New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Kinguendo]

Interesting, we found a crucial piece of evidence in establishing the links between us and other species.

Instead of discussing what advances this could have in the fields of science, let's instead bash creationists. How dare they think differently.

Oh, if only you knew about the crusades? Whats that... you do? Well, this doesnt make sense... why would you be complaining about people saying relevant things about religion rather than people prancing around the world murdering people... Yeah, do I need to say more?

 

[Zacharine]

scientists are saying that they are very close to proving evolution,

This makes me somehow doubt either the authencity of the article or the scientific understanding of the writer. Seeing as in science nothing can ever be definitively proven. And in fact evolution has about as much evidence on it's side as the theory of electromagnetism, or in layman's terms: Electricity. You know, all that sciencey stuff that allows your computer to work. And let's not forget the other theories: Germ theory, theory of relativity, heliocentric theory, theory of quantum mechanics... For those (hopefully) rare people among the Escapist community who don't know it: A theory is built on facts and is the highest form of truth in science. To find something more 'true' you have to enter the man-made realm of mathemathics and look up the concept of 'proof'.

Sure, God(s) might be behind the existance of our universe (Though personally I doubt it) but even then the universe is over 13 billion years old and evolution the method He/She/They/It used to 'create' us from more primitive lifeforms.

 

[pffh]

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

But it has been 100% proven for example there was a type of small fish in a lake near Seattle. The lake was cleaned in 1968 and the fishes that had used the grime in the water to conceal themselves from predatory fish evolved a shell in only 40 years to protect themselves in the now clear water.

Besides there is no reason a christian couldn't follow the evolution.

Neato! Well, evolution gets a boost that it drastically needed.

lol? drastically needed?

To my understanding, evolutionary theory was filled with holes, this being one of them. If stuff like this keeps being found, evolution might be accepted as law and not theory. That's what I meant.

But a theory IS the highest form of truth any scientific hypothesis can be granted. If something is a theory it has pretty much been proven and the gravity thing you used as an example it's called the theory of gravity. Only mathematics have laws and proofs.

A good guideline is a scientific theory = as close to the truth as you are going to get.

 

[Internet Kraken]

For crying out loud, how many times have debates like this come up?

You'd think by now people would learn to tolerate others but no. Let's continue to ***** and moan about creationists.

 

[VZLANemesis]

Could somebody fucking define Creationism and ID then... :S

My pleasure.

Creationism: The belief that an almighty God created the world and everything in it, in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, (the more strict ones say in 4004 BC, and the really loony ones say October 18th at 9 in the morning in 4004 BC), and that macroevolution did not occur at all, (this is the changing of one "kind" into another. Not really sure what they mean here, but I think they mean families as the closest scientific equivalent).

Intelligent Design: This movement believes in pretty much everything that modern-day scientists do, they simply believe that

A) Evolution could not have happened without God's influence, or
B) Evolution did not happen without God's influence.

In other words, that the driving force behind evolution was God. A less extreme way of saying it would be to say that God set up a series of natural laws, and then let those laws take their course. IDers do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis that is understood by the masses, (24-hour days of Creation).

I actually used to believe in something like ID then, just that in my belief god didn't influence shit after creating the bing bang, or something like that XD
I was a kid and didn't really pay THAT much attention to that, there were more important things to attend, getting my parents to buy me a ps comes to mind as one of them. Now as an adult I still believe in something like that, but then again, I really don't think about it that much either, I rather play god in games. ^^ (the sims and black and white ftw)
EDIT:
"A less extreme way of saying it would be to say that God set up a series of natural laws, and then let those laws take their course. IDers do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis that is understood by the masses, (24-hour days of Creation)." ...yeah, I'm sorta like that

 

[Thanatos34]

I dont think this proves evolution. If Lucy didn't how would this?

Also, Isnt evolution pretty much universally accepted, even by most Christians? Obiously not the pope or bishops, but common people?

Lucy was just a tree monkey.

That's the problem with these missing links, the media trumpets them up, then it turns out they were frauds, and then the creationists have more fuel for their fire.

 

[Thanatos34]

Could somebody fucking define Creationism and ID then... :S

My pleasure.

Creationism: The belief that an almighty God created the world and everything in it, in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, (the more strict ones say in 4004 BC, and the really loony ones say October 18th at 9 in the morning in 4004 BC), and that macroevolution did not occur at all, (this is the changing of one "kind" into another. Not really sure what they mean here, but I think they mean families as the closest scientific equivalent).

Intelligent Design: This movement believes in pretty much everything that modern-day scientists do, they simply believe that

A) Evolution could not have happened without God's influence, or
B) Evolution did not happen without God's influence.

In other words, that the driving force behind evolution was God. A less extreme way of saying it would be to say that God set up a series of natural laws, and then let those laws take their course. IDers do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis that is understood by the masses, (24-hour days of Creation).

I actually used to believe in something like ID then, just that in my belief god didn't influence shit after creating the bing bang, or something like that XD
I was a kid and didn't really pay THAT much attention to that, there were more important things to attend, getting my parents to buy me a ps comes to mind as one of them. Now as an adult I still believe in something like that, but then again, I really don't think about it that much either, I rather play god in games. ^^ (the sims and black and white ftw)

Then you would probably be classified as Deist, in that god didn't influence anything after the Big Bang. Most IDers are not Deists, they still believe God influences things.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Interesting, we found a crucial piece of evidence in establishing the links between us and other species.

Instead of discussing what advances this could have in the fields of science, let's instead bash creationists. How dare they think differently.

Oh, if only you knew about the crusades? Whats that... you do? Well, this doesnt make sense... why would you be complaining about people saying relevant things about religion rather than people prancing around the world murdering people... Yeah, do I need to say more?

So every creationist is an intolerant psychopath?

Way to be ignorant.

 

[A random person]

If only this would shut up creationists, but science and logic have no effect on them.

Cool that we finally found the missing link.

 

[Zacharine]

The problem is that there are in fact no 'missing links' in the original use of the word. We might not have the entirety of fossil record for every single type of creature that ever lived, but we have plenty of transitional fossils to fill the tree of life to a surprising accuracy.

And if someone says that "there are no transitional forms" then I'm going to scream from their complete lack of understanding regarding the continuity of evolution.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Oh, if only you knew about the crusades? Whats that... you do? Well, this doesnt make sense... why would you be complaining about people saying relevant things about religion rather than people prancing around the world murdering people... Yeah, do I need to say more?

Did you lose family in the Crusades? I know that healing takes a long time. I just wanted to apologize for my part in the Crusades and I hope that the healing can begin. By the way, you are going to apologize for the actions of Carol Watts, Jeffery Dahmer, et all right?

 

[woodwalker]

Damn it, there is no such thing as micro- and macro-evolution! "Macro-evolution" is just "Micro-evolution" played out over a longer period of time. There is only evolution, and how long it takes for it to work its changes.

 

[Internet Kraken]

If only this would shut up creationists, but science and logic have no effect on them.

Cool that we finally found the missing link.

This is funny. You're all accepting this creature as the missing link without question. You blindly believe that it is without any proof.

Yet you criticize creationist for blindly believing the bible. Even though you are doing the exact same thing.

For fucks sake, at least let some more research be done before trumpeting this creature as the missing link. I wish people would actually have a discussion about the fossil rather than the fucking bible.

 

[jboking]

Sorry but there was plenty of proof of evolution before they found this.

Macro evolution(evolution between above the level so species) and Creationism are in the same boat when it comes to teaching them for one serious reason. Neither is provable or testable.

Archaeopterix (can't remember spelling) was much more significant as it showed where reptiles evolved to birds (I presume that is what you mean by macro evolution), much better than one mammal turning to another mammal.

The thing is that evolution is really so simple there really isn't any need to proove it further. We can see it happening in bacteria and other micro-organisms. Anybody who denies it is happening might as well deny gravity exists, I mean it's equally obvious.

Macro Evolution is said to occur over eons, it is not provable. Archeopteryx is not proof of macro evolution, which is where most of the Creationism vs. Evolution arguments are set. No one is stupid enough to say that Micro Evolution doesn't occur becasue it is provable and observable. If you don't know the terms then I'm sure Wikipedia can help you out.

Err, let's not use bad examples to convince creationists, eh? Archaeopteryx, or however the hell you spell that bloody thing, was as much of a fraud as Nebraska Man.

Which is precisely why I said that^(see above in bold). Thank you for the support I suppose.

 

[FredFredburgur]

I'm not trying to start anything but like what is so big about finding just one fossil that might be a missing link, what if it was a genetically wrong member of it's species that is just horribly mutated, and yes mutations are part of evolution and if one that is so horribly mutated wanted to pass on it's genes it would have to find a similar one to mate with, and the chances of that happening aren't too high, can someone please help clear stuff up with me?

 

[ShadowStar42]

Damn it, there is no such thing as micro- and macro-evolution! "Macro-evolution" is just "Micro-evolution" played out over a longer period of time. There is only evolution, and how long it takes for it to work its changes.

Your making an unproven (and with current resources unprovable) assumption that small changes inevitably lead to big changes. Really creationist are doing evolutionist a favor by seperating evolution into two theories. Micro-evolution can be tested in lab settings, it is proven in the scientific sense of the word and as soon as we understand the exact mechanics of it we'll be able to call it law. Macro-evolution on the other hand is strongly supported by all the facts but not proven.

 

[Kinguendo]

Wow, as of writing there's 13 posts and it's already religious.

Anyway, good. I really hope it's legitimate because it'd be a huge plus for science.

(See, that was a more subtle dig at religion.)

Religion is subtle to me, they yell in the city centre about how I am going to hell... ME... ME! Dont go pointing your fingers at me and blaming my life style for all the things that are wrong with the world, bloody hate-mongers... and yes they do monger hate... my hatred of them for their bloody shenanigans.

I can't stand religion - I see it as unnecessary and pointless. Others can take it how they want but I do object people trying to force their views on others - more specifically me.

I've never understood why they yell at me (us) about going to hell. For one I don't believe in it so its already ruled out. And two, by shouting at people are they going to get themselves into their heaven? Probably not. SO WHY DO IT?

Agreed, whole-heartedly.

 

[pffh]

Sorry but there was plenty of proof of evolution before they found this.

Macro evolution(evolution between above the level so species) and Creationism are in the same boat when it comes to teaching them for one serious reason. Neither is provable or testable.

Archaeopterix (can't remember spelling) was much more significant as it showed where reptiles evolved to birds (I presume that is what you mean by macro evolution), much better than one mammal turning to another mammal.

The thing is that evolution is really so simple there really isn't any need to proove it further. We can see it happening in bacteria and other micro-organisms. Anybody who denies it is happening might as well deny gravity exists, I mean it's equally obvious.

Macro Evolution is said to occur over eons, it is not provable. Archeopteryx is not proof of macro evolution, which is where most of the Creationism vs. Evolution arguments are set. No one is stupid enough to say that Micro Evolution doesn't occur becasue it is provable and observable. If you don't know the terms then I'm sure Wikipedia can help you out.

Err, let's not use bad examples to convince creationists, eh? Archaeopteryx, or however the hell you spell that bloody thing, was as much of a fraud as Nebraska Man.

Which is precisely why I said that^(see above in bold). Thank you for the support I suppose.

But if microevolution exists then macroevolution exists since macroevolution is just microevolution after microevolution after microevolution.... ad infinitum.

 

[murphy7801]

um i just don't religion doesn't make any sense and how crazy about religion people are about it. im mean religion has always criticizes science from day one so its not really surprising in this day and age where you can slate religion that they do religion done thousands of years just really a cycle of things. oh and religion has its uses its great for controlling people and getting what you want them to do.

 

[shootthebandit]

Plz people, you are all being arseholes.

im an athiest for several reasons, its my personal choice. i dont expect christians to try and convert me, its not their place to do so. As they consider themselves to be a considerate and tolerate religion then they should respect that some people dont have any beliefs. The same applies to me, i dont go round to christian houses and say "god doesnt exist, everything that you say is a lie". i respect thier beliefs no matter how idiotic they sound to me.

i wish these people would come to my door so i can rant to them. the only time i would disrespect thier beliefs is if they came to my door ramming christianity down my throat.

christians or athiest, you are still human and its human nature to condone other peoples beliefs because they dont match yours.

anyway, this thread is about a scienific discovery NOT religion. I couldnt really care less, im not a p....(whatever ross from freinds is).