Human 'missing link' fossils may be jumble of species

[carlos]

Hi All.

 

I have just read this article published yesterday in the scientific magazine New Scientist:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229643.200-human-missing-link-fossils-may-be-jumble-of-species.html#.U0aBDqLTJuY

 

So this fossil that was acclaimed as the missing link between men and apes seems to be actually four different skeletons (two men and two monkeys) mixed up. Of course its finder disagrees, otherwise he will lose the renown of having discovered it. How many other fossils exhibited as proofs of evolution may be just mixed up bones of different kinds!

 

Interesting that this discovery comes some months after five skulls found in Georgia made the evolutionary genealogical tree of man crumble down. Those skulls showed that fossils thought to be separate species (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, all the early Homo species) were just different varieties of the same human species. We even had a thread about that. So far I have seen no science books or even Wikipedia reflect this new understanding. Not that it comes as a surprise.

 

And yesterday I read another article from 2011 in Nature confirming that Archaeopteryx, the world-famous intermediate form between reptiles and birds, was not a bird at all, just a small dinosaur with feathers. Sorry, Darwin, you were wrong once again.

 

And we are called fanatics for not believing in evolution!

 

[stuagu]

Darwin recognised that for his theory to ever become anything more than that it would have to be fully supported by the yet to be found.. At his time... fossil record....

... We know there is nothing to be found and amongst the billions of fossils found, nothing has been found in support of that theory.

... I wonder if Darwin was around today wether he would now admit his theory will only ever be that... As in its nonsense?

[Miss Bea]

Big surprise, huh? In this area, they have, "Bigfoot", Bigfoot Days, hideous carvings. Big ones. And there are those who take it seriously. If I am put on the spot, I, (with a bit of humor) just tell them, "He's not my relation, if you want to claim him as yours, be my guest".

As part of my job, I ended up taking a couple of courses at the local junior college. When the professor stated evolution as a fact...there I was with the room full of young people, wanting to go into the medical field. I gave it thought, and decided better of pointing out the fact there is a difference between a theory and a fact. Yes, that is what the young ones are being fed as far as knowledge is.

It was a hard course. Ones left it. I hung in there, telling myself I could do it, and got a B. Felt sorry for those who left. To me it is sort of like the Trinity. "None of this makes any sense, and you believe it"?

[warytraveller]

Fundamentalists of any ilk desperately need for their "facts" to back up their beliefs at any cost, otherwise they cannot beat anyone over the head with them or validate their behavior.  Some might choose to categorize us with other religious groups because of our unwavering beliefs. What makes us different?  Faith.  Our beliefs do not require validation from any human and our behavior is guided by principle, not debate or obstinance.

[MizPeg]

Darwin recognised that for his theory to ever become anything more than that it would have to be fully supported by the yet to be found.. At his time... fossil record....

... We know there is nothing to be found and amongst the billions of fossils found, nothing has been found in support of that theory.

... I wonder if Darwin was around today wether he would now admit his theory will only ever be that... As in its nonsense?

Remember, Darwin had the theory, just his imperfect human thoughts, not the acknowledgement of a " greater power."

[rbrown1205]

The  two brochures Was Life Created and Origin of Life make it easy to distinguish truth from falsehood masquerading as science.  Now they have what they have dated as a 4 million year old pile of bones and a very human like but hairy picture of an "ancient ancestor" of humans.  It would be nice if they would stop doing that, making fanciful pictures of humans with ape like faces.   Even the dating is questionable, and they would say so if it did not destroy their entire premise.

[Stavro]

The problem with dating fossils is that unlike organic material (which can be carbon dated with a relatively high degree of accuracy), fossils are largely made up of minerals that seeped into the bones as the organic materials rotted away. Instead, archaeologists examine the depth and age of the dirt and other materials surrounding the fossil to determine how old it is.

 

In other news, when cleaning out an abandoned junkyard, archaeologists found an ancient car strongly resembling a 2001 Toyota Camry, surrounded by cars known to be from the 20s and 30s. Clearly this car was manufactured in the early 1930s, its unusual appearance is a result of a mutation in the blueprints while still in the factory, and it's most likely the missing link between early car development and the modern species of cars we know today. 

[Toy Poodles]

I am not up to date on all this but is this fossil the same one that was in the creation book that was said to have different skull bones from human and ape or is this another one?

[carlos]

I am not up to date on all this but is this fossil the same one that was in the creation book that was said to have different skull bones from human and ape or is this another one?

 

This is a different fossil, Deenna. I think the skull you refer to is that of the Piltdown man, a forgery made in 1912 that was not discovered to be true until 1953.

 

This one is much more recent. But the idea is the same.