Image from ICR article: http://www.icr.org/article/ida-fossil-clever-campaign-for-lackluster/
Posted on 04/30/2013 7:59:50 AM PDT by fishtank
The missing link… Commonly thought of as a hypothetical ape-like creature. This evolutionary rock star is supposed to bridge the gap between man and ape. But there are missing links all over Darwin’s evolutionary tree. And guess what… they are still missing...
Image from ICR article: http://www.icr.org/article/ida-fossil-clever-campaign-for-lackluster/
They exist!
They are called Democrats.
All it takes is fingernails ~ if it’s got claws it’s a critter.
The only place a half-man, half-ape ever existed and ever will exist is in the imaginations of Darwinists. Nobody has even attempted to hoax up another “missing link” in decades. Darwin wouldn’t be a Darwinist in this day and age. He had major questions about his theory that he figured would get answered. Unfortunately for believers of his theory, increased knowledge, technology and legitimate science have debunked his fairy tale.
Ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, ape, man, man. Where are the “missing links”?
Have any of these skull fragments proven to be anything other than 100% ape or 100% man? If so, which one?
The “missing link” doesn’t exist! That’s why it seems to be missing. You can’t find something that doesn’t and never has existed.
You can’t find the answer to the origins of life if you exclude the already known answer, God of the bible (Jehovah, Yahweh), and yes, Jesus.
Evolution is a MYTH. It is a “theory” so full of holes that it doesn’t deserve even the category of “theory”.
If you want to read an amazing story of how evolution is IMPOSSIBLE, go here.
http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/content/marvel-god%E2%80%99s-creation-2-incubator-bird
I saw one once in Misfit, Mississippi.
They are not missing. They are right there. And humans are, zoologically speaking, apes. The two apes closest in DNA are humans and chimpanzees. Both are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla. The “odd man out” among the great apes is the orangutan.
So if you want to be more correct it would be...
“Non human ape”, “non human ape”, etc... “human” “human”.
But your problem is that the “non human apes” are getting more and more like humans as you go. And you draw the line one place - other creationists will want to draw the line some other place.
There is no possibility of agreement because creationism isn’t an evidence based system.
They are called Democrats.
My thoughts exactly!!
Or did you mean "mising Kinks"?
Creationists look at the same rocks, the same animals, the same stars, everything we look at is the same.
Evolutionists look at and interpret the same data through a different lens ... the lens of Darwinism. The conclusions reached are a result of the lens you look through.
“And humans are, zoologically speaking, apes.”
Speak for yourself.
“The two apes closest in DNA are humans and chimpanzees.”
This statement is pretty devoid of meaning since we have such a limited understanding of the genome, the extent of its impact on development, or its origin. You’re basically comparing two books written in a language you don’t understand, and then pronouncing them to be from the same author because you spot a lot of similar words.
“But your problem is that the “non human apes” are getting more and more like humans as you go.”
Not really. Even when purposefully arranged in order to look like there is a progression, the apes never get very human at all. Besides which, even if you think they do, that similarity is not evidence of common descent or relation, since under other circumstances, evolutionists would explain it away as “convergent evolution”. So, if a similarity can be explained by two different causes, it, by itself, can’t be clear evidence of one cause or the other.
Yes, and light from an object 100,000 light years away takes a huge DISTORTION lens to see 6,000 years.
Oh, but of course astrology, geology, linguistics, paleontology, archeology, physics, etc - they are all “Darwinism” when they contradict Creationists.
Amusing.
ping
Purposefully aranged via their age? Yes, they do get more and more like humans as you go. So very much like humans that some creationists will insist they are 100% humans and not at all ‘not human’.
Your problem is that some creationists will draw the supposed line in one place, and others in another place.
Do you think Neanderthals were human? Many creationists will say yes. Others will say they were fierce fur covered nocturnal non-human apes.
Can you explain the nested hirarchies of ERV sequences by convergent evolution? DNA similarity in general is not explained by convergent evolution, but gross morphological features are. Dolphins and fish both have fins via convergent evolution, but they are not more similar in DNA because of it.
Saw them in Ft. Lauderdale a long time ago. Excellent concert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.