Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

In the discussion titled "The Missing Link?" the Discovery Channel and NPR articles suggest that science may have found a fossil  which "may have been" or "could be" or "should be" or "may well have been" or "is probably" -- the missing link between ape and man.

Don't you love it when science is so exact?  And, they question the Bible?

The article also tells us:   "Nobody's found it, and any who claim to usually get publicly whacked by their peers."

Below are excerpts from that article:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++

'Mosaic' Fossil COULD BE Bridge From Apes To Humans
by Christopher Joyce,  September 8, 2011
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/08/...mans?sc=fb&cc=fp


A pair of fossils from a South African cave have scientists both excited and puzzled.  Scientists say the fossils — an adult female and a juvenile — could be the long-sought transition between ape-like ancestors and the first humans.


Sediba likely still used his hands for climbing in trees, but it was likely also capable of making the precision grips that  we believe are necessary to make stone tools. - Tracy Kivell, paleoanthropologist, Max Planck Institute


The bones belong to creatures related to the famous Lucy fossil found in Ethiopia in the 1970s, but their owners lived more recently  — just 2 million years ago.

The reason for the excitement?  Ask anthropologists what they dream about, and many will tell you it's the fossil of the last pre-human ancestor that led directly to us.  Nobody's found it, and any who claim to usually get publicly whacked by their peers.

Lucy and her kind — the diminutive, ape-like Australopithecus that lived 3.2 million years ago — may well have evolved into us, the genus Homo.  But a lot happened in between Lucy and the earliest humans, who emerged just over 2 million years ago.  The true "transitional" species must have lived about the time we emerged.

'The Best Candidate Ancestor'

Now, we have the South African fossils, dated at 1.9 million years ago.  Called Australopithecus sediba, anthropologist Lee Berger says this could be the one. "In our opinion it's probably the best candidate ancestor for giving rise to our immediate ancestor,"   Berger says.

Rethinking How Humans Evolved

Direct ancestor or not, the weird jumble of primitive and modern traits in sediba could rewrite textbooks.  Connected features, like the arm and the hand, are thought to evolve together.  But sediba had an ape's arm and a more human-like hand.

It is believed our ancestors developed a roomy pelvis as their brains got bigger to deliver bigger-brained babies.  The brain and pelvis supposedly evolved in lock-step.  So why, asks Richmond, is sediba's pelvis big and roomy, but its brain small?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Now, some might suggest that that last sentence in the excerpts above prove that the Australopithecus sediba was a direct ancestor of the atheists -- but, I will not go there.   I am more inclined to believe that this story would be, could me, almost is --  the direct result of the mind set which is described in the popular Disney song:  "When You Wish Upon A Star."


When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do

Like a bolt out of the blue
Fate steps in and sees you through
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true


So, my Friends, the long saga of Charley Darwin's enduring nightmare -- the "Missing Link" fossil continues.  Of course, it will  continue.   For, there is no solution, there is no "Missing Link" to be found.  It doesn't exist.

But, still, my atheist Friends, we all must have a dream -- and this is yours.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Monkey-Man-1a

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Monkey-Man-1a
Last edited by Bill Gray
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 It doesn't matter one tiny bit if they ever find the missing link. I don't live my life hoping they find it, and if they do, and I'm still around, my life won't change one bit.  I guess they could say, "oh the missing link was always here", and not bother looking, the way you christians do with your non-existent "link" you call god.

The missing link is a smokescreen thrown up by the biblical literalists.  They have to grasp at every straw they can in hopes that their belief system doesn't fall apart.  Small minds, with small ideas, and a small god. 

 

Even though the Catholics stay a century or two behind, they eventually come around when faced with undeniable scientific evidence.  The fundies continue to remain in the dark, and are trying to drag everyone else back into the third century. 

It's all too hilarious coming from someone who believes in a magical fairy in the sky. At least science is working to explain our origins, it's not always right at first, but will always eventually get there over time. You just take the word of some people who wrote a nice piece of fiction a little less than 2000 years ago (that has never changed or been updated(well I guess the mormons updated it, oops)) because you can't stand not knowing the answers to something. Like it or not, you have to work for your answers. You just can't substitute and ancient belief that has no evidence to prove it's claims as the answer to every question science doesn't have. If we did this, we would still be living in a world void of technology, and you wouldn't be able to smash out your rhetoric on that piece of hardware setting in front of your face right now. 

Dark angel, People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. The Catholic Position What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Who or what is the church to say what all atheists think about how we came to be here? People have their own ideas, some are still "mulling over" all the theories, some don't give it much thought. I look at all and some I reject immediately, like a god, and some I continue to "investigate" as they develope. So for a church or anyone to say that there is one opinion held by all atheists is not a correct statement. But it's not at all surprising, christians love to tell us what we all think and how we all live.

Originally Posted by House of David:
Dark angel, People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. The Catholic Position What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? (blah blah blah)
------

And on the "Missing Link" stupidity:  There is no such thing as a "missing link" in biology or anthropology.  The evolution of life on this earth is not a series of distinct "links" from one animal to the next.  It is more akin to a spectrum seen in a rainbow.  Each main color is distinctly different (a "link" if you will) but if you actually look at the spectrum, there is no dividing point between red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.  You can see how red and orange are related. You can see the similarity between indigo and blue.  But there is no apparent relationship between red and violet unless you actually understand the whole spectrum.

When a baby is born, it is just a smidgen different in appearance from his mother and father. The father was slightly different from his father, his father's father's father was slighly different from his father.  While you can usually tell a relationship between father and son, one would be ahrd pressed to see a resemblance to a grandfather, great grandfather and great great grandfather.  But if we were to dig up the great great grandfather, we would, in fact, see a "missing link" that was probably a direct ancestor of the baby born today even though he looked much different.

Now, imagine those small changes in your lineage over the span of a thousand years.  Now 2 thousand.  Now 5, 10, 20 thousand.  Men from 20k years ago looked a bit different from us as a whole but, individually, you would not be able to pick one of them out in a lineup of modern humans. But even your direct ancestor would look vastly different from you.

Now imagine 30, 50, 100 thousand years.   Again, as a whole, people from 100k years ago looked quite different from us as a whole. The main difference that you would notice immediately is that your ancestor had black skin.  Our race had just barely begun to migrate out of Africa at that time.  Other than that, they were very much like we are today depending on what region of Africa they lived in.  They were still Homo Sapiens (modern humans) but . . . Different as a whole.

80 to 100k years ago, there was a distinctly different race of people roaming the earth during this time north of Africa.  They were short, stocky, thick-limbed, heavy brows and quite muscular.  They also were not too different from us.  If you were to see one of them on the street today, you would not look twice . . .  OK, you might look twice because they are what we might consider "ugly" (pictured is a reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman who looks just like my mother in law)but they would still blend in pretty easily.  We call this race Neandertal.  Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we mated with this race/  They are still alive in our genes today. 

Now go back another 100k years to 200,000 years ago. That is 10,000 years times 20. These are the "cave men" we think of today. They had just discovered fire. They made complex tools of stone and wood.  The lived in primitive dwellings.

STILL, these humans looked much as we do now but you could certainly pick them out of a lineup if you stood them beside a modern human.  We call these people Homo Erectus.  They had dark skin, their jaw was protuded but were most likely hairless even though they had ape-like fatures (just as we do now because we ARE apes).

 

To get a vastly different looking animal, you have to go back far more than we have traveled so far.  Back to 1 million, 1.5 million years ago and we see this guy, Homo Habillis. .  Looks a lot like a monkey, no?  But still has an uncanny human aspect and he walks upright.

 

And on and on and on.  THIS is evolution. Incredibly small changes over vast, unimaginable periods of time.  There ARE NO MISSING LINKS! There are only transitional forms.  Thus far, science has only been able to absolutely determine that we are related to Neanderthal. That is what the genetic evidence tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The rest of these species are "maybes" and "possibles" and "perhapses."  The tree of life is not even a tree.  It's a bush who's branches sometimes curl back into other branches making it possible only to infer certain things based on vast amounts of ancient, dusty evidence.  Absolute knowledge is simply not possible yet.  It is vastly complicated and almost no one understands it because almost no one has studied it. But once you grasp the fundamentals, it is easily understood by even a child.  The only people who will forever be locked away from this marvelous knowledge are those who have allowed delusion to cloud their minds.  



 

Hi Uno,

 

Now that we have, with your assistance, examined your family tree -- let's talk common sense.

 

If we have animal A, which led through your Darwinian Evolution to animal B, which then evolved to animal C -- should we not expect to see some fossil record of animal B?   Today, we have millions of fossil records in museums around the world for animal A and animal C -- but, ALL of the fossil records for animal B, the hybrid, or in between, animal -- have mysteriously disappeared.  How do you explain that?

 

And, that, my Friend -- is the "Missing Link" fossil record.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Unoi, your race of people 90k years ago were some tough dudes since there was only .0002 people on Earth 2m years ago and exploded to only 2hundred people I.I million years later . They were some old dudes. For there to have been a “race” of people nobody could have died in the million plus years.

Come on unoi you’ve got crust believing in magic men.

According to my numbers the whole race was found in the cave. What luck.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
If we have animal A, which led through your Darwinian Evolution to animal B, which then evolved to animal C -- should we not expect to see some fossil record of animal B? 
 
-----
We do, deluded old man.  The pictures I included up there were re-constructed from actual skulls in the same way that forensic scientists reconstruct the likeness of a dead person today in hopes of identifying them.

These were real creatures, Bill. "Apelike" people who actually walked upright and used complex tools. 
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
If we have animal A, which led through your Darwinian Evolution to animal B, which then evolved to animal C -- should we not expect to see some fossil record of animal B? 
 
-----
We do, deluded old man.  The pictures I included up there were re-constructed from actual skulls in the same way that forensic scientists reconstruct the likeness of a dead person today in hopes of identifying them.

These were real creatures, Bill. "Apelike" people who actually walked upright and used complex tools. 

---------------that is a lie unoi, you read that in some comic book. there is no such thing as you describe. there was no population of any animals back in the dates you describe. Scientist estimate only .0002th of a million  humans existed in 90k BC and only 200 humans  ten thousand years later. In your model no one ever dies. The recent discovery of bones is the total of  every human that ever existed for the first two million years.

Last edited by okuok

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×