The missing link has been found! Or so the scientists will tell you once again. They have this monkey that they claim is 45 million years old. Without getting into the creation debate all over again, I just want to say, really 45 million years huh? They had monkeys back then?
Just because the monkey had some similar types of bones, doesn’t make it a missing link because it’s still a monkey! A missing link would be something that is almost completely human, but not. There would need to be something four or five feet tall with arms and legs and thumbs and all sorts of other things, but not human. Not a monkey that has one of the same foot bones as humans. Not too mention that even if this was a 45 million year old monkey, could you really tell it was the exact same bone that people have? Think through it rather than have blind faith in so called science. I could take a a dog bone out and say that looks just like some other bone. It wouldn’t hold up under scrutiny, but add a supposed 45 million years and what could you really tell? Do certain bone types have some special DNA identifying them as a particular bone type? I bet the monkey has arms, and we have arms, does that make it a missing link? I know this isn't exactly the same, but just because we have one thing in common doesn't make for a real link.
This article is like magic more than science. These so called scientists think if they act like it is so amazing and obvious that it is the missing link, that everyone will buy it. It’s bad misdirection. I can say, "Look! My dog can talk," and when you hear him bark you hear nothing. However, if I insist, maybe you will hear something. The fact is, this is how Darwinian science goes. They intimidate and shout and because they are “scientists” and we are rubes therefore, whatever they say must be true.
,
Every few years the “scientists” bring out a missing link and we find out later how they were hoaxes or information was left out that makes their claim lose any validity it had. If Darwin’s theory was right, we shouldn’t just find one missing link but thousands of fossils for several different links in the transition periods between apes and people and also between thousands of other animals and their evolved animals.
This kind of evidence would never hold up in a court of law. If you accused someone of destroying an entire species that no one ever heard of or saw and the only evidence you could provide is one fossil that was extremely old an appeared to be just like another existing species with some minor differences, you would never get a conviction.
Read here for related information from the past..
Comments
1- The animal is the precursor to primate development and evolution, not proof of a human/monkey link.
2-Rejecting the creation argument requires dismissing entire fields of science such as biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.
3- There were billions of dinosaurs, yet only a few fossils because of the vast improbabilty of them being effectively preserved for eons.
4-Making the claim there should be thousands of transitional fossils is a red herring that neglects the incredibly rare process of fossilization and an undue burden of proof demanded.
No one is challenge anyone's faith with this discovery, but trying to show that the skeletal features began diverging from lemurs and feline mammals into upright mammals.
1) they're calling it a missing link which typically refers to proof of evolution between monkeys and people.
2) Exactly so dont reject creationism. I was just saying I'm not going to talk about it at length.
3) There was a lot more fossils and actual bones of dinosaurs than just one for sure!
4) Undue burden? There should be thousands because thousands of different animals exist and they should all have several transition animals. Even if you can't have thousands how about more than one?
Dinosuars are much more provable than any missing links. Of course it's not a challenge to any faith because it is no challenge. Proving these ridiculous claims false is a challenge to the faith of macro-evolutionists.
hahaha--what a tool!
there is a certain brand of Xtian that will NEVER accept facts, no matter how pervasive. History has shown time and again that church leaders and adherents will reject scientific breakthroughs whenever it challenges the faithful and/or the powerful, only to be left in the dust as the world very thankfully moves past such myoptic views. It is no different today, and of course no "modern" true believer will ever think that THEY could be subject to this type of paradigm-shifting breakthrough. Those who don't know history are unfortunately doomed to repeat it, ad nauseum.
I love this line: "Just think rather than have blind faith in so called science", but blind faith in ancient myths and stories is somehow rationalized as the truth. It boggles the mind...
"A missing link would be something that is almost completely human but not"
The h0m0 (correct spelling was blocked for inappropriate language. This is a Christian website, so no surprise there) erectus you mean? No, a missing link is supposed to be a "link" between an ape-like create and us humans. Not "almost human like", but the one that connects the both.
Wow you know nothing about this subject, why would you write an article about it?
Wow, just wow. Are your kids this dumb?
Greetings,
I won't comment on the brutal lack of information and understanding of evolution displayed, because debating those things would be pointless over some comments, but rather on something that I think is a twisted truth.
"Every few years the “scientists” bring out a missing link and we find out later how they were hoaxes or information was left out that makes their claim lose any validity it had."
You make it sound as if they were children telling lies and hiding at all costs the true information, and other info is leaked and so their lies fall to the ground.
Well, the thing that makes science more acceptable than any mythological claim, is that scientist CORRECT THEMSELVES OR OTHERS when they find information is wrong. Otherwise, you would have NEVER found out that those findings were hoaxes or misinterpretations.
A thing that most creationist don't do, because they IRRATIONALLY deny claims that differ from their own, while true scientist give room to think about all possibilities and sistematically analize them.
Pardon if my grammar/orthography is a bit off, English is not my mother tongue and I haven't perfected it.
Larry, educate yourself.
Search for this video on Youtube: vss1VKN2rf8
All this shows is that our lord and saviour, and the creator of the universe is far more complex than I originally believed. To think that such a grand architect would utilize insanely complex methods to allow the universe, and eventually life to birth is a testament to his greatness! To us who are unable to fully understand his almighty power it appears as chaos, but we all know it was intelligentlly planned.
I am a Christian, I also believe in Evolution.
Thank you very much Larry. Without people like you there would be nothing for satirists to write about. Well done, you're a disgrace to the human/monkey linked race and beyond. You will forever be remembered alongside those who burnt women to death for being witches.Amen.
to drjmarcus:
I'm not a Christian, and I'm not an expert on the Bible either. But as far as I know, God was supposed to have created Man in an image of himself? So if you believe that Man evolved from ape-like creatures, how can God have created us from his image? Is God a monkey? Would certainly explain things...
Was this written in English?
Do you know what science is?
Are you qualified to offer commentary?
Why are rebuttals from the obvious religious side always on elementary issues? I'm surprised you didn't bring up the second law of thermodynamics and eugenics, with the rest of the packaged debates.
"I can say look my dog can talk and when you hear him bark you hear nothing but if I insist maybe you will hear something."
Replace "dog" with "god" and you have a fitting analogy.
Wrath: Excellent point. I figure that we are in the image of God, and perhaps God is always evolving? And this change is the same, yesterday, today, and forever more... amen...
Or perhaps it is symbolic? Although in the Garden of Eden the lord did expell humans from the garden, as we had eaten from the tree of Knowledge, and if we had also eaten from the true of life we would "Be like God" so perhaps it was in regards to our spirituality? or the design of our souls with disregard for the outer shell that houses it? Who knows.
I am a Christian, and I just try to live like Christ. Loving my neighbors, being compassionate, offering charity, and spreading his message through my actions instead of by the apathetic form of judgment against my fellow human.
Blah blah blah. If God came up to me and said "Hey, I'm God, believe in me", I'd probably do it. Why is it when ignoramuses such as yourself get the same slapping around by science, you still deny. Why are so many Christians more like Thomas than Christ?
How about writing an article based off the source, and facts.
ttp://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723
Learn how people like Larry can convince you into believing anything...
ttp://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
drjmarcus: Good point. And it's nice to see a Christian who chooses to believe in evolution, as opposed to most Christians who deny it without even doing any research on it.
lol, nobody is force-feeding you evolution. if you don't want to accept it, then that is your own choice to be ignorant. Evolution isn't some unholy concept thought up by satan himself, it is a process of change over time and it's based on scientific fact and observations. Your religion is based on feelings, the invisible, and bronze-aged worldviews. It's ironic that you dismiss evolution as foolish nonsense, yet you believe wholeheartedly in the creation story. Leave the science to the scientists, please, you really have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself.
Is this article serious? This is a joke right?... right?
If the author is serious then I would suggest trying for a basic understanding of the subject before you attempt to debunk it.
I call POE'S law, on this one. I can't tell if this article is really dry sarcasm, or really scary religious fundamentalism.
Is this for real or a satire like The Onion? I really can't tell anymore. It's all just so absurd. Either the author has zero understanding of science or it's all a joke.
I'd like to begin with the fact that only a certain few scientists are claiming this fossil is from a "missing link" in our evolutionary scale, not all of them. So don't group all of the men and women in the profession into that line of thinking when that is obviously not the case. This particular piece has been reported on by several respected news organizations and each one of them has clearly stated there is a divide on the usage of the term "Missing Link" in the science community on this issue.
Secondly, since the fossil WAS from a primate (yes, there were mammals in the Eocene Epoch era 55 million years ago) it CAN be considered a missing link simply for the fact that it shared common traits and ancestors with us. Although that doesn't make humans direct decedents from the creature, it is most definitely a missing piece to our whole puzzle.
Thirdly, digging up a dog bone and claiming it would be something else after debating its age is an absolutely horrid analogy for this case. Primates have a different bone structure than most mammals and those difference are well documented. This fossil shares similar bone structure to early primates but they're not exact. Usually that's a pretty good indicator of occurring evolution and since this skeleton not familiar to us it goes right in the "missing link" category. There is no need for a fossil to be near humanoid to be considered a missing link since we're the culmination of millions of years of growth and pietri science. We share much with many species of primates and there are still gaps on the scale. Before you turn your nose up and reiterate your question "then where are all these thousands of fossils and 'links' to monkeys?" you have to remember the cardinal rule of evolution: survival of the fittest. Not every step in the evolutionary scale is a lasting one and the conditions for fossilizing any creature were sporadic.
Personally, I don't see what's so hard to believe about the whole situation. Haven't you spent your life worshiping a deity you've never seen and there is no physical proof of? You straddle your saddle on your high horse and look down on obvious advancements and developments in science and refute them claiming to not believe the proof presented when you yourself subscribe to a religion which bases it's teachings and practices from a foundation of mysticism and absolutely NO physical evidence.
This has nothing to do with politics and should be categorized under "Opinion". Also, do to your complete lack of research and credible sources, you shouldn't be labeled as a journalist, merely a blogger. Good day.
So, the octopus did not change in 95 million years, so it must of been created in the image of the octopus god, but this is no threat to anyone's humanist religion.
However, to discount the God that created humans in His image, a 47 million year old monkey-lemur must have evolved into a man.
It is funny how evolution is not falsifiable: (a) find something that hasn't changed implies evolution (somehow) (b) find something and allege that it has become a modern (horse, dog, person) and this too proves evolution.
Evolution is not science, and continued belief in it is undermining science.
Tom...
You have NO understanding of how evolution works.
Animals/plants evolve when they are PRESSURED into it.
The fact that the octopus have not evolved for millions of years is just because it has no need to evolve. It functions well the way it is.
If suddenly the oceans became 10 degrees hotter, the octopus's that can't withstand the heat would die out and the ones that could withstand the heat would live on and procreate. Thus the species would evolve.
EDUCATE YOURSELF TOM!
Disregard that, I'm a moron.
drjmarcus is on the right path...if you look at the end of Darwins Origins book, he himself implies that, yes there is evolution but their had to be intelligent design to start the process. It is the very last chapter of that book.
k-sizzle...
The teachings of evolution has come a long way from the days of Darwin.
Origin of Species is not some bibel for evolution, the teachings of evolution is evolving. (Pun intended)
What Darwin was referring to has become a classic battleground for evolution - the eye - admitting how tempting it is to assume divine intervention.
This however has been debunked.
We have seen various states of the eye in animals from a blob that can comprehend light, to animals with the same blob but with a lens so it can focus to the human eye.
Note that the human eye is not the peak of evolution eye-wise, some animals has supreme eye sight compared to ours.
English is not my native language so forgive any mistakes I've made.
- Anonymous
You, my friend, are too caught up in Christianity for your own good. I'm not a religious person, and to hear people speak such as you on subjects that you clearly have no understanding of (besides the invisible, unprovable God) really makes me sad. Hearing ppl talk in these biblical terms and capitalize words such as "Him" and say "in his image" seems foolish. I guess that would make god look like everything then right? White, Indian, Black, Asian? I bet you think Jesus was blonde hair blue eyed as well? I'm suprised you don't think the computer and internet are "the devil." Putz
Larry, have you ever seen the picture of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake? and that makes your argument invalid? yeah, your little article/posting is as stupid as that except God won't forgive you for being stupid.
The bible says God created us in his image. The debate is in the word 'created'. Can't you believe that God could have chosen myriad methods and practices, and yes, centuries to 'create'? Use some creativity of your own, and stop limiting God, and his creativity, to the size of your own brain.
Being created in God's image has to do with the SOUL not the body. God is Spirit and has no body...whether we evolved or not doesn't matter, since we were humans, since Adam, we, unlike animals, have SOULS and therefore are "in the image of God."
I like how all you anti-christian people make this into a hatefest accusing us of being idiots and not living in reality. Who came up with modern science (the scientific method, astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, cells): the Catholic Church. Catholic priests and monks came up with the scientific method and the big band, and St Thomas Aquinas and Augustine came up with evolution way before Darwin. For example, the reason why cells are called cells is because thats wat a monks resting place was called "a cell," as a monk came up with it.
If you read the Bible Noah lived 950 years. If you track back all the begetting the Earth from creation to now is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 to 30,000 years old. Since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs or ape-monsters you can easily dismiss all of this (and a lot of other science) as complete farce.
Anonymous please tell me you are a troll.
THERE IS NO GOD
Hold on a second..... "almost completely human but not" how the hell exactly do you get an almost completely human but not? its either human or it isnt you complete and utter idiot.
Firstly let me say im not an athiest but i also do not believe in the complete circular idiocy that is Christianity, Judaism, or Islam with their creationistical theories because a book told them so..... Still living 3000 years in the past i think and in complete Denial. First let us first pretend that the Adam and eve story is true..... lets do an experiment shall we.... put a boy and a girl on a desert island with food etc.... and see how long it takes before the 2nd generation dies. Demographics prove that it would require 28 femals and 12 males in order to genetically carry the race of humans forward sucessfully while also providing a substantial population growth that is sustainable!. You creationists really need to learn common sense and drop your Circular reasoning. Let us look at more FACTS such as the FACT of Evolution as proved in many species of animals including Humans! Evolution is a FACT it would have occured and continued to occur regardless of if anyone discovered it just like Gravity has always occured and will continue to occur we cannot see it... However that apple that dropped on newtons head wasnt previously just suspended there know why? because it would have always fallen because of the FACT of gravity.... same as humans would have ALWAYS evolved because Evolution is a FACT. The theory part comes in when the process and functions are poorly explained example: Darwins theory of natural selection. The Theory of natural selection a process that is PART of the FACT of Evolution.
Now yes i know you circularists will argue the toss because "God said so" or "God made it so" etc etc etc But you guys really do need to open your eyes or are they sewn together?????
Now lets look at the possibility of this being a missing link..... Features described sucessfully similarities and differences drawn up and compared...... Yep this pretty much looks like a possible missing link to me......
Thanks all and happy days i just owned you all.
Anonymous says "Since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs or ape-monsters you can easily dismiss all of this (and a lot of other science) as complete farce." Well, the Bible can't comment on the "ape monsters" (since there obvioulsy were none, as proof that yet ANOTHER "real missing link" has been found), but the Bible does talk about dinosaurs, proof that man did live with T-Rex...hmm evolution seems more and more like a joke the more you look into it. Just google search "Job and Dinosaurs" or just check out commentary on Job 40:15-24 for more info.
The "missing link" is something like BigFoot!
Now that I think about it, a cross between Sly Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
(gotta get all the good and bad genes in there)
Evolution might be true and then it might not. I don't care anymore. The more we "think" we know, the more we don't. However, to say there is no creator defies logic and reason. Please, somebody, explain reproduction and it's role without a creator. Go ahead and do your best. It won't hold up no matter how you slice it. Living things reproduce for a reason: to go on. Where does that come from? Is it chance? Umm, no. The bible could be wrong, evolution could be wrong, whatever, but there is somebody behind all this and right now, they are laughing at how stupid we really are with this fossil.
What I find interesting is that man is, like 200,000 years old and the world is billions of years old...or so they say. Yet, in a matter of about 1000 years, we humans have come so far as to gain the knowledge and ability to destroy the world or help keep it alive. Some "link" is missing alright and I don't think this old monkey fossil is it.
Larry-
It takes more than a spell checker to write correctly. Your writing skills reflect your knowledge on most subjects
First of all. Use spell check. ...Or do creationists not believe in that either? Next, you talk about blind faith, why is creationism not a blind faith? it is just basing your thoughts on something that is not concrete. So my suggestion to you is, get a PHD in anthropology, then come back with your "creationist" ideas. have a nice day.
My son. Creationism is BS. May I be with you.
Remember when you were little and you would take a pad a paper and draw a stick person and change the arms and legs a little tiny bit in each picture? Then, you would flip the pages with your fingers really fast and your own little cartoon would appear? This is what I believe scientists should be able to do with the missing links. There should be thousands and millions of variations leading up to us humans and all other living animals today. Then photographs of the fossils that were found so far (shouldn't it be in the hundreds at least?)could be taken and then flipped through to make an animation of how they were evolved. This is why evolution is blind faith. There is no animation that could be made from the "missing links" possible, not even close, even with this supposed monkey with a human foot bone. Creation on the other hand, you can look around and see and observe a God at work. Believing in a god that existed from the beginning is easier than the beginnings and process of evolution I think. Now, where did that first organism, mass, lightening, or whatever come from?
Somebody-
Please, somebody, explain reproduction and it's role without a creator. Go ahead and do your best. It won't hold up no matter how you slice it. Living things reproduce for a reason: to go on. Where does that come from? Is it chance? Umm, no. The bible could be wrong, evolution could be wrong, whatever, but there is somebody behind all this and right now, they are laughing at how stupid we really are with this fossil.
Reproduction is merely a byproduct of sex. Sex feels good and our instincts tell us to do things that feel good. So, animals aren't reproducing, they're having sex and babies are occurring.
This has to be the dumbest article I've ever read...
Evidence that would hold up in a court of LAW ?
And yet you reference to the bible...
What a moron.
This article shows the complete ignorance by creationists.
If you would want christianity to keep from falling apart, this is the wrong way to do it.
Embrace, do not ignore.
We will only get MORE evidence from science not LESS, that's just the way it goes.
Bottom line is: Science will always endeavour to be objective, Religion doesn't be objective as it's faith. A Christian will always reference the Bible as fact and will never look for any other answer. The pure ignorance of Christians is bewildering but again it's faith and no matter how many scientific facts are presented they will never trully grasp the concept of maybe they are wrong, a book that was written 2000+ years ago in a simple time, for simple people.
lolz... thanks dude, you made me laugh real hard
..... this is ridiciulous, you don't have the knowledge to make such claims. Study biology! But you won't, because, of course, it's all smoke and mirrors for you... :/
This guy's crazy. It must be a joke.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!