Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am never really sure what the creationists are looking for when they say missing link. I think that they may just be parroting the phrase without really understanding what they are asking for.
I don't think that there are any significant gaps in the hominid fossil record, so there really is no link missing.
I think the gap Christians are referring to is the one between homo ergaster and homo antecessor approximately 1 to 1.2 million years ago. However, I would like to note that according to the evolutionary chain and evidence found homo ergaster was already using tools. The only other known species of animal other than modern day humans that uses tools is the chimpanzee.
That is indeed a fascinating find. It reinforces the opinion I've long held: that the earth is really quite old. After reading the replies, I get the impression that all the creationists are being lumped together and tossed into one basket. But, they are not all the same; there are two kinds: those who believe the earth is around 6000 to 7000 years old, and those who believe the earth is VERY ancient. (I happen to belong to the latter) Life was CREATED by God, it did not evolve out of "primordial gunk" in some steaming pre-historic swamp...we didn't have our beginnings as amoebas, and our distant ancestors were not apes. (although some of mine still living do come to mind....)
I think the gap Christians are referring to is the one between homo ergaster and homo antecessor approximately 1 to 1.2 million years ago. However, I would like to note that according to the evolutionary chain and evidence found homo ergaster was already using tools. The only other known species of animal other than modern day humans that uses tools is the chimpanzee.
From my experience what most want is a definitive "ape-man" which fits the simplistic notion of their "missing link" which is usually envisioned as as 50/50 chimera creature. However, there never be a specimen that is pinpointed as "the" one which sits firmly at the split of the chimp and human line. Genetic analysis has shown that the split was most likely very messy and to find that pinpointed specimen is highly, highly unlikely - however, I think the more we look and find the closer we can get to filling in the puzzle.
I remember the ruckus a few years ago when the Toumai specimen was found in Chad as it was dated to about 6 million years ago and the split between our lineage and chimps took place around 5-7 million years ago.
My point I suppose is what most people want when asking for the "missing link" is some odd, elementary concoction they have floating in their mind and is simply a poverty of knowledge concerning human evolution and paleonathropology.
I am definitely not a scientist but I do try and keep up on this stuff. Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
One thought about a "missing link." My understanding is that we are never going to find something to hold up as such a link. That's simply not how evolution works. It's a slow process that happens over extremely long periods of time and the changes are slow and gradual. Look at the fossil record for the progression of fish. There isn't just one fossil that is the link between a fish and a more primitive animal. It was a slow progression. Fins slowly began to form, the head elongated, etc. So, at least in my limited understanding, thinking of evolution as a "missing link" is simply incorrect. If anything, they are all "missing links!"
I am definitely not a scientist but I do try and keep up on this stuff. Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
One thought about a "missing link." My understanding is that we are never going to find something to hold up as such a link. That's simply not how evolution works. It's a slow process that happens over extremely long periods of time and the changes are slow and gradual. Look at the fossil record for the progression of fish. There isn't just one fossil that is the link between a fish and a more primitive animal. It was a slow progression. Fins slowly began to form, the head elongated, etc. So, at least in my limited understanding, thinking of evolution as a "missing link" is simply incorrect. If anything, they are all "missing links!"
While I certainly agree with you, I think that without a "missing link" the theory of evolution will simply be just a theory to most. Unfortunately, people cannot seem to fathom the idea of evolution as fact contrary to the growing numbers of supporting evidence for it. And that's fine. I know you can't please everyone, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.
While I certainly agree with you, I think that without a "missing link" the theory of evolution will simply be just a theory to most. Unfortunately, people cannot seem to fathom the idea of evolution as fact contrary to the growing numbers of supporting evidence for it. And that's fine. I know you can't please everyone, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.
Well, I understand the general publics' ignorance, but I guess there needs to be a greater understanding that the entire fossil record is a missing link! There is not one fossil you can point to and say this is the "missing link" between our primitive great ape ancestors and modern humans. It's a gradual process that had multiple species living at the same time. Some were "dead ends" and some eventually evolved to us. But there is not one section of the evolutionary tree that we can point to and say "this is the missing link."
I am never really sure what the creationists are looking for when they say missing link. I think that they may just be parroting the phrase without really understanding what they are asking for.
I don't think that there are any significant gaps in the hominid fossil record, so there really is no link missing.
Well, I feel quite sound in my understanding of evolution. When I said "Missing Link" in my last post, I put it in "" so that it was understood I wasn't saying it as an actual term, I just couldn't think of a better way to say it at the time. What I meant was a different stage in human evolution. For instance, Lucy is an Austrolopithecine (sorry, I probably misspelled that badly), chances are, based on the time period, these fossils are the same. So, in short, I was just asking if the bones would be classified as the same species of bipeds as Lucy. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Really? I know a lot of dropouts who believe in evolution (I teach ps high school!). I also know a lot of doctors and CPAs who believe in creation.
There is NO way this sole topic defines academics.
As it was pointed out in The God Delusion, the more educated that people become the less religious they become and many more educated people realize that evolution is a fact. Of course you can find a few that don't match the overall pattern but surveys and polls have clearly demonstrated this is true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
