Is There Really Such Thing As a Missing Link?

B

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,486
And how do you define something as such from the fossil records? How does science make determination ?
 
Last edited:
Well... yes, and no. There are, in fact, thousands (at least) of "missing" links in the evolutionary chain, if by this we mean species which have not yet been discovered, yet which are predicted by the necessities of evolution as the theory is at present. (However, it must also be stressed that we have had such species found because of the ability of the science to predict not only the necessity for such a species, but where it was most likely to be found.)

On the other hand, using the term in its popular sense... no, there is no such thing as a "missing link". Evolution is far too complex a process for even the descent of human beings in the anthropoid chain to be limited to a single "missing link". Simply look at the "family tree" to which we belong, and you'll see what I mean:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#mediaviewer/File:Hominidae_chart.svg

You might also want to look at the following:

http://www.livescience.com/7376-human-family-tree-tangled-messy-bush.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

In other words, the proper term would be "transitional forms", not "missing link(s)" (singular or plural)....
 
What interests me is the theory of drift. The mapping of shared genetic traits that follow mans expansion into new territories.

The idea now that neanderthal man as well as a half dozen others were not genetic dead ends per se... But more a prototype whose features were blended into modern man.
Then there are things like the legends of big foot and the yetis.
What I find interesting is the folklore. Giants and trolls. Calaban in the forest. What really was a troll? The distant apeman cousin?
Is something like that also a Bigfoot? A real missing link, between legend and history.
 
jastius said:
What interests me is the theory of drift. The mapping of shared genetic traits that follow mans expansion into new territories.

The idea now that neanderthal man as well as a half dozen others were not genetic dead ends per se... But more a prototype who features were blended into modern man.
Then there are things like the legends of big foot and the yetis.
What I find interesting is the folklore. Giants and trolls. Calaban in the forest. What really was a troll? The distant apeman cousin?
Is something like that also a Bigfoot? A real missing link.
Click to expand...

Then there's Gigantopithecus 12 foot tall anthropoid which we only have few fossil fragments of. Some in Cryptozoology think It may be the basis for Big Foot and the Abominable Snowman.
 
The Otidus Skark morphed into Meglodon
 
Serious doubt about a lot, most of it. All of it. The missing link between humans and actual intelligent lifeforms... * )
 
J Riff said:
Serious doubt about a lot, most of it. All of it. The missing link between humans and actual intelligent lifeforms... * )
Click to expand...

Might never be found.

Perhaps there is no such thing at all?:unsure:
 
Anyone ever think how over-powered Humans are? If you think about it, we only REALLY have to be marginally smarter than chimpanzee to be the dominant species on the planet but we over shot that by a country mile. Like, if humans were player in an RPG we would be the kind of player who just sits around farming level 1 enemies straight through the level cap. Then we'd rock our OP level to breeze through the AI spawns.
 
Dulahan said:
Anyone ever think how over-powered Humans are? If you think about it, we only REALLY have to be marginally smarter than chimpanzee to be the dominant species on the planet but we over shot that by a country mile. Like, if humans were player in an RPG we would be the kind of player who just sits around farming level 1 enemies straight through the level cap. Then we'd rock our OP level to breeze through the AI spawns.
Click to expand...


But we outcompeted every other branch of humanity. Even Neanderthal man which had a larger brain then we do.:)
 
BAYLOR said:
But we outcompeted every other branch of humanity. Even Neanderthal man which had a larger brain then we do.:)
Click to expand...

That's true, but you have to think it's a bit odd that early man made such a dramatic leap. Survival of the fittest, sure, but it was almost like and intellectual arms race.

Like Anotomically Modern humans (AMH) existed (some suggested) for as long a 5000 years with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were stronger, faster, and had better vision than we do -- all the signs of an advanced "animal" (for lack of a better word) But they only had a rudimentary language (which is debated), religious rites, and some cooking ability. AMH, with their reasoning and ability to recollect/learn put them/us way past anything the Neanderthals could hope to achieve... like drastically so.

And that is only that relationship, not even considering the ancestors of those species who decided to leave the jungle.
 
Dulahan said:
Like Anotomically Modern humans (AMH) existed (some suggested) for as long a 5000 years with Neanderthals.
Click to expand...

This is a figure quoted for Europe, but the record seems to indicate that there was a much longer time of "existing together" in the Middle East.
 
Err...
Linnean binomials and traditional taxonomic practices are failing us now.We need to (re)define apomorphies just about each day.
With some fossils sharing about 50/50 of the characters of a traditional group,you tell me what
a particular fossil is.Ýou might win a cuban cigar.

Are calcichordates echinoderms?
 
Dulahan said:
it's a bit odd that early man made such a dramatic leap
Click to expand...
Isn't it "simply" analogous to the people in that old joke about two men camping in the jungle who hear the approach of a lion. When Camper A starts putting on his shoes, Camper B says, "Why bother? You can't outrun a lion." To which Camper A replies, "No, but all I have to do is outrun you."

So at least part of the answer to that (implied) question is that early humans weren't only competing with (the ancestors of?) chimpanzees (and their prey), but with each other. And once one's major competitors are members of one's own species, evolution can run riot, as we see with developments such as the peacock's tail.

We've now switched to competing using things -- money, technology, the ability to get others to follow us... -- so evolution isn't such a big deal... except now that we can start altering our own genetic code (well, that of our offspring), "evolution" could very well return to become something that can affect our lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Astro Pen I can't really fault this. Technology 4
Brian G Turner Neptune ... isn't really blue Science & Nature 11
chongjasmine Really enjoy watching 3D animations Anime and Animation 2
I Could really use a list of NEW science fiction authors and books Classic SF&F 49
S Looking for a book, REALLY bugging me... Book Search 3

Similar threads


Back
Top