New "Missing link" for evolution!

[mdk31]

im no paleontologist... but that thing on its foot is reminiscent of like a raptor or some thing. But again, I have not the slightest clue what I'm talking about.

Nah, doesn't look enough like a talon. Looks more like a toe that just got all bent out of shape in the process of dying.

 

[Daveman]

I don't see why people are so afraid of evolution, it poses no threat as to the existence of a god. Can't you still think of God as the creator and evolution as a tool?

I find it hard to argue for evolution because it all just seems so simple and obvious and I can't think why anyone wouldn't believe it exists. Creationism for me just presents new problems like "how did God create everything?" and of course "why?".

I didn't mean to be rude, but if we want to handle it that way. I believe in gap theory, I am not afraid of evolution, I believe it coincides with my religious beliefs. Did I once say that Evolution does pose a threat to gods existence? No, I did not.

For fucks sake, I said it exists, simply that on a large scale it cannot be fully proven. I'm done arguing this with those who find it necessary to assume and be condescending based on those assumptions.

Sorry, when I said "people are afraid of evolution" I wasn't addressing you specifically. It's just that it seems to be the case with many because once you accept that one part of the bible to be wrong then it's no longer infallible and you have to question everything else in it.
I admit it can't be fully proven, nothing really can be, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Creationism does.
Anyway, I don't know you so I can't question your reasoning behind your faith ((a contradiction some might say, but not me).

I'm not being condescending either foolish mortal.

 

[Daveman]

Interaction between separate species.

Just thought I'd say that that isn't an explanation in any sense. You don't have to reply. I'm sure you'd just expand on it conclusively and present a perfectly good argument, you're perfectly capable.

 

[Seydaman]

im no paleontologist... but that thing on its foot is reminiscent of like a raptor or some thing. But again, I have not the slightest clue what I'm talking about.

Nah, doesn't look enough like a talon. Looks more like a toe that just got all bent out of shape in the process of dying.

looks like ape foot

 

[ExaltedK9]

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

Yep, so they "found" ONE strange looking monkey thing...not sure what to call it.
Why don't we see things like this all the time? Or better yet, new organism's popping up all the time?

 

[mdk31]

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

Yep, so they "found" ONE strange looking monkey thing...not sure what to call it.
Why don't we see things like this all the time? Or better yet, new organism's popping up all the time?

Evolution doesn't work that way. New species don't pop out of nowhere. They gradually develop out of populations of existing species.

Also, fossilization is an extremely rare process. Usually, the animal just decomposes. In order to be fossilized, it needs to be covered in sediment very quickly and preserved that way.

 

[Azraellod]

the bickering between creationists and evolutionists seems rather childish to me. i am technically christian, and believe in both. i dont care if you think that doesnt work, really doesnt matter if your more intrested in replying to my opinion then the discovery made here.

the photos seem intresting, although i thought humans were supposed to have evolved in africa. with it being found in germany, im left wondering if this was actually an unlikey chance where the missing link fossil found was not actually supposed to be in africa, but had instead gotten very badly lost. really doubt that its the case, but that would be quite interesting if that was the case.

also, i thought all primates had a larger ribcage then that (unless the primate itsself is just obscenely small). must be one of those things evolution sometimes does where it moves in one direction, then reverses. either that or ive got that badly wrong.

 

[ExaltedK9]

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

Yep, so they "found" ONE strange looking monkey thing...not sure what to call it.
Why don't we see things like this all the time? Or better yet, new organism's popping up all the time?

Evolution doesn't work that way. New species don't pop out of nowhere. They gradually develop out of populations of existing species.

Also, fossilization is an extremely rare process. Usually, the animal just decomposes. In order to be fossilized, it needs to be covered in sediment very quickly and preserved that way.

Well we seem to find allot of other fossils from awhile ago. Pretty well preserved.
I know that evolution follows the policy of: it's a long process for something to evolve, but why don't we ever see the beggining phase of any sort of new organism.

If evolution forces animal's to adapt to theit surroundings, wy do so many species go extinct?

 

[mdk31]

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

Yep, so they "found" ONE strange looking monkey thing...not sure what to call it.
Why don't we see things like this all the time? Or better yet, new organism's popping up all the time?

Evolution doesn't work that way. New species don't pop out of nowhere. They gradually develop out of populations of existing species.

Also, fossilization is an extremely rare process. Usually, the animal just decomposes. In order to be fossilized, it needs to be covered in sediment very quickly and preserved that way.

Well we seem to find allot of other fossils from awhile ago. Pretty well preserved.
I know that evolution follows the policy of: it's a long process for something to evolve, but why don't we ever see the beggining phase of any sort of new organism.

If evolution forces animal's to adapt to theit surroundings, wy do so many species go extinct?

Could you clarify what you mean by "other" fossils?

We do see the beginning phase. Every single animal that is destined (metaphorically, I'm not implying here that everything has a destiny) to pass on its genetic individuality is a transitional form. You're not gonna find an animal that is, say, half duck and half crocodile. It doesn't work that way.

Extinction is part of evolution. If a species is no longer fit to survive, it dies off and something else eventually fills the niche it vacated. Simple as that. More than 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

 

[sharks9]

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.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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

Yep, so they "found" ONE strange looking monkey thing...not sure what to call it.
Why don't we see things like this all the time? Or better yet, new organism's popping up all the time?

Evolution doesn't work that way. New species don't pop out of nowhere. They gradually develop out of populations of existing species.

Also, fossilization is an extremely rare process. Usually, the animal just decomposes. In order to be fossilized, it needs to be covered in sediment very quickly and preserved that way.

Well we seem to find allot of other fossils from awhile ago. Pretty well preserved.
I know that evolution follows the policy of: it's a long process for something to evolve, but why don't we ever see the beggining phase of any sort of new organism.

If evolution forces animal's to adapt to theit surroundings, wy do so many species go extinct?

The evolution of a species is more like a blended gradient than separate bins. There's this ever present gradual change - instead of stages that they jump to <- this is just what it seems like when you have a limited number of dead specimens.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

 

[mdk31]

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.

 

[sharks9]

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.

 

[mdk31]

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.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a working neuron who dismisses the entire bible as fiction from cover to cover. I simply dismiss the unsubstantiated bits, and the bits that are contradicted by reality, and the supernatural nonsense.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

I think that people taking the Bible as complete fact are ridiculous, because elements of the bible are proven incorrect and inaccurate. If you have an unreliable book, how much of it do you want to assume is fact? Seems like a dangerous thing to do.

 

[sharks9]

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.

I think that people taking the Bible as complete fact are ridiculous, because elements of the bible are proven incorrect and inaccurate. If you have an unreliable book, how much of it do you want to assume is fact? Seems like a dangerous thing to do.

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.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a working neuron who dismisses the entire bible as fiction from cover to cover.

unfortunately, there are alot of people like that.

 

[mdk31]

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.

I think that people taking the Bible as complete fact are ridiculous, because elements of the bible are proven incorrect and inaccurate. If you have an unreliable book, how much of it do you want to assume is fact? Seems like a dangerous thing to do.

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.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a working neuron who dismisses the entire bible as fiction from cover to cover.

unfortunately, there are alot of people like that.

Like who exactly?

 

[sharks9]

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.

I think that people taking the Bible as complete fact are ridiculous, because elements of the bible are proven incorrect and inaccurate. If you have an unreliable book, how much of it do you want to assume is fact? Seems like a dangerous thing to do.

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.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a working neuron who dismisses the entire bible as fiction from cover to cover.

unfortunately, there are alot of people like that.

Like who exactly?

just random idiots, I dont know their names but I've heard people at school say it and on internet forums.

 

[Lrbearclaw]

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.