Major Evolutionary Finding Published

[timwakefield 68]

Here is an article describing the finding - http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/scienc...s-Skeptics.html

Ida, a fossil of a small, female mammal who died in her first year of life, was unveiled at New York’s American Museum of Natural History on May 19 after years in the shadows. The fossil was discovered in 1983 and split in two, according to Science magazine, with one half housed in a museum in Wyoming and the other kept by a private collector, until it was bought by Jorn Hurum of the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum.Ida is an “unusually intact primate fossil dating to 47 million years ago, a time when most primates looked more like squirrels than people,” according to Nature’s blog The Great Beyond. Ida has been described as both monkey-like and lemur-like, illustrating the mixed views currently circulating about her lineage and significance.The fossil is not believed to be a “missing link” species between apes and humans, according to several experts, though National Geographic reports that Hurum calls Ida “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.”Hurum is embracing extensive coverage of the fossil’s public debut for science’s sake. As he put it to The New York Times, “Any pop band is doing the same thing. … We have to start thinking the same way in science.”

So. Some people are touting it as the Holy Grail of human evolutionary discovery, but it's not. It's still a major discovery though. Basically I'm using this as an excuse to debate the fossil record, but also to talk about this finding. And there's no sense explaining to me how the evil scientists are distorting their data, because they're not distorting data, they're just giving it a Hollywood title.

[brvheart 1,753]

It wouldn't let me vote in just the middle question. The other two don't have the right choices for me.

[timwakefield 68]

It wouldn't let me vote in just the middle question. The other two don't have the right choices for me.

What would the right choices be? I don't think I can go back and edit the poll, but the poll is really just a means to getting people to open the thread. And what is your vote on the middle question?

[aucu 3]

There is no real debate over the fact of evolution. There is no "missing link" the evolutionary order leading up to Homo Sp. is very well established. I work with geology and earth history on a daily basis and evolution is the least controversial thing around.I don't see evolution as being exclusive of there being a greater power and won't get my pants in a knot over it.

[aucu 3]

Having said that this fossil is way cool.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I say that the discovery of this missing link just means that there are now two more links that are missing.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I say that the discovery of this missing link just means that there are now two more links that are missing.

woah

[Balloon guy 158]

The Coelacanth used to be a missing link as well.

[vbnautilus 48]

Wait so the argon dating doesn't tell us exactly which day of creation this thing was made on?

[crowTrobot 2]

I don't see evolution as being exclusive of there being a greater power and won't get my pants in a knot over it.

it does however disprove biblical fundamentalism rather effectively.

[crowTrobot 2]

The Coelacanth used to be a missing link as well.

and now it's a found link. the fact that it still exists doesn't change a thing.

[Balloon guy 158]

and now it's a found link. the fact that it still exists doesn't change a thing.

Keep telling yourself that a fish has been surviving for 360 million years largely unchanged and presents no problem to the theory of evolution.I guess it is possible that the ocean's temp, predators and food conditions haven't changed much in that time, which would explain why the Coelacanth has not changed in 360 million years.Or time travel from people in the future are messing with us.But otherwise...it's a little problem in your neat theory of evolution.But they found a monkey skeleton..so there's that.

[Sal Paradise 57]

whoa, that's a pretty cool fossil that god planted to test our faith!

[Balloon guy 158]

whoa, that's a pretty cool fossil that god planted to test our faith!

Will you pass the test?

[crowTrobot 2]

Keep telling yourself that a fish has been surviving for 360 million years largely unchanged and presents no problem to the theory of evolution.

coelacanth is not "a fish". it's an entire order of fish species that were extremely successful and widespread for millions of years, with 2 (known) species that evolvedfrom this group still extant. the extant species share characteristics with those in the fossil record as would be expected since the basic evolved design wasapparently so successful and adaptable, but they are NOT unchanged - the extant species have actually never been found as fossils.why don't you stop reading creationist misinformation intended for the gullable and research this stuff for yourself.

[Balloon guy 158]

coelacanth is not "a fish". it's an entire order of fish species that were extremely successful and widespread for millions of years, with 2 (known) species that evolvedfrom this group still extant. the extant species share characteristics with those in the fossil record as would be expected since the basic evolved design wasapparently so successful and adaptable, but they are NOT unchanged - the extant species have actually never been found as fossils.why don't you stop reading creationist misinformation intended for the gullable and research this stuff for yourself.

360 million years.Sure looks like a fish

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Fossils are just something the Jews buried in 1924.

[timwakefield 68]

coelacanth is not "a fish". it's an entire order of fish species that were extremely successful and widespread for millions of years, with 2 (known) species that evolvedfrom this group still extant. the extant species share characteristics with those in the fossil record as would be expected since the basic evolved design wasapparently so successful and adaptable, but they are NOT unchanged - the extant species have actually never been found as fossils.why don't you stop reading creationist misinformation intended for the gullable and research this stuff for yourself.

:heart:I love you too BG, but in a different, more confusing way.

[brvheart 1,753]

Fossils are just something the Jews buried in 1924.

Are you totally sure about that year?

[Balloon guy 158]

:heart:I love you too BG, but in a different, more confusing way.

[CaneBrain 95]

coelacanth is not "a fish". it's an entire order of fish species that were extremely successful and widespread for millions of years, with 2 (known) species that evolvedfrom this group still extant. the extant species share characteristics with those in the fossil record as would be expected since the basic evolved design wasapparently so successful and adaptable, but they are NOT unchanged - the extant species have actually never been found as fossils.why don't you stop reading creationist misinformation intended for the gullable and research this stuff for yourself.

isnt this besides the point. evolutionary theory does not mandate that things HAVE to evolve over some set period of time does it. They evolve if conditions push them too, right? Or do I have this all wrong....Haven't sharks been unchanged for a long time as well?I agree with aucu that evolution and Genesis are not incompatible if you read it as a metaphor.

[Balloon guy 158]

isnt this besides the point. evolutionary theory does not mandate that things HAVE to evolve over some set period of time does it. They evolve if conditions push them too, right? Or do I have this all wrong....Haven't sharks been unchanged for a long time as well?I agree with aucu that evolution and Genesis are not incompatible if you read it as a metaphor.

So some things change because of environment, predator, food reasons, while other things in the same situation continue on their merry way?I guess I'll have to take that on faith since it can't be proven

[Spademan 94]

So some things change because of environment, predator, food reasons, while other things in the same situation continue on their merry way?I guess I'll have to take that on faith since it can't be proven

You are generally nice and often self-deprecating so I kind of like you, but you say a TON of stupid shit. Sometimes you're joking, most times you aren't (or are a huge troll), either way... you type some really stupid ass things. Are you really so set in your ways that you compartmentalize yourself into an idiot?Do you even understand what I mean by that?Fucking people.

[Ninjafoo 0]

So some things change because of environment, predator, food reasons, while other things in the same situation continue on their merry way?I guess I'll have ??/to take that on faith since it can't be proven

To quote South Park (which has a lot of profound things in it btw), can't evolution be the answer to how and not why? I don't understand why evolution has to instantly negate the existence of a god. Unless of course it is because a book (written by man, and we all know man is incapable of lying or stretching the truth) told you so. Also, isn't it a little hypocritical as a mere man to say you know how the almighty god did everything? You can really say that you know god's will exactly and that it is not his will for things to evolve? Isn't that supposed to be blasphemy?....and the fossil is really cool looking

[crowTrobot 2]

isnt this besides the point.

my point was creationist websites distort the truth.

evolutionary theory does not mandate that things HAVE to evolve over some set period of time does it. They evolve if conditions push them too, right? Or do I have this all wrong....

there are no mandates, no. however for a specific species to appear unchanged over hundreds of millions of yearswould be virtually impossible. that is why creationists are quick to exploit misnomers like the coelacanth as a "livingfossil" and use them in their propaganda campaign.

Haven't sharks been unchanged for a long time as well?

true on a general natural design level, but as with the coelacanth nobody is finding specific currently living species asfossils from hundreds of millions of years ago.

I agree with aucu that evolution and Genesis are not incompatible if you read it as a metaphor.

by metaphor you mean fable written by primitive humans with no understanding of science, andby logical extension you could say the same thing about the entire bible. but it's even deeper than that. evolution has shown us that natural mechanistic processes can explain anything about our world, and hasmade the intelligent intervening designing god that supposedly inspired the bible entirely unnecessary and improbable as an explanation for life or anything else. it is effectively the final nail in his coffin.i'm happy for the sake of scientific progress that a lot of christians these days by way of mentallycompartmentalizing their faith are able to accept both evolution and christianity. however that doesn'tmake them any less delusional. no well-reasoning well-informed person would believe in both the truths of science and in the bible.