2006-12-01 00:43:29 · 14 answers · asked by missshortly 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Interesting question.
I think my brother Jim may be the missing link, unfortunately he is regressive.
He is dumber than dirt.
2006-12-01 00:52:40 · answer #1 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question...?
Of all the creatures in the animal kingdom, human beings are most similar to the chimpanzees. We share a whopping 98.4% of our genes with those furry primates.
So how come we can walk, talk and send a man to the moon, while chimps cannot? Clearly 1.6% of genetic varience can have a dramatic effect, but what are the chances that all of these changes could happen at once?
The answer is incredibly low: let's say slim to none. Evolution happens primarily when small mutations result in the increased fitness of an individual, who can then procreate and spread his seed around, and around, and around....
Eventually, after many generations and many mutations, a new species is established. In most cases, this new dominant species will drive all competition to extinction, which explains why there are no Fred Flintstones wandering around today.....
So, the search for the missing link is on. Why have we not found a great deal of evidence for the so-called missing link? Well, very few creature's bones become fossilised when they die. In fact, good fossils are very few and far between, which means finding this missing link could be difficult....
We know that some places on Earth are better suited to creating fossils than others. So if you were to die in a 'fossil hotspot', as it were, your bones would stand a better chance of being immortalised in stone.....
Yet let us go back. In order to establish a new species, animals must wander away from their original kin until they reach relative isolation. This prevents any new adaptions from being lost amongst the relative drudgery of the old.
Human beings have traditionally been nomadic. As the species evolved, it is likely that we wandered between fossil hotspots. This meant that only a few stages of our fossil history could have survived.
That is why we have been unable to plot a conclusive lineage of fossils between ourselves and other forms of animal life. That is why we have not been able to find a 'missing link'.
2006-12-01 09:59:10 · answer #2 · answered by contemplating_monkey 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as "the missing link". That's a term used by journalists, not by scientists.
We have a great deal of fossil evidence that links us to our most recent common ancestor with other apes (quite apart from the even more convincing genetic evidence). More fossils are being found all the time, like the recent discovery of a young Australopithecus afarensis in Ethiopia. While more evidence is always welcome, there's no particular "missing link" that anyone is searching for.
2006-12-01 01:27:40 · answer #3 · answered by Daniel R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean, scientists are looking for the missing link between not really missing missing links. This is amazing. Someone need to tell them about this. What else, for example, they are looking for that has not gone missing at the first place. Aliens!!!
Good call!
2006-12-01 01:04:22 · answer #4 · answered by Shahid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe that the 'missing link' is going to be found in the amazon. an area so large that it has not yet been fully surveyed must hold some secret to our development from apes. maybe looking back to our closest biological fits the pig would me helpful in seeing how we have fully developed into the all wondering beings that we are.
2006-12-03 00:45:27 · answer #5 · answered by Manc lad 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no missing link.Theory of Evoultion is not fully convincing.If the theory of natural selection is correct and only the fittest survive,man and monkey cannot co exist.As regards man's superiority,in the of a nuclear blast, the cocroach will live longer than man!
2006-12-04 20:44:42 · answer #6 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we are the end of the line. the missing link is either missing because it dosnt exsist because now and then in the history of evolution there is a jump.
Or it has been found to be one of us in one of our civilisations but cannot be named as it might be deemed rasist even though it would only be the structure of the person and not the inteligence or culture.
2006-12-04 04:45:59 · answer #7 · answered by Drazic 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No because they are looking for something that links to what we are now. We cannot link to ourselves as that is a circular answer. The link would be between something and us.
2006-12-01 00:58:45 · answer #8 · answered by INTIKAB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont think there is any link..humans AND apes evolved from a common ancestor right?wheres the need for a missing link?we didnt evolve from apes...
2006-12-01 01:07:54 · answer #9 · answered by Spiderpig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seek this link, my child...
2006-12-01 00:57:59 · answer #10 · answered by RK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋