Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Missing link between humans and apes

  1. #1 Missing link between humans and apes 
    Forum Freshman Tyrannosaurus Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    62
    Hello everyone,

    I was wonder,did scientists found missing link between humans and apes?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex View Post
    ... missing link between humans and apes?
    When you say "ape", what exactly flashes across your mind? To me, it sounds as if we are asked for the missing link between a toyota corolla and automobiles.

    Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex View Post
    Hello everyone,
    I was wonder,did scientists found missing link between humans and apes?
    Depending on what you are referring to, there are either 100's of 1000's of missing links...or none.

    Have we found evolutionary steps between ape and human? Yes.
    Have we found all the steps between ape and human? No.
    Is it possible to find every single step between ape and human? No, not really.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Tyrannosaurus Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    62
    I have friend and he believe in that 6000 years old Earth,so he gave me this link:

    https://answersingenesis.org/human-e...gin-of-humans/

    I totally don't believe in bible or that kind of stuff,but i want to explain him link between humanoid apes and humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex View Post
    I have friend and he believe in that 6000 years old Earth
    Then he is too far removed from reality to be able to be influenced by discussion.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    there's only one way you're going to find out about the evidence of human evolution : go and look in the various museums in e.g Kenya, Ethiopia or South Africa that contain the actual remains of all the hominid predecessors
    if you don't want to take an anthropologist's word for it, then why should you take a lawyer, biochemist or engineer's word for the creationist interpretation ? go and find out for yourself, and see for yourself whose description more closely matches reality : the scientist or the creationist

    unless your prejudices blind you to see the things as they really are, you should be able to come to your own conclusions and see who's right
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex View Post
    I have friend and he believe in that 6000 years old Earth,so he gave me this link:

    https://answersingenesis.org/human-e...gin-of-humans/

    I totally don't believe in bible or that kind of stuff,but i want to explain him link between humanoid apes and humans.
    That website is infamous for its flagrant disregard of facts and contempt for logic. As its name suggests, the website begins with the dogmatic conviction that the Bible is unerringly and literally true. Thus twisting of the facts is justified.

    The site itself is proof, in fact, that the missing links aren't missing at all. Many of them are still with us, running websites like "answersingenesis.org."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Is that your belief?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The site itself is proof, in fact, that the missing links aren't missing at all. Many of them are still with us, running websites like "answersingenesis.org."
    Like+1
    ROFL
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The site itself is proof, in fact, that the missing links aren't missing at all. Many of them are still with us, running websites like "answersingenesis.org."
    Like+1
    ROFL
    I agree it is funny but it is hardly scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Is that your belief?
    no! Science is too important for such nonsense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex View Post
    Hello everyone,

    I was wonder,did scientists found missing link between humans and apes?
    First do you believe that sharing 97% the same DNA can be considered a "link"? Apes and humans are classified as "hominid", IOW, in biblical terms they are variations of the same kind.
    From wiki,
    The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
    chimpanzees (Pan) – 2 species
    gorillas (Gorilla) – 2 species
    humans (Homo) – 1 species
    orangutans (Pongo) – 2 species.[1]
    It is remarkable that we have found as many fossils as we have. Bury a living organism (even for 6000 years} and see what is left of it, let alone some 200,000 years.
    wiki,
    Primitive humans who inhabited the coast of South Africa 165,000 years ago and lived on a diet rich in shellfish could be the original ancestors of everyone alive today, a study suggests.
    First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The Independent

    But rather than trying to find physical evidence (of which we have some very good examples), we know HOW it happened. It was a lucky mutation in the DNA of a hominid ancestor.

    The below article explains how humans evolved through a mutation in DNA.
    All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong
    and
    Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2.
    Chromosome fusion

    And as far as your friend who believes in 6 day creation goes, ask him if he knows the duration of one of God's days. If one of God's days equals 2.46 billion years, then god created the universe some 14.8 give or take, billion years ago. Remind him that at time of creation the earth and the 24 hr day did not yet exist, so using the earthly terms "day" and "year" are incorrect presumptions by Creationists.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 29th, 2014 at 11:44 PM. Reason: clarification
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Is that your belief?
    no! Science is too important for such nonsense!
    Why repeat such nonsense then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Is that your belief?
    no! Science is too important for such nonsense!
    Why repeat such nonsense then?
    I suspect the intent may be to show the idiocy of a belief that a loving God would set out to delude mankind in such a childish way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    If you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, there is a very easy way to explain away the fossil evidence. God created the fossils, being a practical joker, he wanted to confuse the non-believers.
    Is that your belief?
    no! Science is too important for such nonsense!
    Why repeat such nonsense then?

    I suspect the intent may be to show the idiocy of a belief that a loving God would set out to delude mankind in such a childish way.
    If that was the case we should all believe in evolution as a form of protest for being tricked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    A well balanced education and a inquiring mind are the tools that can guide your inquiry to the best result..
    ~ The human race is a stand alone type.. evolved from a sub species of ape. Just as all animal species have.. and are.
    A goat is not a small horse as it is not a tall sheep. I would advise to stop looking for what did never exist. There is no missing link.
    ' We' are a type specific.
    I see above that some very silly ideas have emerged from the soup of ignorance.. pfft,
    That a God placed fossils to confuse his nemesis, science.. what a bunch of Wally's. Who are these idiots and why would anyone give them space to be heard in.. Go away..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    A well balanced education and a inquiring mind are the tools that can guide your inquiry to the best result..
    ~ The human race is a stand alone type.. evolved from a sub species of ape. Just as all animal species have.. and are.
    A goat is not a small horse as it is not a tall sheep. I would advise to stop looking for what did never exist. There is no missing link.
    ' We' are a type specific.
    I see above that some very silly ideas have emerged from the soup of ignorance.. pfft,
    That a God placed fossils to confuse his nemesis, science.. what a bunch of Wally's. Who are these idiots and why would anyone give them space to be heard in.. Go away..
    Why aren't there missing links? Missing links, to me, just means that we don't have fossils covering every stage of (human) evolution.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; July 30th, 2014 at 02:32 AM. Reason: clarity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    [QUOTE=Robittybob1;
    Why aren't there missing links? Missing links are just means that we don't have fossils covering every stage of (human) evolution.[/QUOTE]
    ~ You know it has taken millions of years of small steps. No fossils are likely to be found from the highlands of Uganda and Kenya.
    The environments are not good for preserving fossil remains.. small changes, millions of years.. what are you thinking might be found ?
    We already have a depth of knowledge regarding the early humans and yes we have gaps of history.. Being a man of sciences you know of what I speak of.. I am having trouble understanding what you are asking..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    [QUOTE=astromark;582881]
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1;
    Why aren't there missing links? Missing links are just means that we don't have fossils covering every stage of (human) evolution.[/QUOTE
    ~ You know it has taken millions of years of small steps. No fossils are likely to be found from the highlands of Uganda and Kenya.
    The environments are not good for preserving fossil remains.. small changes, millions of years.. what are you thinking might be found ?
    We already have a depth of knowledge regarding the early humans and yes we have gaps of history.. Being a man of sciences you know of what I speak of.. I am having trouble understanding what you are asking..
    Like if we could find just one skeleton for every 100,000 years over the 5 million year period (50 representative human skeletons) that show the progression from the common ancestor to modern man I think then there would be no question about missing links.
    But when there are gaps of millions of years or skeletons on the time graph that don't seem to have logical phenotypal connection I think then we could say there are missing links (steps). That is my opinion any way.
    As you imply it is hard to get these skeletons for there had to be the right geological events occurring to create them and preserve them throughout that entire time scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If that was the case we should all believe in evolution as a form of protest for being tricked.
    wrong word - anything to do with science, including evolution, has nothing to do with "belief", but everything with accepting the weight of evidence as representing a valid representation of the real world
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If that was the case we should all believe in evolution as a form of protest for being tricked.
    wrong word - anything to do with science, including evolution, has nothing to do with "belief", but everything with accepting the weight of evidence as representing a valid representation of the real world
    How do you say it then? "You accept evolution." "You are convinced of evolution." Accept, convinced and believe are very similar ideas aren't they.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I think you can say.. "By the weight of scientific evidence I believe".. Or that you know by application of scientific revue...
    Believing with sound cause is fine.. But I also recognize a reluctance to use 'believe' because it leans to faith.. another word we are careful with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you could acknowledge that evolution is a fact of life whether you believe in it or not
    the trouble with believing is its religious overtones and the implication that believing is somehow sufficient to make something true
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    I may be wrong but I don't think we have ever discovered the relationship between the size of the population of a given species and the number of fossil remains of that species that can be found. Fossilization is a hit or miss process. Most dead things do not become fossils, they just rot away. Then finding fossils is also hit or miss. This means that you can't reasonably expect to find the bones of something that only existed in small numbers. The very term "missing link" implies a very small population in transition to becoming something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Fossilization is a hit or miss process. Most dead things do not become fossils, they just rot away. Then finding fossils is also hit or miss. This means that you can't reasonably expect to find the bones of something that only existed in small numbers.
    Most dead animals get eaten by other not dead yet animals, and the bones get eaten by smaller not dead yet animalicules.
    You might not have noticed but most fossils are found where water and mud would have covered them or in places that would have been severe desert. In both cases the body is preserved and there are no animals consuming it.
    In water with sediment it is buried in the mud under the water, no oxygen, nothing eating it.
    Peat bogs, low oxygen, buried, and pickled by tannic acid from the decaying peat.
    Burgess shale? deep water and silt.
    Desert mummies of seals in the Atacama desert. (The seals wander in from the ocean, take a wrong turn and die by dehydration)

    Yeah, fossils are hit and miss and they are sometimes found where they shouldn't be.
    Like the desert fossils of seals that died like modern seals die in the Atacama, or an Elk that walked onto a frozen lake, broke through the ice and sank after drowning.

    Fossilization really has less to do with the size of the population than it has with the where individuals died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    How do you say it then? "You accept evolution." "You are convinced of evolution." Accept, convinced and believe are very similar ideas aren't they.
    No. And honestly you'd have a much easier time in the forum once you understood the differences. Beliefs don't have to be grounded in ANY objective evidence--and often aren't. Accepting X as the best explanation based on the scientific method firmly grounds X on objective evidence--it might be wrong or incomplete but at least it has an empirical foundation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The problem with arguing about "missing links" is that, no matter how many links are found between pre-ape and human, it will always be possible to argue that some steps are missing.

    Part of the reason a perfectly smooth transition will never be established is that the population is never heterogeneous at any given time. Just as right now, there presently exists a wide variety of humans with different appearances, there always has existed a wide variety.

    If you found the most ape-like looking humans alive today, their skeletons might represent 2 or 3 links backward in skeletal appearance. (Although skeletal appearance isn't the only important trait of a modern human.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The site itself is proof, in fact, that the missing links aren't missing at all. Many of them are still with us, running websites like "answersingenesis.org."
    Like+1
    ROFL
    I agree it is funny but it is hardly scientific.
    Maybe so, however there is more truth to it than you might think.

    There's no guarantee they are operating websites, but certainly you could find some humans in today's population who are some percent genetic matches to a near ancestor of modern humans. Maybe not 100% genetic match, but maybe 20% or 30%.

    The previous step's DNA remains in the population for a long time after the new organism emerges.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    IMO, the most convincing argument for evolution is the similarities of DNA and particularly the leftovers of DNA which is no longer used to build the organism.

    Why would that "obsolete" DNA still be present if it had never been used by an ancestor to begin with?

    So-called junk DNA, the vast majority of the genome that doesn't code for proteins, really isn't needed for a healthy organism, according to new research.
    http://www.livescience.com/31939-jun...ry-solved.html
    Last edited by Write4U; August 13th, 2014 at 08:42 AM. Reason: added link
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    "Fossilization really has less to do with the size of the population than it has with the where individuals died." True, but, if we are talking about something that does not spend most of its life in prime fossil making environment, then the higher the population then the better the chance of one dieing where it can be fossilized. Its the old problem about negative evidence. Finding something proves that it existed, but not finding anything does not prove that nothing existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    "Fossilization really has less to do with the size of the population than it has with the where individuals died." True, but, if we are talking about something that does not spend most of its life in prime fossil making environment, then the higher the population then the better the chance of one dieing where it can be fossilized. Its the old problem about negative evidence. Finding something proves that it existed, but not finding anything does not prove that nothing existed.
    It is much much more about the environments that a species is interacting with then it is about the size of the population. Huge populations living in an upland forest environment are less likely to fossilize then small populations interacting regularly with aquatic or bog environments.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    "Fossilization really has less to do with the size of the population than it has with the where individuals died." True, but, if we are talking about something that does not spend most of its life in prime fossil making environment, then the higher the population then the better the chance of one dieing where it can be fossilized. Its the old problem about negative evidence. Finding something proves that it existed, but not finding anything does not prove that nothing existed.
    It is much much more about the environments that a species is interacting with then it is about the size of the population. Huge populations living in an upland forest environment are less likely to fossilize then small populations interacting regularly with aquatic or bog environments.
    I think you are both correct.
    Sealeaf was responding to the last line of my comment in post #26.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Apes to Humans - clues in starch
    By jimell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 1st, 2012, 05:00 PM
  2. The missing link
    By curiousthinker in forum Introductions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 30th, 2012, 07:39 PM
  3. The missing link..
    By Yacobian in forum Biology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 19th, 2011, 04:24 AM
  4. the missing link
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 18th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •