New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Lazzi]

Hmm... seems a bit like a stretch.

How so?

They're stating that is "a missing link" not "the missing link". We are infact missing a lot of links, and just for primates. Hell whales gave them the biggest problem and even they figured that whole mammalina tree out.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

really? I havent looked much into the Bible being disproved but I'd like to read anything if you have some links to any sites that disprove the bible.

The short story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

It's harsh, but it's good summary.

 

[mdk31]

Having only read the first page... I find it interesting that they find ONE skeleton and claim it to be a "missing link". IF it were such, there would be a VISIBLE progression.

As to the arguement of Creation vs Evolution, the problem is, neither can be recreated to be PROVEN. Fact is, both are theory. Argueing or attacking another for the opinion they take is juvenile. Let's say that Evolution is right. Okay... how was there nothing that exploded? Let's say Creation is right. A creator made something from nothing. Both have a hole from the beginning. You can not say one has holes without looking at your own swiss cheese podium.

Personally, I have more respect for the Creationists that say "Look, I don't completely know how it happened or worked. I wonder too. But it makes sense to me" than the Evolutionists that jump in insulting the Creationist when the first said nothing. AND that goes the other way too, I have more respect for the Evolutionist who says they don't understand fully than the Creationists that grab the torches and pitchforks off the bat.


So really, guys, why bicker over what can NOT be proven? BOTH require "blind" faith. Even if you don't like to admit it.

This whole post is largely ridiculous. Let's start from the start.

Every skeleton ever is a "missing link". It's a link from the generation before it to the generation after it that was not found before. Therefore, it's a missing link. Also, what do you mean by a "visible progression" exactly? I'd like clarification here before I criticize it.

There are numerous evolution experiments in the field and in the laboratory which provide strong experimental evidence for evolution. In addition, evidence from genetics and the fossil record allow scientists to reconstruct the past with adequately enough to draw conclusions.

No. Evolution is a theory. A theory is a well-supported model that explains how something happens that explains all available facts. Creationism is a model that has little or no supporting evidence, and is in fact flatly contradicted constantly.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The big bang is a separate theory entirely.

Your last paragraph has some merit, though I'd argue that any person educated in science will claim to know everything. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be scientists.

 

[Lrbearclaw]

Every skeleton ever is a "missing link". It's a link from the generation before it to the generation after it that was not found before. Therefore, it's a missing link. Also, what do you mean by a "visible progression" exactly? I'd like clarification here before I criticize it.

Wow... you definitely know how to sweet-talk. /grin Okay, taking into account I am opperating on 10 hours sleep total for the week, do not take it as you would a well thought out post. What I meant was scientists cry out "missing link found" all the time and they are (almost) always faked. The problem is, they make claims like that and have little to no evidence to back them. Perhaps it is a "missing link" but on the other hand, could it not just be a breed of lemur that died out?

There are numerous evolution experiments in the field and in the laboratory which provide strong experimental evidence for evolution. In addition, evidence from genetics and the fossil record allow scientists to reconstruct the past with adequately enough to draw conclusions.

Yet they rely on carbon dating that can be way offbase do they not?

No. Evolution is a theory. A theory is a well-supported model that explains how something happens that explains all available facts. Creationism is a model that has little or no supporting evidence, and is in fact flatly contradicted constantly.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The big bang is a separate theory entirely.

My applogies, but then does Creationism not then fall into a seperate category as Evolution as Creationism is to explain the origin of LIFE and not merely mankind.

Your last paragraph has some merit, though I'd argue that any person educated in science will claim to know everything. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be scientists.

From what I see, they DO imply they know everything. At least from the experiences I have had. There are scientists that use science to try to prove something (most scientists rather) rather than PROVE something and let it stand on its own. Science is not a tool, not a weapon, not a platform. In my book, science is an adjective to life, a describer. Not a definition of life.

That make sense?

 

[Lazzi]

who cares what age the book was written in? Most of history is discovered by finding old artifacts such as books, but apparently because the Bible is a book for a religion it must be completely false and a made up story that some people decided to invent one day.

Could there possibly be different genres of books that are written for different purposes? A personal diary, and correspondence, has a very different purpose than propaganda or fiction. Saying "it's a book, and we have pieced lots of history together through books" is irrelevant. A book is a container for words, which can serve different purposes.

It's not like we take every book wholesale, do we? People, in the future, aren't going to read Stephen King's The Stand and assume it's our history. They might be able to piece together our anxieties and opinions - the context of the book - but it is not a literal history of our lives or our world.

But, hey, that's logic.

Yes but I just think it's ridiculous when people take the whole Bible and say it's complete fiction. I'm pretty sure it's a proven fact that Jesus Christ existed(I dont care whether you think hes the Son of God or not)so people who dismiss the Bible as fiction are simply being illogical.

Well I belive that alot of the bible is fiction. The stories with in it arnt to be taken literally, they serve more as a moral guide than historical events. Now thats not saying parts of it didnt happen, I would actully go so far to say that many parts did happen. However we need to understand that the bible is a book and that it was written by authers, and like authers now they wanted to create legitimate literay works. they wished to feel stories.

The issue arises when people take the story at face value (damn evangelicals) and they run with it till what the morals of the stories are completely ingnored. To make it worse when a hard atheist see people toting around a relgious tome as if its every word were glorious truth, the go into condeming fits.

Long story short, we end up with two groupes of zealots whole wage an endless battle that ends up wasting our space. They turned a perfect innocent article, that simply wanted to inform us that some paleontologist had found a new species with a complete skeleion (which in and of its self is amazing, even more so considering that the bones are rather small) inot a battle ground.

Its abosolutely depressing, these people are more concerned about being right rather than being happy.

 

[ExaltedK9]

If it's true then yessssss! Creationists can FINALLY retire.

Nah they wont. If you have enough faith in a bronze age book to reject a hundred years worth of empirical evidence, hypotheses proven correct, observations, etc then one more fossil is not going to make them budge. I can picture them now: "duuh it just looks like a monkey to me".

they found a monkey. yay.
until evolution has been 100% proven, I'll choose to believe in creation.

Is this trolling or serious?

You could try reading the New Scientist article on Ida, which explains how monkeys are quite different in terms of bone structure (lets face it, in 40 million years you'd expect something to change). Then again I suppose if you were being serious New Scientist is probably known to you as New Satanist.

Ultimately you can choose to believe what you will, but that doesn't make what you believe to be true. This is where the scientific method of trying to prove yourself wrong comes in.

Or you could choose to believe in the mystical power of of the great god Imhotep.

who cares what age the book was written in? Most of history is discovered by finding old artifacts such as books, but apparently because the Bible is a book for a religion it must be completely false and a made up story that some people decided to invent one day.

The part about it just being a monkey was just a generalization. Obviously it's an important skeleton but I was just saying that I'm not very excited about the fact that they found it.

Archaeologists and historians don't take everything they find as being fact. They try to verify it with independent sources, and try to determine if what the new object says is true or not. The bible has elements of real history in it, of course, but a lot of it is unverified or even contradicted by historical and archaeological evidence.

Of course you're not excited. People with a low regard for science tend not to be with discoveries like this.

You would have to know the time back the, and what it was like. the Roman's hated Jesus, holy men wanted him dead, and would have done anything to disprove him. You need to know what that time was like before making a statement like that.

Or at least specify what exactly contradicts what the bible says. People have been asking, "what if Jesus's life was only a carefully orchestrated hoax?"

what if?

People have been asking that same question for hundreds of years. Well there is undeniable proof that jesus lived...and did everything recorded in the bible. The odds of Jesus fulfilling every prophecy are astronomical. Everyone of them fulfilled when Jesus was born.

The Romans killed Jesus, it's documented in the bible and was witnessed by many. It's documented that he lived again. Reffering to another post, My beleif is not blind worship, most christians would feel the same way.

I, along with most christians most likely have questioned if the bible's word was true...I've come at it from every angle I can think of...It's never been so easy to beleive.

You have your beleifs...But I reject them.

 

[mdk31]

Every skeleton ever is a "missing link". It's a link from the generation before it to the generation after it that was not found before. Therefore, it's a missing link. Also, what do you mean by a "visible progression" exactly? I'd like clarification here before I criticize it.

Wow... you definitely know how to sweet-talk. /grin Okay, taking into account I am opperating on 10 hours sleep total for the week, do not take it as you would a well thought out post. What I meant was scientists cry out "missing link found" all the time and they are (almost) always faked. The problem is, they make claims like that and have little to no evidence to back them. Perhaps it is a "missing link" but on the other hand, could it not just be a breed of lemur that died out?

"Almost always faked"? You're kidding right?

Also, much of the stuff about "missing link found" is media hype. Sure, it's a valuable find but it's not earth-shattering and worldview-changing. It's really just another stone in the already rock-solid foundation of the theory of evolution.

There are numerous evolution experiments in the field and in the laboratory which provide strong experimental evidence for evolution. In addition, evidence from genetics and the fossil record allow scientists to reconstruct the past with adequately enough to draw conclusions.

Yet they rely on carbon dating that can be way offbase do they not?

Carbon dating only works for organic objects (wood, dead animals, etc.) that are less than about 20,000 years old. For things older than that, or for non-organic things, they use different radiometric dating methods, which are in abundance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods

No. Evolution is a theory. A theory is a well-supported model that explains how something happens that explains all available facts. Creationism is a model that has little or no supporting evidence, and is in fact flatly contradicted constantly.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The big bang is a separate theory entirely.

My applogies, but then does Creationism not then fall into a seperate category as Evolution as Creationism is to explain the origin of LIFE and not merely mankind.

It really depends what kind of creationism you're talking about here. If you're talking about young earth creationism, no. Young earth creationism asserts that the world began less than ten thousand years ago. That would certainly fall within the timescale of evolution rather than the origin of life. If you're talking about a hands-off kind of creationism, where a god merely got the universe started and then never interfered again, then yes, they're separate.

Your last paragraph has some merit, though I'd argue that any person educated in science will claim to know everything. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be scientists.

From what I see, they DO imply they know everything.

No real scientist will ever even imply to know everything. A scientist's goal is to discover things. If everything is already discovered, there would be no scientists.

At least from the experiences I have had. There are scientists that use science to try to prove something (most scientists rather) rather than PROVE something and let it stand on its own.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. But I'll address what I can decipher. Science is not really in the business of proofs. That's left to mathematicians. The goal of science is to gather facts and evidence and, based on those facts and evidence, create laws and theories describing what happens and how it happens. These are always subject to change based on any new evidence or facts that come to light.

Science is not a tool, not a weapon, not a platform. In my book, science is an adjective to life, a describer. Not a definition of life.

That make sense?

Not really. Not sure what you mean. Clarify please?

 

[Lrbearclaw]

Simply put: In my OPINION science should not be used for anything more than saying (for example and dumbed down for ease) "We exist." And go from there. But the problem is, people bring philosophy and religion in when those are beside the point.

I mean, look at the thread! Someone posted a FACT (scientists discovered a primate's skeleton) and people jumped into a philosophy/religion based tirade rather than simply sticking to the original post's topic. Now, I DO somewhat blame the OP as the title automatically set this pace rather than simply stating the fact of "New Primate Fossil Found".

 

[loremazd]

You know, the funny thing is, as a Christian, people tend to forget that the New testament calls us to cultivate a relationship with God and his Son by striving not to sin, and prayer. There's really no threat to my faith by admitting that things evolve through natural selection. And nowhere in any stretch of the word does entrance or denial of heaven hinge upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. So, though I understand why things get heated.. I don't really see what the big deal is. Evolution can happen, dinosaurs certainly did exist... but that's not some epiphany to the world that God cannot exist. I mean am I tempted to defend my faith when random internet people claim i'm an idiot for not thinking as they do? Sure, but internet folks love being confrontational, there's no incentive or punishment for acting like a decent human being with anonymity.

Despite claims to the contrary, most of these "debates" boil down to close minded individuals lashing out at closed minded individuals.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Simply put: In my OPINION science should not be used for anything more than saying (for example and dumbed down for ease) "We exist." And go from there. But the problem is, people bring philosophy and religion in when those are beside the point.

I mean, look at the thread! Someone posted a FACT (scientists discovered a primate's skeleton) and people jumped into a philosophy/religion based tirade rather than simply sticking to the original post's topic. Now, I DO somewhat blame the OP as the title automatically set this pace rather than simply stating the fact of "New Primate Fossil Found".

What he said IS true: this is another missing link found. Every new species found is a missing link, heck any skeleton found is a missing link: a link between the past and the present. It's just media hyped a lot.

 

[Acid Armageddon]

I like how some of the people bashing Creationists are being total a-holes. Calm down and be respectful. There is no need to be mean or condescending.

 

[kryptik102]

I want one O.e

 

[Oisnafas]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

Evolution meaning that we all evolved from a single common ancestor, no, I dont believe. Evolution in terms of survival of the fittest, yes, thats been proven.

And as for the 7 days for creation thing, no, not seven 24 hour periods. Biblically speaking, time wasnt instituted until the fourth "day". Day was merely the cycle of light and dark.

And for my last coment, why are religion and science considered mutually exclusive concepts?

 

[mdk31]

I like how some of the people bashing Creationists are being total a-holes. Calm down and be respectful. There is no need to be mean or condescending.

I'm doing my best to be calm and all that, so I do hope I'm not one included in the "a-hole" section.

 

[mdk31]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

Evolution meaning that we all evolved from a single common ancestor, no, I dont believe. Evolution in terms of survival of the fittest, yes, thats been proven.

Really? It's actually quite well-supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_common_descent

And as for the 7 days for creation thing, no, not seven 24 hour periods. Biblically speaking, time wasnt instituted until the fourth "day". Day was merely the cycle of light and dark.

Cycle of light and dark? You mean day and night? You mean the 24 hour cycle? Could you clarify?

And for my last coment, why are religion and science considered mutually exclusive concepts?

Because science attempts to objectively describe the world regardless of personal conviction or old tomes, whereas religion (more often than not) seeks to protect its dogma and make up things about the world which are patently false.

 

[Oisnafas]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

Evolution meaning that we all evolved from a single common ancestor, no, I dont believe. Evolution in terms of survival of the fittest, yes, thats been proven.

Really? It's actually quite well-supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_common_descent

And as for the 7 days for creation thing, no, not seven 24 hour periods. Biblically speaking, time wasnt instituted until the fourth "day". Day was merely the cycle of light and dark.

Cycle of light and dark? You mean day and night? You mean the 24 hour cycle? Could you clarify?

And for my last coment, why are religion and science considered mutually exclusive concepts?

Because science attempts to objectively describe the world regardless of personal conviction or old tomes, whereas religion (more often than not) seeks to protect its dogma and make up things about the world which are patently false.

There is also evidence suggesting that all life did not evolve from a common ancestor as well, unless its been refuted in the last few years. If I recall correctly, there is a period in the fossil record that has around 3000 species that just appear, referred to as the cambrian explosion. As I said, it may have been refuted in the last few years, I dont keep up on evolutionary theory because I simply dont care. We're here now, thats what matters.

And as for the day and night thing, yes, you can call it that. Biblically speaking, the stars and whatnot weren't created until the fourth day, so a 24 hour period where the earth revolved around the sun was impossible before then.

And yes, I will agree that religion does tend to clam up and ignore everything that violates its comfort zone.

 

[mdk31]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

Evolution meaning that we all evolved from a single common ancestor, no, I dont believe. Evolution in terms of survival of the fittest, yes, thats been proven.

Really? It's actually quite well-supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_common_descent

And as for the 7 days for creation thing, no, not seven 24 hour periods. Biblically speaking, time wasnt instituted until the fourth "day". Day was merely the cycle of light and dark.

Cycle of light and dark? You mean day and night? You mean the 24 hour cycle? Could you clarify?

And for my last coment, why are religion and science considered mutually exclusive concepts?

Because science attempts to objectively describe the world regardless of personal conviction or old tomes, whereas religion (more often than not) seeks to protect its dogma and make up things about the world which are patently false.

There is also evidence suggesting that all life did not evolve from a common ancestor as well, unless its been refuted in the last few years. If I recall correctly, there is a period in the fossil record that has around 3000 species that just appear, referred to as the cambrian explosion. As I said, it may have been refuted in the last few years, I dont keep up on evolutionary theory because I simply dont care. We're here now, thats what matters.

The Cambrian Explosion took place over 70-80 million years. Certainly not "just appeared".

Any other evidence?

And as for the day and night thing, yes, you can call it that. Biblically speaking, the stars and whatnot weren't created until the fourth day, so a 24 hour period where the earth revolved around the sun was impossible before then.

If there was no sun and no stars, where was the light coming from?

And yes, I will agree that religion does tend to clam up and ignore everything that violates its comfort zone.

Good, then you'll also agree that objective science and dogmatic religion are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[sharks9]

really? I havent looked much into the Bible being disproved but I'd like to read anything if you have some links to any sites that disprove the bible.

The short story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

It's harsh, but it's good summary.

It is pretty harsh, and alot of it is simply opinion. Such as the red/reed sea thing. The bible was not originally written in English so in English the words may be similar but in the language the bible was written in, they probably weren't.

Also when he quotes Exodus at the end. Alot of those rules were discarded by Jesus who gave us the New Testament, which is what we should live by. And how is the New Testament a bad moral code? Turn the other cheek? Love not only your neighbours but your enemies as well? Horrible stuff isn't it?

 

[sharks9]

I like how some of the people bashing Creationists are being total a-holes. Calm down and be respectful. There is no need to be mean or condescending.

I'm doing my best to be calm and all that, so I do hope I'm not one included in the "a-hole" section.

same, some of my comments may seem rude but I'm trying to discuss stuff reasonably and I hope people don't think I'm acting like an evangelistic a**hole

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Also when he quotes Exodus at the end. Alot of those rules were discarded by Jesus who gave us the New Testament, which is what we should live by. And how is the New Testament a bad moral code? Turn the other cheek? Love not only your neighbours but your enemies as well? Horrible stuff isn't it?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets"?

I think you're just picking and choosing.