LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHello everyone,
I was wonder,did scientists found missing link between humans and apes?
July 25th, 2014, 09:57 AM
Hello everyone,
I was wonder,did scientists found 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.Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex
Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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.
Then he is too far removed from reality to be able to be influenced by discussion.
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
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."
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?
Like+1
ROFL
I agree it is funny but it is hardly scientific.Like+1
ROFL
no! Science is too important for such nonsense!Is that your belief?
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,
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.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]
wiki,First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The IndependentPrimitive 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.
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.andAll 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 strongChromosome fusionLet 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.
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
Why repeat such nonsense then?no! Science is too important for such nonsense!Is that your belief?
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.Why repeat such nonsense then?no! Science is too important for such nonsense!Is that your belief?
If that was the case we should all believe in evolution as a form of protest for being tricked.Why repeat such nonsense then?no! Science is too important for such nonsense!Is that your belief?
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.
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
[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..
[QUOTE=astromark;582881]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.
Why aren't there missing links? Missing links are just means that we don't have fossils covering every stage of (human) evolution.[/QUOTE
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.
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.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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Maybe so, however there is more truth to it than you might think.I agree it is funny but it is hardly scientific.Like+1
ROFL
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.
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?
http://www.livescience.com/31939-jun...ry-solved.htmlSo-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.
Last edited by Write4U; August 13th, 2014 at 08:42 AM. Reason: added link
"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.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.
Sealeaf was responding to the last line of my comment in post #26.
| « So when Homo Erectus has disappeared? | Stonehenge? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
