Missing Links Again
Modern Human Skeleton Well those paleontologists just don't give up. Now we are being told that they have found what amounts to the missing link. A sort of half monkey, half human. I am so tired of them picking and choosing from what they find. If they find a complete human skeleton that is much older than it is supposed to be, they say nothing for fear of ridicule, but if they find other bones that can be construed to be somehow connected to what they believe is human evolution they have a party. I was never one to discard proof of anything, but the mere mention that Darwin might, just might be wrong gets people fired. We have seen this happen many times. I thought that this country had freedom of speech, but apparently it doesn't exist among the paleontologists or archaeological community. Sometimes scientists don't agree on what ancient bones even represent. Two paleontologists disagreed so violently that each tried to ruin each other's careers. Their names were Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. Cope was from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Marsh from the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale. They warred with each other for about 25 years before the turn of the 20th century. Cope believed that an animal, such as a dinosaur, or any organism, was able to pass on to its offspring characteristics that were acquired during its lifetime and Marsh totally supported Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Both men ruined each other by using any method, including criminal methods, to look like the premier scientist while trying to make the other look like the boob. I mention this to show the lengths that some will go, even to the detriment of their finds.
Lucy How many times have we been told that the missing link has been found, I can remember several instances? Even with all these instances, it is inevitable that this will happen again. I ask you, if an animal is found that existed millions of years ago and it happens to have a few bones that look similar to human bones, does this have to mean that it is an ancestor? On top of that, how many times have incomplete skeletons been found where other bones could have been intermixed? We could be looking at two different samples of bones that just happen to be in the same spot. In 2009 it was announced that the oldest human ancestor was found. It was said to be about 4.4 million years old. The skeleton was named Ardi. This skeleton was found in Ethiopia and is of Ardipithecus ramidus. Interestingly, in 1974 a skeleton was found that was said to be the missing link and it was named Lucy and was located only about 46 miles from the 2009 find. Lucy is an Australopithecus afarensis and is 3.2 million years old. Let's look into this a little deeper. What made scientists think that Lucy was the forerunner of the human race? Lucy was typical Chimpanzee from the waste up, but had the pelvis and legs of what was stated as similar to a modern human and scientists said that this proved that it walked upright. The ration of the size of some of the bones was felt to also be human like. Hmm, not much to base human evolution on is it? Don't say that to a paleontologist, they will tell you that this is complete, indisputable proof of evolution and yet will never mention the older modern human skeletons that were found. Ardi, the older skeletal remains, is said to be our ancestor for the following reasons: How much weaker can this case get? It took scientists 17 years to even come to this conclusion with Ardi. It certainly sounds like a lot of guess work was incorporated into the function of this animal. Notice I say animal, since I am certainly not convinced by what passes for evidence here. It now seems that scientists are telling us that we did not come from animals like Chimps, but from some other type of ape like creature as did the Chimps. Did you know that a Chimp was your brother? This is what we are being told to believe. Can you imagine trying to prove any of this in a court of law with this weak so called evidence? This is not even a case of religion with me. I am not saying any of this because of religious beliefs, although I do go to church and belong to an organized religion. I am saying that this is nonsense because so many things are inferred by what is found and so much is found that is disregarded. It is maddening. I am tired of someone saying, “oh look this three million year old skeleton of a creature had a toe that looked human therefore it must be a human ancestor”. If someone could prove to me that evolution has taken place with humans I would feel different, but most of this stuff is such nonsense and not only that, it is so incomplete.
Memorial To Discoverer Of Piltdown Man I haven't even touched on hoaxes that have taken place such as the famous Piltdown Man. The hoax involved the finding of a skeleton of what was supposedly an early human. Fragments of a skull, teeth and Jawbone were supposedly found in 1912 near Piltdown in Uckfield, East Sussex, England. EXPERTS classified the remains as an unknown form of early man. These are the same type of people classifying bones today. It took until 1953 to find out that this was a hoax. That is 41 years later. How many other finds might be hoaxes and never found out? So how did the hoax get perpetrated. The partial skull of a human was mated with the jawbone of an orangutan and teeth of a chimp. It is hard to believe that these scientists could have been fooled so easily. How can we believe the claims that we are related to these ancient skeletal remains from so far back and especially when scientists could not identify 3 such common elements as a modern human skull, chimp teeth and orangutan jawbone? Not every scientist had agreed that Piltdown Man was genuine , or constructed correctly, but certainly enough of them to keep the find from being called a fraud for over 40 years. |
