Browse By

More Proof That Darwinists Can’t Find Missing Links

The big news this morning is that researchers working deep within a cave in South Africa have found and analyzed the fossilized remains of an ancient species of human being that had never been seen before. They’re calling the species Homo naledi. The species has a combination of features associated with Homo sapiens, such as small, deft hands, but other features associated with australopithecines, such as a relatively small brain.

Homo naledi provides yet another link along the complicated path of human evolution. Still, it is not accurate to say that Homo naledi is the transitional form that Creationists have long been demanding, which they call “The Missing Link”

… because it’s not missing any longer, see.

Evolutionists can’t find missing links because, as soon as they find evolutionary links, they aren’t missing anymore.

To help you see what this non-missing link looked like, paleoartist John Gurche of the Museum of the Earth has created the following reconstruction:

Homo naledi

21 thoughts on “More Proof That Darwinists Can’t Find Missing Links”

  1. ella says:

    I’ve seen him before! Also, if you put hair on his face and not just around under his chin, you have seen him too. But then I am talking about people who live today that have very small brain cases and faces like that. But then this is again a case of many mixed bones. Some human like, some simian like. And all found deep in a very dark cave that only a child like person could enter. Spaces only 7 1/2″ are too small for most people. Perhaps the cave entrance had been deliberately collapsed long ago. Once again bones are being called ancient evolutionary fossil links to all humans of today. There is the human race Neanderthal found in European surroundings, that went extinct, but lived with humans of our type. Traits of ancient humans are still found in the many varied features of ‘modern’ humans. They were still humans, of a different race. And many of those races have become ‘extinct’ through natural processes. Including interbreeding, which has led to an extremely diverse set of features today. Still, there are those who have remained ‘pure’ and do not intermingle with those of other basic features, such as Africans (on the African Continent), Orientals throughout the East, and Asians, and many in Middle-Eastern Nations. In fact, the ‘melting pots’ are Europe and the United States. So it would appear that if we look closely enough we can find that many of those features are still in evidence in races living today. Amazing, apes are still apes, monkeys are still monkeys, hominids are still hominids and whales are still whales, and sharks are still sharks. But sharks and whales did not interbreed. Or is that evolution?

    “Because we use one term to describe all Neanderthals, we tend to think of them as a single group of people sharing identical traits and features, but it is most likely that there were different ethnicities in Neanderthals just as in humans. A recent study has determined that there were probably three racial groups within the Neanderthal family. From the study: “The conclusions of this study are consistent with existing paleoanthropological research and show that Neanderthals can be divided into at least three groups: one in western Europe, a second in the Southern area and a third in western Asia.” [from Genetic Evidence of Geographical Groups among Neanderthals]”

    1. J Clifford says:

      Humans are still apes. Whales are still mammals. Sharks are still fish. Both whales and sharks are still chordates.

    2. Mark says:

      The morphological differences between the various races of Homo sapiens are trivial compared with the differences found between Homo sapiens and Homo naledi. Morphological variations between human races that you describe as “extremely diverse” are actually very homogeneous compared to the morphological variations found in some other species (e.g. dogs, cattle, horses). Are you aware that genetically, Sub-Saharan Africans are more diverse than all other races combined? And yet, people still group all Sub-Saharan Africans together as one race.

      You talk about “melting pots” of humanity in Europe and the United States. These are only recent phenomena. For most of human history the real “melting pot” has been Central Asia where individuals from Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia all crossed paths. Gene flow through this region has been going on for millennia.

      The find in South Africa is not a mass of bones from many species. With the exception of a few small additional fossils over the past 100,000 years, all the bones belong to members of the same species.

  2. ella says:

    The link for the Neanderthal information quote follow:.

  3. ella says:

    The United States boasts some ancient humans as well as South America. True that the peoples of Africa to this day range from over 10′ to under 4′. And have diverse bone structure over the range of tribal heritage. What of the White Africans and the white skinned, straight haired Africans born into brown skin, tight curl tribes? We do not know how old Homo Naledi is yet. And then there is the 160.000 year old Ethiopian fossil that has a very modern skull and face as well as body. And may be much older that Naledi.

    The Northern tribes of people called Scandinavians, who survived the ice age and traveled down to central Europe and on to the northern Mediterranean coast. And may have been among those who interbred with Neanderthal:

    Here is an example of the hominin found in Russia and that interbred with Neanderthal giving genetic traits that help keep us alive today:

    The gene flow through from the East through Asia and the Middle East was probably not limited in nature over 5000 or so years ago, but has since then. Generally arranged marriages or due to military incursion. Still we are talking about races of mankind. Yes they had some very different features, much more so than today. Were more diverse than what is found in Africa today, as is being found. But the physical traits still exist. Can you name the 16 races that were known when the year turned 1900? I can’t anymore, but I remember their existence.

    1. Mark says:

      You seem to be hung up on the idea of race being a biological classification. It is nothing of the sort. Race is a sociological construct of human creation that has little to do with genetics or biological evolution. The “16 races” present in the year 1900 is merely an old classification scheme that attempted to ascribe scientific merit to social prejudices. While we do see patterns in the distribution of genetic traits consistent with racial identification, race in and of itself is a poor representation of the true genetic diversity among humans. Given the amount of gene transfer between races over the course of many millennia, odd situations (such as the white Africans you mention) are certain to occur when regressive genes manage to combine in individuals. The story of human evolution is extremely complex and refuses to be put into neat categories such as race.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Exactly. Old social efforts at race classifications in the United States tried to put people of African heritage and people of Irish heritage in the same “race”, to provide just one instance. Earnest Hooton tried to divide Europeans into different “races” from his perch at Harvard University, in a desire to show that Western Europeans were superior to “primitive” Eastern and Southern Europeans. The whole “white” and “black” thing is a social category people made up, not a biological reality.

        Ella, I’m not aware of any human beings that are ten feet tall.

        1. Robert Milnes says:

          Jim Cook evidently has not heard of Sickle Cell Anemia.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            Robert Milnes evidently is not aware that people of every socially-constructed “racial” category have been known to contract sickle-cell anemia.

          2. ella says:

            Not many people have heard that simply because it has been taught that only people of brown or black African lineage develop sickle cells. Race is a social construct in a limited way. People are born into a genetic design, that includes the color of the skin pigment. What occurs after that is of another issue, but in the final analysis returns to the original genetic design. Social construct helped to prevent the crossing of peoples, or maintain the “purity of the blood”, within a genetic design. Pure ‘races’ are beautiful world wide when they can be found. Crosses are just that, and have formed a different appearance for the most part, some are unique, maybe have developed into another genetic purity if maintained.

        2. ella says:

          It would seem that, right off the bat, I cannot verify that 10 foot claim. 8′ Watusi’s who lived in the United States formed a unit, much as did the Tuskegee pilots during WWII. That there are ‘giants’ of that size living in Africa is available, so I will go with that. It seemed that there was a tribe, that has genuinely black skin and aquiline features, which were grouped into a race with Caucasians. I met one family in Maine, they were touring the American Continent, and they were remarkable to look at. Stood over 7′ tall and their 5 year old son was nearly 5′ tall. Beauty was in the stillness of their facial features, absolute confidence in life, no worry. A bit haughty, but that was from the reception they received in many towns they traveled through, I found that out by talking with them.

      2. ella says:

        There was a time when the unique differences between what is called ‘race’ was considered a matter to be proud of. And genetic difference is what ‘evolution’ is all about. A shark and a whale are not able to genetically ‘evolve’ together. A horse and a crocodile are not able to genetically ‘evolve’ together. What is being talked about is that throughout the fossil record, differences in bone structure for example, a trait derived from changes in genetic (DNA/RNA) alignment. The being walked upright, or had narrow shoulders, had opposable thumbs on the end of only two extremities or on all four. had a slanted forehead or was short and large boned, or tall and small boned, perhaps had a prehensile tail or elongated spinal column. The changes in the alignment of the DNA is able to create a remarkably large variation within the same genetic column don’t you think? That sharks and whales cannot ‘evolve’ together however, did not changed the actual variety available to all species. There are different ‘races’ of whale. They remain separate and travel together in pods of their own ‘race’. Whales have ever been whales. Arthropods have ever been arthropods. Humans have ever been humans and we are still developing along the line of our possibilities within our DNA code. IT is exciting to find a possibility that perhaps is no longer recognizable or that perhaps became extinct, or perhaps was not at all within the same alignment of possibilities, but a similarity within a different alignment. It is the thought that these possibilities are not recognized as such that is bothering me. Human DNA is just that and everything else has its’ own, and some very different from ours.

        1. Mark says:

          What do you mean when you say there are different races of whales? Do you mean different species or different sub-species for each species? Different species of whales have been observed feeding in large cooperative groups. Atlantic humpback whales are a separate sub-species from Pacific humpback whales.

          The evolution of whales is well documented. Your statement that “Whales have ever been whales” is absolutely false. Check out this web page at the Smithsonian Institution:

          Here’s another excellent site that traces whale evolution even further back in time:

          1. Jim Cook says:

            Thanks for the links, Mark.

          2. ella says:

            Well, the Smithsonian does show the toothed whale fossil.
            And there were remains of toothed whales found in the dessert of North Africa some time back. But some time ago there were articles about the Pleiosaur (sp?) or some other such watery land type dinosaur possibly being an ancestor of the whale.

            This link is interesting. “” Thank you. It is easy enough to see the progression of and need for the changes in animal structures there. And of course the time to do it in.

          3. J Clifford says:

            Ella, just to be clear, no scientist seriously proposes that the plesiosaurs were the ancestors of the whales. Also, plesiosaurs were not dinosaurs.

            Also, there still are toothed whales – the sperm whale, for example.

          4. ella says:

            I guess that whale has been around for a long time then, the Sperm whale. I read the second link and made comment on it too. The tie between a furred mammal with sonar hearing, to the whale. It made me think of all the times I considered that the whales were trying to come back to land every year when they beach themselves. Sort of the reverse of the Lemmings who run to the sea. Of course Lemmings are trying to reach another shore, while they are also thinning the population of the colony. But whales also had legs and arms and walked on land at one time. If you have ever filleted a fish, you can see that they also have remnants of legs and fingers, and some still walk. Do you think that might say that instead of everything coming from the water, that everything went to the water. Or perhaps animals came out of the water for a while and then many of them returned?

        2. Mark says:

          You mention a couple pairs of animals that “are not able to genetically ‘evolve’ together”. I don’t understand your point. There are numerous examples of organisms from separate species that have indeed “evolved together”. Many species of flowering plants have specialized floral structures that make it possible for only a single animal species (whether it be a species of bird, bat, or insect) to pollinate the flower. The corresponding animal species is often specialized for pollinating flowers with specific structures.

          1. ella says:

            Very true, plants and animals appear in sync. It happens after every major extinction. Isn’t that true though of the food chain, a niche for each. Many plants can cross through pollination. The land ‘whale’ simply took on a variation to survive, I could say humans did the same thing. Even omnivores stay within a niche as there are certain foods we cannot eat, that would kill us. Food must exist for the species, they must coincide. They have developed in tandem throughout history. Did you know that three toed animals developed and lived at the same time whether they were winged or two, or four legged and in all descriptions. Ever count the ‘toes’ on a dogs hind feet, fingers on its’ front hands? There are a lot of animals that walk on their hands.

            Has anyone ever explained why that is? Why in any given epoch the animals have so much in common and so do the plants that feed the herbivores. Yet suddenly there is a new set of herbivores and plants. You think the carnivores just get tired of the same diet? Mosquitoes rally haven’t changed in millions of years, dragon flies look mostly the same, but they have both gotten a lot smaller, as have some of the animals surviving today and insects. But they are variations of their past relatives. I understand that DNA has similarities across the board, that is for all that exist within our particular DNA codes, but there is a limit within each category and past that it must change – ah – point – that is what you call evolution, right? When one species becomes extinct and another species appears. The variation within the species reaches a critical point and ends, but in a replicating code set, unlike the those that simply cease to reproduce. And so the next set of plants and animals appear after another mass extinction.

        3. Jim Cook says:

          Whales have not always been whales. There is a continuous fossil record back to whales’ land-living ancestors.

        4. Jim Cook says:

          Also, human DNA is not “just” human DNA. It is remarkably overlapping with other species’ DNA, and the amount of DNA overlap mirrors the history of evolution. Read up on phylogenetic trees — a fascinating subject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!