scientifically testable, it's not science, it's just philosophy.

reply to post by platosallegory


yes but when an evolutionist believes somthing it can't prove it is a theory and scientific. When an IDer does the same it is called faith and religion. I think people have a misunderstanding of what ID means and evolutionists like to switch between their own schools of thought whenever it fits, the common ancestor, slow gradual change vs instant mutation.
This will hold up untill a simmilar fossil is found that is newer than this or a more advanced form of primate is found at an earlier date.

reply to post by platosallegory

Nice post plato!

"This can occur on a molecular level when DNA responds to the enviroment."

Nature has it's way of adapting. An example would be go to most any caves. The creatures are blind and without color(albino), because there is no need for sight or color if they are in perpetual darkness. Those humans through generations that are in the sun more (our African brothers) will develop pigment on the skin to protect themselves from the sun. I can give more examples. How long this takes per generation, I don't know.

Guz

reply to post by emsed1


The finding is nonsense. First they tell us that we came from a fish, now there saying we came from a monkey. lol those evolutionist can't make up there minds can they.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Ghostinabox]

Just saw this on the news, well bout to be on the news. CBS

First off, dna has already proven we are not linked to monkeys, we did not evolve from them, could not have, nor could they have evolved from us. The proof has been out there for a while now, so your conversation is mute.

reply to post by mrmrmikee




Do you have a link? I'm not trying to bash just would like to read it.

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
Brilliant! Just brilliant!

Religion has thus - at last - been debunked. Wholesale.

Can we stop with the religious wars now, please???

no ... the amazing thing that they found is not the missing animal between monkey and man ... they found another animal similar to monkey ... something like that ...

this doesnt prove nor disprove anything ... alien could had come here, collected a sample from a monkey dna and made a better being ... we dont know ... maybe its the evolution, but there are no proofs too

reply to post by Ghostinabox


no. The current theory is there was nothing then nothing exploded for no reason and created everything and from this sterrile environment came single celled froms of life which self replicated for no reason which turned into dinosaurs they all died then there were monkeys and lemurs then lemur monkeys then human monkeys and then just humans.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]

reply to post by The Mack


This theory sounds more believable than a god creating us cause he was bored. Really why in the world would God create us if he had no reason to? After all he must of been around a lot longer then the time he made us

reply to post by Silverpine Sepulcher


I do not know. Like most people you assume im christian or i believe in god because i do not think evolution is correct. Go ask someone else if you want to talk about religion.

And people will still refuse to believe evolution.

I really don't get it, I don't see how evolution threatens religion. I think people can believe in both, science and religion can co-exist peacefully, it's the people behind either issue that keep beating this dead horse instead of using common sense.

reply to post by The Mack


Indeed I did not come on here to fight about someones right to believe in something. Anyways after watching this on the news, They treated it like a game keeping it hidden for 2 years and then releasing a book, show, etc. Its retarded and the finder even looks like someone who's in it for money..