• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

No one is attacking, they are ridiculing. :roll:

Moreover, humor that is actually funny, is generally "low brow".

I'm finding it rather boorish and classless at this point. Sort of like running a dead horse through a blender.

You can't discuss science with creationists because they don't believe in it and you can't discuss science with progressives because all they want to talk about is how creationists suck for subcribing to different views.

I think I will just unsubscribe after all.
 
So uh...is this thread about the scientific importance of this newest missing link or is it just another platform for attacking the beliefs of your fellow Americans? Let me know now so if it's gonna keep being a low brow and classless cluster ****, I can just unsubscribe and save myself the effort of reading the retarded bile...

....you subscribe to threads? Loser. Ahah. Kidding.

-----------------------------------------------------

On the quotes by others : kudos to science. The debate as far as creationism vs. evolution goes has been won already. And science has won. Anybody who still wants to fight the overwhelming evidence that men can not be created from mud and women from ribs with the same old book written about 1500 years ago is seriously on the wrong end of the spectrum.

------------------------------------------------------

On the finding : It seems to me like the earliest ancestors of our species would be lemur-like. After all, lemurs and tarzier are some of the earliest primates. Once again. Kudos to science.
 
....you subscribe to threads? Loser. Ahah. Kidding.

-----------------------------------------------------

On the quotes by others : kudos to science. The debate as far as creationism vs. evolution goes has been won already. And science has won. Anybody who still wants to fight the overwhelming evidence that men can not be created from mud and women from ribs with the same old book written about 1500 years ago is seriously on the wrong end of the spectrum.

------------------------------------------------------

On the finding : It seems to me like the earliest ancestors of our species would be lemur-like. After all, lemurs and tarzier are some of the earliest primates. Once again. Kudos to science.

I confess that I don't really understand the significance but would like to understand. To me, all this says is "we came from monkeys and now we've found another set of monkeys along that route".

Show me a monkey with an opposable thumb that was using complex tools or a cromagnon that had a tail and swung from trees and I will consider that a missing link. As it stands, this is just another monkey, right?:confused:
 
.
Show me a monkey with an opposable thumb that was using complex tools or a cromagnon that had a tail and swung from trees and I will consider that a missing link. As it stands, this is just another monkey, right?:confused:

Our ancestors and the ancestors of chimps diverged around 6 million years ago. Chimps evolved for life in the forests, we evolved for life on the savanna. Thats why they adapted to swing from trees and we adapted to run on land.

Since we are on the subject, the human body is fairly exceptional in the animal world in our capacity to run long distances. Our muscular / skeletal system is a just built for it. When you run in a natural motion, impacts hit the balls of your feet and are ultimately absorbed by your calves rather than your hips and knees as is the case for apes and many other animals. We are also able to cool ourselves far better than most warm blooded animals. For example, I can take my springer spaniel out with me on a 90 degree evening for a run, and after a couple of miles he is overheated while I am capable of continuing on for several more miles. We are capable of feats that few other animals are capable of. A couple of years ago 3 ultra-runners ran over 4300 miles across the Sahara averaging over 40 miles a day. That is longer than any migration for any large terrestrial mammal on earth.

Something else that is kind of interesting is that a study was done a few years ago where people were asked to describe what they would consider to be the perfect home place for them if they could build anywhere they wanted. By far the most common answer was a home on a hill, with a larger hill or mountain behind them, a close source of water, and overlooking a broad plane that was neither completely forested or grassland, but rather was a combination of grassland and widely spaced trees. Basically, what they were describing without knowing it was the African Savanna, and the choice dwelling locations for our ancestors.
 
I confess that I don't really understand the significance but would like to understand. To me, all this says is "we came from monkeys and now we've found another set of monkeys along that route".

Show me a monkey with an opposable thumb that was using complex tools or a cromagnon that had a tail and swung from trees and I will consider that a missing link. As it stands, this is just another monkey, right?:confused:

Evolution doesn't work that. Our species has been in evolution for 60 million years in one form or another. We lost our tail somewhere in those 60 million years. But as far as 'human tails' go we can to do is look at embryos :

Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself.[1] As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body. The developmental tail is thus a human vestigial structure.[2][3] Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been a very few documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae. Modern procedures allow doctors to eliminate the tail at delivery. Some of these tails may in fact be sacrococcygeal teratomas. The longest human tail on record belonged to a twelve-year-old boy living in what was then French Indochina, which measured 229 mm (9 inches). A man named Chandre Oram, who lives in West Bengal, a state in India, is famous because of his 13-inch (330 mm) tail. It is not believed to be a true tail, however, but rather a case of spina bifida.

Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus.

Better yet - look at the human apendix. It's basically the same story as the tail only we haven't evolved to the point where it's completely disappeared. Just lost it's use.
 
Evolution doesn't work that. Our species has been in evolution for 60 million years in one form or another. We lost our tail somewhere in those 60 million years. But as far as 'human tails' go we can to do is look at embryos :

Tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Better yet - look at the human apendix. It's basically the same story as the tail only we haven't evolved to the point where it's completely disappeared. Just lost it's use.

This can be said about the Human brain too.

We have it, but we don't use it.
 
I thought we already found the missing link...:cool:

looter_to_man.jpg






...........................
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom