# Is There Really Such Thing As a Missing Link?



## BAYLOR (Feb 8, 2015)

And how do you define something as such from the fossil records? How does science make determination ?


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 9, 2015)

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)....


----------



## Michael Colton (Feb 9, 2015)

I totally thought this thread was about 404 errors.


----------



## goldhawk (Feb 9, 2015)

If you interested in human evolution, check out CARTA.


----------



## anno (Mar 1, 2015)

Piltdown Man was the top candidate...


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 1, 2015)

anno said:


> Piltdown Man was the top candidate...



There were doubts about Piltdown man's authenticity from the get go .


----------



## jastius (Mar 7, 2015)

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.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 7, 2015)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2016)

The Otidus Skark  morphed into Meglodon


----------



## J Riff (Jul 19, 2016)

Serious doubt about a lot, most of it. All of it. The missing link between humans and actual intelligent lifeforms... * )


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 16, 2016)

J Riff said:


> Serious doubt about a lot, most of it. All of it. The missing link between humans and actual intelligent lifeforms... * )



Might never be found. 

Perhaps there is no such thing at all?


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 26, 2016)

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.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 26, 2016)

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.




But we outcompeted every other branch of humanity. Even Neanderthal man which had a larger brain then we do.


----------



## Parson (Aug 26, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> But we outcompeted every other branch of humanity. Even Neanderthal man which had a larger brain then we do.



And women have smaller brains then men and they've outmaneuvered us males so much that we don't even know we are being manipulated.


----------



## Cathbad (Aug 26, 2016)

But... is dominance defined by numbers?  If so...



...THE CHICKENS RULE!!


----------



## Dulahan (Aug 26, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> But we outcompeted every other branch of humanity. Even Neanderthal man which had a larger brain then we do.



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.


----------



## Parson (Aug 26, 2016)

Dulahan said:


> Like Anotomically Modern humans (AMH) existed (some suggested) for as long a 5000 years with Neanderthals.



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.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 27, 2016)

Much, much longer, depending on where you start the clock. If that's 100,000 years ago, it's 70,000 of co-existence overall, although far less in Europe. Check out the recent The Neanderthals Rediscovered for more. 

The "big leap" was consciousness; an emergent property. Such leaps can't be predicted in advance.


----------



## hardsciencefanagain (Aug 27, 2016)

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?


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 27, 2016)

Dulahan said:


> it's a bit odd that early man made such a dramatic leap


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.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 28, 2016)

I see your point, but doesn't it perhaps ignore one massive difference between peacocks and people? People live in societies and have strongly altruistic feelings for one another. Camper A and Camper B might be a loving couple. What then...?


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 28, 2016)

I think you may be overlooking -- in the case of evolution, not campers in jungles (safe from the lions living on the plains) -- humans' amazing ability to separate themselves into Us and Them (even when there is no discernable** difference between those defined as being Us, and those defined as being Them).


** - Or -- as we too often see -- where those being defined as Us and Them have more in common with each other than they do with those encouraging/cheerleading that particular Us and Them narrative.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 28, 2016)

In all fairness any social predatory animal has strong "Us and Them" feelings. Look at any group of monkeys or apes, packs of wolves, prides of lions etc. None of them take kindly to others of the same kind especially if they threaten to enter their territory.

I think those feelings are no more than the naturally evolved response to protecting 'your' resources against others.

Unfortunately in the massively and unnaturally overcrowded societies humans have created those instincts are very dangerous indeed.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 28, 2016)

I know of no other species whose members can hate -- can be induced to hate -- other members of its own species whom they have not met and will probably** never meet (sometimes because they live thousands of miles away), and can do this whether living in the most crowded slum or a sparsely populated rural idyll. I can think of no other species whose members can sponsor murderous proxy wars in distant countries that, in other circumstances, neither sponsor couldn't find on a map (and had otherwise not the slightest interest in).

What drives these things -- particularly the first -- is not simply the usual animal instincts you mention. The ability to induce hate against (and/or fear of) unseen others is an entirely human trait. While I think at least some other animals can be susceptible to such inducement, without a human to train them it's rather beside the point.


** - Unless one or both of them are moved closer together for the purposes of fighting each other.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 28, 2016)

Oh yes I agree completely that hate, and in particular hate created by propaganda is a distinctly human trait. And a truly horrible one it is too. I was just referring to the us and them and the how prepared such species are to fight 'them' when they are perceived to be a threat.

In the early days of the internet I had high hopes that the ability for people to interact across the globe so easily would undermine the effectiveness of such propaganda but it's not proving to be a great success in that regard. In fact instead it is providing a powerful propaganda machine for groups that in the past would have struggled to gain such large audiences (underground printing presses etc.).


----------



## Cathbad (Aug 28, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Oh yes I agree completely that hate, and in particular hate created by propaganda is a distinctly human trait.



I have evidence to the contrary (that hate is a purely human trait - I agree with your second part).  One of the horses I owned in Florida was named Rusty.  On the ranch, we had other horses, cows, peacocks, chickens, rabbits, cats, ducks and dogs.  Rusty virtually ignored all of these animals, save one.  We rode among the cattle, stopped to admire the peacocks, waited for the ducks to pass.  Through it all, Rusty was well behaved.  He was a well-trained horse.  I should know; I trained him!  

But the dogs - we had three wonderful, well-behaved ones - learned quickly to stay out of Rusty's pasture.  Despite his training, if a dog entered the pasture while I was riding him, he'd veer to a bee-line for it!  Yeah, I could get him back to the right path, but he would be distracted, always trying to look for the dog, and snorting in an angry manner.

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that he _hated_ dogs!

Just mine 'n Rusty's two cents.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Aug 29, 2016)

Ursa major said:


> I think you may be overlooking -- in the case of evolution, not campers in jungles (safe from the lions living on the plains) -- humans' amazing ability to separate themselves into Us and Them (even when there is no discernable** difference between those defined as being Us, and those defined as being Them).
> 
> 
> ** - Or -- as we too often see -- where those being defined as Us and Them have more in common with each other than they do with those encouraging/cheerleading that particular Us and Them narrative.



But that's my point. There is an Us.


----------

