Possible Missing Link

[dave0293]

 

I don't think evolution has any logical evidence backing it up. Fish can't grow legs. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think I pronounced your name correctly for the first time.

 

A fish can't grow legs. Populations, not species, evolve (be it through micro/macroevolution).

[Dizzle229]

 

Hopefully this will finally put a rest to ridiculous creationism.

 

 

 

Put a rest to creationism? Noone still believes in creationism. I'm Catholic for christ's sake (no pun intended) and I never even believed in it.

[Nenga]

 

I don't think evolution has any logical evidence backing it up. Fish can't grow legs. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think I pronounced your name correctly for the first time.

 

A fish can't grow legs. Populations, not species, evolve (be it through micro/macroevolution).

 

That's such a weak argument. Every argument I ever heard looks for changes in one single generation. :lol:

 

 

 

What about tadpoles? They grow in frogs with legs, but they don't have legs at birth.

[Necromagus]

Got to love the creationists' logic of the gaps. If a new missing link is found, that doesn't mean there's one less gap, but that there's now one more.

[Kenshinjapan]

I personally believe I am more of a religious/christian person. However, as long as you don't call me an idiot for what I believe, then more power to your discovery.

 

 

 

Range, if you really want to stop the pointless cycle, simply agree to disagree with people like Hedgehog and just move on.

[3rkid]

Oh boy! A thread where nonconforming rebel Atheists can religion bash!

 

 

 

It's just another fossil, it's not going to change the way we live. I hope.

[Pinkbullet3]

According to Cynic's signature:

 

 

 

"The missing link between animals and the real human being is most likely ourselves."

 

~ Konrad Lorenz

[stevepole]

Until they prove its link to humans, it is just another fossil to me.

 

Really, it's a primate, with a similar skull to humans and an opposable thumb: something no fossil has had before in the class.

 

Still, I want hard proof not mights, could be, etc. I hate to speculate. I do find it really cool find for science but as of right now I just see it as a huge publicity item.

[Range_This11]

Until they prove its link to humans, it is just another fossil to me.

 

Really, it's a primate, with a similar skull to humans and an opposable thumb: something no fossil has had before in the class.

 

Still, I want hard proof not mights, could be, etc. I hate to speculate. I do find it really cool find for science but as of right now I just see it as a huge publicity item.

 

What they have been saying before was mights, maybes, and possiblies. This bridges the gap in human evolution. We've seen evolution in countless other species, but have not been able to complete the gap in humans. This is not a might, this is 26 years of studying one fossil before they claimed it was "The Missing Link". This puts away all of the mights, maybes, and possiblies.

 

 

 

Kenshin:

 

 

 

I would have simply agreed to disagree before today but now that evolution has factual, scientific evidence in favor for it without a gap, I cannot do that. I have never once posted (that I can remember) on the "Does God Exist?" thread. I don't argue religion with people anymore unless it seriously encroaches on someone's rights. I.E.: laws concerning homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.

[walka92]

looks like a messed up rat, but what do i know

[i_love_burritos]

 

Me. You. Everyone.

 

Actually those examples are proof of evolution shown by the fossil in the opening post not creationism.

 

[bleep] me, why can't evolution just be the how and not the why? And people need to stop taking evolution so seriously. It made pandas, the real [bleep]-ups of nature. When I'm in a bad mood, I pretend I'm writing for Cracked.

 

 

 

Anyways, it looks like a velociraptor with a knife through its foot to me. Not really a link between whatever mammal-monkey thing before it and whatever mammal-monkey thing after.

 

 

 

What is your obsession with Cracked ? I mean I read from time to time, and yeah their photshop contests are the sex, but lately it's been degrading. Getting less funny.

 

 

 

And with the velociraptor thing - no. Just no.

 

 

 

Also, let me clear some things up for you guys, which you may or may not have already known.

 

 

 

Posts such as this

 

I don't think evolution has any logical evidence backing it up. Fish can't grow legs. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think I pronounced your name correctly for the first time.

 

A fish can't grow legs. Populations, not species, evolve (be it through micro/macroevolution).

 

That's such a weak argument. Every argument I ever heard looks for changes in one single generation. :lol:

 

 

 

What about tadpoles? They grow in frogs with legs, but they don't have legs at birth.

 

 

 

imply, either intentionally or unintentionally that evolution occurs over night, with randomly occuring limbs shooting out of various places. Or maybe secondly, animals, for example giraffes that streched their necks to reach leaves handed down streched necks to their offspring. No. Physical characteristics are NOT hereditary and thus cannot be succeeded. It was more like, there were several species and types of giraffe with necks of varying lengths and those with longer necks survived due to their abilty to access food, etc... allowing them to reproduce while those with shorter necks died out. This is a long process. "Evolution" in it's current sense is distorded. More like continous, ongoing and naturally occuring selection.

[fastortoise]

Interesting how the people who think evolution is a load of bologna do not even understand the basic principles of it. So far only Adrenal comes close to the correct evolutionary theory, the sheer ignorance in this thread makes me weep. I know others in this forum (mainly warrior & bauke) can understand and appreciate this discovery, but refrain posting because of the headaches from the 'uneducated'. If you think it's annoying when people try explaining proper evolution to you, believe me when I say reading posts like the majority in this thread doubly annoying.

[Range_This11]

 

imply, either intentionally or unintentionally that evolution occurs over night, with randomly occuring limbs shooting out of various places. Or maybe secondly, animals, for example giraffes that streched their necks to reach leaves handed down streched necks to their offspring. No. Physical characteristics are NOT hereditary and thus cannot be succeeded. It was more like, there were several species and types of giraffe with necks of varying lengths and those with longer necks survived due to their abilty to access food, etc... allowing them to reproduce while those with shorter necks died out. This is a long process. "Evolution" in it's current sense is distorded. More like continous, ongoing and naturally occuring selection.

 

Exactly. And things like the species of white moth during the 19th century in England that completely turned coal grey because of the massive amounts of factories pouring out soot into the air, turning most surfaces dark. Those that could not survive died off and those that had the mutation, lived on.

[MisterGreen]

Oi, why am I the only one that can come up with a good argument against evolution? Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The video above describes how anything and everything tends to become more chaotic and random in isolated systems. Which would disprove abiogenesis and evolution-

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

 

 

 

If everything goes towards chaos, how can new information be created? Simple. There must be a creator.

 

 

 

But I'm not done yet.

 

 

 

The Polymerization Problem

 

 

 

This article basically says that amino acids tend to break down in water, not be built up, which follows Thermodynamic laws, in other words entropy.

 

 

 

"Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up."

 

 

 

The same thing can be said about evolution and microevolution. It has been proven time and time again that there are changes in DNA structures, apparent from changes within anything from dogs to the flu virus. Scientists call this evolution. Is it really evolution?

 

 

 

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Evolution says that over millions of years changes in DNA can create noticeable differences between what was once the same species, and eventually can create new species. But what many scientists like to ignore is that no new information is created. Let's take the Swine Flu for example. It is merely a crossbred strain of three different flu viruses, in other words, it was created with information that already exists. The DNA didn't miraculously change by itself.

 

 

 

By now you're probably thinking "Ha! I got you now! If that's true, how do viruses become immune to certain medications?"

 

 

 

Simple. Transposons, a.k.a. "Jumping Genes."

 

 

 

All it is the rearrangement of information. It isn't new information.

 

 

 

But what about dogs? There are so many different kinds, and they all originated from wolves.

 

 

 

Well, the different types of dogs were created through selective breeding, in other words Man let only certain wolves breed with each other, over many generations, until there were significant differences. This isn't evolution. This is a rearrangement of DNA on a much broader scale. In fact, dogs have less genetic information than wolves, so it's more like a loss of genetic information than a gain.

 

 

 

In other words, People bred dogs until they lost information that they didn't want, and they only had certain traits that they were looking for.

 

 

 

What about changes in humans? Like sickle cell anemia? That is a loss of information on red blood cells, it is merely a coincidence that it gives you immunity to malaria. Not to mention it leaves the the person in so much pain that it is basically useless.

 

 

 

Advancement of the human race? A loss of information isn't advancement. It's more like destruction.

[Wisp]

I've done the stanley miller experiment that recreates how the conditions were however many hundred million years ago, and in it amino acid strings build up in the water.

[MisterGreen]

I've done the stanley miller experiment that recreates how the conditions were however many hundred million years ago, and in it amino acid strings build up in the water.

 

 

 

1.) You have no proof what you just said is true.

 

 

 

2.) Scientists have tried and failed to do this on numerous occasions.

 

 

 

I sincerely doubt you somehow were able to do what the top scientists of the world couldn't. If you did, that's fine. Publish your work and have it confirmed. Until then, you have no argument. Unless someone here has something I don't know about.

[Tom_Servo]

Evolution shows how living things have changed and adapted over million of years. But what created the life in the first place? Answer THAT with evolution. In the mean time, quit mocking other peoples beliefs. So far all I have seen is that same old "creationism is stupid" argument. Quit pretending to be "cool nonconformist rebels" and let people believe what they want to believe. Proof for one person is not always proof for another. Both sides have make that clear with their own arguments.

 

 

 

There is always a middle ground. I'm sorry most of you can't seem to grasp that.

[Wisp]

I've done the stanley miller experiment that recreates how the conditions were however many hundred million years ago, and in it amino acid strings build up in the water.

 

 

 

1.) You have no proof what you just said is true.

 

 

 

2.) Scientists have tried and failed to do this on numerous occasions.

 

 

 

I sincerely doubt you somehow were able to do what the top scientists of the world couldn't. If you did, that's fine. Publish your work and have it confirmed. Until then, you have no argument. Unless someone here has something I don't know about.

 

Experiment link.

 

This is not an uncommon experiment for higher level biology/chemistry classes to do.

[MisterGreen]

I've done the stanley miller experiment that recreates how the conditions were however many hundred million years ago, and in it amino acid strings build up in the water.

 

 

 

1.) You have no proof what you just said is true.

 

 

 

2.) Scientists have tried and failed to do this on numerous occasions.

 

 

 

I sincerely doubt you somehow were able to do what the top scientists of the world couldn't. If you did, that's fine. Publish your work and have it confirmed. Until then, you have no argument. Unless someone here has something I don't know about.

 

Experiment link.

 

 

 

This is not an uncommon experiment for higher level biology/chemistry classes to do.

 

 

 

All they managed to produce was Hydrogen Cyanide and

 

Formaldehyde.

 

 

 

Both of which are extremely poisenous.

 

 

 

Hydrogen Cyanide wiki article- "Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless, extremely poisonous, and highly volatile liquid that boils slightly above room temperature at 26 °C (78.8 °F). "

 

 

 

Formaldehyde wiki article- "In view of its widespread use, toxicity, and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health"

 

 

 

No one has ever been able to reproduce amino acids seen in animals or humans.

[Bauke]

Oi, why am I the only one that can come up with a good argument against evolution? Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The video above describes how anything and everything tends to become more chaotic and random in isolated systems. Which would disprove abiogenesis and evolution-

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

 

 

 

If everything goes towards chaos, how can new information be created? Simple. There must be a creator.

 

 

 

But I'm not done yet.

 

 

 

The Polymerization Problem

 

 

 

This article basically says that amino acids tend to break down in water, not be built up, which follows Thermodynamic laws, in other words entropy.

 

 

 

"Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up."

 

 

 

The same thing can be said about evolution and microevolution. It has been proven time and time again that there are changes in DNA structures, apparent from changes within anything from dogs to the flu virus. Scientists call this evolution. Is it really evolution?

 

 

 

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Evolution says that over millions of years changes in DNA can create noticeable differences between what was once the same species, and eventually can create new species. But what many scientists like to ignore is that no new information is created. Let's take the Swine Flu for example. It is merely a crossbred strain of three different flu viruses, in other words, it was created with information that already exists. The DNA didn't miraculously change by itself.

 

 

 

By now you're probably thinking "Ha! I got you now! If that's true, how do viruses become immune to certain medications?"

 

 

 

Simple. Transposons, a.k.a. "Jumping Genes."

 

 

 

All it is the rearrangement of information. It isn't new information.

 

 

 

But what about dogs? There are so many different kinds, and they all originated from wolves.

 

 

 

Well, the different types of dogs were created through selective breeding, in other words Man let only certain wolves breed with each other, over many generations, until there were significant differences. This isn't evolution. This is a rearrangement of DNA on a much broader scale. In fact, dogs have less genetic information than wolves, so it's more like a loss of genetic information than a gain.

 

 

 

In other words, People bred dogs until they lost information that they didn't want, and they only had certain traits that they were looking for.

 

 

 

What about changes in humans? Like sickle cell anemia? That is a loss of information on red blood cells, it is merely a coincidence that it gives you immunity to malaria. Not to mention it leaves the the person in so much pain that it is basically useless.

 

 

 

Advancement of the human race? A loss of information isn't advancement. It's more like destruction.

 

There are some flaws in your logic. You don't need lots and lots of information. Most of our DNA is junk anyways. And evolution does not occur solemnly by mixing the DNA of two individuals that create offspring. It's also due to point mutations, homologeous recombination creating different alleles of genes, etc.

 

 

 

Yes, DNA miraculously changes by itself. You can get cancer without any external influences, simply by having though luck. That's evolution right there. Creating a cell that is stronger than the cells in its environment. A cell that is able to grow better. (Ofcourse cancer ends due to the limits of the human body, but that's a different subject).

 

 

 

As for swine flu... well, in the first place, these viruses don't have DNA, they have RNA. But yes, this particular virus wasn't created due to changes in DNA, but due to recombination. But evolution does not rule out genetic recombination. In fact, it's a major part of changing the DNA of a species. Other viruses can mutate and gain functions. HIV mutates often, and is therefore hard to vaccinate against. The cold virus mutates every year to circumvent our immune system. Bacteria have gained the function to protect themselves against our antibiotics. A changing environment makes for a need for a change in the genome, to gain functions that were not present before, in order to ensure survival of the species in the changed environment. Survival of the fittest makes sure new functions can be created and spread in the population. It's not that hard to induce a gain of function in a whole population. Heck, I've even done it myself with bacteria. (humans would be possible too, but that wouldn't fit in a lab, and would be rather unethical, and would take much longer)

 

 

 

And DNA doesn't have to change that much. Our DNA is very, very similar to apes. Yet, we are very different in appearance. That shows what a little change in DNA can do. And conservation of DNA in different species in genes that are extremely important in our embryology show that most species have a lot in common. Check the Hox group of genes. Or signaling pathways that determine growth, differentation and the orientation of an organism. Delta-notch signaling, Wnt, hedgehog... they all have it. While live might be very different in its appearance, the organisation and development is much the same.

 

 

 

As on how to built up polymers. It might not be a favorable outcome with nature's laws to build up polymers, yet it does happen. We have molecular machines designated to build up the polymer that our DNA is. I mean, you can even do it yourself. You can use a retrovirus to build in a gene in a human. Wouldn't advice you to, but it is possible. That means elongation of the DNA polymer. Probably also one of the main reason that it is said that the most initial form of life was a virus, though that's pretty much a theory without any evidence.

 

 

 

Transposons... well, they usually don't account for a gain of information. All they pretty much do is jump from one place in the genome to an other, usually with a certain pattern (a pattern that can be tracked, also to discover evolutionary patterns) and sometimes cause the number of genes of a certain type to multiply. We have genes in our body that have hundreds of copies. Mostly transcription factors, very important in instructing the cell on what gene products should be made. Transposons can do more, however. They can jump to the middle of a gene. Therefore elongating the gene and adding more amino acids in the mRNA that is transcribed from the DNA. That could cause a gain of function, though in most of the cases it's simply a loss of function. And most of our DNA is junk and not used anyway. Epigenetics are also an important factor in making junk DNA into unusable DNA, but I won't go into detail on that.

 

 

 

As for your chaos argument: chaos is simply a higher form of organisation ;)

 

 

 

In short: no, your arguments in no way counterfact the development of species.

 

 

 

Also, in general, I would like to point out that the evolution theory does not speak about the creation of life, but solemnly about the origin of the species. And evolution itself only speaks of development, and gaining new function in order to stay alive in a changed environment. The theory on the creation of life is abiogenesis, and is subject to a lot of speculation and uncertainty. The evolution theory is a theory based on a hell of a lot of evidence. It's evidence is so overwhelming that the evolution theory is used as a basis of our knowledge in current science. So far, evolution theory is based on solid evidence (though questions still remain) and can't be scientifically disproven (only in the imagination of people). As for evolution itself, that's simply a fact, it does exist. If you're still denying that than you're pretty much living in your imagination. It can simply be proven, by very simple experiments, and has been proven in countless experiments, and is prove pretty much every day, over and over.

 

 

 

And to those religious nuts: just stay out of this topic and keep your fantasies to yourself, kay?

 

 

 

Evolution shows how living things have changed and adapted over million of years. But what created the life in the first place? Answer THAT with evolution.

 

 

No lets not do that. Simply because the evolution theory does not seek to answer that question. There are other theories covering that question.

 

 

In the mean time, quit mocking other peoples beliefs. So far all I have seen is that same old "creationism is stupid" argument. Quit pretending to be "cool nonconformist rebels"

 

 

Why not? Religion is based on nothing and all reasonable arguments point against religion. All arguments for religion can be used to prove that a flying spaghetti monster exists.

 

 

and let people believe what they want to believe.

 

 

I agree. Fine. But people shouldn't post in this thread and just let us here discuss the actual, factual evidence that we can find in regard to the origin and the development of the species.

 

 

Proof for one person is not always proof for another.

 

Proof is proof, else it wouldn't be proof. The scientific method is designed to make sure that what is scientifically proven, can be said to be true beyond reasonable doubt. If one chooses to believe otherwise it's his or her own choice, but such a choice is not based on any reasonable or logical argument.

 

Both sides have make that clear with their own arguments.

 

It's not about the number of arguments, or the fact that you have arguments in the first place, but it's all dependent on the quality of your arguments. And the quality of the religious folks is just, well... pathetic.

 

 

There is always a middle ground. I'm sorry most of you can't seem to grasp that.

 

And that's just plain not true.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

And to those religious nuts: just stay out of this topic and keep your fantasies to yourself, kay?

 

 

 

Bauke, that was extremely rude and uncalled for.

[Bauke]

 

 

 

And to those religious nuts: just stay out of this topic and keep your fantasies to yourself, kay?

 

 

 

Bauke, that was extremely rude and uncalled for.

 

I know. I just feel it's extremly [developmentally delayed]ed that people try to take their religious beliefs into this topic. It distracts this topic totally from the original topic: a possible missing link. If you don't believe there is such a thing as a missing link the first place, then don't come posting here. Such a thing fits in the "is there a god?" thread. At least then I won't have to read such nonsense, and so this topic can just be about the interesting (well my opinion ofcourse) stuff about the evolutionary basis of our existance.

[MisterGreen]

There are some flaws in your logic. You don't need lots and lots of information. Most of our DNA is junk anyways. And evolution does not occur solemnly by mixing the DNA of two individuals that create offspring. It's also due to point mutations, homologeous recombination creating different alleles of genes, etc.

 

 

 

Yes, DNA miraculously changes by itself. You can get cancer without any external influences, simply by having though luck. That's evolution right there. Creating a cell that is stronger than the cells in its environment. A cell that is able to grow better. (Ofcourse cancer ends due to the limits of the human body, but that's a different subject).

 

 

 

The only way DNA can change is in a chaotic way. Cancer is caused by an error in information. Mutations are a loss of information, not a gain. Information doesn't miraculously appear from nowhere.

 

 

 

 

As for swine flu... well, in the first place, these viruses don't have DNA, they have RNA. But yes, this particular virus wasn't created due to changes in DNA, but due to recombination. But evolution does not rule out genetic recombination. In fact, it's a major part of changing the DNA of a species. Other viruses can mutate and gain functions. HIV mutates often, and is therefore hard to vaccinate against. The cold virus mutates every year to circumvent our immune system. Bacteria have gained the function to protect themselves against our antibiotics. A changing environment makes for a need for a change in the genome, to gain functions that were not present before, in order to ensure survival of the species in the changed environment. Survival of the fittest makes sure new functions can be created and spread in the population. It's not that hard to induce a gain of function in a whole population. Heck, I've even done it myself with bacteria. (humans would be possible too, but that wouldn't fit in a lab, and would be rather unethical, and would take much longer)

 

 

 

You're missing the point. Yes, changes can be made but information can only be changed or lost. The point I'm trying to make is that a fish can't turn into a man over millions of generations. Evolution has significant flaws. As it stands now it is nothing more than a half truth.

 

 

 

 

And DNA doesn't have to change that much. Our DNA is very, very similar to apes. Yet, we are very different in appearance. That shows what a little change in DNA can do. And conservation of DNA in different species in genes that are extremely important in our embryology show that most species have a lot in common. Check the Hox group of genes. Or signaling pathways that determine growth, differentation and the orientation of an organism. Delta-notch signaling, Wnt, hedgehog... they all have it. While live might be very different in its appearance, the organisation and development is much the same.

 

 

 

As on how to built up polymers. It might not be a favorable outcome with nature's laws to build up polymers, yet it does happen. We have molecular machines designated to build up the polymer that our DNA is. I mean, you can even do it yourself. You can use a retrovirus to build in a gene in a human. Wouldn't advice you to, but it is possible. That means elongation of the DNA polymer. Probably also one of the main reason that it is said that the most initial form of life was a virus, though that's pretty much a theory without any evidence.

 

 

 

Transposons... well, they usually don't account for a gain of information. All they pretty much do is jump from one place in the genome to an other, usually with a certain pattern (a pattern that can be tracked, also to discover evolutionary patterns) and sometimes cause the number of genes of a certain type to multiply. We have genes in our body that have hundreds of copies. Mostly transcription factors, very important in instructing the cell on what gene products should be made. Transposons can do more, however. They can jump to the middle of a gene. Therefore elongating the gene and adding more amino acids in the mRNA that is transcribed from the DNA. That could cause a gain of function, though in most of the cases it's simply a loss of function. And most of our DNA is junk and not used anyway. Epigenetics are also an important factor in making junk DNA into unusable DNA, but I won't go into detail on that.

 

 

 

Like I said, no new information is gained, just changed or lost. You're basically trying to use my own argument against me, and saying everything I've said is a form of evolution.

 

 

 

 

As for your chaos argument: chaos is simply a higher form of organisation ;)

 

 

 

In short: no, your arguments in no way counterfact the development of species.

 

 

 

Also, in general, I would like to point out that the evolution theory does not speak about the creation of life, but solemnly about the origin of the species. And evolution itself only speaks of development, and gaining new function in order to stay alive in a changed environment. The theory on the creation of life is abiogenesis, and is subject to a lot of speculation and uncertainty. The evolution theory is a theory based on a hell of a lot of evidence. It's evidence is so overwhelming that the evolution theory is used as a basis of our knowledge in current science. So far, evolution theory is based on solid evidence (though questions still remain) and can't be scientifically disproven (only in the imagination of people). As for evolution itself, that's simply a fact, it does exist. If you're still denying that than you're pretty much living in your imagination. It can simply be proven, by very simple experiments, and has been proven in countless experiments, and is prove pretty much every day, over and over.

 

 

 

And to those religious nuts: just stay out of this topic and keep your fantasies to yourself, kay?

 

 

 

I know evolution and abiogenesis are seperate, which is apparent in my argument. It is foolish, however, to deny that they are unrelated.

 

 

 

What is this evidence you speak of? You are being extremely vague in your answers, posting a lot of irrelevant information, all with terrible grammar.

 

 

 

(P.S.- Good grief man, you need to learn to hide certain things when quoting long posts and giving long answers. The fifth post is enormous.)

[Lenticular_J]

I know. I just feel it's extremly [developmentally delayed] that people try to take their religious beliefs into this topic.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

It distracts this topic totally from the original topic: a possible missing link..

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

 

 

There really is middle ground you guys. We have a lot of laughs.

[scn64]

This topic is in the process of evolving from a discussion about the missing link to an argument over religion.