LAST question about EVOLUTION I promise!!?

Question

Have we found a MISSING LINK yet? I know that there was one but it tuned out the be a FRAUD. Is there any hard indisputable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE linking us and monkeys to a common ancestor?

(SEE PEOPLE, I did learn, I did say linking us and monkeys to a COMMON ANSCESTOR, not that we came from MONKEYS!)

Answer 1

Here, meet your ancestor.. not a fake, not a fraud.. truly transitional form (knee caps, bare legs)

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature6/index.html

Answer 2

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.

God bless!!!

Answer 3

Yes, the relationship between man and other primates has been established both by the fossil record as well as current research in molecular genetics.

Briefly, the fossil record suggests that an ancestral great ape migrated to Europe 10-14 million years ago (mya) during a climatic warming period, and diversified into a number of great apes. One became ancestral to orangs, one to gorillas and one to humans/chimps/bonobos. When the world cooled 10mya the apes retreated south, where apparent ecological diversification, probably caused by the effects of tectonic plate movements in East Africa resulted in a split between ancestors of chimps/bonobos and humans 5mya. Fossils of ancestral humans (Australopithecines) and chimps/bonobos are very similar in appearance except for a couple of minor, but important points. We have many fossils that show the continued gradual evolution of Australopithecines into more human like forms, e.g., Homo erectus, until the final gradual appearance of modern like humans 120-140,000 years ago.

But the evidence from molecular genetics is more definitive. It shows the first spilt between human and chimp/bonobo ancestors to be 10 mya, with the occasional exchange of genetic information (via interbreeding) until 4.5-5mya, when reproductive isolation was permanently established.

Answer 4

Yes, we've found quite a few of them.

I'm having a hard time believing you haven't heard about this. Do you live in a cave? (he asked, fully aware of the irony)
===================
I do now think that you were serious about these questions. I'm rather amazed at that. But at the same time, you've shown signs of making a sincere effort to understand this, which is a pretty challenging thing to do in light of how thoroughly wrong your original conception was. If you're really making the effort you seem to be making, I congratulate you, and I hope you'll get good, sincere, helpful answers as you continue to ask these questions. As someone said, you have a long way to go, but you've got to start somewhere.

Answer 5

Be right back.
=============

The genetic evidence is the most convincing, IMO

==============================
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

==============================

Although perhaps a bit more difficult to understand, I find this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges

the most convincing confirmation of common descent because there is absolutely no reason for both humans and apes to have been 'designed' with a broken biochemical pathway or for those broken pathways to be nearly identical.

Answer 6

Why would you not ask this in the biology section where real scientists can give you all the information you need. Or is it because you are attempting to disprove one theory amongst many that no one else has bothered to refute? Why go after one specific scientific theory and not the others? Oh yeah some ancient goat herder book.

Answer 7

What EXACTLY do you think is missing. The whole notion of a missing link is nonsense. There is only a single example of fraud that I can think of and that was very short lived.

But here is the oldest hominid. It is an 85% complete skeleton of a toddler. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby.html

Answer 8

Yes, there are many, many transitional fossils between us and our common ancestor to monkeys.

FYI, if you are serious about learning about evolution, you should ask these questions in biology sections. There are far more educated people in the field of biology who will answer questions there.

Answer 9

there is no such thing as a missing link.

by it's nature every piece of evidence we find creates more gaps, think about it. if you have two points say a and c you have one gap. put in b and now you have two gaps. there will never be a missing link piece of evidence because the more we find the more "missing links.?

and yes there is plenty of evidence, enough to fill whole libraries.

Answer 10

If you want to know how to decide what is true, using common sense. Just look at the strata. Have some one explain how complicated life forms appear in it with suddenness?

Answer 11

yes, there've been lots of anthropoid fossils found. Why don't you read a textbook? It's full with examples. Check out at least wikipedia.
Why ask this in the religion section anyway, it belongs into biology.