Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

The missing link

7 posts in this topic

William B Stoecker: In 1859 Charles Darwin published his On The Origin of Species, postulating that species evolved over time, and that the engine driving change was natural selection. Less detailed theories of evolution had been considered before, including one developed by Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But the idea of natural selection, considered almost at the same time by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, was a new twist. In 1871 Darwin published his The Descent of Man, putting forth the theory that we evolved from some sort of prehistoric ape. It then became necessary for Darwin or his supporters to find “missing links,” apes with some human characteristics and primitive humans with some ape-like characteristics in the fossil record.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and well writen article.

Hopefully more scienctific studies will come out and look deeper into these claims. Because until the establishment looks deeper into these claims, they will no doubt remain just that "claims".

Thanks for this article!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William B Stoecker: In 1859 Charles Darwin published his On The Origin of Species, postulating that species evolved over time, and that the engine driving change was natural selection. Less detailed theories of evolution had been considered before, including one developed by Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. But the idea of natural selection, considered almost at the same time by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, was a new twist. In 1871 Darwin published his The Descent of Man, putting forth the theory that we evolved from some sort of prehistoric ape. It then became necessary for Darwin or his supporters to find “missing links,” apes with some human characteristics and primitive humans with some ape-like characteristics in the fossil record.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

"Cremo and Thompson are selectively credulous to an astonishing degree. They accept without question the testimony of 19th-century goldminers and quarrymen, but treat with extreme skepticism (or outright derision) the observations of 20th-century archaeologists. That Von Koenigswald purchased Pithecanthropus fossils from native Javanese causes Cremo and Thompson "uneasiness" (p. 164); but they blithely accept Taylor's purchase of the "Foxhall Jaw" from "a workman who wanted a glass of beer" (p. 133) without similar unease. The authors are critical of archaeologists for rejecting the very early radiometric dates for technologically recent stone artifacts at Hueyatlaco, Mexico (pp. 91-93), but they are as quick to reject radiometric dates which do not agree with their preconceived interpretations (pp. 125, 139-140).

Cremo and Thompson's claim that anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of millions of years is an outrageous notion. Accepting that there is a place in science for seemingly outrageous hypotheses (cf. Davis, 1926) there is no justification for the sort of sloppy rehashing of canards, hoaxes, red herrings, half-truths and fantasies Cremo and Thompson offer in the service of a religious ideology. Readers who are interested in a more credible presentation of the overwhelming evidence for human evolution should consult Ian Tattersall's wonderful recent book The Fossil Trail: how we know what we think we know about human evolution."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh,please.

This is the flimsiest possible Creationist nonsense. This is garbage.

Everybody who actually wants to study pre-human fossil records, do so. The foolishness promoted by this article has been debunked so many times that it is beyond dead.

Really...

At least try to understand 19th Century archeology. Once you have gained a little understanding of 19th Century archeology, then study 20th Century archeology. After your very long study of 20th Century archeology, you may be fit to start studying relatively recent 21st Century finds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absurdities on that page hardly warrant a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing link, eh? So we need to find one aside from all the ancestral fossils we've found of early humans and upright walking primates. Damn those creationists have got us again :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.