Evolution, where's the missing link?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (135 posts)

0
Jesshubpagesposted 12 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?
reply report
1. 61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
2. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  People were lucky to live into their thirties during the 12 and 1300's hell even into the early 1800's..
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  
  James.
  reply report
  59
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Except that there is legitimate physical evidence to prove evolution.
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Incorrect, there is no 'physic' evidence to prove evolution.
  If there was, evolution would not be theory, it would be infallible fact.
  You're not suggesting evolution is fact, are you?
  Evolution is the theory based on findings (artifices) that may or may not be correct. These timestamps given are based on carbon dating, which is not necessarily correct either. It is widely accepted, socially marketed, but not necessarily fact.
  As I recall, many times throughout history -even recently with fossil discovery, many theories went dead or were forced to change route because further finding negated earlier proofs.
  
  No other entity apart from humans has stepped forward to validate human methodology, used to come to those determinations. Until then, it is purely speculative. Kind of like the god concepts -in fact, precisely like the god concepts.
  
  Both theories work -especially to promote more theories (the cocaine effect) not to forget capitalism and are certainly palatable to some degree, but it does not make either factual or proven correct.
  
  James.
  reply report
  71
  Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin 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' .
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To James - Do you live in a secluded cave or do your "facts" come to you in visions?
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Visions from a secluded cave being enunciated as facts? Dang, that sounds like science, right there.!?
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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... Ah, didn't work for me, either...
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You wouldn't believe how much I'm trying to control my laughter.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Self-restraint is a pain in the arse; free yourself before you become constipated; no joke...
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Nice one.
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin 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 !!!
  reply report
3. 76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin 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?"
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't bother. Why throw more garbage into the "swill." Clearly we aren't going to get along; this whole thing went off the rails because I hadn't read your hub and therefore made the mistake of assuming you meant something other than what you were attempting to say, and then you, in response, became insulting and rude. A pair of errors.
  
  So lets part with some modicum of civility from here at least, shall we?
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not bothered and I'm far from sensitive; if ya lived close to me, I'd buy ya a big ol' beer and say "cheers!"
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right on.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And the next step becomes ridicule ("walking fish religion"). Pretty predictable, Insane. Sad, but predictable - it usually happens about now.
  
  If you truly are that ignorant about walking fish, google it. There is more than one species known to do that - I have personally seen it happen with a chinese carp designed to clean lakes of excess algae and growth.
  
  Next comes the claim that an understanding of evolution is a religion - a belief in a diety. You are right on track here, too, but beyond that I can't really say. At this point I generally give up the debate as it has descended into nonsense and isn't much fun any more when one "debater" has been relegated to those kinds of tactics.
  
  You have a good evening.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to have great trouble, as in not understanding that a walking fish did not turn into a monkey that eventually turned into a man. Duh!
  I forgot, you were on the lower plane of education...
  
  Yes, I'm talking about bi-peds, not your little unique creatures that you claim are the same yet at the same time, you say the Homo erectus was a different species (which is fine with me, because they were!), but yet you can't put 2 & 2 together to equal 4. Poor chap, indeed. Uh, yeah, have a good night as you obviously failed miserably here... Cheers!
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The hippopotamus comes to mind - A mammal that spends most of it's time in water and has his nostril opening on top as to breath. Kind of like a whale. A mammal that has returned to the water.
  The horse and the donkey and the zebra. The perfect example of evolution. The have evolved apart long enough to have a different number of chromosomes, but yet can produce offspring.
  The lion and the tiger. Completely different cats that never meet in the wild. They have completely different social structures, but yet can still produce offspring.
  Humans and neanderthals - All humans outside Africa share dan with neanderthals. We were completely different, evidence shows neanderthals grew to maturity much faster than humans, but yet we were able to produce viable offspring. Proof that the two groups evolved from the same earlier hominoid.
  
  Lucy - Australopithecus afarensis - the missing link.
  
  I'm not sure why some people are offended by evolution. Tons of evidence if you look for it.
  
  Humans evolve to a new environment very quickly. Skin colour lightens to allow for faster absorption of vitamin D when a group is farther from the equator. Limps shorten to protect against frost bite in the far north.
  
  Lucy is the missing link between us and chimps. We didn't evolve from chimps we evolved from something that also evolved into chimps.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think people are are offended by evolution for two reasons.
  
  One, the thought that grandpa was a monkey or ape is repugnant. Mankind is the master of the universe, the premier creation, far superior in all respects over mere animals. Not an animal himself, mankind is different and the universe revolves around him. If grandpa was indeed an animal, then we ourselves are animals, little different than all the other animals, and that cannot be accepted.
  
  Two. Many still believe in the literal biblical story of creation which evolution clearly contradicts. While some have accepted that evolution may have been simply a tool of God used in the creation, others disagree and prefer the maintain their literal interpretation. If evolution is correct in practice it negates their belief and shows it to be false; evolution is therefore wrong.
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ha-ha! I nearly choked to death, when I read your comment about "Lucy" being the "missing link." Have you seen the depictions of the ape, oops, I mean monkey, oops, I mean Lucy?
  
  You are confusing the "theory of evolution" with simple acclimation; go get help...
  
  You also, need to read my Hub, evidently...
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And then there are the simple trolls, raising a ruckus for no more reason that they enjoy the process.
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you typically provide nothing but inane copy & paste material that generally comes by way of a google search that leads to a page via an author that is a 16-year-old being typing hogwash from an outdated science forum that spoke about how "atheists should unite." Yeah, you go girl!
  report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are being unkind to trolls, they ARE the missing link of this ongoing step of evolution. Humans developed reasoning, which made us the most successful species of creature, trolls seem to be missing a link in their reasoning ability and so they and their offspring are probably consigned to extinction.
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please define an "internet troll." Thanks...
  Oh, hell, please define a "troll."
  Ahhh, while you're at it, please explain why you come off as having an inferiority complex... Recommend1 can be free online since there is no teacher to "fail him/her" in the classroom. Maybe that's why you are known for "flagging hubbers for the moderators to review." Dang, girl, don't ban me... Chill... Ha! In all sincerity, did you at least graduate high school?
  report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are the definition of a troll.
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your elaboration and definition is simply marvelous as I shudder under you wise definitive verbiage that quakes the quacks of charlatans that mimic your own failures of such... LOL! What a joke you are... Please, don't report me for replying back to ya in the same fashion, dear hall monitor.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Never happy. Science finds a half ape half human and that's not the missing link.
  You didn't bring any thought, just Ha ha. You must Be REALLY SMART!
  Didn't discuss the horse, donkey.
  Didn't discuss the the hippo.
  Didn't discuss the lion and tiger.
  Didn't discuss or dismiss the humans and neanderthals reproducing.
  
  But your book has a boat big enough for every living creature (dinosaurs included) and your okay with that.
  
  I don't find ready your hubs appealing, but if you read one of mine. nah, I still won't read anything you right.
  report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What in the hell are you laughing about, nobody is talking about Buddha praying to a tree...
  report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously didn't read anything of mine or else you wouldn't be actin' a fool and talking nonsense. By the way, numb nuts, who in the hell mentioned a boat with animals? *sigh*
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Still won't comment on any evolutionary facts..
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You won't even comment on my hub! ...And you want me to tell ya about facts from your fictional theory? Get real... You'll have to pay me to write fictional short-stories before I get motivated to do such...
  report
4. 0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
5. 71
  Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
6. 60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are hundreds of links between species. Many of them are in museums. I am surprised you are unaware of them.
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thee are so called links but are found to be fraud. well, thanks for joining this forum. I appreciate that much.
  reply report
  60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry for making you angry sir...evidence for my claim yes, I will post it in a hub.
  reply report
  60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin 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....
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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. This forun get funnier and funnier.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Shhhh. You know it's going to get better. Where might he get this evidence from? Perhaps a very old book. Lets shrug off everything science has shown us and get real knowledge from an old book. All these really smart people are involved in a huge cover up. They all know the real truth is contained in an old book, but because all these smart people are evil, they want us to think the old book is wrong... Or something like that.
  
  I can't wait. Hope I get some sleep tonight.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you add Satan Claire Evans might be happy!
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, I just read one of his hubs and it's much worse than I thought as he is involving his child in his ignorance.
  reply report
7. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is fact regardless of the misunderstanding those have with a "missing link"
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And when you supply the missing links as evidence they dismiss it anyway.
  reply report
58
Insane Mundaneposted 12 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!
reply report
61
recommend1posted 12 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.
reply report
1. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
0
Gusserposted 12 years ago
Read my hub on Evolution vs Religion---case closed
reply report
1. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just read your hub on Evolution & Religion. Sorry, case definately not closed.
  reply report
  0
  Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it wrong. OOPS you can't
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Translation: You can't prove it wrong, so attack the messenger. How totally liberal of you.
  reply report
86
Stacie Lposted 12 years ago
I thought Sasquatch or Big Foot was the missing link.
reply report
1. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In all seriousness, they would be more related to the Neanderthals, actually...
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ever consider stand-up comedy?
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
2. 0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Stacie, thanks for dropping by this forum
  reply report
59
FlowOfThoughtposted 12 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
reply report
1. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
2. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I prefer the company of Vogons to greys, their poetry is awe inspiring...
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hangin with Zaphod Beeblebrox...
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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...
  reply report
60
Druid Dudeposted 12 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin 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)
  reply report
  0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, you're right. Someone is decaying...
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I nominate this for a prize for the most garbled piece of totally cluless nosnense so far.
  reply report
0
Rad Manposted 12 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
reply report
1. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What, is "Lucy" a sister to the Homo floresiensis? Ha-ha! Uh... LOL!
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scoff, scoff and scoff. Keep up the good work.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You say "scoff, scoff, and scoff," as opposed to answering the question; good job, numb nuts.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin 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."
  reply report
  61
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I used to enjoy hunting & fishing, but it has been a while. I also garden (grow food and stuff), as well, but I do that every year. How about you? Are you afraid to get ya nails dirty? Your mum? LOL!
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Neither are related to modern man.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can't talk to the people that think corn is related to cauliflower.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll stoop to your level. I can't talk to the people that followed Jesus. You ask for the missing link, but don't see it in your face. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not so. I don't understand quantum physics, but better minds than you and I do. I'll have to take there word that they are looking for the god particle. Scoff Scoff Scoff.
  Speaking of corn and cauliflower, my little 27 lb. cock-a-poo is directly related to the wolf. Feel the need to scoff? You never did explain why or how the horse and the donkey can produce a mule? Try to sound intelligent. Give me something that shows you have an IQ above 85.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You have no idea, obviously. I, for one, have an IQ that is most likely WAY higher than yours, sorry...
  I was right in the middle of a movie and my computer beeped, hoping that it must be important, and your jackass showed up!
  
  You need to do either of two things: get an education or get a life!
  
  Go forth and multiply yourself!
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Say nothing... scoff scoff scoff. 85 - maybe 90 is my guess. Give me reason to think otherwise. scoff scoff scoff.
  report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Idiot...
  report
2. 0
  Jesshubpagesposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...You still playing with bones?
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another thoughtful and intelligent remark from insane. NOT.
  reply report
  58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, you are still playing with bones...
  reply report
61
Toolsonlineposted 12 years ago
The missing link was drinking in my bar this evening with Elvis, Jesus and Mohammed.. They were having a great time..
reply report
1. 58
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like a party!
  reply report
61
divyananjappaposted 12 years ago
One does not need to be an atheist to believe that the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, is in fact valid.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Evolution, where's the missing link?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Evolution, where's the missing link?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies