Is it because it doesn't exist?
2007-03-08 13:52:57 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Junk science does not apply here.
Every form of man discovered is just that, man. There is NO half monkey half man remains on record to date. Why?
2007-03-08 13:59:15 · update #1
Rob Diam (below) Junk science doesn't count.
"...However, if some paleoanthropologists are correct, Kenyanthropus may not even represent a valid taxon, as the specimen (KNM-WT 40000)[2] is so horribly distorted by matrix-filled cracks that meaningful morphologic characters are next to impossible to robustly assess"
2007-03-08 14:07:53 · update #2
Why do scientist find a tooth and try to draw an entire tribe by it? Most of it is mere speculation.
2007-03-08 14:08:57 · update #3
They're all links. A "missing" link is missing by definition, so your statement is meaningless. What stage, specifically, are you looking for? We already have a remarkably clear idea of all the stages between non-human apes and humans, provided by fossils of species such as:
* Sahelanthropus tchadensis
* Orrorin tugenensis
* Ardipithecus kadabba
* Ardipithecus ramidus
* Australopithecus anamensis
* Australopithecus afarensis
* Australopithecus bahrelghazali
* Australopithecus africanus
* Australopithecus garhi
* Paranthropus aethiopicus
* Paranthropus boisei
* Paranthropus robustus
* Kenyanthropus platyops
* Homo habilis
* Homo rudolfensis
* Homo ergaster
* Homo georgicus
* Homo erectus
* Homo cepranensis
* Homo antecessor
* Homo heidelbergensis
* Homo rhodesiensis
* Homo neanderthalensis
* Homo floresiensis
Where do you posit a "gap"? We already have apes who are "half-ape alf-man" such as the 7 million year old Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil. It was an ape in the human lineage, from shortly after the split between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees, shown by its mix of both characteristics.
2007-03-08 13:55:30 · answer #1 · answered by Rob Diamond 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not again.
No its because you can't seem to recognize it or understand it. Its not that its not there, its that there is no half man, half ape. There are many many subtle tiny changes that happened over millions of years to evolve INTO human beings and apes.
Now... lets say two three together...
1. Science does not say that mankind came from a monkey or an ape....
2. It says that we both came from a common ancestor....
3. Some people need to go back to school to study chemistry, biology, anthropology, archaeology, and geology to understand what science actually says....
2007-03-08 22:10:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because there is no missing link between ape and man. Your cousin the ape did not evolve from a man. Man and your cousins the great apes have a common ancestor. Live with it.
2007-03-08 22:01:36 · answer #3 · answered by BIG Bang 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The 'missing link' is a misnomer. There are plenty of 'links' in the form of transitional fossils. There's no big missing piece - they are all steps along the way.
EDIT: I think your problem is that you're looking for a person that's man on the top, monkey on the bottom. Please realize that such a thing would DISPROVE evolution. What we're talking about are transitional fossils.
2007-03-08 21:56:48 · answer #4 · answered by eri 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
because every time that they do find a missing link, the christian folk simply ask for more.
fossils happen by chance, and to expect that a few million years of time will provide us with every possi9ble shift in the evolution of one species to another is insane.
2007-03-08 21:58:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
USA weather records only go back to the 1880's. Weather must not have existed in the USA before that.
2007-03-08 21:57:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Are you one of those people who looks for holes? One of those people who when they find a connector fossil will argue that there's twice as many holes?
Only a very small amount of animals ever become fossilized.
2007-03-08 21:59:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are right. Man is an ape, so there would be nothing to represent there.
Ah, I love being an ape.
2007-03-08 22:01:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a very fair question. It seems that would be the most recent and presumably easiest link to unearth. I look forward to the evolutionists and/or atheists well-informed answers.
2007-03-08 22:03:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I asked my colleg anthropology professor this same question.................he just studdered and couldnt answer it.
2007-03-08 23:42:46 · answer #10 · answered by tbone608 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋