Friends,
How is it that a monkey
Image via Wikipedia
Ain’t that a CUTE! monkey?
Image via Wikipedia
This one is a real cute monkey, but:
How is it that a monkey is ‘our closest relative?’
I love reading about evolution. I often read, “We don’t believe we are descended FROM monkeys.” But, “We are descended from apes.”
Really?
Aren’t monkeys cuter? Than this?
I know some people who look like this guy's cousin ... Image via Wikipedia
I know monkeys are cuter than apes …. especially as my relatives …. And I think our ‘cousin’ here is wondering about that also:
Image via Wikipedia
He is thinking, Who in the world would think you, Wayne, look like we are cousins? Do you, Wayne, believe we look like cousins?
Well, I am not sure, and I know ‘scientists’ are still looking for the missing link. I don’t think they will find one.
What do you think?
Do you really think I look more like an ape than a monkey?
On second thought, please, do not answer that.
Wayne
Like this:
Like Loading...
About Wayne
Where do I start? Well, this blog at www.luvsiesous.com is the latest of 3 blogs I have written over the last 7 years.
I am a retired Oracle Instructor.
My friends are starting my old company back up.
I have been blogging for most of the last decade. Google destroyed my first blogging account. So, I moved to Myspace - soon I was consistently in the rankings. MySpace gave me a virus (bad one). So, "I moved" to FaceBook. I do not like Facebook changing their settings all the time .... And it is NOT blogger friendly.
So, finally, the blogging addiction came back ....
But, stick around and read about me. Comments are appreciated. You will teach me something. Not nice comments are sometimes edited. I have let some stand in the effort to be fair to others. But, this is my site .... comment and tell me something.
I love to start churches.
I think America 1950 was much better than America Version 2.0 is .... So, I really hope someone inspires our next generation ....
Hi Wayne
Its not that Humans evolved from Apes, its that Humans and Apes both evolved from a common ancestor. If you have a population and they seperate and the two groups have no breeding interaction, they will eventually diverge into two distinct species. When the evolutionary tree is drawn this sort of branching is seen everywhere.
As for missing link, well thats a bit of a misleading phrase. There are many fossils that fit to various stages of the evolutionary tree and they all add weight to the evidence for evolutions. No single fossil will ever nail for certain, you need all the evidence together.
So, how many ‘trasitional fossils’ have been found?
Define ‘trasitional fossils’.
Transitional fossils are fossils of species in the transitional phases from one species to another.
Often these are called ‘missing links.’ But, more appropriately for evolution, these are transitional fossils.
Keeping this real simple. Archaeopteryx is usually described as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. And is the only accepted transitional fossil I am aware of. There is some dispute on that, but not like there is about other links in the evolutionary history.
And here is a wiki, I hate using wiki. But, it is late.
HI Wayne,
Thanks for that, I wanted to be sure we would talk about the same thing and if the subject had moved from Humans / Apes to a more generic discussion.
I am a lay-person when it comes to fossils, anatomy and all things palaeoanthropological and to me it seems that any fossil that is of an ancestor to a living animal must surely be a transitional fossil. For example, my parents are the transitional humans between my grandparents and me.
Anyway, I have found this website which I’ve not come across before but seems utterly fantastic in terms of showing the evolutionary branches leading to the various species we know today.
http://www.tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
The following is a link for the primate tree section
http://www.tolweb.org/Primates/15963
and on that page is a link to this: http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/2000/MAR/primate/Nature.htm
from which I have pulled this snippet
Matthew,
I like that!
I guess what I am looking for is, at least to my simple mind, simple. I am looking for real transitional fossils.
As I have studied, I have found more and more faked fossils rather than real fossils.
If your article’s claim is true, there is hope for Evolutionary Science. I seldom read evolutionist scientists alluding to the volume of non-evidence. This phrase, “first unambiguous evidence,” gives me hope they are conducting real science.
Your article intrigues me. I wonder what the fascination is with Chinese fossils?
Just last week, I watched a scientist discussing how common faked fossils are from China. It would seem that they have factories to produce faked fossils. Some of the fake fossils are pretty darn good.
In this wiki, [1.] they meniton Dr. Timothy Rowe, from UT who found the Archaeoraptor fossils to be fakes. What I find very ironic is their claim, “Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.”
Well, Dr. Rowe claimed that he, Dr. Rowe, DID notify Nat Geo. And National Geographic published anyway. [2.]
It is ironic that they would knowingly publish false data. And then they would cover up. IMHO. Of course, it could be they had little to do in the cover up. But, who else would benefit from covering up that the fossil had been faked, and the article was published KNOWING it was a fake fossil?
BTW, this website really goes into the illegal trade from China: [3.] What I like about this is how extensive production of fake fossils has become.
I hope that your mentioned find will help bring Science back into the study of Evolution. It is a shame that sham science seems to have outweighed real science for most of the 1990′s.
wayne
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
2. http://www.prlog.org/11125068-evolution-grand-experiment-why-some-evolutionists-are-up-in-arms-over-it.html
3. http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm