Is human ancestry mystery about to be unraveled (Nakalipithecus Nakayamai)?
30 November 2007
FINALLY!! THEY HAVE FOUND THE MISSING LINK!!! (Again). Well its been almost a month since I have last read an article saying they have found the missing link between apes and humans so it came as almost a shock. This time it has come from the Rift Valley and has been named Nakalipithecus Nakayamai. Not only has it been proven beyond all doubt to be the missing link to humans but is at the fork where gorillas and chimpanzees emerged.
The fossils were dated at 10 million years old (probably because of the volcanic flow they were found in) and consisted of a partial jaw and 11 teeth that they found separate. From these pieces of bone they were able to determine that this jaw and teeth were 'probably' the last common ancestor between African great apes and humans.
1. They raised money to find a bone that looked half way between ape and human.
2. They went looking for a bone that looked half way between ape and human.
3. They found a bone that looked half way between ape and human.
4. Does this mean it was half way between an ape and human? NO!
No fossil is proof of evolution! Finding dead bones in the dirt does not tell you anything about what its children looked like, and certainly can not tell you that they were more genetically complex than the parent. For those of you who have not looked into the subject I will have an article on the site elsewhere showing the problems with all the radiometric dating methods, but that aside the most common practice is to use the fossil to date the layer and then turn around and date the fossil with the layer. Circular reasoning is built in to the system to make sure that they get the desired result. On occasion they need to re-date an entire collection of fossils in a layer because something more advanced is found below that layer.
I am sure that they did many months of empirical testing on the fragments they found. They probably measured it, weighed it, x-rayed it, radiometric dated it, molded it, but none of those things will be able to tell you how old it is or who its decedents were. If the evolutionist wants to prove their theory they don't need fossils, but they need to verifiable and repeatedly show millions of natural beneficial mutations creating something that is genetically superior to the parent. Why don't they give any examples of this? Because it does not happen. Mutations are always harmful since it would take tens of thousands of mutations to happen at once to be beneficial.
1. Found bones
2. Tested them
3. So what? Lets see some real science.
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=39&newsid=111623
