jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (135 posts)

Evolution, where's the missing link?

  1. profile image0
    Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago

    Evolutionists and the Atheist claims that man and all other things are product evolution. If evolution is a fact, If it is true, Where is the missing link?

    1. mischeviousme profile image58
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just as there is a missing link between man and God, there is a missing link between man and reason. If it were all to be subject to an outside angel, all levels of reason would be seen as conjecture. We, as humans, like to conceptualize our ideas and all of it is concept. The only difference, some concepts work, others are imaginary...

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's enough evidence proving evolution and the big bang. Now where's the evidence of a god and and all these other biblical fairy stories that bible thumpers totaly believe without question?

      1. jacharless profile image80
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ? really.

        sensationalism(titled:religion): ".and God said let there be light."
        equation(science) : "...Bang! And there was light everywhere."
        Hmm, looks identical to me.

        Big Bang and Evolution are two different things.

        As for 'evolution', there is no fact proving evolution, less some human mapped 'timestamps' that are, by their very expression, hard to believe. I mean seriously, 50 million years ago? Really. How the {!@#$%^} does a human know how long that is, and how to apply such a measure? Because they studied an element called 'carbon'?
        And if humans have been here for 250,000 years, how come it took them 249,800 to 'evolve' to this point (200 years of industrial revolution, technology, etc).

        As said, science and sensation are no different. Maybe different approaches to the same problem. Man is using mans concepts for mans pleasure and mans desire. The universe could give a care what man thinks. Man hasn't quite come to grips with that yet. 

        The missing link is: practical faith. Something religion and science have no clue about...

        James.

        1. FlowOfThought profile image61
          FlowOfThoughtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To the OP: The missing link issue is not "okay, we have neanderthals, and then BAM full on humans, where is the missing link". There is massive physical proof of micro evolution, and many, many links showing our progressive evolution into what we are today, just because we haven't mapped out every single little micro evolution that occurred during all that time doesn't mean there is an important "missing link" that until found means evolution is not yet proven.

          To James: "And if humans have been here for 250,000 years, how come it took them 249,800 to 'evolve' to this point (200 years of industrial revolution, technology, etc)." - James. If you watch a film called "guns, germs, and steel" You will get a feel for what helps us progress in those ways, it isn't evolution per se, it is the ability to settle down into communities where people have the ability to do more than just survive. Once non hunter gatherer type communities formed is when we started working towards what we have now. Now, it took us awhile to get the ingredients to really get things moving but science has been experiencing exponential growth at an amazing rate, I think you are undercutting, by a lot,  just how much we have gotten done in a relatively short period of time.

          1. jacharless profile image80
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I am of the mind to ask: what do we have now, that is so much more than before? If truth be told, society today, although massively accelerated || spinning the re-invented wheel || sophisticated, it is more fearful, sickly, segregated, violent, etc than any time throughout recorded history. right now, nearly 200 large or small scale wars are being fought; new diseases are appearing, because of genetically modified food, land alterations, plant/animal hormonal induction, air quality changes, etc. as humans globally tune in to their isolated twitter-net stations.

            People 4k years ago, were much more social, mindful, adaptive, healthy, etc. Largely, 80% of today's human population cannot survive without the use of mechanics/technology like harnessed electricity, etc. Most people cannot rub two sticks together to make a fire, let alone know/find/store food stuffs nor how to store rain water for drinking, in the event technology fails. That is not evolution, its is devolution.

            In addition, and science has information to support this: the human brain/mind has not evolved in those 250,000 years. In actuality, the brain still the same size and carries the same information, including instinct and reason. What has happened is possibly a change/alteration of (mis)information. No doubt, man made technology has evolved, but humans have not. But, like its countermeasure theory (titled:religion), science too hasn't the answers to basic, rudimentary, fundamental questions, yet has the 'intellect' to build machines that can travel beyond this planet.


            Are you aware that more than half of all human inventions in the last 200 years have been based on one field: communication? Why, after 249,800 years of this 'evolving' (which is a really long span of time) is there such a need for commune/communal/communication/community among humans? And even with these advancements in communication, why is humanity so divided? Something doesn't fit.

            The missing link is the yielding to knowledge/reason and a complete amnesia of who/what a human truly is.

            James.

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              four thousand years ago the life expectancy was around 30 years old, people were just as violent and more brutal, our species has and will always be violent, we are just more sophisticated, a simpler time doesn't mean a better time. So, we are more segregated than ever in recorded history? How about that, I thought that literal segregation was a thing that happened in our history, oh and slavery. guess I was wrong. We must be in a truly terrible racist world. What country do you live in? In mine we are free. There is no "de-evolution" our lack of knowledge on subjects like building a fire with two sticks is due to the fact that we simply have no use for them, not everyone needs survival skills, I know how to build a fire, but I would have to go out of my way about a hundred miles to be able to use that skill, its not useful in our society, therefore people don't learn it, that has nothing to do with actual evolution. I am not sure you are actually concerned about the theory of evolution more than just pushing some peaceful, everyone should love everyone else, and disregard technology agenda. The missing link referred to when it comes to evolution is the proof of evolution between two species, and it is a myth. Humanity is more connected than it has ever been in human history, which is one reason why so many countries are experiencing war right now, people are standing together for what is right. So many people rebelling against their governments for their basic freedoms. War is a necessary evil. Some of the things you are saying are just simply not true. I'm sorry you feel like the world is that terrible, but it simply is not as you are saying based on the facts.

              1. FlowOfThought profile image61
                FlowOfThoughtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By "the missing link is a myth" I mean that there is not missing piece that we can find that will prove anything more than we already have, we find a new piece, people against evolution will immediately say now where is the "missing link" between that and this other thing. It is a pointless argument.

              2. jacharless profile image80
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps it is how I worded things that gives you a negate impression of my viewpoint.

                We agree the missing link is myth, just as the sensationalist concepts are myth.

                As for the communal concept, would be delighted to discuss that in a fresh new thread, as not to hijack this one entirely. If not, only a few points I'll make here:

                a. before the black plague hit, the average person lived to 75+. Archeology  actually has record of this, as do many other sects.
                b. just because the world is 'connected' by technology and has what appears to be convenience, does not mean they are unified/connected as tribes were 1000 -even 100,000 years ago nor any better.
                c. War is a necessary wha-???
                d. Evil is scientific burner/instigator upon which sensationalism burns the sacrifice at both ends, until there is nothing left but ash and bone -which they proudly display on the walls of their temples (aka churches, museums) and give thanks to their gods...

                James.

                1. FlowOfThought profile image61
                  FlowOfThoughtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nothing I can really argue with there although I will have to look myself the information on the life expectancy, and I do disagree with point B, but that is a purely a matter of opinion.

                2. mischeviousme profile image58
                  mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  People were lucky to live into their thirties during the 12 and 1300's hell even into the early 1800's..

                  1. jacharless profile image80
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, that is false.
                    The only major area effected by the reduction of longevity was Europe.

                    Primarily because of communal agriculture, non-hunter lifestyle, the life span of people diminished, as did height, weight increase, disease increase, etc as humans slowed down. It is also noted that migrations to cities and development diminished longevity -not to forget the increase of genetic interaction.

                    Much data from the Meso region provides data to support longevity beyond 30.
                    And even more data from the Hunza region (Pakistan, Iran).
                    Even more data from the Andres & African regions. And still more from the North American/North Canadian/North Siberian regions.

                    Europe suffered much because of constant intermixing, top-on-top societies, cities, thanks to the Romans, French and us Brits, etc up to the Plague generation. Asian cultures were living well into their 80's at the same time the Romans were dieing off at 30.

                    Two close friends -one a double PHD in history from Berkley and the other a geneticist from Columbia U have equal takes on longevity. Both are a bit biased regarding evolution, since the consensus among the three of us (and millions more) is: Evolution is a theory in practice, not in data/proof. It is like Catholicism on Cocaine, it just keeps making more theories, so it can do more theories, so it can make more theories.

                    smile
                    James.

          2. Jefsaid profile image60
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We have no tangible proof of our evolution, regardless of what formula one wishes to demonstrate, we can only interpret the 'now' and make an assumption.  We are not capable of actually re-visiting the past or knowing the future, if indeed  either exist, so evolution is purely theoretical.  Evolution suggests a past and I have always been intrigued  by our perception of a continual transition from past to future as this suggests that the present does not exist. Maybe we have always existed, simply fading and re-illuminating like night and day in a cycle of 'now' .

        2. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To James - Do you live in a secluded cave or do your "facts" come to you in visions?

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Visions from a secluded cave being enunciated as facts?  Dang, that sounds like science, right there.!?

            1. Paul Wingert profile image78
              Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              roll

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Roll those eyes buddy, as it doesn't make the brain spin any faster, and obviously so...  Oh, shucks, I'll try to be fair... roll  Ah, didn't work for me, either...

                1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You wouldn't believe how much I'm trying to control my laughter.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Self-restraint is a pain in the arse; free yourself before you become constipated; no joke... lol

            2. jacharless profile image80
              jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL. Nice one.

      2. profile image0
        Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your existence is a declaration that God exist. Just consider the complexity of your Human body, isn't it extremely  complex yet in awesome harmony? We are are not proving that God exist because He does, we just present the argument.

        1. recommend1 profile image64
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are saying that because you think you are complex and special there must be a super daddy in the sky for you ??

          If what you said had any validity or foundation in reason just think how complex your god thing must be, and think how complex his creator must be/have been !!!

    3. Shadesbreath profile image86
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The only LINK problem you are having is that you are LINKING religion to evolutionary research and theory.

      There is no NECESSARY link between them. They are not actually connected in any way at all.

      Religious people try to link it to religion so they can then say, "Hey, this is wrong, look what the bible says," and they can use that to run around getting everyone riled up that "our religion is under attack" and all that other stuff that gives them something to do.

      Atheists try to link evolution to religion by pointing out that the unfathomably massive body of evidence for evolutionary processes that exists as a tangible reality in the world today, collected by tens of thousands of scientists and researchers over two centuries now, has proven that creatures do in fact get genetic mutations that enable certain variations of those creatures to adapt to conditions and environments that others can't. That's all evolutionary science does. Nobody with an I.Q. over 6 can argue with THAT part of it. However, any atheist that tries to turn that into evidence against God is creating a LINK that does not exist, and in doing so only proves that he/she reads ancient holy books too literally and can't fathom the nature or value of metaphor.

      1. jacharless profile image80
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ...and with that said, am off for the evening to increase some 'evolutionary processes' in the form of Stella and Jameson.
        Enjoy the weeks end & happy hubbing.

        James.

      2. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The theory of evolution and creationism shouldn't even relate, how so true...

        However, even though this may not be my conversation and whatnot, the "missing link" that I speak about, concerns the so-called ape-like being Homo erectus and the Homo sapiens.  No man on Earth has ever found that "missing link" because, well, there is no freakin' link!

        1. Shadesbreath profile image86
          Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If I have two dollar bill with a pink bunny drawn on it, and I bury it somewhere and nobody can ever find it, does that mean it doesn't exist and never did?

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That, by no means, compares to a race of beings being lost from one MAJOR evolutionary step unto the next; get real and pass the beer...

            1. Shadesbreath profile image86
              Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, what it compares is the thought-process you are applying to your understanding of BOTH evidence for God and evidence against evolution.

              You say that since I cannot produce for you concrete, physical proof, I can't walk in and present to you the "missing link" in an undeniably obvious form that removes all doubt, then there is no evidence at all, and all evolutionary data across the globe is rendered garbage. (If I can't produce the 2-dollar bill with the pink bunny, it is not possible in your world.)

              Which is fine, except that this same "logic" becomes hypocritical on your part, or at least most Christians who continue to insist there is a connection between the science and the existence of God (which I have already pointed out that there is no actual connection between them). A typical religious person will hold up the bible as "proof" of God. But that's not proof of god. That's proof of a book about God. (That is a book that talks about the existence of a 2-dollar bill with a pink bunny on it, it's not a 2-dollar bill with a pink bunny.)

              Now if I can produce literally millions of pages of documents, video, notes, testimony from scientist all over the world spanning centuries who say, "Hey, mutation and adaptation work," but that's not good enough for you. How can you not be considered a hypocrite when you insist I should take what's written in one 3,000 year old, highly edited, revised and historically contentious book.

              Where's your concrete proof? Why doesn't God come on down here and prove himself?

              Now I know that there's lots of stuff in there that explains why we have to always be left in the dark and can never know, and it's all very cleverly composed to make it so no proof ever has to be, in fact, it's so marvelously sophistical that it even says that my very skepticism is proof of its truth.

              That's fabulous as a bit of rhetorical manipulation, but it does not change the fact that you can no more produce concrete evidence of God than anyone can produce the be-all-end-all-prove-all "missing link" in any way that you are going to count as real.

              So, there may be a God.  There may also be a "missing link" skeleton somewhere. There may also be a two dollar bill with a pink bunny buried somewhere. But until they are produced, people CAN argue about it if they want.

              My point, still, is that there IS no connection between evolution and God. Evolutionary study does not NEED to find a missing link so they can finally say, "Hah ha, God is a lie." Evolution isn't trying to do that at all. They are just connecting very obvious dots, slowly, with great care and research. Just that. Dots.

              For all we know, God is the one who started the damn process, and all the people running around waving Bibles claiming perfect understanding are making God face-palm himself everyday. He probably looks over at Jesus all the time and say, "Jesus, how could they have butchered what you told them so bad?"

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You really haven't read my hub about evolution and the missing link between ape & man, have ya?
                I excuse you for your false assumptions of me and your asinine statement above.  Quit being lazy, and read up about some things before making such stupid comments.

                1. Shadesbreath profile image86
                  Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  First, your responses to my comments were not predicated based on my having read   your hubs--had they been, you should have said so (Hey, don't read what I'm writing here without reading my hub first so you know what I mean).

                  You have to say what you really mean when you say stuff on a forum, IN the forum wherein you are saying it. You can't have huge contextual foundations to the words you actually write here living off somewhere else.

                  Second, if there is a misunderstanding, an assumption on my part that, when you say there is "NO missing link" in a RELIGION & Philosophy forum, that you mean it in the way religious people do (Internet forums being a place for encoded ideas so frequently), AND you give no other context than a mention of an article you wrote a few pages back in the conversation, rather than being rude and childish and calling me "asinine" why not point out that you are coming from some other "new and innovative" take on the subject. You've got this cryptic, half-hearted salespitch going trying to get people to go read what you wrote, which is fine. Why not just say, "Hey, I think you are reading me wrong, I know it seems spammy, but if you care, go check out what I wrote."  Then, I would know that my assumption (based purely on what you wrote and on what you omitted in your previous responses) was incorrect and that your argument was incomplete without substantial augmentation via additional reading in the form of your article. I might have felt compelled to go look and see, as the topic is interesting.

                  However, when you demonstrate the sort of behavior that you have here, you prove you can't fathom the nature of the argument I made (whether in context or out with the one you were unable to clearly articulate), suggesting there's no point in conversing with you anyway, and you prove that you are not the sort of person who knows much about debate, the exchange of ideas, courtesy or human nature. All of this means that the context for your argument, which you have not established at all, is likely not worth my time, as I can only expect as little effort has gone into delving into substantive thought on the occasion of writing that hub as has gone into your attempts to persuade people that you might have a good idea to begin.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Have you ever heard of the superfluity of verbiage; well, you just demonstrated it.  Try being a little more terse, concise, and succinct, without all the baloney and hogwash.  Those type of replies that you just provided, are the ones, in my opinion, that are not worthy of reply.  I'll be back, as I don't have time for this swill at the moment...

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, there are links, beyond any reasonable doubt.

          The problem is that when one is found the cry goes up for the "missing link" between that creature and homo sapiens.  As there is zero possibility of ever finding a fossil for every single genetic change in mankind the "missing link" crowd will always raise the cry in a misguided attempt to somehow disprove the concept that species evolve.

          In the end one must accept (as the only two choices currently available) that species evolve, including homo sapiens, or the idea that another complete universe exists with an immaterial God that magically created our own universe and species.  Every person must make their own choice, based on either all available evidence or on their own belief system that keeps them happy.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is no choice to make...

            Separate species is what it is...

            I did not come from a monkey that evolved from a fish that spawned from a single-cell amoeba...

            A cow-like or wolf-like of hoofed animal didn't decide to go swimming one day and eventually turn into a whale; get real...

            There is more to the story than Adam & Eve and/or a Trilobite defying against the simple life that decided to go mad!

            LOL!

            Evolving and adapting is one thing, creating and becoming, is another...

            Prove that the Homo erectus was not anything but another species, and we shall continue from here...

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "A cow-like or wolf-like of hoofed animal didn't decide to go swimming one day and eventually turn into a whale; get real..."

              And I'm sure the opposite doesn't happen, either.  Like fish that sometimes decide to go for a walk on dry land....

              And there is exactly one subspecies of iguana that swims every day for it's food.  No other community does this, and that one subspecies has already evolved special adaptations to that life.  It is not so far fetched that it may return to the sea permanently one day.

              How could I prove that Homo erectus was anything but another species?  It was another species, having only a modicum of similarities to homo sapiens.  Overall, probably less than a chimpanzee does today.

              I sympathize with you in that it is not particularly pleasant to realize that you are little more than overdeveloped monkey or amoeba.  It kind of takes us away from the majesty of being the most important creature in the universe.  It makes us seem rather small in the whole scheme of things instead of the master of all that we would like to believe. 

              On the bright side, though, and If it truly upsets you, you can always ignore facts (or make fun of them) and retain the belief in the mythology that our remote ancestors made up to explain the world around them.  It is common enough even today that you won't be considered "strange" in some way.  Or make up a totally new explanation, although that might be considered a little strange by some.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ignore what facts?
                You mentioned an Iguana and fish that walk on land?
                You just totally blew your evolution religion, when you said the Homo erectus is a separate species.  Uh, duh! 
                Thank you for saving me words in my reply!
                Dang, you made your belief look really bad, and even worse than I was going to make it look, just by your last reply.  big_smile

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, aquatic iguanas and walking fish.  Both excellent examples of evolution in action, but both ignorable as the total transformation hasn't taken place and won't for millenia.  And when it has finished and the fish live only on land and the iguanas have returned completely to the sea there will still be missing links that we won't have - individuals that died without leaving fossils for our far off descendents to find.  And that, of course, negates the whole concept of evolution to the folks that prefer myth.

                  No, homo erectus was not a homo sapiens.  Do you mean to imply that means it could not develop (evolve) into homo sapiens?  Rather than disproving the idea of evolution I would have to say it proves it as erectus is an ancestor, but not of our species.

                  Best stick to your myth, Insane.  You are obviously ignorant of the basis of evolution and don't want to learn - it is probably best that you can still believe in millenia old myth that has never seen even a shred of real evidence.  It will give you comfort as you age and death comes ever closer, it is easy to understand (goddunnit) and you can change it to whatever you want with no one being able to indicate otherwise.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Look at you! Ha-ha!  You are assuming personal things about me and religion, speaking of myths, saying "goddunit" and all this other crazy mess, while not knowing a thing about me because why?  BECAUSE you dear, are the fool who is restless and can't prove your, uh, walking fish religion.  Dang, dude, if you just stay with the single-cell amoeba, we can just laugh but now I'm worried about your "walking fish" thingy.

                    Are you okay?  Seriously...

                    Look, fellow evolutionists, if you say that Homo erectus is a separate species, you're going to make your homies mad!  They don't like that, ya know.  Remember now, they say your cousins are bonobos and chimps and your distant "home boys" are gorillas, apes and orangutans!
                    Come to grips now...  Your religion requires way more faith than any other common myth or legend or even organized religion.

                    Gosh darn it, those dang single-cell amoebas sure was picky, eh?  Only we can talk and get online...  Shoot!  It's a shame those Bonobos couldn't do it!  Shucks!  Ha-ha-ha-ha!

    4. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://cectic.com/comics/054.png

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    5. Jefsaid profile image60
      Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What does evolution mean? Surely we are just talking about change? We invented the concept of evolution, progress, improvement, betterment... Life to me feels like a oneness.  We perceive that our learning of how to manipulate the natural resources around us means evolution but in effect we are simply exploiting a greater proportion of the whole.  Our growth is mirrored by decline elsewhere in the whole.

      Our so called modern, sophisticated existence is the manifestation of our greater manipulation of the whole that has left billions of us disengaged and disconnected from our natural surroundings.  Are we any more evolved than those who live a perceived primitive existence and whose innate knowledge of life's sciences are through their integral connection with the natural World itself?   

      The missing link is our perception...

    6. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are hundreds of links between species. Many of them are in museums. I am surprised you are unaware of them.

      1. profile image0
        Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        thee are so called links but are found to be fraud. well, thanks for joining this forum. I appreciate that much.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They are all frauds are they? So why haven't they been taken out of the museums?

          Have you actually studied this or are you just making it up as you go along?

          1. profile image0
            Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not a good question sir. so called evidence of links, yes, they are fraud. The question right question is " Why are they firing out people who wants to expose those fraud?

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You're talking nonsense based on your own lack of knowledge.

              Neanderthals are ONE intermediary species and there are over 400 fossils found to this day.

              Your claim that these are ALL fraudulent is highly dubious. I require evidence for your claim.

              And who is "they"? Are you under the impression that every single scientist on the planet is in a conspiracy to hide something because they want people not to believe in a god? Thats some pretty grand claim dont you think?

              1. profile image0
                Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry for making you angry sir...evidence for my claim yes, I will post it in a hub.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Woah hold on a minute, you are going to prove that every single neanderthal fossil is a fraud? All 400 of them one by one?

                  Wow, I'm looking forward to this, although I'm not going to hold my breath....

                  1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Me too! A one man crusade to prove that Neanderthals and other primative humans are all fraudulent. The news and internet should be buzzing anytime soon with his findings. But to do that, he'd have to prove that DNA is phony along with Carbon dating first. Until then I'm going to try to contsin my laughter. lol This forun get funnier and funnier.

    7. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is fact regardless of the misunderstanding those have with a "missing link"

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And when you supply the missing links as evidence they dismiss it anyway.

  2. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago

    Dang, I recently wrote a hub about the "missing link" and whatnot, not that there is just one link missing in the theory of evolution; LOL!
    I hope a bunch of y'all cool people from this thread come down and enlighten me on my hub about this subject.

    Hey, you guys better listen to that Jacharless guy, as those philosophic chefs are some serious business; bada bing!

  3. recommend1 profile image64
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Where is the missing brain cell or two ?   I suspect there is an evolutionary change currently underway and it is clear to see who is off down that dead end to extinction LOL  But I guess people of the future digging up the bones will not be able to work out from an empty head that it was full of horse$h!t and not a brain.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure that you are very qualified to find the ancient relics at hand, with or without those top-notch celluar membranes protecting your massive amount of brain cells, if ya will...  LOL!

      1. recommend1 profile image64
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well - there is the thing, if you are a couple of cells short of a good reason, it does not make me super-sized - just a normal human being,  and if I can see it and most of the world can see it then we are only normal.  Lack of reasoning ability just makes those with it slightly educationally challenged.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, cool; can ya test me?  I'm quite knowledgeable on a diversity of subjects, please try me... I'd love to see if I'm a few brain cells short of you, ya know, as modest as I am, of course...

          Reasoning ability?  Excellent!  Can we include critical thinking, as well?  Common sense?  Rationale?  Maybe even an IQ test?  Intuition? Rock on...  I'm ready any time you are, little girl...

  4. profile image0
    Gusserposted 5 years ago

    Read my hub on Evolution vs Religion---case closed

    1. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I just read your hub on Evolution & Religion. Sorry, case definately not closed.

      1. profile image0
        Gusserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Prove it wrong. OOPS you can't

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Anyone that "take the Bible as written" or even believes Biblical stories as true history loses all credibility to begin with when they write about evolution or science. I, along with the rest of the educated science community, have a hard time taking someone seriously that believes in talking snakes.

          1. profile image0
            Gusserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Translation:  You can't prove it wrong, so attack the messenger. How totally liberal of you.

  5. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    I thought Sasquatch or Big Foot was the missing link.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In all seriousness, they would be more related to the Neanderthals, actually...

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol Ever consider stand-up comedy?

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...Why do people keep freakin' telling me that?  I'm actually trying to be serious, well, at least some of the time!

          1. Paul Wingert profile image78
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, I'll be nice. Seriously, I happen to be from the Sasquatch capital of the world, the Pacific Northwest. I lived within 5 miles of the Olympic National Park and Forest and Sasquatch sightings are very common. A few years back a woman in the Hoh River region called the sheriff to report that a Sasquatch was in her back yard and won't leave. The Sheriff's Department said that they couldn't do anything about it advised her to call animal control instead. Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti are believed to be a surviving species, Gigantopithecus (an extinct ape that existed 1 million years ago in Asia that stood about 9 feet tall). Neanderthal vanished over 30,000 years ago and was a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (modern man). Climate change and interbreeding (proven through DNA) with modern man suggested their extinction. Neanderthals inhabited all of Europe and the Middle East. Gigantopithecus and any of the species of humans are NOT related.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I actually wrote about the Bigfoot/Yeti Monster possibly being related to Gigantopithecus, a couple years ago on a Myths, Legends, & Folklore blog...

    2. profile image0
      Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Stacie, thanks for dropping by this forum

  6. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 5 years ago

    So, as I do not intend to keep up with this thread, and constantly reply, I just published a hub explaining my views on the subject, and why I don't take the anti-evolution arguments on this thread seriously, feel free to comment, I will reply.
    http://flowofthought.hubpages.com/hub/W … ously?done

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You automatically assume people who deny the "theory of evolution" must be religionists, eh?  You're wrong, sister...  There are many atheists that deny the evolutionary swill, as well.  Can I comment on your hub without getting deleted?  Or, shall I need not even bother reading it?  Let me know...

    2. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Alrighty...  I replied to your hub over an hour ago and surely I'll get a reply before the Mayan Prophecy takes place, as I don't have all year for this, ya know...  I have shuttle crafts to build & reverse-engineer, along with little grey alien bastards to cater to, baby!

      1. mischeviousme profile image58
        mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I prefer the company of Vogons to greys, their poetry is awe inspiring...

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Those green reptilian aliens are really bad about taking semen samples from the males and fondling the genitals, but at least the greys' only version of "extreme testing" is usually limited to anal probing, so you may have a good choice of abductors, there; just saying...  lol

          1. mischeviousme profile image58
            mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hangin with Zaphod Beeblebrox...

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If they orbit close to Betelgeuse, I'm probably related.  ...Arghh, well crap, some idiot blew another circuit on this freaking ship!  Anyway, the ones that lived near the star Betelgeuse are having problems right now, as their star is basically dying...  Sad affairs, but it brings lots of galactic traffic, so ignore the satellite disruptions.
              If I can get this space shuttle fixed, me and a couple other crafts are suppose to direct some of these bastards to the back of our moon, as if it ain't crowded enough.  A while back, we did some mining, but only to find that certain beings sort of "beat us to the punch," as they say.  Except for those big green bastards, all the other aliens seem somewhat neutral.
              However, my main complaint, is all the damn space junk that is floating up here!  Good grief!  Oh, but the internet is free!  LOL!
              Oh, I mean, I'm just kidding; didn't mean to ramble...  roll

  7. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Jess...exactly what was a neanderthal. Not saying missing link, but, there is no room for a proto-man. They weren't giants, but they were stout. They wore skins and put flowers and pretty shells in their burials. How can you justify non-acceptance of dating processes which also suggest more time has passed on this world than can be accounted for by a simplistic understanding of the oldest record we have on this subject. The bible.

    1. profile image0
      Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Neanderthal man are fossils found on 1888, they are fully human and not products of evolution from monkey to an intelligent human being. Whatever dating method used for neanderthal man are totally failure until now. Just observe all the things that are happening now, all things here on earth are degrading in quality. Consider this, the first man Adam lived more than 900 years but after him, the life span of man continually decreased. On the other hand, while man's life span is shortening, diseases on the contrary are rising that have caused the lives of millions. The neanderthal man are people with impairment as revealed by careful investigations and if so that they lived several million years ago, then possibly, we modern men does not exist due to insurmountable physical defects and diseases. This is just a simple reason why dating processes for the neanderthal can't be accepted, not even mentioning the failure records of the dating method man applies today.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How do you come to these conclusions? Are you an expert in Palaeontology  (it's is the study of prehistoric life if you didn't know) and carbon dating (do you even know what it is and how it works)? Because so far you don't know exactly what a fossil is. Hint: Neanderthal remains aren't fossilized. Oh and, Adam must had a hell of a HMO to live 900 years.

        1. profile image0
          Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "remains or fossils it doesn't matter. But wait, you've mentioned prehistoric. I don't believe in prehistoric time, Paleontologist's subject of study are those remains of things in history from the creation of the world. I wonder why those so called educators in sciences do not recognize that there is no prehistoric. Carbon 14 dating method measures even several hundred year old remains as thousands of years... hows that? Let us be realistic here sir...let me ask you one thing here, what was the first that comes to existence?

          1. Paul Wingert profile image78
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you don't believe in prehistory then why are you questioning evolution and even mentioning carbon dating when it's obvious that you are obviously clueless on these subjects?
            What was the first thing that came to existence? Answer: Hydrogen (although it could of always existed)

            1. profile image0
              Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am not clue less about the subject matter. I am fully aware of how life begun. hydrogen? how did you know? you are just guessing sir. Now you have that  two word phrase "it could always existed." it seems to me that you are making hydrogen as a creator. How could an orderly complex life begun from the simplest element as it has only one nucleus, one shell and one electron?now you may say that on the long....process, more complex life begun. Let me remind you once again that the observable process of decay is true to all that are created...nothing in this world continually improves as time rolls by...everything is degrading. Life then from a single nucleus and a shell is a zero probability.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, you're right. Someone is decaying...

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where did you possible get that load of crap from? Neanderthals lived thousands of years ago, not millions. Humans and Neanderthals lived side by side for thousands of years before the Neanderthals almost disappeared. Almost because as it turns out all humans outside Africa share DNA with Neanderthals. Yes, there was some nasty stuff going on...
        Hate to break the news to you but the average life span is steadily getting longer. No that's to God. You can thank science for your longer life. Get down on you knees and thank science for it has fought and in some case beat deceases that were left (according to bible thumpers) by God. If God didn't intend for them to be here they wouldn't. Right!

      3. recommend1 profile image64
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I nominate this for a prize for the most garbled piece of totally cluless nosnense so far.

  8. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 5 years ago

    (Lucy is a 3.5-foot-tall (1.1-meter-tall) adult skeleton that belongs to an early human ancestor, or hominid, known as Australopithecus afarensis. The species lived between 3 million and 3.6 million years ago and is widely considered an ancestor of modern humans.)
    National Geographic
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What, is "Lucy" a sister to the Homo floresiensis?  Ha-ha!  Uh... LOL!

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Scoff, scoff and scoff. Keep up the good work.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You say "scoff, scoff, and scoff," as opposed to answering the question; good job, numb nuts.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lucy - (Lucy is a 3.5-foot-tall (1.1-meter-tall) adult skeleton that belongs to an early human ancestor, or hominid, known as Australopithecus afarensis.
            The species lived between 3 million and 3.6 million years ago and is widely considered an ancestor of modern humans.) -National Geographic

            Ardi - (The Ardipithecus ramidus fossils were discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region, just 46 miles (74 kilometers) from where Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, was found in 1974. Radiometric dating of two layers of volcanic ash that tightly sandwiched the fossil deposits revealed that Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago.) -National Geographic

            I've explained before. but I'm sure you'll just dismiss these. There are lots of Christian sites dismissing these findings. It's easy. Just say (not so) done.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If you consider THAT to be a species related to modern humans, which is ridiculous, although I figured you did, then you should have no problem answering my question:  What, is "Lucy" a sister to the Homo floresiensis?
              LOL!

              1. recommend1 profile image64
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                why is a relationship between us and early human species such as Lucy ridiculous ?

                And why is a DNA relationship between Lucy and Homo floriensis a problem ?  They were both just over a metre tall, walked upright - and used tools therefore showing considerably more intelligence than your comments display.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  They showed more intelligence than my comments, eh?  I find that to be quite amusing, considering they both couldn't write or type a written language and neither of them were related to "modern man."  Although, I must say, your statements do compete with "Homo erectus."

                  1. recommend1 profile image64
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If you choose to ignore the relationship I guess that is up to you, I guess your mum told you that are so special that you are better in special ways huh ?

                    Your ability to write and type is trivial in comparison to the ability to track and hunt, especially if you are only one metre tall.  And even a trained parrot can type you a note, so no big deal there then.

              2. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What kind of question is that. Lucy lived millions of years ago and the Hobbit lived thousands of years ago. The jury is still out on the hobbit of course.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Neither are related to modern man.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I guess you're the expert. But you haven't told me why you don't believe there is a connection? If you have some evidence in this area I'd love to read it.

    2. profile image0
      Jesshubpagesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Radman, thanks for joining the forum. Well, I can't agree with you about Lucy because the facts about the remains are actually fabricated. The assumption she lived 3.6 million years ago can't be establish because all dating method today do not give us valid data. I will be posting a hub on this subject so that everyone who joins this post may see in detail my argument on this subject matter.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You have evidence that Lucy was a fabrication? Show me. As for the dating of both Lucy and Ardi, I'll stick with what the professionals think. I suspect that may no more than you about dating and they don't have an agenda.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...You still playing with bones?

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Another thoughtful and intelligent remark from insane. NOT.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So, you are still playing with bones...

  9. Toolsonline profile image60
    Toolsonlineposted 5 years ago

    The missing link was drinking in my bar this evening with Elvis, Jesus and Mohammed.. They were having a great time..

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like a party!  lol

  10. divyananjappa profile image61
    divyananjappaposted 5 years ago

    One does not need to be an atheist to believe that the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, is in fact valid.

 
working