New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Seydaman]

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

why did you sensor yourself?

 

[sharks9]

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.

Not completely but there are things that God has said that Jesus changes

Matthew 5: 38-40
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

 

[Thanatos34]

if God made beings which then evolved to be able to survive better, does that mean he made them wrong? if he intended them to evolve, why would he make things ill-equipped then let them battle it out for survival?

Because of the Natural Laws which He put in place, Earth's climate was going to change, thus the animals had to be able to adapt to it when it did so. It's a rather simple argument.

they aren't natural laws if someone put them there

Well, then, fine. Call them what you want. It makes no difference to the argument.

 

[Thanatos34]

*snip*

Well technically, all new species you discover is a missing link, all are new pieces in the giant jigsaw that is the evolutionary history of life. But do remember that this fossil was found 2 years ago, and that it's been studied intensly for 2 years before publishing a paper about it and announcing the find worlwide. It's pretty easy for us or even a biology teacher to just say "O it's another species of lemur" by just looking over the pictures. Ofcourse it's normal to ask what makes this a "missing link", but you'll only get a proper answer from the people who found this little monkey and researched it. Only they can tell why they named this thing a missing link. That's always something I find strange, people asking questions is good, I don't blaim them for that. But rarely I hear stories from skeptical people who asked those questions to the actual researchers.

My bio teacher wasn't saying that he sure it was not a missing link, he just couldn't see what made it one. Neither can I. Can someone link me to the documentation of why exactly they think it's a missing link?

Taking the viewpoint that you advocate is dangerous. On the off-chance evolution is not true, we'd never find out, if we assume that all fossils are missing links.

 

[mdk31]

*snip*

Well technically, all new species you discover is a missing link, all are new pieces in the giant jigsaw that is the evolutionary history of life. But do remember that this fossil was found 2 years ago, and that it's been studied intensly for 2 years before publishing a paper about it and announcing the find worlwide. It's pretty easy for us or even a biology teacher to just say "O it's another species of lemur" by just looking over the pictures. Ofcourse it's normal to ask what makes this a "missing link", but you'll only get a proper answer from the people who found this little monkey and researched it. Only they can tell why they named this thing a missing link. That's always something I find strange, people asking questions is good, I don't blaim them for that. But rarely I hear stories from skeptical people who asked those questions to the actual researchers.

My bio teacher wasn't saying that he sure it was not a missing link, he just couldn't see what made it one. Neither can I. Can someone link me to the documentation of why exactly they think it's a missing link?

Taking the viewpoint that you advocate is dangerous. On the off-chance evolution is not true, we'd never find out, if we assume that all fossils are missing links.

That's not an assumption, that's what the evidence shows.

 

[Cowabungaa]

My bio teacher wasn't saying that he sure it was not a missing link, he just couldn't see what made it one. Neither can I. Can someone link me to the documentation of why exactly they think it's a missing link?

They have published their 2 years worth of research in a paper. Luckely for US, they published it in the free online journal PloS One, here's the link to the paper. [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723] I love it when scientists choose to publish things like this in free journals instead of journals you have to pay for. Means us feeble people who are just interested can check it out as well. Not that we'll understand anything about it
By the way, I bet your biology teacher must've found this as well. If not, he ain't much of a biology teacher tbh

Anyway, this is apperantly why it's significant:

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

Could your biology teacher see that from the few pictures of the fossil he could see? I doubt most can.

PS: Toilet claw....lulz *snicker snort*

Taking the viewpoint that you advocate is dangerous. On the off-chance evolution is not true, we'd never find out, if we assume that all fossils are missing links.

I wasn't aware that I was advocating a certain view point. All I said that, if someone has questions about certain research, you should obviously go to the people who work with that research, the experts from that research. That's nothing more then logical, who else knows more about said research, outsiders or the people who actually researched?
Anyway, about evolution not being true. Well as said before, there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is simply the timeline life went through on earth. There is nothing wrong or right about that, that's plain data. That data says nothing about what processes shaped that timeline. It's the theory of evolution that tries to explain how the evolutionary timeline came to be. That there is an evolutionary timeline, that's a simple fact, it's right before our eyes in the form of all kinds of data: first there was no life, then there were simple unicellular organisms, then some more complicated stuff, bla bla bla, sea life, land life, mammals, humans. That's what we can see, that's stone cold fact.

 

[Pendragon9]

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

 

[mdk31]

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

What evidence do you have it's faked?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

Who's jumping on you?

 

[LewsTherin]

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

Theoretical/Quantum Physics ;p

 

[elitekill1942]

wow this could change alot. i hope it helps our thoughts on evolution and not beleving that god created us all... ha ha ha.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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

Theoretical/Quantum Physics ;p

A simpler answer would be to split the die in half, as both halves would always equal seven. Either way, it's irrelevant.

 

[Pendragon9]

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

Who's jumping on you?

I got everyone down my back for not believing this to be linked to humanity all that much.

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

What evidence do you have it's faked?

I don't think it's faked. But I think we're connecting it to humans too quickly.

Remember, while people like PETA are about and able to produce "their own studies", I'm a bit skeptical of any scientific news I hear. Unless you believe we were always herbivores and meat eating causes cancer and AIDs.

 

[m_jim]

Woah, where is my false point? It was a fair point, and if it has revieled that religion is easily corruptable then there is clearly something wrong there... oh, and that wasnt my intention...
*SNIP*

Religion is not corruptible; man is corruptible. It is merely an institution, not a sentient being, so it cannot be corrupted. Religion is a set of ideals/principles that is followed by man. It can be used to sinister ends, but so can any human institution. The NRA adage "guns don't kill people...people kill people" comes to mind. Your problem (and yes, I have read your whole exchange with Kraken) is that the positions that you have taken imply that you believe that religion and man are one and the same, even though they are not. In short, your arguments are not logical. Sorry.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Whoa. So I get jumped on for not believeing this thing is entirely real?

Stop being paranoid. You atheists and religious folk sometimes are just as stupid, I swear.

Who's jumping on you?

I got everyone down my back for not believing this to be linked to humanity all that much.

Aha, well I posted the link to the paper they published about this little monkey, and I will do that again for your convenience. [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723] It's pretty technical stuff though, but what else do you expect from a scientific paper.

 

[ender214]

Interesting. This is actually really useful for preparing for next years science competition (nationals or bust). Thanks.

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 the Church says God created the world and man in seven days (I think...someone verify). With all the evidence of evolution, man evolved from apes, making man seem rather less important and contradicting the bible.

This isn't the first time the Church tried to halt scientific progress for the sake of the bible. Remember how they supported the geocentric theory?

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

It's not a "huge boost" or whatever for science. Science doesn't need such a thing. It's one more piece of evidence that isn't any more important or magical than any other.

Also, there's no such thing as a "missing link."

 

[Thanatos34]

My bio teacher wasn't saying that he sure it was not a missing link, he just couldn't see what made it one. Neither can I. Can someone link me to the documentation of why exactly they think it's a missing link?

They have published their 2 years worth of research in a paper. Luckely for US, they published it in the free online journal PloS One, here's the link to the paper. [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723] I love it when scientists choose to publish things like this in free journals instead of journals you have to pay for. Means us feeble people who are just interested can check it out as well. Not that we'll understand anything about it
By the way, I bet your biology teacher must've found this as well. If not, he ain't much of a biology teacher tbh

Anyway, this is apperantly why it's significant:

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

Could your biology teacher see that from the few pictures of the fossil he could see? I doubt most can.

PS: Toilet claw....lulz *snicker snort*

Taking the viewpoint that you advocate is dangerous. On the off-chance evolution is not true, we'd never find out, if we assume that all fossils are missing links.

I wasn't aware that I was advocating a certain view point. All I said that, if someone has questions about certain research, you should obviously go to the people who work with that research, the experts from that research. That's nothing more then logical, who else knows more about said research, outsiders or the people who actually researched?
Anyway, about evolution not being true. Well as said before, there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is simply the timeline life went through on earth. There is nothing wrong or right about that, that's plain data. That data says nothing about what processes shaped that timeline. It's the theory of evolution that tries to explain how the evolutionary timeline came to be. That there is an evolutionary timeline, that's a simple fact, it's right before our eyes in the form of all kinds of data: first there was no life, then there were simple unicellular organisms, then some more complicated stuff, bla bla bla, sea life, land life, mammals, humans. That's what we can see, that's stone cold fact.

The viewpoint I was referring to, was where you said that all fossils are merely missing links.

My bio teacher hadn't heard of this before I showed it to him, so he was merely commenting on the fact that he didn't see why it would be a missing link. I'll show him the new information.

I'll check out that journal, too, see if I can grasp what they are referring to.

The toilet claw. I really hope that isn't what I think it is.

 

[Cowabungaa]

The viewpoint I was referring to, was where you said that all fossils are merely missing links.

My bio teacher hadn't heard of this before I showed it to him, so he was merely commenting on the fact that he didn't see why it would be a missing link. I'll show him the new information.

Well, I think that the term "missing link" is a term wich is media hyped very very often and I do think that it doesn't mean much. It is simply true that any new skeleton is a missing link: another stage in evolutionary history, one that we didn't know about before. However, what's ment with these apperant ground breaking missing links, is that they're missing links from certain key points in evolutionary history. For example Tiktaalik, that's an example of a missing link from a key point in history: the transition to land based life. All new animals we learn about are technically missing links, some are simply more important than others.

I'll check out that journal, too, see if I can grasp what they are referring to.

The toilet claw. I really hope that isn't what I think it is.

Apperantly, it's this:

A toilet-claw (toilet claw, grooming claw) is the specialized claw or nail on the foot of certain primates, used for personal grooming.

A natural comb I guess, and a natural butt scratcher.

 

[Thanatos34]

*snip*

Well technically, all new species you discover is a missing link, all are new pieces in the giant jigsaw that is the evolutionary history of life. But do remember that this fossil was found 2 years ago, and that it's been studied intensly for 2 years before publishing a paper about it and announcing the find worlwide. It's pretty easy for us or even a biology teacher to just say "O it's another species of lemur" by just looking over the pictures. Ofcourse it's normal to ask what makes this a "missing link", but you'll only get a proper answer from the people who found this little monkey and researched it. Only they can tell why they named this thing a missing link. That's always something I find strange, people asking questions is good, I don't blaim them for that. But rarely I hear stories from skeptical people who asked those questions to the actual researchers.

My bio teacher wasn't saying that he sure it was not a missing link, he just couldn't see what made it one. Neither can I. Can someone link me to the documentation of why exactly they think it's a missing link?

Taking the viewpoint that you advocate is dangerous. On the off-chance evolution is not true, we'd never find out, if we assume that all fossils are missing links.

That's not an assumption, that's what the evidence shows.

No... the evidence does not show that all fossils are missing links. There is such a thing as a new species, which does not "link" two families together, which is what a missing link is.