New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Kinguendo]

Snip.

Well, it would have had infinite time, infinite space, and near infinite matter. We're just at some random, arbitrary point in the universe - it's a biiiiiiiiiig universe. Doesn't seem that implausible. Near infinite improbability isn't insurmountable when you have infinite time and resources.

Well, then the I suppose it isn't insurmountable to believe in the near infinite improbability that before our universe, there was a greater intelligence that created it.

Not really. There's a difference between chemicals creating self-replicating DNA though a massive random process - and designer popping out of thin air magicking things into existence. I can't think of how random chemical reactions could produce that - and then make it completely intangible and unprovable. How can a god randomly come into existence?

You can't get a seven on a six sided die.

Yeah, I was wondering how the hell this guy made the connection between there being a "greater intelligence" and odds and elements. Was it that he thought that one proved the other? Is it the copying game, where whatever that guy says is what this guy says next?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It's the difference between science and self-assurance.

 

[antipunt]

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.

I think you don't quite understand what is needed to differentiate law and theory. In this case "the theory of evolution" it is NOT that it isn't proven nor that it is that it doesn't exist. Instead it is that it is regarded as a process that takes A LOT OF YEARS and very specific conditions in order to happen and therefore cannot be recreated for a "scientific study" to prove it a fact... Do you understand the difference?
The thing would be a fact if it could be recreated. Which it cannot be. How can you recreate an "evolution experiment", selective mating over a couple of hundred years? who would fund that?

^This

 

[Axeli]

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

Except for innovative creationists such as myself, who believe that it's possible that creationism and evolution could be intertwined. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

i completely agree, is it not possible that there is a god, who uses evolution?
i mean, really you can say how weird it is that we look for a cause for something, rather than it was a coincedence that the earth just happened to be perfect for life, that we are intelligent enough to even have this debate?

but the atheists on here are so condencending(spelling?) & sure that they are right no matter what, that they have a right to put down our religon when we have just as much of a reason, not "it just happened" or "it was a coincedence" have you thought exactly what causes evolution?

It has been thought quite a lot, if you mean how the very first organism came to life. However, if you mean how evolution proceeds... well that's simple, two words: Logical chaos.
Even though evolution at it's base is completely random, there's a very simply logic to why it has formed seemingly orderly structures like DNA, cells or human body. Random molecular structures form randomly, but some of the can hold out while others break down. The remaining further change, some still keeping their form and others breaking down.
The evolution itself works the same way, random changes there and there. Some enchance the ability to pass on the new trait, some destroy.
It's an eternal trial and error that eventually reaches as complex shape as human body. All through complete randomness.

Think of an snowflake. They are perfectly symmetrical, like purposefully created from class, yet they form out of complete chaos of flying water and ice.

And as for how amazing it is that Earth happened to have these conditions... Well, it could have been any planet. It's not like there's a shortage of solar systems and planets. The amount of possibilities just in our galaxy are impossible to comprehend, and still there's a sea of galaxies out there.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*Snip*

You might want to look into "natural selection" and "comparative advantage." It's a very simple and elegant process - and it's the very core of the theory of evolution.

 

[ExaltedK9]

This...can't really be happening, can it? please somebody tell me that this is some sort of hoax?

No this can't be real...

 

[sneakypenguin]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence. It's funny how people can see things so differently, where people see a "missing link" I just see a new critter we discovered, where people see common ancestors I see a common designer. To me similarity does not mean relation.
Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

 

[captainwillies]

Hmm... seems a bit like a stretch.

have you read the other therories on creation?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence. It's funny how people can see things so differently, where people see a "missing link" I just see a new critter we discovered, where people see common ancestors I see a common designer. To me similarity does not mean relation.
Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

People trying to disprove god? You can't disprove god anymore than you can disprove a leprechaun. We're talking about evolution, and a somewhat misinformed article about the discovery of one of humanity's ancestors.

If you or any theist wants to bring your god into this, it's your call. I will object, as an atheist, and I will do my best to have a rational argument. I'm always open to discussion.

 

[Axeli]

*Snip*

You might want to look into "natural selection" and "comparative advantage." It's a very simple and elegant process - and it's the very core of the theory of evolution.

That's what I was talking about, I think.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*Snip*

You might want to look into "natural selection" and "comparative advantage." It's a very simple and elegant process - and it's the very core of the theory of evolution.

That's what I was talking about, I think.

Not really. You're talking about the mechanics of mutation. That's random element is important, but the process of evolution is anything but random. Helpful (and benign) mutations get passed on, because they allow the individual to survive and breed - and pass on their genes. Harmful mutations (most mutations are going to be harmful or benign) hurt the individuals chance of survival and procreation - and the harmful mutations are lost. And, of course, what's helpful and what's harmful will depend on the environment, the competition, etc, etc. It's comparative advantage - it's always relative to the competition within your species and outside of it.

Unlike in bad science fiction, there's no perfection to evolution, just specimens that are better at surviving and passing on their genes.

 

[riskroWe]

Every god argument ever has always descended into this, given enough time:

That's in the universe and existence that you understand, but what if your understanding is based on a universe created by something else? What if he isn't random? What if existence as we know it was completely created by a superior being on a higher level of existence? There is no individual trace of it because the entirety of our universe is a testament to it.

To which the oft overlooked logical reply should be:

But if something 'exists' outside the universe, how can you say it 'exists' at all? Why are you assuming the existence of some higher plane as a prerequisite for the existence of your god? What is this founded on? Where did this higher plane come from?

Ideally that would put it into terms they can understand, but inevitably the reply will be something along the lines of:

we both have our beliefs, mine make me happy, nobody can prove anything, humans are incapable of understanding the nature of existence, etc

Which is a total cop-out, I wish people would stop saying that and actually try to analyse their own beliefs. What harm can possibly come from a little analysis?

 

[Axeli]

*Snip*

You might want to look into "natural selection" and "comparative advantage." It's a very simple and elegant process - and it's the very core of the theory of evolution.

That's what I was talking about, I think.

Not really. You're talking about the mechanics of mutation. That's random element is important, but the process of evolution is anything but random. Helpful (and benign) mutations get passed on, because they allow the individual to survive and breed - and pass on their genes. Harmful mutations (most mutations are going to be harmful or benign) hurt the individuals chance of survival and procreation - and the harmful mutations are lost. And, of course, what's helpful and what's harmful will depend on the environment, the competition, etc, etc. It's comparative advantage - it's always relative to the competition within your species and outside of it.

Unlike in bad science fiction, there's no perfection to evolution, just specimens that are better at surviving and passing on their genes.

Indeed, but it is random what traits get passed on. The moment when evolution technically takes place is always random, may it be mutation of a gene or the genomes of the parents forming a new DNA. New combinations pop up completely randomly.
What is not random is what new forms of DNA or genes survive.

Still it's, very much at its core a random progress. Like I said, some randomly created new "forms" live on, some fall apart as "flawed".
It gets more complex, of course, when there are thousands of genes determining the fate of a species or a creature and the progress has gone on for millions of years already, but if you look at the whole time scale at once, every species and creature is a randomly formed mass of molecules that either keeps on going if its genes are "good" enough, or dies without passing on its DNA if it is "flawed" (or just unlucky).

 

[LewsTherin]

" The Bible says how to go to Heaven, no how the heavens go."

-Galileo (or perhaps Newton, can't recall)

Anyway, does this change anything in the way of the theory of evolution, or simply act to prove it?

 

[Jenkins]

Huh, I was expecting something... bigger.

thats what she said...


on a serious note, it is great that we are filling in the pieces of the puzzle, however, with the puzzle soon complete,I fear that It will destroy my religion, Pastafarianism, for this matter we must destroy the fossil...

 

[mdk31]

Good grief, so many people dying to disprove God's existence.

It's really not up to atheists to disprove your god's existence, anymore than it is up to those who don't believe in santa claus to disprove his existence. Theists make the assertion that their god exists; therefore, the onus is on them to provide evidence.

It's funny how people can see things so differently, where people see a "missing link" I just see a new critter we discovered, where people see common ancestors I see a common designer. To me similarity does not mean relation.

To insist that common descent is a matter of interpretation is a blatant admission of your total ignorance of the subject at hand.

Both belief systems require faith I just place my faith in creationism.

How, pray tell, does accepting that evolution occurs require faith? The evidence is there, mountains of it. No faith required. Creationism, on the other hand...


Edit: Also, guaranteed way to instantly create a huge thread: Mention evolution, creationism, or religion. >_<

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

The process of natural selection - of evolution isn't random. Random being, "things change arbitrarily." That's only mutation. There are random elements involved with natural selection, but there's a filters involved: competition within a specific environment.

Species aren't "just" changing randomly, the changes that are likely to get passed on help them survive and reproduce in their habitat. So while there are random elements involved, evolution on a large scale is not a "random" process. I am not saying it's the work of a supernatural intentional being - just that people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins wouldn't call the process random.

 

[HE3ED]

I don't believe in macro evolution its too far fetched for me. Anyway, it looks like a cat/monkey so if this thing was still around do you think that we would keep it as a pet?

 

[mdk31]

I don't believe in macro evolution its too far fetched for me.

How? Is it difficult to believe that, over the space of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, two isolated populations that were once of the same species can eventually accumulate enough differences that they can no longer successfully breed? Once they can no longer create viable offspring, they are separate species. That is "macroevolution".

 

[VeX1le]

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

I'm pretty sure they'll never retire...
Most creationist arguments I have heard are either factually wrong, or they just plain deny the evidence for evolution.

EDIT: also, Norwegian scientists found it! Yey for Norway

i'm pretty sure they'll start thinking about the future of evolution or you could say X-men will happen