It was hoaxed once before so it could well happen here. That's just me being sour about the last time it happened due to archaeological fondness ;P. Neat if it is true! =)
ANOTHER Missing Link Found!!
- Thread starter Mcupobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You do realize there is no "the missing link" right? There, at one point, were many holes in the evolutionary record where fossils hadn't been found to fill in the gaps. Most of these major holes have been eliminate by new discoveries over the years. This is simply one more example that appears to agree with Darwin.
ok, seriously, i find this "quote" on every atheist thread. who the hell says that?Kopikatsu said:
i live in a christian nation and i never heard that said in regards to science. EVER.
even retards don't say that because they'll know they'll be called out on it.
yet you guys say it like it's the only argument anyone ever uses in a discussion.
if anyone's ever to say that, it's about life's great mysteries, the unforeseen future or unexplained phenomena. not someone giving you proof of dinosaurs.
if this really is a common saying with Catholics, i feel sorry for you people and your backwards religious people.
Well now there's TWO missing links - one between that and us, and one between that and whatever came before it. Clearly this abundance of missing links proves that evolution is a myth spread by homosexuals and Satan!
This.FernandoV said:
Also, so they found out that some extinct species vaguely related to humans had a big ass skull.
I think everybody here knows how much of a damn I give.
First, no offense meant, but as a student of Anthropology I feel quite insulted that you linked to news reports rather than scientific journals. Here you go: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6048/1421Mcupobob said:
Second, a "missing link" (known in the scientific world as a transitional species or fossil) is a species that exhibits traits common to two species, and is a possible divergence point where those two species evolved from. Australopithicus sebida is the closest evolutionary link so far between Australopithicus and Homo, but it is in no way the "Missing Link" between man and apes. The closest missing link known between man and apes is A. aferensis. If you want a missing link between apes and monkeys, you're going to have to go back to 33 million years for Aegyptopithecus zeuxis.
Hasn't Australopithecus already been discovered? It probably hasn't been found in such a complete form, but I swear I've heard/read that name before.
These never prove anything. I support evolution strongly but idiots work like this.
Lets say we have our primordal ape ancestors and us. A and Z
Creationists say whats between A and Z.
We say "Theres a fossel of N"
Now we have ANZ.
They go, "Well whats between N and Z and N and A, theres two more missing links"
We find D and W, giving us ADNWZ.
Creationists ask for 8 more missing links.
Repeat ad infinitatum.
DO you people have ANY idea. ANY IDEA AT ALL. How hard it is to reach the PERFECT CONDITIONS to achieve fossilisation. ITS VERY FREAKING RARE. Of the millions and millions and millions and millions of dinosaurs that ever lived over their 100 million year period of existance, fossils are made of an INSANELY TINY %. You CANNOT demand 10 million fossils. The fact we have this many is a freaking insane chance. We have ABCDEFJIKLMOPQUVXZ. Why is this not enough. Thats a LOT of links. It must prove something.
Its also the flawed idea that "to prove our concept wrong, yours must be absolutely flaw proof, even if ours has flaws coming out the whazoo"
No. To be righter than you, our theory has to be better than yours. Which it is, links or not. It doesnt have to be 100% undeniable before it becomes accepted over random chanting and making shit up. Thats not how the world works. Gravity is a theory. You cant go "Because gravity is not 100% proven i can say its wrong and make up my own random explanation thats equally as right".
No. You are wrong. A blind idiot. And a murderer of science. Good day sir.
Lets say we have our primordal ape ancestors and us. A and Z
Creationists say whats between A and Z.
We say "Theres a fossel of N"
Now we have ANZ.
They go, "Well whats between N and Z and N and A, theres two more missing links"
We find D and W, giving us ADNWZ.
Creationists ask for 8 more missing links.
Repeat ad infinitatum.
DO you people have ANY idea. ANY IDEA AT ALL. How hard it is to reach the PERFECT CONDITIONS to achieve fossilisation. ITS VERY FREAKING RARE. Of the millions and millions and millions and millions of dinosaurs that ever lived over their 100 million year period of existance, fossils are made of an INSANELY TINY %. You CANNOT demand 10 million fossils. The fact we have this many is a freaking insane chance. We have ABCDEFJIKLMOPQUVXZ. Why is this not enough. Thats a LOT of links. It must prove something.
Its also the flawed idea that "to prove our concept wrong, yours must be absolutely flaw proof, even if ours has flaws coming out the whazoo"
No. To be righter than you, our theory has to be better than yours. Which it is, links or not. It doesnt have to be 100% undeniable before it becomes accepted over random chanting and making shit up. Thats not how the world works. Gravity is a theory. You cant go "Because gravity is not 100% proven i can say its wrong and make up my own random explanation thats equally as right".
No. You are wrong. A blind idiot. And a murderer of science. Good day sir.
Australopithecus sediba was discovered in 2009, the findings went public in 2010, and the paper suggesting the link between the two genus was released two days ago.k-ossuburb said:
Yeah, whenever someone pulls the missing link argument for creationism, it's all God of The Gaps again.
'We don't know what came between this and this, so THEREFORE GOD.'
Biscuit has basically got it right in how he explains the arguments against creationism using missing links.
There's a secondary thing I've heard, in my countless struggles with creationists, where they ask you to show them a 'transitional fossil', that is, a fossil showing a creature moving from one stage to another. Never mind that EVER FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL fossil, and that asking to show a fossil of a donkey turning into a bird makes no sense at all, God of The Gaps comes in and let's them block their ears and shout. 'NANANANANANA I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE GOD TELLS ME YOU'RE WRONG.'
A Christian I have no issue with, what you believe is beyond my control, but creationism... When you start trash-talking science, you're stepping across a boundary.
'We don't know what came between this and this, so THEREFORE GOD.'
Biscuit has basically got it right in how he explains the arguments against creationism using missing links.
There's a secondary thing I've heard, in my countless struggles with creationists, where they ask you to show them a 'transitional fossil', that is, a fossil showing a creature moving from one stage to another. Never mind that EVER FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL fossil, and that asking to show a fossil of a donkey turning into a bird makes no sense at all, God of The Gaps comes in and let's them block their ears and shout. 'NANANANANANA I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE GOD TELLS ME YOU'RE WRONG.'
A Christian I have no issue with, what you believe is beyond my control, but creationism... When you start trash-talking science, you're stepping across a boundary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq4Srd0P2k0&feature=relatedmartin said:
this is what he's talking about.
i recommend the whole thing, but 2:28 is the most relevent part.
one word question, ready?
"dinosaurs."
Oh, right, thanks. After I read that it was bugging me with a little déjà vu, like when you get a song stuck in your head, now I know I'm not imagining things.lockeslylcrit said:
Yeah, there are quite a lot of species in that genus. A. afarensis is known by the descovery of Lucy, and A. africanus is the oldest known species in the genus (also known for the Tong Baby)k-ossuburb said:
As long as they dont find a green cap and the mastersword along with those bones, i dont believe it's truly Link