Scientists find human "missing link"

i wish i had the song "we are the champions" on my work PC...
 
Christians are reacting to the news, with predictable stupidity:

They have this monkey that they claim is 45 million years old. Without getting into the creation debate all over again, I just want to say, really 45 million years huh? They had monkeys back then?

Just because the monkey had some similar types of bones, doesnâ??t make it a missing link because itâ??s still a monkey! A missing link would be something that is almost completely human, but not. There would need to be something four or five feet tall with arms and legs and thumbs and all sorts of other things, but not human. Not a monkey that has one of the same foot bones as humans. Not too mention that even if this was a 45 million year old monkey, could you really tell it was the exact same bone that people have? Think through it rather than have blind faith in so called science.
Click to expand...

http://www.examiner.com/x-4291-Balt...9-Another-missing-link-or-another-red-herring
 
A missing link would be something that is almost completely human, but not. There would need to be something four or five feet tall with arms and legs and thumbs and all sorts of other things, but not human. Not a monkey that has one of the same foot bones as humans. Not too mention that even if this was a 45 million year old monkey, could you really tell it was the exact same bone that people have?
Click to expand...

20070902-Facepalm1.jpg
 
I think that we should just trust that Christians know more about science than scientists.
 
I find myself entirely underwhelmed by this discovery. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's the most important piece of the puzzle. As far as I'm aware, it's just another piece of evidence. That's great and all, but does it really... I mean... change a lot?
 
Farrowlesparrow said:
I find myself entirely underwhelmed by this discovery. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's the most important piece of the puzzle. As far as I'm aware, it's just another piece of evidence. That's great and all, but does it really... I mean... change a lot?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. It is presented as the greatest find in two centuries but in my perception fossils like Lucy for example are much more important. They prove the link between us and the apes, while this monkey is just a distant relative.
 
It's absolutely beautiful. A guy I'm working with this summer had the privilege of taking pictures of it for Newsweek.
 
God put that there so he knew who the real believers were, DUH!
 
Farrowlesparrow said:
I find myself entirely underwhelmed by this discovery. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's the most important piece of the puzzle. As far as I'm aware, it's just another piece of evidence. That's great and all, but does it really... I mean... change a lot?
Click to expand...

Shakermaker said:
My thoughts exactly. It is presented as the greatest find in two centuries but in my perception fossils like Lucy for example are much more important. They prove the link between us and the apes, while this monkey is just a distant relative.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm sure the people working on this discovery have a much greater understanding of it's weight than anyone here. Assuming it has little significance, or less significance simply because it does not resemble a human is very naive.
 
Shakermaker said:
My thoughts exactly. It is presented as the greatest find in two centuries but in my perception fossils like Lucy for example are much more important. They prove the link between us and the apes, while this monkey is just a distant relative.
Click to expand...

Marketing 101: speak in plain language so everybody understands your message.

for lay people and creationists the "missing link" is tied to the theory of evolution ..the news item is written for people who do not fully understand the science behind the story therefore they put it into terms they can understand like "the missing link". Even if it's not the lynchpin that finally and inequivibaly proves evolution in some people's minds it does. there has to be a shiton of on the fence religious people who need something like this to finally validate their suspicions; that the "good" book is just a bunch of malarky because hey we just found the "missing link"
 
What I said had nothing to do with this resembling a human or being the "missing link" or anything like that.
Maybe I don't 'understand' the significance of it.

It just feels to me like it's another fossil. Apparently it's different to all the fossils we found before. It's just that this thread gives the idea that it's the ultimate find that will destroy creationism, but I don't see why this will do more so than everything else we've learnt.
 
for the reasons I've already stated. it'll do nothing to galvanise those who already believe in evolution ..but it will certainly cause some creationists to second guess their belief system ...after all it IS the "missing link"
 
zombieturtle01 said:
I think that we should just trust that Christians know more about science than scientists.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.

On a more serious note, I get what CptStern is saying, but sometimes I think that to convince someone like a "hardcore creationist" it would take something like a neat list of fossils going through all mutations from the moment of the branching from other primates to modern man.

But they would probably say FAKE! even then... :|
 
nah I think the only cure is a bullet to the forehead
 
Destroy the brain or remove the head.

edit: Also, I admit that I didn't really read much about it. It does seem to be quite an interesting find.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
Lol, I'm sure the people working on this discovery have a much greater understanding of it's weight than anyone here.
Click to expand...

But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.

And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida.

...

Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be "a missing link".

Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance.

"It's extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied," he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as "Flores man" or feathered dinosaurs.

Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.

He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature was not all that it was hyped up to be.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm

Before I jump into my criticisms of the paper describing Darwinius masillae, Ida's scientific name, I do want to stress how spectacular the fossil really is.

...

This is the first time a fossil primate has been found exhibiting such extraordinary preservation.

Most of the media reports about Darwinius have only mentioned this point in passing, though. What they are most interested in is its status as a "missing link" between anthropoid primates (monkeys and apes) and their ancient ancestors. As John Wilkins has pointed out the phrase "missing link" is woefully inaccurate, conjuring up images of life ranked in an unbreakable Great Chain of Being put in place by God, but that has not stopped media outlets from running with the idea.

...

Is Darwinius important to understanding primate evolution? Of course! It is an exceptionally preserved specimen that could do much to aid our understanding of adapid evolution and paleobiology. The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. I hardly think this is a responsible way to conduct or communicate science, flooding the media with poorly supported claims...
Click to expand...
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php
 
Pretty cool, but evolution was already solid beforehand. Won't convince creationists though.
 
Thanks for clearing that one up for us.
 
Dear The Pope,

Don't worry, it's photoshopped. You can even see it's made of pixels if you enlarge it enough times.

Love,
CR0M
 
Silly CR0M, the catholics are one type of christian who don't actually have a problem with evolution.
 
CptStern said:
Marketing 101: speak in plain language so everybody understands your message.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem I have with the whole fanfare surrounding this. By allowing marketing speak and labeling it "The Link" evolutionists stray away from proper science. It made me think of these episodes of South Park.
 
Dear Mister (or misses) God,

You're fired.

Love,
CR0M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
2 3
Replies
118
Views
7K
Azner
Azner
P
Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
2 3
Replies
86
Views
5K
theotherguy
theotherguy
Back
Top