0

Could it be that the Simpsons have evolved from the Flinstones - by the way - what has happened that family, the las time I saw them I was in Canada.

Have you noticed the evolution of the Simpson family -- now that they have been around for 30 years, they have started to insert lots of stories that explain what happened between marriage and kids.

0

Have you noticed the evolution of the Simpson family -- now that they have been around for 30 years, they have started to insert lots of stories that explain what happened between marriage and kids.

You're right, they have changed and incorporate family issues, I guess it's the writer's mind, we all like to think that we make an impression, and I suppose we do. Does this diversion break any posting rules?

0

Debates on evolution that revolve around, whether you believe Darwin's theory of how we came about, or the literal acceptance of the first book of the Christian bible, generally lead nowhere, as participants usually have rigid beliefs, I thinkthis is the best routeto take, as the cell is the building block of life; your at the "coal face"in a manner of speak. You have good input there, and your right, the question of intelligence can come later. Children at play will form themselves into small groups, each group will then take, almost an existence of it own, with an overall mindset and drive to preserve itself, so will a street gang. In a sense, cells in an organism do much the same, there are cells for making bone, cells for making muscle, cells for repairing the body and, cells for fighting off 'outside invasion' - "warrior cells" if you like. Whether the body stays healthy or diseased, how antibiotics work, or not, and the formation MRSA, all depend in how the cells perform.

What I find puzzling about ID/creationists is what they choose to fight about; seldom do they bring up the bombardier beetles or the complex set of hormonal messages that control the amorphous mass of cells after the zygote divides and the beginning of cell differentiation. So many different instructions must be turned off and on at just the correct time to produce a viable life-form.

This leads to the complexities of DNA, RNA, rDNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA and the reading, editing, and control of the proteins to be created. Precursor mRNA, exons, prokyritic/Eukaryotic, introns, UTRs, P-bodies, NMD, siRNA, miRNA, chromosomes, something to note here is that DNA sort of just sits there and RNA does all the work.

But I digress

0

What I find puzzling about ID/creationists is what they choose to fight about; seldom do they bring up the bombardier beetles or the complex set of hormonal messages that control the amorphous mass of cells after the zygote divides and the beginning of cell differentiation. So many different instructions must be turned off and on at just the correct time to produce a viable life-form.

This leads to the complexities of DNA, RNA, rDNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA and the reading, editing, and control of the proteins to be created. Precursor mRNA, exons, prokyritic/Eukaryotic, introns, UTRs, P-bodies, NMD, siRNA, miRNA, chromosomes, something to note here is that DNA sort of just sits there and RNA does all the work.

You have a lot of heavy cell info. there. There is no doubt, the cell is an enormously complex and vital part of the whole life structure on our planet. And more is being discovered, for instance, it's found that the energy that exists in a living cell, manifests as positive and negative, much like electricity. I think it is best to go forward with an open mind and put ones beliefs to the test. Beliefs can be comforting or terrifying, and some of them may be grounded in fact, but belief in no substitute for knowledgel.

0

You have a lot of heavy cell info. there. There is no doubt, the cell is an enormously complex and vital part of the whole life structure on our planet. And more is being discovered, for instance, it's found that the energy that exists in a living cell, manifests as positive and negative, much like electricity. I think it is best to go forward with an open mind and put ones beliefs to the test. Beliefs can be comforting or terrifying, and some of them may be grounded in fact, but belief in no substitute for knowledgel.

Yea. I wonder why those scientest don't test evolution by iscolating living creatures in a controlled environment and see if they adapt to the environment like evolution suggests. That would save the time and effort at looking for fossles to prove evolution.

0

Here is proof that there is no evolution:

They say that we only ever use 12% of our brain. The other half is never used.

With evolution we would use 100% of our brain.:)

0

Here is proof that there is no evolution:
With evolution we would use 100% of our brain.:)

Well, we do use 100% of it.

n most famous personal development books, one will inevitably stumble across the following statement: "We only use 10% of our brain". In these books, there is of course reason for joy, because whatever system of thought or change is being taught will definitely remedy that problem. And if we only use 10% then that would explain war, anger, suffering, and all the other fun things in the world. And only some exceptional individuals, such as Einstein or DaVinci are thought to have risen above this low number. But, is that really true? Do we really only use 10% of our brain?

This idea seems to go back to somewhere at the beginning of the 20th Century. While different people are attributed to having said this, it is not even really clear where this comes from, but I know where it is going! Measuring the brain's activity has been done through a wide variety of different tests, from EEG (i.e.: brain wave activity as measure by electrical impulses) to fMRI (i.e.:taking pictures of hydrogen molecules resonating in the brain). fMRI allows researchers to take snap shot pictures of the brain and its activities in particular locations in the brain, and from this research it was found that all of the brain is being used. There was not one area that did not "light up". That strongly suggests that we are using all of our brain.

The brain in relation to the entire body is quite a small organ, accounting for only 2% of the total weight. Yet, at the same time, the brain requires 20% of the blood flow of the heart and an equal amount of available oxygen. From an evolutionary point of view, is it really plausible that such a demanding organ would only work at 10% of its capacity?

Many times it is said that if one area of the brain is damaged, another part of the brain can take over its function. Surely, this must mean that there are spare parts lying around, waiting to jump into action. Well, no! This just bears witness to the brains amazing ability to rewire itself, also known as neuroplasticity. This plasticity of the brain is very high in children, and although greatly diminished, still available to adults as well in degrees we thought impossible. The brain actually bears evidence to all our decisions in its very structure...

So, now comes the point where most people say:"Wait a minute, its not 10% of the brain, it is 10% of the mind!" My question is, how do you know? How can we even claim to measure the mind and the human potential? Hence, we leave the area of scientific claims, and end up in an almost philosophical discussion that is blurred by injecting scientifically sounding claims with percentages attached to them.

0

Well from my understanding of evolution it is about the development of living organisms and I wouldn't call a PC or a cabin a living organism. There for evolution wins again.

You will probably find that the origin of species is largley impaction on what happened during the time we know as the big bang. The beginning of the universe when planets suddenly came into existance probably from something in the parallel universe going terribly wrong.

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it. I understand the process of evolution that we can push everything away and say that we forced ourselves where we are today, that basically environment created us. But how could that have happened? You telling me that nothing existed in space for millenia's yet one day pop Sun created itself, earth created itself, then built an oxygen supply, after that an ameba crawled from the ocean and soon sprouted legs and then before you know it ape, and then from that man. Why dont we still see that happening today? What stopped that process? It never happened that way thats why, but I respect others thinking, please dont think I want to enforce my thoughts on someone else, I just wanted to share in the discussion. If asked, I believe in creation. The body is too well designed to be an accident or to have evolved from nothing.

0

Yea. I wonder why those scientest don't test evolution by iscolating living creatures in a controlled environment and see if they adapt to the environment like evolution suggests. That would save the time and effort at looking for fossles to prove evolution.

That might work, but I think the time factor would kick in here. What we're speculating on, is a system that, apparently, has been in operation for aeons of time. Where they were able to compare the earliest fossilised remains of a given species, with a later specimen of the same species, they found that there was a massive time lapse before noticeable changes took place. Then consider that the Earth itself has been evolving an changing: what was dry land millions of years ago is now under water, or ice, forest or mountain. But carboin dating and the discovery of and ability to read fossils, has helped enormously, so it's a work in progrsss.

0

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it. I understand the process of evolution that we can push everything away and say that we forced ourselves where we are today, that basically environment created us. But how could that have happened? You telling me that nothing existed in space for millenia's yet one day pop Sun created itself, earth created itself, then built an oxygen supply, after that an ameba crawled from the ocean and soon sprouted legs and then before you know it ape, and then from that man. Why dont we still see that happening today? What stopped that process? It never happened that way thats why, but I respect others thinking, please dont think I want to enforce my thoughts on someone else, I just wanted to share in the discussion. If asked, I believe in creation. The body is too well designed to be an accident or to have evolved from nothing.

You have put up a powerful argument and that's to the betterment of the debate. But, as to why we don't see evidence of evolution taking place today, I have give my thoughts to that in another post. In a nutshell: it's because of the time factor, which is another matter. Even if you take Genesis and the six days of creation, most of todays religious experts agree that "days" as mentioned there bore no relationhip to our present day. Is it not possible that, given that the chronicler of Genesis and other books of the Bible were writing for a people that, for the most part, were still living in primitive state mentally and socially. This would have been a good way to get them to believe in something higher or superior than their primitive gods. It encapsulated a greater truth, which was hidden behind the allegory. I also agree with you, that the world and all that's in it could not have come out of nothing, or have happened by chance.

1

Yea. I wonder why those scientest don't test evolution by iscolating living creatures in a controlled environment and see if they adapt to the environment like evolution suggests. That would save the time and effort at looking for fossles to prove evolution.

Er, this has already been mentioned in this thread, see for a brief mention and another brief mention re MRSA. Bacteria are short-lived animals that live in colonies; if you poison the colony but leave some alive - those left alive are the ones that are more resistant to the poison. The colony rebuilds itself but now most of the colony are from the resistant population so when you try to poison the colony again, you only kill the least resistant and just reinforce the trait for immunity. Eventually, you have MRSA which now kills 19,000 Americans each year. MRSA used to be confined to hospitals(!) but eventually started to colonize prisons and now is found pretty commonly on the streets. Our skin has evolved over the millennia to protect us from this sort of thing but once MRSA gets past the skin (either through a cut or scratch or the mucosa) and finds its way into the blood stream and the entire body becomes infected.

So I would suggest that anyone who denies evolution might be a poor candidate for the medical field.

You might ask "How does explain evolution?":
Evolution works over long periods of time and gets pretty complicated so let us consider an island in the Pacific Ocean (pick one at random - oh, look a chain of islands called The Galapagos Islands, that is even better). This island is very isolated and is essentially the tip of a volcanic mountain (if you want a really good description of how a desolate rock becomes a jungle paradise, read the first couple chapters of Jame Michener's Hawaii). So now we have an island colonized by a bunch of plants but no animals so we posit a flock of finches that get caught in a storm and get blown off the mainland onto the island. So this flock of finches eat what finches eat but occasionally a finch is born with a larger beak than the others.

This finch can pick up larger seeds than the others and so it no longer has to compete with the other finches for the small seeds - it has all the big seeds for itself. It is better feed because it gets as much as it wants to eat whereas the other finches are still competing for the small seeds so it is able to attract mates more successfully. When it breeds, it is more likely to produce finches with larger beaks and pretty soon there are 2 populations of finches that eat different foods and pretty soon do not find each other attractive (often because the genetic mutation that brought about larger beaks also tweaked something else like feather color - most genes do lots of different things so when the genes es expressed differently, produces more than one change.).

And of course while all this is going on, other beak modifications are being introduced so that there are finches that eat flying insects or mountain beetles or fruit - as each of the changes in beaks happen, they are refined by competition in that ones that have beaks that are better at getting food are statistically more likely to breed more and as they breed more, their genes are reinforced and spread through the population. Soon the finches end up on other islands that have different environments and the finches colonize them too.

Suddenly you have a chain of islands full of finches that fill all the different bird niches generally taken by eagles, hawks, humming birds, woodpeckers, vultures. In fact, on first glance you would think that these finches were those species but they are not, they are all just finches trying to find a warm place in the sun and enough food to breed more finches.

Votes + Comments
Well thought out shows good reasoningd lod
0

Here is proof that there is no evolution:

They say that we only ever use 12% of our brain. The other half is never used.

With evolution we would use 100% of our brain.:)

Sneek, I blew right by that joke! Heh,Heh - Pretty good!

0

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it.

It hasn't stopped. It happens to bacteria on a scale we can watch and record (see earlier post) but since evolution happens over generations, we can only observe changes that happen over 1,000s of generations so even shrews with a generation of a month would have to be studied 80+ years.

Human generations are generally considered to be 20 or 25 years, fly generations are months. a generation is defined as the time from an organism's birth to when it begins producing the next generation

I understand the process of evolution that we can push everything away and say that we forced ourselves where we are today, that basically environment created us. But how could that have happened? You telling me that nothing existed in space for millenia's yet one day pop Sun created itself, earth created itself, then built an oxygen supply, after that an ameba crawled from the ocean and soon sprouted legs and then before you know it ape, and then from that man. Why dont we still see that happening today? What stopped that process?

no one is saying that - that is called a 'Strawman' argument where you set up a strawman then knock it down - considered bad form in most debates and/or discussions

It never happened that way thats why, but I respect others thinking, please dont think I want to enforce my thoughts on someone else, I just wanted to share in the discussion. If asked, I believe in creation. The body is too well designed to be an accident or to have evolved from nothing.

These arguments are not well thought out either. When you state a belief, you do not allow for argument or discussion which is fine but do not mistake belief for knowledge.

0

Have you noticed the evolution of the Simpson family -- now that they have been around for 30 years, they have started to insert lots of stories that explain what happened between marriage and kids.

Wrong. They were doing that in the early seasons, at least before season seven, possibly as far back as season four; and they've completed nineteen seasons (almost done the twentieth) plus three more on the The Tracey Ullman Show; 22 years old on April 19th.

It is entirely possible I misunderstood what you meant by "that explain what happened between marriage and kids" but almost every major character's entire life could be mapped out by season 10.

0

Wrong. They were doing that in the early seasons, at least before season seven, possibly as far back as season four; and they've completed nineteen seasons (almost done the twentieth) plus three more on the The Tracey Ullman Show; 22 years old on April 19th.

It is entirely possible I misunderstood what you meant by "that explain what happened between marriage and kids" but almost every major character's entire life could be mapped out by season 10.

What I meant is that during the first 10 years, Bart was an accident and they had to get married - now quite often, Marge or Homer will say something about what they did and the story will take place after they got married but before they had kids; and sometimes things will take place before they got married that imply that Marge went to college or Homer went to SA -- whatever.

0

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it.

Well there has been a case sort of like that during the 18th century when the European settlement took place in Australia. That is if you notice in some countries where people have migrated such as Australia, all the people in Australia before the 18th century were black but after the white people came to Australia and cross bread with the blacks, it then produced mainly white people. So yes there use to be a second type of human species with the same origin before the 18th century but then both species cross bread eliminating most of the blacks. At least that is my opinion on how it happened.

0

Er, this has already been mentioned in this thread, see for a brief mention and another brief mention re MRSA. Bacteria are short-lived animals that live in colonies; if you poison the colony but leave some alive - those left alive are the ones that are more resistant to the poison. The colony rebuilds itself but now most of the colony are from the resistant population so when you try to poison the colony again, you only kill the least resistant and just reinforce the trait for immunity. Eventually, you have MRSA which now kills 19,000 Americans each year. MRSA used to be confined to hospitals(!) but eventually started to colonize prisons and now is found pretty commonly on the streets. Our skin has evolved over the millennia to protect us from this sort of thing but once MRSA gets past the skin (either through a cut or scratch or the mucosa) and finds its way into the blood stream and the entire body becomes infected.

So I would suggest that anyone who denies evolution might be a poor candidate for the medical field.

You might ask "How does explain evolution?":
Evolution works over long periods of time and gets pretty complicated so let us consider an island in the Pacific Ocean (pick one at random - oh, look a chain of islands called The Galapagos Islands, that is even better). This island is very isolated and is essentially the tip of a volcanic mountain (if you want a really good description of how a desolate rock becomes a jungle paradise, read the first couple chapters of Jame Michener's Hawaii). So now we have an island colonized by a bunch of plants but no animals so we posit a flock of finches that get caught in a storm and get blown off the mainland onto the island. So this flock of finches eat what finches eat but occasionally a finch is born with a larger beak than the others.

This finch can pick up larger seeds than the others and so it no longer has to compete with the other finches for the small seeds - it has all the big seeds for itself. It is better feed because it gets as much as it wants to eat whereas the other finches are still competing for the small seeds so it is able to attract mates more successfully. When it breeds, it is more likely to produce finches with larger beaks and pretty soon there are 2 populations of finches that eat different foods and pretty soon do not find each other attractive (often because the genetic mutation that brought about larger beaks also tweaked something else like feather color - most genes do lots of different things so when the genes es expressed differently, produces more than one change.).

And of course while all this is going on, other beak modifications are being introduced so that there are finches that eat flying insects or mountain beetles or fruit - as each of the changes in beaks happen, they are refined by competition in that ones that have beaks that are better at getting food are statistically more likely to breed more and as they breed more, their genes are reinforced and spread through the population. Soon the finches end up on other islands that have different environments and the finches colonize them too.

Suddenly you have a chain of islands full of finches that fill all the different bird niches generally taken by eagles, hawks, humming birds, woodpeckers, vultures. In fact, on first glance you would think that these finches were those species but they are not, they are all just finches trying to find a warm place in the sun and enough food to breed more finches.

You've pushed the argument forward well, with a bit of good deductive logic. It is important, if we're giong to get, or try to get, some understanding of the time scale involved in this whole, awesome scenariobisa. I don't think that. 'instant creation', is very likely, "slowly but surely', seeems to be the order. Considereing that we are just parts (important parts) of this 'existence', it is fantastic that we have developed the ability to, at least understand something of the 'goings on'; we should never be afraid of questioning, or having our beliefs challenged; our pride might be hurt at times, or our faith in somethng or somebody, but at least we will be wiser, and after we have simmered and stewed for a while, we can get up and get on with it.

0

Well there has been a case sort of like that during the 18th century when the European settlement took place in Australia. That is if you notice in some countries where people have migrated such as Australia, all the people in Australia before the 18th century were black but after the white people came to Australia and cross bread with the blacks, it then produced mainly white people. So yes there use to be a second type of human species with the same origin before the 18th century but then both species cross bread eliminating most of the blacks. At least that is my opinion on how it happened.

At first glance, there appears to be so much wrong with this paragraph that I do not know where to start - so I will just leave it to stew in its own bio-mass.

0

If these growths are malign, then they can be safely removed, but it malignant they will have roots which may be removable.

I wish to correct a couple of errors in the above statement, from an earlier post. The above sentence should read: If these growths are benign, they can be safely removed, but if malignant, they will have roots which have spread to other organs, which can't be removed.

Edited by mike_2000_17: Fixed formatting

0

At first glance, there appears to be so much wrong with this paragraph that I do not know where to start - so I will just leave it to stew in its own bio-mass.

I had a good chuckle at your, "leave it to stew in its own bio-mass.
Yea, it's not the most lucid piece of writing you'll find, but if cwarn2 has given it his best shot, then I think we should give it the respect of a reply, so here goes. The point that he was making, I think, is: Did the interbreeding of the whites, who arrived in Australia in the 1800s, with the native black race, cause the black influence to be removed, or weakened, in the resulting offspring? I'll attempt an answer: We are in the area of Genetics now.
The change that is noted in the colour of skin, is due to the fact that, at conception, when the male and female cells unite, there is a larger geneitic pool to select from ie. the combination of the Aboriginal and white or European. In some cases, the offspring will be almost white, suggesting that the white genes are dominating the black but, in that same relationship, the next or future offspring, might be totally black. So, it isn't a question of one set of genes trying to dominate the other but, rather, the fact that there is now a bigger gene pool to select from so, at a given circumastnce it would be, one or the other. This larger gene pool creates more diveresity, which in turn, strengthens the speciest. This is the opposite of Hybriding, or inbreeding, which creates a more pure racial strain, eventual wekens the breed or race, and can leat to extinction. Eugenics comes to the fore here: the study or practice of breecing out weaknesses. Hitler made a big play of this, with idea of getting back to the pure Aryan race.

0

the "roots" are called metastases

Yea, that's right, when Cancerous growths or tumours, spread their metases(roots) to an adjoing or adjacent organ. Metasis I think, is the singular.

0

I had a good chuckle at your, "leave it to stew in its own bio-mass.
Yea, it's not the most lucid piece of writing you'll find, but if cwarn2 has given it his best shot, then I think we should give it the respect of a reply, so here goes. The point that he was making, I think, is: Did the interbreeding of the whites, who arrived in Australia in the 1800s, with the native black race, cause the black influence to be removed, or weakened, in the resulting offspring? I'll attempt an answer: We are in the area of Genetics now.
The change that is noted in the colour of skin, is due to the fact that, at conception, when the male and female cells unite, there is a larger geneitic pool to select from ie. the combination of the Aboriginal and white or European. In some cases, the offspring will be almost white, suggesting that the white genes are dominating the black but, in that same relationship, the next or future offspring, might be totally black. So, it isn't a question of one set of genes trying to dominate the other but, rather, the fact that there is now a bigger gene pool to select from so, at a given circumastnce it would be, one or the other. This larger gene pool creates more diveresity, which in turn, strengthens the speciest. This is the opposite of Hybriding, or inbreeding, which creates a more pure racial strain, eventual wekens the breed or race, and can leat to extinction. Eugenics comes to the fore here: the study or practice of breecing out weaknesses. Hitler made a big play of this, with idea of getting back to the pure Aryan race.

Okay, let us begin with the basic premise - that Australian aboriginals and white settlers can be considered

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it.

Well there has been a case sort of like that during the 18th century when the European settlement took place in Australia. That is if you notice in some countries where people have migrated such as Australia, all the people in Australia before the 18th century were black but after the white people came to Australia and cross bread with the blacks, it then produced mainly white people. So yes there use to be a second type of human species with the same origin before the 18th century but then both species cross bread eliminating most of the blacks. At least that is my opinion on how it happened.

This is equating blacks with half-apes or, at the very least, less than human. Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong! I do not care if that is not what cwarn2meant, that is what he was arguing.

His opinion on how it happened leaves out that smallpox killed about 50% of the population, 'abo' hunts (caravans of white settlers driving out into the outback to kill aboriginals), the 'civilizing' of the 'abo's by going to all the villages kidnapping the children and repatriating them to white boarding schools to teach them a 'better' way to live.

He also seems to ignore the fact that there are still aboriginal natives living in Australia. There are still about half a million living as best they can. Remember also that the first thing the white colonists did was to confiscate the best land and all the sources of water.

The point I want to make is that there was no 'survival of the fittest' genetics thingy going on. It was purely a culture clash.

If this leads you to question, why one particular 'race' has been so successful at 'colonizing' all the other 'races'. That is an interesting story that I have gone over before and boils down to domesticated animals and the different immunities granted by living in close proximity to assorted diseases. And the horse, horses are the only really good cavalry animal - there were no horses in the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or Australia.

But I digress.

0

Ok, so why don't we still see apes evolving? Some half man, half ape? What stopped the process? I haven't seen anything lately of it.

We did not evolve from the apes of today . Its a total misconception generated priciplally by creationists in order to try and damage the credibility of the Darwinian scheme of evolution, and kept alive by TV and cinemas flawed logic and spread by people like yourself who dont really understand it.

What we DO do is share a common ancestor with the apes of today.

At that point, we took seperate evolutionary paths. They diverged into chimpanzees and gorillas whereas we diverged into early man (hominids)

We share many skeletal features and characteristics like the use of tool and From excavations we know humans first emerged in Africa ~5 to ~8 million years ago. It has also been found that Chimpanzees arose about the same time in Africa. Both groups (humans and chimps - chimps having a 99% similarity to the genes of a human) arose from a common ancestor that was neither human nor chimp, but is now extinct (The missing link)

0

We did not evolve from the apes of today . Its a total misconception generated priciplally by creationists in order to try and damage the credibility of the Darwinian scheme of evolution, and kept alive by TV and cinemas flawed logic and spread by people like yourself who dont really understand it.

What we DO do is share a common ancestor with the apes of today.

I agree because from a documentary I've seen on darwins theory, apes are like our brothers and sisters on the ancestry tree. I think researchers are still looking for the common ancester of apes and humans which they are investigating weather the common ancester even came from earth or space (or at least some of our ancesters).

0

yeah thats why they cut like an inch of "good" tissue out around the tumour when they remove it.

Yet, there are some cases that have defied the medical and scientific world, where serious and malignat growths have 'died', or dissapeared. To get to the bottom of that would lead into subjects like mind over matter and related.

0

I agree because from a documentary I've seen on darwins theory, apes are like our brothers and sisters on the ancestry tree.

they are more like distant cousins

I think researchers are still looking for the common ancester of apes and humans which they are investigating weather the common ancester even came from earth or space (or at least some of our ancesters).

Not really true - there is no consideration given to the possibility of descent from space. We have quite a bit of 'hominid' (considered the common great ape ancestor) evidence. If you are interested, you can see the fossil evidence here - this includes some of the creationist arguments. The concept of the 'missing link' was mostly a media invention rather than a scientific concept.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.