Posted on 09/09/2011 9:11:28 PM PDT by Perdogg
Their deaths two million years ago have breathed new life into our understanding of the way human beings evolved. Two primitive ape-like creatures, believed to be a mother and her young son, plunged through the roof of a cave and suffered a slow death from starvation.
Now scientists believe their fossilised skeletons show they could be our direct ancestors, the long-sought ‘missing link’ between apes and humans.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
LOL!
I wonder if it was also a painful death - or were they more like babies in the womb and hadn't evolved the ability to feel pain...
Good boy.
Cheers!
Two ape-like creatures who fell into a hole and weren’t smart enough to crawl out? Sounds like my ex-wife’s family reunion.
This makes what? Number 3,000,000 in supposedly missing links. Which of course will be debunked sooner or later. Got to keep the myth of evolution alive and well with periodic findings of missing links and “close relatives”.
I always use the explain the links between fish and insects, since all life supposedly evolved from some distant fish that crawled out of the ocean onto dry land.
When the Missing Link is found, he will explain everything.
The Religion of Darwinism required too much faith. That’s why I became a Christian.
Post of the day!
A lot more institutional (Government, college and University) resources go to supporting the theory of evolution than to evaluating it critically or considering alternatives. Evolution is politically correct. So yes, the "missing links" may be found faster than they are debunked. It would be so much more impressive if evolutionists could hold their ground, rather hoping and skipping to new ground.
Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life includes a chapter "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record." My recollection from reading it some time ago was that the imperfection of the geological record was that it failed to support his theory. The theory should have been rejected on the spot.
Darwin bought time by suggesting that future discoveries would support his theory - just have a little faith. Tentative acceptance has turned into dogma. Many more fossils have been found since his book was published. Today we can say with greater certainty than before that species arrive, continue, and disappear. One species does not turn into another.
The continuing lack of fossil evidence to support Darwin's theory has been pretty much admitted to by Gould and Etheridge while promoting their punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. They were not drummed out of the profession because they provided an alternative theory of evolution, and because Gould bashed the right targets - religion and (other) critics of Darwin who were labeled "creationists." But the central point should not be lost that the fossil evidence is not there, and never has been.
How do you know, it does not exist?
In your case, you didn't.
Prove that, please.
Opinion, not fact. Try, "Transitional forms, cetaceans."
Rather complete.
I aged
The evidence does not exist. That is why the concept of "missing link" was created. If evidence did exist, the "link" would not have been "missing."
Jesus, I've seen a logic that feeds on itself, but nothing like this before.
Yes, but you did not 'improve' - you did not 'develop gradually'. You did not develop (advance) at all.
Stones don't develop either.
But both are subject to the clutches of Entropy.
I improved my motor skills from year 1 to year 5, and from year 5 to year 10.
Are you trying to use 3 or 4 different degrees to beat me into the ground? I assure you it will not work.
How do you know, it does not exist?
The evidence does not exist.
I am afraid I am over your head here. The Fallacy is Proving the Negative and you cannot 'prove' something "does not exist" since by the fact it does not exist it cannot be proved. You can only prove things that DO exist.
That is why the concept of "missing link" was created.
The concept of the Missing Link is fallacious. To quote so many others on this topic:
Lack of evidence, is not evidence of lack.
I'll leave you to puzzle as to why this is the only argument that supports your position.
I've seen a logic that feeds on itself, but nothing like this before.
You don't appear to understand logic at all, which was my point.
Get it yet?
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.