Slashdot Mirror
Move Over, Archaeopteryx
Reedo writes "The clearest evidence ever of the missing link between dinosaurs and birds has been found in a newly discovered "feathered" fossil in northeastern China, claim scientists. The specimen was found embedded in a large slab of rock, in what scientists think was a former lake or pond."
It's a bit hasty to pass judgement on a tiny little web image, don't you think?
Missing links are only sought (or feared) by creationists, because it is only they that bring up the red herring of gaps in the fossil record where one might expect to see intermediate forms. So, the fact that this article got any press at all is probably because it would sell some newspapers, not because it's particularly interesting scientifically.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
A CAT scan won't hurt it a bit. They just don't need to do it because it's obvious that the fossil hasn't been constructed out of two unrelated fossils.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Of course, "creationist science" leaves a lot to be desired in and of itself, but to be fair it's a very young discipline. It's only recently that creationists have sought to put their views on a firm scientific footing rather than just pointing at Genesis and screaming, "It's in there, so it must be true!!!" which convinces no one who's not already on their side. They may or may not have something at this point. There are some things they do a much better job of explaining then evolutionary biologists, but there are even more subjects on which they raise more questions than they answer.
And the brethren went away edified.
It's only recently that creationists have sought to put their views on a firm scientific footing rather than just pointing at Genesis and screaming, "It's in there, so it must be true!!!" which convinces no one who's not already on their side.
Somebody mod this upto +5 funny. Creationists on a firm scientific footing... as if.
Have the creationists published a single scientific paper (I'm talking about one in a peer reviewed journal, not some website)?
Are they still going on about evolution breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Still quoting out of context to support their case?
There are some things they do a much better job of explaining then evolutionary biologists, but there are even more subjects on which they raise more questions than they answer.
Like what?
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Natural selection is a predicative theory.
It predicts that the "fittest" individuals (whether
those individuals are considered to be genes,
organisms, or whatever your model uses) will tend
to survive in a competitive environment, at the
expense of less fit individuals. Evolution follows
as a result of this differential survival rate when
reproduction is a factor.
As a direct example, John Holland's schema theory
predicts that the number of schema S in a population
at time t + 1 equals a function of it's number at
time t multiplied by it's relative fitness and
survivability under crossover and mutation.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx