Missing Link

Standard Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory that is knowledge.

9 Responses to “Missing Link”

1. phyreblade (UID#1414) on October 20th, 2007 6:28 pm

   Evolution gets pwnt…

2. AlecDalek (UID#380) on October 20th, 2007 6:44 pm

   Not quite:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie.....on.fossils

3. Halfmad (UID#752) on October 20th, 2007 8:23 pm

   Isn’t that a missing image error and not a missing link?

   Evolution > *.religion.

4. WTFBURGERZ (UID#381) on October 20th, 2007 11:18 pm

   Evoluton …

5. WTFBURGERZ (UID#381) on October 20th, 2007 11:21 pm

   Hmm WTF my equation didn’t show.
   Evolution >= religion
   Religion > …,

6. tiki god (UID#1) on October 21st, 2007 12:28 am

   lol, html

7. Mikki (UID#1072) on October 21st, 2007 4:35 am

   Isn’t this a repost? And yes, it would be funnier if that was a 404 instead.

8. phyreblade (UID#1414) on October 29th, 2007 4:25 am

   Lol, yeah this would be much better with a 404 error. And BTW that article still does nothing to address the 404 error illustrated above.

   Species A being related to species b species b came from species a. It’s all hypothetical. Not that the Intelligent Design camp is particularly concrete either…

9. phyreblade (UID#1414) on October 29th, 2007 4:28 am

   That didn’t come out right. Durn html…

   A lot of sensationalism going on in that article. It does not “solve” evolution. It merely makes it more plausible.

   The fact that “A” is found to be closely linked, or related to “B” does not mean that “B” is a descendant of “A”…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.