I need to word my questions better, why isn't there more mummy's of the missing link? Or are there?

Question

I do not deny that there are mummy's and that people have been around for a long time. I just want a neutral view on the missing link. Not links to sight who's only focus is to defile intellegent design, and not the later either. I want neutral information.

Am I comming in clear?

Answer 1

He's grieving the loss of his mother. He was there when it happened, babies are not blanks slates they have feelings and DO experience the separation. Babies are, like the rest of us, sensing, feeling, thinking human beings. Around the age of 6-8 is a crucial time "During the ages of six to eight... the child's running internal tape will be, 'If she REALLY loved me she would have kept me. I must be defective and my defect is that I am not lovable.'... This playing of the tape (and the resultant feelings of unlovability) as the third trauma (first is abandonment, second is finding out he is adopted) and what I call fracturing of the personality... The individual feelings of pain, anger, and sadness get woven together into one enormous but indistinguishable emotion which you might call the 'loss of mother' emotion. This emotion must be repressed for the child to survive. As a result, the child is likely to repress other parts of her childhood along with this interwoven 'emotion' as she cannot repress the emotions without substantially losing some of the memories of this time of her life." "The apprehension related to developing intimate relationships is also linked to the fear that someone will see a defect in her. This fear, often unconscious, is due to the adoptees firm belief, formed just before the fracture (age 6-8), that there must have been a defect that caused her to be given up at birth. Often, adoptees feel that they do not deserve to be loved because there must be something inherently wrong with them if their own birth mother did not want to keep them." ETA: For the record 'late discovery adoptees' (those who were not told they were adopted) report 'knowing' at least on some level that something was not quite right and once they find out (as they always do) it all makes sense. In this day and age I'm surprised people are still advocating secrecy and lies :( Source(s): 'Adoption Healing' Chapter 3: Age of Discovery - The Second Trauma Chapter 5: Fracturing - The Third Trauma Chapter 13: Preventing the Fracture

Answer 2

It appears that English is not your first language. If you have a hard time understanding my answer, email me.

By the time human beings were mummifying their dead, they were already homo sapiens. Any transitional hominids would have had no technology capable of mummifying their dead.

This idea of "missing link" is a misnomer and not at all a part of current evolutionary discussion. (You're about 30 years behind times.) The current data focuses more on DNA evidence than on fossil evidence, although there is still interest in fossils.

Answer 3

Mummies? I hope you realize that a mummy is someone dead and then mummified, sort of prepared with different things and methods not to decay.

If you are talking about a missing link between apes and humans there are none, apes and humans had the same ancestors, they are not related in a straight line from each other. ie. apes gave birth to humans. That didn't happen.

Answer 4

i dont believe in evolution but as it goes bodies werent even buried until the neanderthal period and even then it wasnt a wide practise... homo sapiens (which supposedly split from neanderthals and became the link to continue) would have gotten the idea from neanderthals and started burying there dead just a bit more than they did and by the ime we came along (homo sapien sapiens) we all buried our dead so unless there was an ancient remains of a mud slide or something... you find any remains... if evolution acyually was tru... which i dont believe it is...