Ever since Darwin first explained the evolution of man we have searched for our "missing link" in the fossil record. What most people fail to grasp is that man did not evolve from apes, what Darwin said was we had a common ancestor. What even more people fail to grasp is that ALL life has a common ancestor and we all go back to single cell organisms. If you go back far enough you will find a common ancestor to bears and man. Of course that ancestor will probably prove to be the common ancestor of most (if not all) mammals.

People who don't take the time to actually understand evolution, because they reject the notion (usually for religious reasons), think evolution says something like dogs evolved into giraffes and then became apes who become man or something along those lines. This is of course ridiculous and wrong.

What evolution says is life forms reproduce variations and these variations evolve into other species by natural selection. Anyone who for a second tries to dispute this fact ignores established history. I have even heard people say there is no evidence of a species that has been observed to have evolved. One need only look at early modern man to see Neandertal and Cro Magnon man are two very separate species of man who co existed. They both had a common ancestor and are but a single example of the many branches of man of the evolutionary tree. Natural selection deemed one species more adaptable and that species survived to become the most modern evolution of man in a line that currently ends with us.

Nobody can dispute that BOTH Neandertal and Cro Magnon were Man and not ape but one was clearly NOT the same as modern man. And certainly Homo erectus and Homo sapiens idaltu are clearly Man but I'd hope nobody would begin to argue that they are the same as us today. They are clearly different species of Man. They are proof of evolution.

Currently we are looking for the "missing link" in the fossil record. This will be the species that is the first "Man" directly decendent from our common ancestor with primates. Currently scientists "think" they have found our common ancestor, a 13 million year old skeleton found in Spain known as Pierolapithecus.

Pierolapithecus probably is, or is very close to, the last common ancestor of great apes and humans.

The oldest "known" species of man depends who you ask. But here are the ones we know about.

Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba may be oldest known human ancestor. About the size of modern chimpanzees, or 4 ft tall standing. May have walked upright and lived about 5.8–5.2 million years ago.

A similar species Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus lived about 4.4 million years ago.

Australopithecus anamensis a possible ancestor of A. afarensis (Lucy). Walked upright and lived about 4.2 million years ago. And finally Australopithecus afarensis nicknamed “Lucy.” Her skeleton was 3.5 ft (100 cm) tall. Had apelike skull. Walked fully upright. Lived in family groups throughout eastern Africa about 3.2 million years ago.

Two more evolutionary decendents Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus lived from 2.5 to 2 million years ago.

Finally we arrive at Homo habilis who had the first brain enlargement; is believed to have used stone tools. He lived at least 2 million years ago. He was followed by Homo erectus 1.8 million years ago who had a brain size twice that of australopithecine species. “Java Man” may have been a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens or instead developed on a separate evolutionary track. He is the first hominid to use fire and the hand ax, and to live in caves.

And eventually we end up with anatomically modern humans Homo sapiens idaltu which are first known to exist about 160,000 followed closely by another evolution Homo sapiens sapiens about 60,000 years later which were also anatomically modern humans, the Cro-Magnon.  The Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), c. 150,000–35,000 years ago, are the best known of all extinct human sub-species.  The Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens sapiens), c. 100,000 years ago, completely resembled modern humans.

The problem with finding the "missing links" is that unlike Dinosaurs they existed very briefly in geological time and probable existed in relatively small numbers before making the next evolutionary change. And quite simply trying to find the skeletal remains of a obscure short lived species from over 10 million years ago can be difficult. It is entirely possible no remains still exist to be found. Dinosaurs are of course much older but we must remember they are generally a bit larger and existed for 150 million years. And despite their numbers and even they are somewhat rare in terms of fossil remains.

But whether or not we find that specific "missing link" between early man and a common ancestor with primates is almost irrelevant. The fossil record contains enough numerous examples of the evolution of early man (as well as virtually every other species on the planet) to establish evolution as fact to all except those who are unwilling to accept the evidence even if a complete fossil record existed for every known species on the planet. There are also people who honestly believe we never went to the moon, but it's a free country so you can believe anything you want.

So what is the "real" missing link? What is it we should be looking for?

Well the one that is the missing link for me is far more interesting and we aren't even close to discovering it currently. And that is the "missing link" to life itself.

First a bit of background to bring everyone up to speed.

All life on Earth is carbon based. Carbon is the main ingredient in the building blocks of all life, amino acids. But this is life at the chemical stage. Carbon is common in the Universe and amino acids can happen anywhere with a suitable environment.

But somewhere between the building blocks of life (amino acids) and single cell organisms (the common ancestor of all life on Earth) is the missing link. That is the cosmic spark or whatever that allowed one to become another. It is the transformation from chemistry to life sought by the fictional Dr. Frankenstein.

Somewhere, something happened. And we don't have a clue as to what it was.

We can create amino acids all day long. But we cannot give them "life."

And that is the big mystery of real Creation. We know for a fact where Man came from, but life itself is a little further back on the timeline and can't be observed on a fossil record even if one could survive from possibly as far back as 4 billion years or so.

Some have suggested that "life" was introduced extraterrestrially, cosmic seeding and not alien visitors as ancestors, although the latter has also been suggested as the "missing link" between unevolved primates and early evolved man. Not too many people take the latter theory very seriously.

But even if "life" was introduced by cosmic seeding then where did that life come from? How did it originate? And where?

But certainly something happened between amino acids and the first single cell forms of life.

And THAT is the "missing link" I'd like to see.

This should kick up everyone's post count....but mine!



You know my thoughts on this subject!

Eric The(PureFundamentalism)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Well, I'll be damned. How come we can find all this stuff but not the missing link? But whether or not we find that specific "missing link" between early man and a common ancestor with primates is almost irrelevant. The fossil record contains enough numerous examples of the evolution of early man (as well as virtually every other species on the planet) to establish evolution as fact to all except those who are unwilling to accept the evidence even if a complete fossil record existed for every known species on the planet. There are also people who honestly believe we never went to the moon, but it's a free country so you can believe anything you want. Thats what it says.

That is the reason it isn't terribly important. The reason we haven't found it is this...

The problem with finding the "missing links" is that unlike Dinosaurs they existed very briefly in geological time and probable existed in relatively small numbers before making the next evolutionary change. And quite simply trying to find the skeletal remains of a obscure short lived species from over 10 million years ago can be difficult. It is entirely possible no remains still exist to be found. Dinosaurs are of course much older but we must remember they are generally a bit larger and existed for 150 million years. And despite their numbers and even they are somewhat rare in terms of fossil remains.

Quoted: groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RgDtAn4UVctpr4tW1cSTjab0sK0KWyyQkpcPTa8d8kV5TD2TTiSphsQduo0V87CMwPi34XLVW5pCB*sNRyqJrb7E7XTurGzifA3r4a7a8OE/001cliff.jpg

C'mon you've posted longer stuff. And at least mine isn't a copy/past like that other post.

The length was necessary to bring people up to speed. Sadly a lot of people do not know this stuff.

Quoted: If you can find millions of fossils of distinct separate species, you should be able to find many many times more of the millions of steps in between them. That they can't seem to find any speaks volumes.

Well that is kinda my point. This DON'T have millions of fossils of anything.

Dinosaurs were here for 150 Millions of years as a dominant species and there are many examples where they only have a partial skeletal remains.

Furthermore how long have we been diggin up fossils? Been a little over 100 years and this is it. We've hardly started.

Also a Dinosaur is a LOT bigger and existed in much larger numbers and it is still hard to find complete fossil records.

Why on earth would anyone believe that an evolutionary step of man which existed "briefly" and in small numbers would still even exist let alone be easy to find?

And the steps between would be the rarest of all. And for the record we have found MANY steps between. Everything from the earliest known man to Cro Magnon is a "step between."

the missing link has been known for a long time.

he is the smelly guy with only one eyebrow working at the walmart down the street from me.

Quoted: Simple: GOD creates life.

If you wish to assign all the functions of nature to God that is fine.

We understand many of the mechanics of nature/God, we just want to know how this one worked.

Quoted: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" Read Genesis 1 and 2 and all your questions are answered. I was created by God and did not descend from an ape or other such b.s.

None of the questions are answered in Genesis.

Also YOU DID NOT READ.

I wrote this especially for YOU...

People who don't take the time to actually understand evolution, because they reject the notion (usually for religious reasons), think evolution says something like dogs evolved into giraffes and then became apes who become man or something along those lines. This is of course ridiculous and wrong.

What evolution says is life forms reproduce variations and these variations evolve into other species by natural selection. Anyone who for a second tries to dispute this fact ignores established history. I have even heard people say there is no evidence of a species that has been observed to have evolved. One need only look at early modern man to see Neandertal and Cro Magnon man are two very separate species of man who co existed. They both had a common ancestor and are but a single example of the many branches of man of the evolutionary tree. Natural selection deemed one species more adaptable and that species survived to become the most modern evolution of man in a line that currently ends with us.

Next time R-E-A-D what I write before replying to it.

Quoted: That missing link (or series of missing links) is why The Neutral Observer has difficulty believing in what is termed "macro-evolution".

Try and remember ALL of the known species of early man were once "missing links" prior to them being found.

Quoted: God created us.  We didnt evolve from one celled oranisms over billions of years we did not evolve from apes.  Darwin was an idiot.

OK explain all the KNOWN evolutionary species of man.

We have the evidence and know they existed for a FACT.

Quoted: OK explain all the KNOWN evolutionary species of man. We have the evidence and know they existed for a FACT. Like what?  I freakin ape tooth that you used to construct what you thought the animal it belonged to looked like....but o wait...it was later found out to be a pigs tooth.  DOOOHHH!

OMG. But Genesis is credible evidence because it was written down by a man circa 1450 BCE?

If you really think the fossil records of Homo habilis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis consist of a pig tooth then you really are deluded.

Quoted: Or what about that one "missing link" skeleton that was found.....everybody went crazy, yall finally had proof....but o wait!.....it turned out to be a deformed monkey skeleton!.......DOOHHHH!

And you forget Piltdown Man which proved to be a fake.

Funny thing about science, when they are wrong they admit it.

And it is no longer science.

Can't say the same for religion.

Quoted: I can't even dignify your stupidity here Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and show me ALL the evidence that proves we evolved from apes...or even single celled organsims.   YOU CANT.

Only need to show you two to demonstrate evolution of man.

These are the rather comprehensive fossil records of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) and Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro Magnon) which we know for a FACT both existed and were BOTH species of men who used tools, lived in caves and made fire.

Nobody can dispute that BOTH Neandertal and Cro Magnon were Man and not ape but one was clearly NOT the same as modern man. One did not survive natural selection and THAT my friend is evolution.

Even if those were the ONLY 2 known species it is enough to prove evolution. As it is the fossil record is much more comprehensive and a bit more complete than a pig tooth.

But hey you have a 3,500 year old book to support your cause. And we know those are never wrong. Zues, Apollo, etc. and those guys really existed too. It's in a book. And that book is older than your book so it must really be true. Zues told them personally what to write.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple: GOD creates life. If you wish to assign all the functions of nature to God that is fine. We understand many of the mechanics of nature/God, we just want to know how this one worked. Actually, I don't think that evolution doesn't mean God can't play a roll, and likewise, because God is involved, that science has no place. Please do not paint me with that brush, as you do not know me, nor what or how I believe.

I didn't paint you with a brush, I made an allowance. I don't know your specific beliefs so I made a wide allowance.

Science is nothing more than truth. Within science is scientific fact (provable knowns) and scientific theory (best guesses based upon existing evidence). When theories become provable knowns they become scientific fact. When disproven they are no longer anything.

And I agree with science and God not being mutually exclusive. Science has no real evidence there is or isn't a God so he cannot be scientifically disproven any more than he can be scientifically proven. And IF the day comes that the existence of God is proven then God will become scientific fact.