New "Missing link" for evolution!

[Thanatos34]

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.

I could use one of those.

 

[The_Echo]

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?

Ooooh, I love that idea. I'd like to hear a scientist try to explain how evolution works. I mean, it's not like we have a genetic code that changes our design every so often, right? Also, if evolution was the answer, why haven't humans evolved into another form of life? We've been here forever and a day, c'mon!

Also, "condescending." You were close, though.

 

[mdk31]

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?

Ooooh, I love that idea. I'd like to hear a scientist try to explain how evolution works. I mean, it's not like we have a genetic code that changes our design every so often, right? Also, if evolution was the answer, why haven't humans evolved into another form of life? We've been here forever and a day, c'mon!

Also, "condescending." You were close, though.

Before I respond, are you being sarcastic? It's difficult to tell.

 

[The_Echo]

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?

Ooooh, I love that idea. I'd like to hear a scientist try to explain how evolution works. I mean, it's not like we have a genetic code that changes our design every so often, right? Also, if evolution was the answer, why haven't humans evolved into another form of life? We've been here forever and a day, c'mon!

Also, "condescending." You were close, though.

Before I respond, are you being sarcastic? It's difficult to tell.

Oh sorry, I often have a sarcastic tone. I was being serious.

 

[mdk31]

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?

Ooooh, I love that idea. I'd like to hear a scientist try to explain how evolution works. I mean, it's not like we have a genetic code that changes our design every so often, right? Also, if evolution was the answer, why haven't humans evolved into another form of life? We've been here forever and a day, c'mon!

Also, "condescending." You were close, though.

Before I respond, are you being sarcastic? It's difficult to tell.

Oh sorry, I often have a sarcastic tone. I was being serious.

I'm no scientist, but I can explain the basics. Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in populations by means of natural selection and random mutation. Gradually, over the span of hundreds or thousands of generations or more, the changes add up to the point that the population can no longer breed successfully with the original population of the species. At this point, the two populations are different species.

Humans are a relatively new species. Physiologically modern humans only evolved about 120,000 years ago. Plus, there is very little isolation of human populations on Earth, which inhibits evolution.

As I said, I'm no biologist. If you want a better source of info, find a website that goes into more detail. Here's one:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

 

[Skeleon]

Hmmm. I'm not an "official scientist", but here goes.
Okay, this is how I'd explain evolution very simplified:
The genetic code is prone to random mutations.
These, however, have to be very small. Very big mutations usually lead to an abort.
Let's use the timeless classic of the giraffe.
Say, giraffes used to have short necks.
Now, there are those animals who have short-necked descendants. But then there are a few with a small, random mutation that makes their neck a little longer than the others. No biggie so far.
Human beings are also different in height and it usually doesn't limit their ability to procreate.
But what happens when there is a drought and many of the plants die of lack of water?
Food would be sparse!
Which giraffes now have a better chance to survive this time of hardship?
Well, obviously the ones with slightly longer necks, because they can reach a bit further up towards the branches that the other animals didn't get to eat the leaves off of.
Okay, so that means several of the short-necked giraffes die without having children, while long-necked giraffes have a higher chance to procreate, right?
Now, this was only one minor step!
This process will have to happen again and again, influencing the gene pool through a selection process similar to the one I just described. Thus, slowly but steadily, the short-necked giraffes are "phased out" while the long-necked variant (before just a random mutation) becomes the predominant type of giraffe. They have an advantage in this situation (the drought) so they are able to procreate better than the short-necked, "normal" variant.
Over time, only long-necked giraffes are left and these are the ones we know today.
Again, this is very simplified, but I hope it explains the basic principles of evolution.
Random mutation (slightly longer neck). Pressure (drought, famine). Natural selection (higher chance to procreate).

 

[Kuala BangoDango]

Yea!!!!!!! Creationists can finally shut the fuck up!

Oh wait I forgot, they never shut up, no matter how many pieces of evidence you smack 'em in the face with, they're still gonna argue that they are right.

Or they'll revert to the "God placed that skeleton here to test our faith" argument.

 

[Kinguendo]

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.

Except that all religions are man-made concepts (and are controlled by men) so yes, man and religion are one and the same. Also, dont quote the NRA when trying to evoke something other than annoyance! The problem with religion is it gets a white wash everytime something bad happens, all you have to do is get rid of the person and the religion is "good" again. Look at catholisism, just recently they have found that it has been infested with peodophiles (again!) and they arent being persecuted for it. Once they get rid of them it will be a clean slate for them (AGAIN!) and it will happen again, admitadly it isnt the religions fault (entirely) however they are protecting them which isnt right!

 

[l33tLurker]

Speaking of evidence, it seems both evolutionists and creationists have qualms with the media claims: http://www.icr.org/article/4642/
Since I'm always skeptical of hyped science, I found it to be a very informative read. What do you all think of the discussion?

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

-actually, under Standard Rules of Debate, Creationism is a widely held theory. Because it is a widely held theory, it does not need to be proven. It must be disproven. The Pythagorean Thoerum operates similarly.(by definition, the Pythagorean Theorum can never be proven.)

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. >_<

There is actually some evidence as to the validity of creationism. Whether or not it's conclusive is the issue. For example, some animals evolved A LOT of beneficial mutant traits in a VERY shot period of time- some people argue that this is suppporting evidence that evolution is guided by a Creator, since it is mathematically improbable that so many beneficial mutations would occur in a such a short period of time.

Which animals? Sources please?

For example, the infamous "dinosaurs became birds" theory- it has been reasoned that if a meteor really did wipe out the dinosaurs, than it would have wiped out the tortoises and crocodiles that shared the same living space.

By whom? What data did they use to support this conclusion?

And of course, the necessary mutations for dinosaurs to become birds, happening all so rapidly, would have been somewhat unlikely...

Rapidly? Haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

even so, an atheist would argue that even if dinosaurs became birds, it would still prove nothing. Ultimately, there is a difference between supporting evidence, and CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, which is also the difference between a theory and a fact.

Right, science isn't in the business of proofs, that's left to mathematicians. Science is concerned with gathering evidence and devising laws and theories that explain and incorporate all the available evidence, while contradicting none of it.

Also, a theory isn't a hunch or a guess. I really wish people would take the time to learn what "theory" means in science.

First off, I apologize for not being able to name more sources. I've heard of a few, but can't name any others off hand.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the "dinosaurs became birds theory" Grant advocated in the original Jurassic park was the origin of birds, I simply said some people believe that dinosaurs became birds.

Thirdly, as for what a theory is:

1. First you observe a phenomemon

2. then you propose a hypothesis for it's nature

3. then you do testing. if you have INCONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, it becomes a theory.

4. If you have CONCLUSIVE supporting evidence, it becomes a law, fact, or principle.

EDIT: It's worth noting that even laws, (the Law of Entropy, for example) are considered to be *possibly* wrong, due to the inherently subjective nature of perception. Hence, some people argue that "theory" is the highest state one can obtain-despite the tendency of common textbooks to use the phrase "law" which admittedly doesn't necessarily make such usage correct.

Fail. A theory is a well-supported model of how something happens that explains all available facts. A theory does not "grow up" into a law. A law explains what happens. A theory explains how it happens.

In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework?derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries?like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)?which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting that they are today taken for granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested

-wikipedia


Oh....what's this....it appears Maxwell's Theories became laws....YOU fail. Theories do become laws over time.

 

[johnman]

Interesting because when you look at it normally it looks similar to a Lizard of dome dort but the X-Ray makes it look like a primate.

But what really interest me is that why would they want to hide this discovery for 2 years before actually releasing photos of it.

They didnt, it resided in a private collection for those 2 years before the owner realsied what he actaully had.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I find creationists plain silly. As someone said before they iether state blatent lies, (heres one folks i saw earlier today "there is no evidence that the world is more than 3000 years old"), or they just say that god put all the evidnce there as a test which is also super retarded. I believe that creationism and evolution can be intertwined. Lemme explain the bible from my perspective for you. People in ye olden times were STUPID AS POSTS. They needed parables and stories to understand concepts like creationism and shiz because saying "God made everything" made them ask how and why. I believe The Creation story is basically saying "God made everything" but in a way idiots from 1500 years ago could understand. I dont think i'ts fact or a secret message saying that the world just appeared like magic i think its a story that teaches a concept.

Heres the clincher folks. Im an athiest. You dont need to be religious to understand the bible, or talk about it as if you beleive in it, trying to understand another's point of view helps to see why they think the things they do.

 

[m_jim]

Except that all religions are man-made concepts (and are controlled by men) so yes, man and religion are one and the same. Also, dont quote the NRA when trying to evoke something other than annoyance! The problem with religion is it gets a white wash everytime something bad happens, all you have to do is get rid of the person and the religion is "good" again. Look at catholisism, just recently they have found that it has been infested with peodophiles (again!) and they arent being persecuted for it. Once they get rid of them it will be a clean slate for them (AGAIN!) and it will happen again, admitadly it isnt the religions fault (entirely) however they are protecting them which isnt right!

For the people who abuse the power provided by religion, I agree wholeheartedly with you: prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But the central tenets of Christianity are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness" (Galatians). These are good things. The people who use religion to exploit others for their own gain (pedophile priests, crusader kings, inquisitioners, cult leaders, nutjob fundamentalists) are the problem. I will also agree with you that religion has the possibility to be misused, but the same could be said of any powerful human institution. Since you didn't like the NRA reference, I'll rephrase it: religion is like a tool, let's say a hammer. I can use a hammer to build a house (which is a good thing), or I can use a hammer to bash someone's skull in (probably a bad thing, depending on the person). If I use it to bash someone's head in, who is at fault, me or the hammer?

 

[Kinguendo]

Except that all religions are man-made concepts (and are controlled by men) so yes, man and religion are one and the same. Also, dont quote the NRA when trying to evoke something other than annoyance! The problem with religion is it gets a white wash everytime something bad happens, all you have to do is get rid of the person and the religion is "good" again. Look at catholisism, just recently they have found that it has been infested with peodophiles (again!) and they arent being persecuted for it. Once they get rid of them it will be a clean slate for them (AGAIN!) and it will happen again, admitadly it isnt the religions fault (entirely) however they are protecting them which isnt right!

For the people who abuse the power provided by religion, I agree wholeheartedly with you: prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. But the central tenets of Christianity are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness" (Galatians). These are good things. The people who use religion to exploit others for their own gain (pedophile priests, crusader kings, inquisitioners, cult leaders, nutjob fundamentalists) are the problem. I will also agree with you that religion has the possibility to be misused, but the same could be said of any powerful human institution. Since you didn't like the NRA reference, I'll rephrase it: religion is like a tool, let's say a hammer. I can use a hammer to build a house (which is a good thing), or I can use a hammer to bash someone's skull in (probably a bad thing, depending on the person). If I use it to bash someone's head in, who is at fault, me or the hammer?

Who is at fault? Well the answer to that question would be you because you cant refer to a hammer as who... but I am just being pedantic. Well, the answer would be both. It was your action but the hammer made the kill possible. Also, Religion can be a tool, a justification, a stimulus and a catalyst for violence. Comparing it to a hammer does not do it justice in this sense.
As the saying goes, those with power intend to use it.

 

[Zelmanov]

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.

what in the flying fuck are you talking about? paleontologists have found like a dozen goddamn Archaeopterix specimens and some astronomer who didn't know what he was talking about thought that two of them were faked back in the 80's.

[EDIT FOR CLARITY:] they were not faked the astronomer just didn't know jack shit about how fossils form/geology in general

 

[Ultrajoe]

Zelmanov and Zenovka are spamming nonsense all over the escapist, as they have the same join date and have friended each other, i'm assuming they're a pair of trolls. Go to their profile, use it to find and report all of their errant posts and ignore them. Don't encourage these people, they'll be dealt with in a moment.

In other news, does anyone esle find this thing adorable? All scientific relevance aside, I want to clone this thing just to hug it.

 

[Birras]

Zelmanov and Zenovka are spamming nonsense all over the Escapist, as they have the same join date and have friended each other, i'm assuming they're a pair of trolls. Go to their profile, use it to find and report all of their errant posts and ignore them. Don't encourage these people, they'll be dealt with in a moment.

In other news, does anyone esle find this thing adorable? All scientific relevance aside, I want to clone this thing just to hug it.

Complete agreement across the board. Zenovka specifically holds a special place on my wall of ire as he, like The Logician, another occupant of the wall of ire (though further up than Zenovka) found unexplained fault in one of my perfect MacGuyverisims.

And yes, cloning of ancient lemur-like creatures is always fun times. Much more fun times than cloning dinosaurs.

 

[Thanatos34]

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.

what in the flying fuck are you talking about? paleontologists have found like a dozen goddamn Archaeopterix specimens and some astronomer who didn't know what he was talking about thought that two of them were faked back in the 80's.

[EDIT FOR CLARITY:] they were not faked the astronomer just didn't know jack shit about how fossils form/geology in general

If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread before posting, you would see that we've gone over this.

 

[darkstarangel]

Actually it is but not exactly littered. After all my point was that the earth isnt that old, but on an earth supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, that many animals would have reproduced so many times that all those dead animals should be fossilised & cluttering the ground.