Slashdot Mirror


Hobbit Is A New Species

Migraineman writes "Over the last year or so, archaeologists in Indonesia unearthed skulls and bones from eight proto-humanoids. Critics have claimed the meter-tall specimens were either pygmies or "aberrant individuals with a pathological condition" like microcephaly. A recent article in Science[subscription] rebuffs the critics, and claims that the specimens are actually a new species - Homo floresiensis. There's a summary article over at Nature."

265 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. What? by CypherXero · · Score: 5, Funny

    Frodo died???

    1. Re:What? by servognome · · Score: 5, Funny

      OMG, how is parent troll????
      No no no, Troll isn't a moderation, it's the name of what killed him. Like in the obituaries: Mr. Jones -64 (heart attack)

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:What? by northcat · · Score: 1

      You could have left it alone. Or if you thought the joke was said too many times, you could have modded it overrated or redundant. I would have left it alone. So would have you, if it was AC. Mods usually mod down registered users more because they want burn the user's karma fastly and silence him by making all his posts have an initial score of 0 or -1.

    3. Re:What? by Monf · · Score: 1

      Yes, unfortunately all the hobbits died off in the first couple of millenia of the 4th age of man...

      --
      Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
    4. Re:What? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      But Frodo lives..

  2. Missing link? by Kman_xth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could this be the infamous missing link?

    1. Re:Missing link? by 3nd32 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it couldn't be a "missing link". The leading guesses are that it is either an alternate branch that evolved an advanced brain separate from the more recent human lineage, or it is a branch off of Homo erectus that subsequently lost size but retained brain form. Personally, I'm a creationist. Keeps things simpler ^^.

    2. Re:Missing link? by zaphod123 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Missing link? Did they find mithril armor buried with one of them?

      --
      :q!
    3. Re:Missing link? by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      One dead body does not a new species make.

      if it shows sufficient differences from other species, it certainly does.

    4. Re:Missing link? by fartmasterB · · Score: 1

      actually, it looks more like the skeletal remains of Beetlejuice, of Howard Stern Show fame.

    5. Re:Missing link? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      In what way does Creationism keep things simpler? It has no explanatory power whatsoever, how could you ever falsify it?

      ... and I thought this is EXACTLY why some consider it to be both simpler and safer... :-D

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    6. Re:Missing link? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      One dead body does not a new species make.

      You are aware, I trust, that more than specimen was found.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Missing link? by kentyman · · Score: 1
      Could this be the infamous missing link?

      No, this is.
      --
      You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
    8. Re:Missing link? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      I thought australopithecus was the missing link, how many links do they want?

    9. Re:Missing link? by infodragon · · Score: 1

      What would Yoda say?

      "One skull does not a species make!"

      And yes it was ONE skull...

      From the article, emphasis mine
      "A skull and bones from eight H. floresiensis individuals were unearthed in a cave on Indonesia's island of Flores over 2003 and 2004 by a team of Indonesian and Australian researchers. The new species, which may have been alive as recently as 18,000 years ago"

      Makes me wonder if somebody's grant was running out and needed something to get more grant money. One skull and some misc bones... Give me a break. What happened to common sense or simple explanations, such as... Some hunters were hunting and they killed this funny monkey and a few other small animals, they ate it, and left their temporary tools. Many hunters would do this because it was heavy to carry tools around, so they'd make them on the spot. In fact many hunters still do this. (I qualify this as hunters that use "primitive" weapons)

      And as a last rant... We have how many dinosaur bones to know what a T-Rex is and they lived how many millions of years ago? Why aren't there more of these laying around, or buried if you like? What is up with NEW SPECIES alert with just one find, that was localized? This is a bunch of bunk. There has been no real research, no other finds, no other corroborating evidence. If this were compared to a court case they would be laughed out of the building. Where is the evidence they had children? From what my common sense tells me and concrete finds, they found T-Rex eggs, small T-Rex remains, a.k.a baby T-Rexes, any here? Most mutants cannot reproduce, there should be evidence before it is claimed to be a missing link, not ONE FRICKING SKULL and some misc bones, so don't play the mutant card!

      And no I'm not fighting evolution, just making some common sense points!)

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
    10. Re:Missing link? by GiMP · · Score: 1

      They recovered bones from 8 bodies, with only one skull. One could presume that the bones from the other bodies were also small... (granted, still one skull)

    11. Re:Missing link? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Heh. Did you actually think _I_ believe in bullshit like divine origins of the world literally as described by the Bible? :-o

      I'd be more inclined to believe that world was created literally as descibed by, say, Kalevala, but even that would be silly. :-D

      Nah, I was just pointing out that for some it's much more reassuring to believe in fairy tales; and that it's pretty naive to think everyone shares same ideas as scientifically oriented individuals do.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  3. Homo floresiensis by Jensaarai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homo Florescent lights?

  4. Homo Bagginses? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they found anything buried in its pocketses.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Homo Bagginses? by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

      From what I hear, one researcher found something, but another killed him and then ran off with it.

    2. Re:Homo Bagginses? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      But then the first researcher became more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Oh, wait...

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  5. it's just a tourist marketing gimmick by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    the island of flores saw the amazing uptick in tourism that new zealand experienced after the lord of the rings movie trilogy, and so that island's tourism proponents decided that they could get in on the tolkien tourism bandwagon too

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it's just a tourist marketing gimmick by Coneasfast · · Score: 1

      well, in america, the courts would just have ruled that 'meter-tall' specimens violate trademarks, thus, these findings WILL be dismissed unless the archaeologists pay royalties to tolkien.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
  6. I for one... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new Hobbit-humaniod overl... Oh nevermind.

    1. Re:I for one... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Funny
      I for one welcome our new Hobbit-humaniod overl...
      ... under lords?
      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    2. Re:I for one... by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

      No...

      Underhill.

      Close though.

  7. Also at SciAm by anocelot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Also available at Scientific American for your reading pleasure...

    Scientific American

    (I didn't have to subscribe, YMMV.)

    --
    This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
  8. catalog info by PoopJuggler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientific name: Bilbous Bagginsis
    Common name: Tricksy Hobbitses

  9. Is it secret? Is it safe? by moofdaddy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But did they find the ring?

    --
    Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
    1. Re:Is it secret? Is it safe? by blogeasy · · Score: 1

      If they find any hobbits with nine fingers they might have a pretty good start.

      --

      Browse the Information Directory
  10. Little Man, Big Plans by MrAsstastic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I truly believe these little people are the early prototype of ancient time traveling alien/human hybrid race. These people are the result of an extra-terrestial alien race mating with primates. The aliens have left but they will be back to check on our progress.

    1. Re:Little Man, Big Plans by fartmasterB · · Score: 1

      ETs that just happened to have an extremely similar genome to apes of Earth? That doesn't make any sense. The aliens would have to have almost identical genes to those of chimps, with whom we share most of ours. Otherwise, we'd have very evident alien genes in our genome, which we don't.

    2. Re:Little Man, Big Plans by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Exactly, where do people come up with some of this stuff?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    3. Re:Little Man, Big Plans by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      So... I take it you think an advanced spacefaring civilization would have to resort to direct mating to insert genes into our DNA?

      Because our genes are only a few percent different from apes, right? Isn't it at least possible that changes were introduced through genetic manipulation at some point?

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    4. Re:Little Man, Big Plans by Tassach · · Score: 1
      ETs that just happened to have an extremely similar genome to apes of Earth?
      Don't you know anything? Homo Habilis were the ETs. The only reason they started evolving was because Tree-of-Life wouldn't grow on Earth, so there weren't any Protectors around to kill off the mutants.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  11. Re:Bad Name by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Obviously, this is the skull of Frodo or Bilbo (or maybe Sam), and Indonesia is where Valinor once existed. That's why they were so far from England.

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
  12. This is not a new species by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Living examples of this species were discovered in 1970 in New Guinea and named the Tropi. There was a whole court case about it, whether the Tropi were human or not.

    1. Re:This is not a new species by anocelot · · Score: 1

      You know, someone, somewhere is going to start an email campaign based on that... ;)

      --
      This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
    2. Re:This is not a new species by ornil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While apparently the movie is bad, I thought the book this is based on is very interesting. The author's name is Vercors (French) and the book (in English translation) is called You Shall Know Them. I read it in Russian, in a collection of best French SciFi.

      Anthropologists discover "a missing link" (still living, unlike our hobbits), and that forces them to try to look into the question of whether they are human or not (do they have human rights?). It forces them to try defining what makes a human being. This involves a court case (which is what most of the book is about). Overall, it has little to do with SciFi, and a lot
      with philosophy. Which is probably why the movie sucked.

    3. Re:This is not a new species by Darby · · Score: 1

      I read it in Russian, in a collection of best French SciFi.

      You are one strange Dude. ;-)

    4. Re:This is not a new species by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I once read "The Good Soldier Schweik" in Czech, despite reading that language with the proficiency of a first-grader.

      Never did try reading Stanislaw Lem's works in the original Polish... I'm told the puns don't translate to English all that well.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    5. Re:This is not a new species by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      This involves a court case (which is what most of the book is about).

      See similarly Robert Heinlein's short story, "Jerry Was a Man"

  13. Re:I'm sure... by Lisandro · · Score: 1, Offtopic
  14. Re:I'm sure... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope. This is a new development on an older story (specifically, the story you read in the paper a few months ago).

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  15. The whole idea of a missing link by Cadallin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The whole idea of a missing link is a sham. It's a straw man put up by creationists. Because of the way evolution works you won't ever find a completely smooth transition from one form to another, you observe a puntuated equilibrium in the fossil record.

    1. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just about any fossil is a transitional or "hybrid", part way in form between ancestors and descendants. Actually take a look at them sometime.

      Creationism predicts that you'll find elephants with the heads of eagles, or some such, and those sort of fossils naturally don't get found. But that's just wacky creationists and their creative misunderstanding for you.

    2. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One would think that if evolution is true, and species evolved from one specie to another, it's only logical we would find a lot of fossil evidence of these hybrid species, not to mention hybrid species living today.

      1. The vast majority of dead creatures do not get fossilised.

      2. The vast majority of fossils that do form don't survive for hundreds of thousands of years.

      3. What the hell is a "hybrid species"?

    3. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The whole idea of expecting the fossil record to be a continuum is absurd. It's like a line, in between any two points, there's a third point, no matter how close they are. In this way, no matter how closely related an ancestor we find, someone is always asking for a missing link between that animal and humans

      So in that way of dealing with things, even when you find the 'missing link' (which has already occurred), people start asking you about the missing link between that 'missing link' and humans. You find the missing link between the 'missing link' and humans, and you'll be asked for a new missing link. By seeking the fossil record to be a continuum, only an infinite number of missing links will satisfactory as a 'missing link'.

    4. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      Well, no. The idea of a missing link isn't a sham. All the developments between "an ape-like ancestor" and modern humans could not have occurred in one giant leap. There must have been forms in between for natural selection to be a valid mechanism for Evolution, and some of these forms would probably remain in the fossil record. The argument for a missing link is not unreasonable (although arguing Homo floriensis is one would be).

    5. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by abigor · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, actually, you wouldn't think that. I'm not going to explain why; instead, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". It's a very good, readable laymen's explanation of the workings of evolution, and it debunks a lot of silly creationist myths.

    6. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by 3nd32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Creationism as a whole is a little broad to make predictions of that sort. There are many views within Creationism. My personal view would be that God created a variety of animals, and those animals have subsequently diversified and evolved from those original forms, resulting in the forms we see today.

    7. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      One would think that if evolution is true, and species evolved from one specie to another, it's only logical we would find a lot of fossil evidence of these hybrid species, not to mention hybrid species living today.

      Not really. The implicit assumption you are making is that these hybrid species were equally abundant and survived as long as the better-known species. But evolutionary theory leads us to expect that evolutionary change often occurs in small populations that are not widely distributed. So unless you happen to look in exactly the right place, you'll miss them. Even then, you'd have to be extraordinarily lucky.

    8. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      we don't care about your personal view. The only valid creational view is that God created the algorithms and underlying processes that control the universe. Anything more detailed than that is absurd.

    9. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet you still think that some guy who wrote about god creating the earth in seven days is more right than the scientific community? Now, given, the scientific community can be categorically wrong at times, but the people who brought you "creationism" are the exact same people who brought you the belief that the world is flat, and they are also the same people that told you to kill your neighbor if he works on the sabbath.

    10. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by 3nd32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some portions of the Bible address specific cultures and societies. Also, I missed the verse that said the world is flat... oh well! I don't trust the historical accuracy of the Bible, and my views on Creation are not directly based on it. I do trust the guy who told me "love your neighbor as yourself", and who has supported me throughout my life.

    11. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think anybody is arguing that these hominids were missing links to anything. They appear to have been a dwarf population descended from Asian H. erectus. They are like Neandertals and later Asian H. erectus populations, a dead end that very likely contributed nothing to the modern human gene pool.

      The thing that makes these little guys amazing, if it all pans out, is the apparent preservation of advanced tool making and using abilities even as their brains became smaller. If this all stands up to scrutiny, it means the book on brain size and how it effects abilities may have to be rewritten, which could have a major influence on how we understand on our own evolution from the common ancestor with Flores Man.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And then there are Catholics and the Pope- who believe in Creative Evolutionism- God created the big bang and the cosmic constants, and everything else came from that. The book of Genesis is just a spritual allegory to account for the phenomenon of sin.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    13. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      An excellent book. However...

      Sadly Dawkins is such a rabid atheist he alienates a lot of people with religious beliefs from actually beginning to read and understand the text.

      The stuff the creationists come up with is just absurd though.

    14. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      I don't think that particular explanation of what is a valid point is going to fly or even make much sense to those who you're trying to discount.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    15. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think that particular explanation of what is a valid point is going to fly or even make much sense to those who you're trying to discount.

      That's the whole problem, isn't it?

    16. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem I have with evolution theory (besides the fact that I believe in a literal Bible) is that scientists are quick to say that we evolved from primordial soup or apes or whatever it is nowadays but what you don't hear is how humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas [makingthem...rld.org.uk].

      So first of all, you already have your mind made up, and then second of all, you pull up an article and act as if it's some sort of counterargument.

      This sort of relationship is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Bananas and humans are far more closely related than the truly ancient groups of life like bacteria. They have been around significantly longer than any multicellular organisms.

      What you have invoked is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Worse, you don't even seem to understand the basic tenets of the theory, so that what is in fact a key prediction of the theory verified by observation is translated by you, somehow, to be an argument against it.

      It takes more faith to believe in what man thinks he knows versus having faith in the One Creator

      There's nothing in evolutionary theory that is incompatible with this religious belief. Biblical literalism is not the sum and total of Christianity, and is itself a very young notion. Worse, it simply does not fit with the natural world we observe, and to insist upon a literal reading of Genesis makes the book look utterly absurd.

      Evolution has been observed. The theory makes key predictions about what we'll find when we look into the genomes of different organisms. If these do not appear as predicted, then evolution will be overthrown. Unfortunately, for the Biblical literalist, the evidence keeps confirming the predictions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Origin of Species" is also a good book to read and probably available online for free.

      It is available online and free here.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    18. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Actually, the only difference between chimps and humans is three "bits" of DNA (DNA is much like computer coding, only base 4 instead of base 2).

      This is not nonsense. The difference is a few percent of the DNA sequence. That is tens of millions of 'bits'.

      Theoretically, our closest living great ape species actually came from a common ancestor that was much closer to modern humans than to apes- chimpanzees are two mutations off from that common ancestor, modern humans are one. So maybe NOT one giant leap- but easily three leaps, just based on the genetic evidence alone and not taking any fossils into account.

      Its not a few leaps - it is a large number of small changes in DNA sequence, and the regulation of expression of that DNA.

    19. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The whole idea of a missing link is a sham. It's a straw man put up by creationists. Because of the way evolution works you won't ever find a completely smooth transition from one form to another, you observe a puntuated equilibrium in the fossil record.

      First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species. It's not a "strawman" and is hardly and invention of creationists. A species capable of breeding with both (1) humans and (2) some breed of ape would fully satisfy the definition of a missing-link (between man and ape).

      As for punctuated equilibrium, you are going down a whole nother path. First of all, Darwinism, as expressed by Darwin himself, predicts a smooth (ish) transition. Many scientists still maintain that this is how the fossil record would look if it were just more complete. Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records, but it is still a contested model for evolution in its various forms because not everyone agrees on how the geologic evidence should be interpreted.

      There is plenty of shared ground to be found between creationists and evolutionists in regards to modern critiques of Darwinian evolution. But there are many other theories of evolution besides the straight-Darwinian model. So, inconclusion, don't mindlessly charge into an argument just because you think the otherside is "a sham."

    20. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hitler was a Christian, and Stalin rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of Lysenko's crap. Oh, and quoting a pack of loons and liars like Answers in Genesis pretty much destroys any credibility you have right off the spot. Check out http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to -consequences.html

      And even if Stalin and Hitler were Darwinists, and even if Darwin was a serial killing child rapist, can you explain where the actual argument against evolution is? This is nothing more than a classic logical fallacy, the hope being that if you invoke big bad dudes that somehow a scientific theory will collapse. It's nothing more than dishonest debating tactic, and rather reflects upon any claim that you or the guys at Answers to Genesis are really very Christian at all.

      Oh, and evolutionary theory != atheism. Evolution, like all sciences, has nothing to say on the existence of god(s).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      You are a sad sad creature with a profoundly limited understanding of the world around you.

    22. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by lgw · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that you'd find a lot more fossil records that don't match a known species if evolution were as widespread as science claims.

      The strongest early objection to evolution was similar: "God created all species, and he would not allow any to become extinct". As there was no proof of extinct species at the time, this was a pretty good line of reasoning.

      Then, in 1858 the first dinosaur bones were found, and it soon became obvious that there were, in fact, quite a few extinct species with very little resemblance to modern species.

      This successful prediction was a huge stride for the young theory of evolution, was probably influential in the timing of Darwin's publication of Origin of Species in 1859, as it had been completed some time before.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MolarMass · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Personally, I think evolution is all bunk and not, as one of my more liberal friends said, fact."
      Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a given population over time. This isn't magical and has been observed. Perhaps what you really don't believe happens is speciation, not evolution.

      While you might not wish to believe it, the fossil record supports that speciation occurs. The evidence for this goes back before Darwin, even, when archeologists were unable to explain findings in the fossil record that contradicted with the theory of Special Creation.

      "And if we all did morph from primordial soup, why are there so many different species of plants and animals around? If the earth was one big hot molten rock, seems to me we'd all be the same species."
      Actually, we expect there to be many different organisms at any given time. Perhaps you have heard of the concept, as it's an important one in biology: it's called Natural Selection.

      It would take some time to explain how this works properly, as short blurbs do little other than to perpetuate the massive confusion over this topic. As a result, I will let it drop.

    24. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think I've uncovered a Creationist moderator.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by ATN · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is true that Hitler may have been associated with Christianity as a child but he completely regected it and embraced evolutionism with open arms.

      "To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affiars of a great modern nation, we must trun again to Germany 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"

      Sir Arthur Keith, leading British evolutionary anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century. Evolution and Ethics p28, 230. Written shortly after world war II.

      Perhaps you should read Hitlers own book, Mein Kempf if you are not sufficiently convinced.

      Besides you completely missed the point. I was merely showing that men will find justification for doing evil in anything and so it is completely invalid to blame religion for evil in the world. I believe I have sufficiently made that point and resent being called a liar. As for answers in genesis being liars, I hope you take up your complaints with them because they will gladly correct any errors you point out.

      Not to mention that the parent was trying to invoke big bad dudes to disprove creation, but you didn't seem to have quiet the same heated objection to it.

    26. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Tongo · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, do you have any links for information regarding speciation? I can understand that evolution on a micro scale is quite evident and proven, but I have yet to see anything regarding macro evolution (speciation). I haven't yet heard/found any convincing evidence of this yet but I would love to see some. Thanks!

    27. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      Zeno! Zeno of Eleas! Is that you? I thought you were lost! It's me, Empedocles of Acagras! Fancy meeting you here!

    28. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 1

      I can't remember a good "earth is flat" quote, but God stops the sun in the sky for Daniel. He doesn't stop the earth, he stops the SUN. This means the bible-writer believed the sun orbited the earth. If an omniscient god was telling you what happened, wouldn't he let you know that it was the other way around?

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    29. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      The notion of a hybrid species is nonsensical. Individuals are hybrids, not entire species. Individuals descend directly from individuals, and are thus always hybrids of those individuals, at least in sexual reproduction. Species don't descend from sexual pairing of other species. Species are merely groups of individuals that are similar enough to successfully breed.

    30. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 1

      I presume by hybrid species he's referring to things like a mule. Mules result when horses and donkeys breed. Mules are infertile (and thus aren't technically a species, since species refers to a group that can reproduce amongst themselves and themselves only). They can be created though because donkeys and horses are extremely closely related.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    31. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not at all convinced that Hitler accepted evolution, at least actual evolutionary theory. He had the idea of breeding people, but eugenics was hardly a new idea, and certainly was around before Darwin's time. Other than some tapes of questionable legitimacy, all accounts indicate that Hitler thought of himself as a Christian. Evolutionary theory has no notion of "better" or "worse", which was a central tenet of Hitler's racist beliefs. Those ideas, sadly, have deep roots, and to blame them on a theory that didn't even exist until the middle of the 19th century is completely inaccurate. (I'll not you've now backed right away from the claims about Stalin, which were so obviously false that I would have to question the depth of the knowledge of the individual making the claim) As to evolutionary theory, it is simply that, a theory. It's rather like saying General Relativity is wrong because people made atomic bombs using aspects of the theory. As to Creationism, it's scientifically worthless. You don't need bogeymen to show that.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l is your friend.

      You also may want to look into the major evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative
      Did you notice that the same article points out how humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps?

      Have you read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ? When you do, you'll see that evolution predicts the opposite of what you claim-- fossils that match no known species would be a point against evolution. Humans that shared no DNA with bananas, or more DNA with bananas than bats would be a killer hit against evolution. (Note that creationists sometimes say that particular genes are identical (or closer) in two very different species than in seemingly closer species. All of these claims have ended up being false.)

      Humans have one less gene than chimps, but human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point. And it isn't just the working genes- we share nearly all of our broken genes. Example from the FAQ:

      "Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) Confirmation: Recently, the L-gulano--lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs. It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning... We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes).

      "There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes, the RT6 protein gene, the galactosyl transferase gene, and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL). [refs deleted]"

      Evolution predicts a fundamental unity of life, that

      "According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life... (1) replication, (2) heritability (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

      Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes...

      [Falsifiability of this theory] Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nuclei

    34. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think you are referring to the Sun stopping in the sky for Joshua (Joshua 10:12-13). It's pretty evident from this and the cosmological myth in Genesis that the ancient Hebrew tribes had imported the Mesopotomian idea of the heavens being a dome over a flat Earth.

      I don't hold the ancient peoples of any place in the world at fault for their beliefs on this matter. They merely came up with the best explanations that they could based on the evidence they had. It's the idea of Biblical literalism, which forces its adherents to basically toss out any actual data that violates what clearly are, in literal form, ludicrous ideas.

      The ancient Hebrews can be forgiven their ignorance. Modern Biblical literalists cannot.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Again, atheism has nothing to do with science. Science has no ability to confirm or deny the existence of God. The fundemental claims of an atheist or no more supportable by science than the claims of a theist. In either case, you are dealing with issues that are simply beyond the means of science. It's a tool for the natural world, not one for the supernatural (or even to deny the supernatural world). Neither atheists (like myself) or theists can use science to forward our positions, and to attempt to shows either a profound ignorance of science and a significant amount of dishonesty.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    36. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by nofx_3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That makes no sense at all, why would God create either imperfect animals (I.E. those that would need to evolve to better suit their environment), or give his creations the ability to develop into something he did not intend through diversification? Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? I'm not saying its fact, but wouldn't it be much simpler to say that all life diversified from a single genetic strain rather than adding the complexity of an unknowable god into all of this?

      You kinda remind me of Ptolemy, developing a needlessly complex theory becuase you are unwilling to bend from your preconcived notions even when you realize something else must be going on. You are halfway there, intelligent enough to realize that speciecs must be evolving and changing, but at the same time unwilling to give up you pre-existing belief that god must have created life, and at an already complex stage to boot.(Note I am not ruling out the fact that some being created that original strain, at least not in this post)

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    37. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops, you're right. I did in fact mean Daniel. That'll teach me to post without looking it up first.

      I didn't mean to insult ancient Hebrews, but rather to point out that such inaccuracies indicate that - if nothing else - the religious texts were written by men. Even if you beleive they were religiously inspired, there are inaccuracies present which demand that you not interpret those texts literally.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    38. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Darby · · Score: 1

      Let's also not forget that evolutionism has brought us such choice individiuals as Hitler and Stalin.

      Only half right.

      Hitler was religious. Stalin was (or at least promoted) atheism.

    39. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by robertjw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Evolutionary theory has no notion of "better" or "worse"

      Huh. I thought "Survival of the fittest" was a basic concept of Evoloutionary theory. The organisims with mutations "best" suited to their environment prosper. These mutations become more common and the species "Evolves".

      As to Creationism, it's scientifically worthless.

      That's true to a point. It's difficult to prove creation, we haven't been able to create anything in controlled setting and no one was there to observe Creation (or whatever happened) so Creationism is "scientifically" worthless.

      OTOH, macro-evolution is almost as worthless for the same reasons. Obviously micro-evolution exists and is reproducable in the laboratory, but to jump from the conclusion that to the idea that every living thing came from amoeba is a huge jump. Again, we can't recreate it, the only evidence we have is a fossil record that is at the very least incomplete and difficult to authenticate and no one has been around long enough to see the process in action. The primary reason that Evolutionary Theory is so widely accepted is because the only other idea that fits the facts is Creationism and many people will reject that because it requires belief in some kind of "Supreme Being".

      I think everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, my biggest annoyance with the whole Evolution vs. Creation argument is that there is no definitive way to prove it - at least not definitive enough for me. As you said, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity can be applied to create an atomic bomb, but Evolutionary Theory cannot be applied to show macro-evolution.

      Personally my feeling is it's a really stupid thing to argue about. Present the facts, let people draw their conclusions, but don't present this idea of life coming out of some primordial ooze as fact if you can't prove it.

    40. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense at all, why would God create either imperfect animals

      Why would God(tm) create an imperfect cosmos? It makes no logical sense, much like organized religion.

    41. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by KtHM · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And religion has *never* been used as an excuse for atrocities.

      Oh wait...

      - 9/11

      - The Crusades

      - The Inquisition

      etc.

    42. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by robertjw · · Score: 1

      It's pretty evident from this and the cosmological myth in Genesis that the ancient Hebrew tribes had imported the Mesopotomian idea of the heavens being a dome over a flat Earth

      Now there's a logical leap. A man observes the Sun stopping in the sky and it's evidence of a flat earth? I think we would all agree that the Sun and the Earth staying in the same relative position is an impossibility (hence why they would call this a miracle), but to say the writer belived the earth was flat because of his statement makes no sense.

      Have you have ever watched the sun come UP, or enjoyed a nice SUNSET or asked someone to meet you at HIGH NOON???? If so you must believe in the idea of a flat earth too. The position of the sun is a matter of perspective. If I was out and about one day and noticed the sun was in the same position in the sky for several hours I would report that it had "stopped", even though I know it would have to be the earth that was not moving in relation to the Sun.

    43. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by bob65 · · Score: 1

      Well it's a pretty sad world we live in as I think that particular explanation would make sense to most 5 year olds.

    44. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard a creationist say that. I guess it's easier for you to justify your own actions and abhor moral responsibility by making outragious claims. So much for "truth" and honesty.
      As someone said before, why would someone say expecting to find fossil evidence for evolving species is a sham? That's just stupid and intellectually dishonest. It's perfectly expected that such would exist. The very fact that so far no such record has been found is one of the main reasons evolution is still a theory. Oops! I said that outloud! OH, and I didn't even mention religion but I guess not accepting evolution as a forgone conclusion will make me a creationist freak, eh? Maybe I just want some more proof before I leap from single-celled life to man. Cornish hen to White Legjorn I'll give you, but until you can show some fossil evidence for at least SOME transitional species, please spare me the condecention.

    45. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with the literal bible version of creationism is if God created the world for us, why the hell are there galaxies of stars out there so far out that we can never possibly visit them?

      Only an extremely small percentage of what is out there is visible by the naked eye. The rest is only visible by scientific instruments or not at all.

      I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. As such I also believe life had to have evolved on other planets. If not, then why is all of that out there? It's certainly not for our benefit.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    46. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by jav1231 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, all that expecting some evidence and fossil records and such. Yeah, creationists are just wacked. Funny, it used to be scientists who would refrain from jumping to conclusions without the evidence. My how times have changed.

    47. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If an omniscient god was telling you what happened, wouldn't he let you know that it was the other way around?

      Why? When I tell my 8 year old why the sky is blue, I don't go into quantum theory to explain why shorter wavelengths are scattered more than longer wavelengths of light.

      The writings in Daniel were designed to show God's blessings upon Israel, not get sidetracked in a discussion on celestial mechanics. Medieval monks may have debates on irrelevancies like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    48. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by b-baggins · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That makes no sense at all,

      You forgot to add: to my finite brain which is completely incapable of comprehending the intent and purpose of a being vastly more intelligent than myself.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    49. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Darby · · Score: 1

      The fundemental claims of an atheist or no more supportable by science than the claims of a theist.

      You make a mistake here though.
      There are no fundamental claims of atheism.
      Theism is the statement that there is a god.
      Atheism is simply the lack of that belief (prefix 'a' means without). You, yourself might mean something different when you describe yourself as such, but I don't and that isn't what the word means in and of itself.
      The word really couldn't even exist if there wasn't already the other word for it to modify.

    50. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by the31337z3r0 · · Score: 1

      Old Testament, mang. Don't mean to be a douche, but the Old Testament wasn't written much as the New Testament was. The New Testament was essentially overseen by the Holy Ghost/Spirit. It was all written by a man's hand for other men to understand. Because it was written by a man's hand, it may not be grammatically correct, or to a t, but the general truth is supposedly in tact due to the oversight of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Spoken by someone who grew up a Fundamentalist Christian but has since found too many questions to believe either side.

    51. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by nofx_3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats a complete assumption, you assume that a god would be more intelligent than us, but if he designed is in him image wouldn't we have that same intelligence and just not have reached our full potential yet? Also you infer that if there were a creator, he would have done so for a purpose, is it not possible that we are an experiment, or a recreational activity or some such thing without a specific intent?

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    52. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Darby · · Score: 1

      The amjority of what you said seems very reasonable, but:

      There hasn't been a hobbit living for at least 400 years, and they sure as shooting didn't leave any descendants.

      Before these hobbits were found, I think most people would have been more sure than shooting that there were never any hobbits at all.

      I just think that seems like an overly absolute statement.

    53. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "on slashdot, people get viscious against creationists"

      No they don't. And if they do it's because creationists are fucking idiots.

      Go ahead, push the funny button, I dare you.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    54. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture"

      Yeah, and hey thanks for all the wars, killing, pestilence, famine and stuff. Nice touch there God.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    55. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      I don't like the word agnostic. Or atheist. Everyone has their own definition of the words. If I say 'Im agnostic', someone might think I'm undecided on the issue, or I simply deny certainty or maybe that I consider religion and science to be equally valid, or something like that. If I say 'I'm an atheist', they may think I believe god doesn't exist, don't believe in god (different), or something similar.
      I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    56. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by realityfighter · · Score: 1

      I believe you'll get your fill of logical objections, but I have some philosophical ones for you.

      Why is your belief in a literal bible a "problem" with evolution theory? Regardless of whether either idea is true, any person's beliefs against them don't make them any more or less problematic. If you're willing to believe that there is a fundamental and divine TRUTH to the world, surely that is greater than the beliefs of any man? I was under the impression that religious men should seek out this truth as a natural extension of their desire to understand and be closer to God.

      Believe me, I pity you for having to reconcile two concepts that seem irreconcilable to you. It must seem like a great imposition that so many people promote science without any regard to the sacred. But that doesn't mean that the science is flawed, or that it truly negates your religious beliefs. If you look more carefully into the claims of the evolutionary theory, you'll find that many a striking parallel exists between the current theory of the planet's development and the first chapter of Genesis. For example, they agree that animals lived in the sea before they lived on land.

      (On a more esoteric note, did you know that there are two words for "day" in Latin? In Genesis, the word used for the days of Creation can mean a day, a week, a season, a historical period, or any other length of time. A different word offers the definition of a specific 24-hour day. This is something that most people don't know because they deal exclusively with English translations of the Bible, or not at all.) In any case, the two stories are not so oppositional as you might think, but seeing this takes a willingness to understand the concept before dismissing it as mere "bunk."

      Finally, consider carefully the statement:

      It takes more faith to believe in what man thinks he knows versus having faith in the One Creator.

      Why should the truth be indicated by how difficult it is to have faith in it? You seem to claim that science is false simply because it is harder to maintain in the mind than religious faith. This idea is disturbing to me, since it implies that, contrary to what most religions preach, God really wants us to do what is easiest as opposed to, for example, what is right. Does the Bible which you take so literally really promote this? (It was easier for the Samaritan to leave the traveller for dead.)

      I will grant that believing in the many half-discovered disciplines of science is much harder than being devout, but I do not think that means what you think it means.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    57. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Before these hobbits were found, I think most people would have been more sure than shooting that there were never any hobbits at all.

      Creatures with chimp-sized brains and rudimentary ability to use tools, surviving into the modern times? Presposterous.

      Although, now that I think about it, this would explain a lot of posts on slashdot...

    58. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by ATN · · Score: 1

      "Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after darwin published "The Origin of Species". Within a month, Engles wrote to Marx (Dec. 12, 1859): "Darwin, whom I am now reading is splendid" Evolution, of course was just what the founders of communisum needed to explain how man kind could have come into being without the intervention of any super natural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy. In addition, Darwin's interpretation of evolution-that evolution had come about through the operation of natural selection-gave them an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing teleological explanation of the observed fact that all forms of life are adapted to their conditions."

      Zirkle, Evolution, pp. 85-86.

      I did not deal with all your arguments in the last post since I felt Hitler was enough to prove my point. I believe the previous quote shows that communist nations find their justification in evolution, and are very much anti christian. Also I would point out that athiesm and evolution were around well before Darwin published The Origin of Species if not as refined.

      You continue to miss my point. I am not blaming the hypothesis for the atrocities, I am blaming humanity. However it can not be denied that the "science" however misguided, provided justification for these people.

      "If it is true that there can be no scientific base for racist policies, must it not be true that there can be no scientific base for advocating nuclear disarmament? Or must we not admit that the scientific findings of the natural science of sociobiology or the social science of biopolitics are as likely to be appropriated by interested parties, even scientists, to serve political ends as were the scientific findings of the German social Darwinists, racial anthropologists, and eugenicists? The history of scientific racism, ethnocentrism, and national xenophobia suggests that this is no mere academic question."

      Stein, "Biological Sciences" p. 58

      I'm certainly not making the argument that evolution is wrong because people have used it to justify horrible things. I think the facts speak for themselves. However, the claim that because people have done bad things in the name of religious causes creation is wrong, is equally as poor an argument, and is one I have seen over and over again on slashdot. Finally evolution is far more than a theory to many people it is the very basis of their Godless religion. The notion that the general theory of evolution can be disproven is laughable. Evolution is derived from the axiom that all things were created by natural process that are observable now. The very axiom that is the basis of evolutionary theory eliminates the possiblity of supernatural creation a priori. The explenation must be materialistic at all costs, not to mention that the hypothesis is so elastic it can explain anything which results in respectable scientists doing a lot of just so story telling. I don't think we need to get into why origins is not operational science but if you want to know my thoughts on it answers in genesis has a good explenation.

    59. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Darby · · Score: 1

      Modern English usage dictates that one who is an atheist denies the existance of God.

      No it doesn't.
      Rabid psuedo-Christians have come up with that justification for the sole purpose of attempting to define atheism as a "religious" belief. The pathetic lacking in their own faith is the reason they have the entirely irrational need for this.

      The fact is that believing that some invisible super hero in the sky made everything is a choice a lot of people make.
      Those of us who are not convinced by any particular interpretation of said super hero are not "believing" that any particular thing is true or not true.

      We are all born atheists.

      Some people choose to take the path of "belief" for some value of "invisible super hero in the sky".

      I didn't

      You are looking for the word "agnostic"

      No, I am not.

      I have no doubt about whether or not some magical invisible fairy is pulling strings in the world.
      I absolutely do not think that that is so. Were it so, then he would be either incredibly evil, or a very sick prankster. Just look around you. Don't even bother with some irrational "it's the devil" crap, because, by definition, god invented him, all his impulses, and every method by which he could promote them

      Were there some evidence for someone's particular god, however small; I would take that into account.
      There isn't, though.

      Believe what you will, but do it in good faith. Don't delude yourself by trying to say that not choosing to give any legitimacy to your beliefs indicates the same process that led to your own beliefs.

    60. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C)"

      Serious question, why don't (earlier) Eskimos get scurvy on a diet of meat and fat?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    61. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Darby · · Score: 1

      I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.

      Fair enough.
      I guess where I was coming from is that for the sake of brevity, I generally just say that I'm an atheist if it's necessary to even address the topic.
      I understand that there are some "atheist groups" or something that get together and "be atheists" or something.
      I'm not into any of that, but sometimes I guess I just think when other people use that word I feel like they're trying to speak for me.
      Your approach seems to be more of a whatever when that happens, which is probably better.

    62. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      What makes a "missing link" a strawman in most circumstances (though I admit the loosest possible principle of it is not) is that the chance of finding 1 species that can breed with apes and humans... or generalise that to any pair of species... is remote, more likely you would find a fairly continuous chain. Plus as evolution works in time as well as space, the "missing link" species are not only able to have, but in most cases likely to have, died out, having been superceded by the species that evolved from them.

    63. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Yes, one would think that if we had a perfect fossil record. The problem is that common sense dictates that we cannot have a perfect fossil record. 1 in, what, 10 million (random rough guess) animals probably fossilises, in large areas of the world there can be no fossilisation at all. To expect to find anything specific in that is asking for trouble.

    64. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I worry that we're just a giant game of The Sims.

    65. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      At last, the missing link.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    66. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Humans and bananas are complex multicellular organisms, why wouldn't they share a bunch of DNA (I have no idea if the 60% is accurate)? They have a commonancestor after all.

    67. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      That is a stupid argument, they didn't invent 8 bit chips and 16 bit chips becuase they liked inventing things. They invented them becuase that was the best solution they knew about at the time, and they continued to evolve and improve those chips. If Intel were an Omniscient entity (which they are not) they would probably have built the best possible chip first, instead of building precursors and then constantly expending resources trying to improve that chip.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    68. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Punctuated equilibrium is an alternate theory invoked to explain gaps (no, they are not a creationist myth) in the evolutionary records

      The theory of punctated equilibria was invented by paleontologists. The "short periods of fast evolution" they refer to often span hundreds of thousands of years. This is "short" when you're a paleontologist, but is perfectly compatible with "smooth" neo-Darwinian evolution by genetic mutations and recombination - it's just occuring faster due to new environmental / ecological conditions. By the way, the guys behind this theory (essentially Nils Eldredge and the late S. J. Gould) never missed an opportunity to stress that they were bona fide Darwinists.

      What causes periods of fast evolution ? Of course you can invoke asteroids or volcanoes, but it turns out that evolution itself is naturally unstable. Because most species depend on other species in some way, when a species evolves a new adaptive feature, this has consequences for all other species that depend on this one, possibly leading to a cascade of evolutionary changes in those species.

      Per Bak and his colleagues came up with an insanely simple model of co-evolution between many species: organise a set of variables along a circle. Initialise them with random values. At any time step, change the lowest value to another, random value (evolution of a species) and do the same with its two neighbours (consequences over "dependent" species). Rinse, repeat.

      This model happens to exhibit punctuated equilibria and avalanches of evolutionary adaptations, with a neat power-law distribution in the size of these avalanches (the number of species that are affected by evolutionary change in one species).

      This also offers an explanation for mass extinctions. Sure, asteroids or volcanoes can trigger the process, but the most likely culprit overall is simply the instability of ecosystems.

      Thomas-

    69. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > The problem I have with the literal bible version of creationism
      > is if God created the world for us, why the hell are there galaxies
      > of stars out there so far out that we can never possibly visit them?

      For time keeping? For signs? For your viewing pleasure?

      How can your line of argument support or oppose creationism?

      As for another thing one can't "visit" that is much closer by, how about the core of the earth?

    70. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      By 'valid', I presume you mean 'cannot be proven false'. It's been interesting to watch the retreat of Creationism into the abstract.

    71. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture."

      You mean like storing the winds in a warehouse? That kind of thing?

      There's a big difference between delving into subatomic workings and getting the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun wrong. It wouldn't have been much of a stretch for the ancients to understand it. The Greeks did.

      I would have thought that all the other cultures on Earth just might have noticed a stoppage of the sun's "path".

    72. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't believe either 'side'. Believe emperical evidence.

    73. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      For time keeping? For signs? For your viewing pleasure?

      You missed my point. Galaxies of stars that CANNOT BE SEEN have no purpose for those things you mention. They can only be seen or their existence inferred by science.

      In a view where the universe was created solely for our benefit that makes no sense.

      As for your other point, the core of the earth does have a purpose : it provides structure to the planet, and the molten core creates a magnetic field that protects the earth from harmful radiation generated by our sun.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    74. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt! Wrongo. There are recorded instances of fertile mules. They are only 'mostly' infertile.

      That's not even relevant, plants make hybrid species all the time. Look to your loaf of bread.

    75. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      I answered only your first question without addressing your latter point.

      To answer it: if the earth's core has a purpose, don't you think invisible stars have a purpose too?

      Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?

      In others, aren't you saying:
      "God: why did you even bother? I would've done it better."

    76. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species."

      Sez who? You? Your post displays a plethora of misunderstanding.

    77. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      So first of all, you already have your mind made up, and then second of all, you pull up an article and act as if it's some sort of counterargument.

      Yes. It's my belief. You have yours and I have mine.

      There's nothing in evolutionary theory that is incompatible with this religious belief.

      Sure there is. Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. Nothing is said about God creating some creatures and they evolved into other species or into enhanced versions of their own kind better to weather the climate.

      Worse, it simply does not fit with the natural world we observe, and to insist upon a literal reading of Genesis makes the book look utterly absurd.

      But you have to understand that if I think the universe was created by God, why would I want to believe in the ever-changing scientific beliefs of the day? Like I pointed out to someone on another topic, scientists discovered in 1975 that the earth was cooling. Now it's warming. My God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If I'm going to believe, I'm not going to do it buffet-style.

      Unfortunately, for the Biblical literalist, the evidence keeps confirming the predictions.

      If you're so convinced that evolution has been observed, why don't you try to win the $250,000 prize offered for proof of evolution?

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    78. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Zeno?! Empedocles? Is it you? It's me, Aristeas of Marmora! I've brought the Funions and Mountain Dew!

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    79. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      In others, aren't you saying: "God: why did you even bother? I would've done it better."

      I'm saying that if you are a fundamentalist creationist and you believe the universe was created solely for the benefit of mankind then logically these stars and galaxies that have no bearing whatsoever on our existence have no point, and therefore are in effect a mistake by God.

      Personally I believe that everything has a purpose, therefore I cannot believe in that fundamentalist creationist view.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    80. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Thats a complete assumption, you assume that a god would be more intelligent than us, but if he designed is in him image wouldn't we have that same intelligence and just not have reached our full potential yet?

      Don't confuse intelligence with knowledge.

      is it not possible that we are an experiment, or a recreational activity

      Both of which would be a purpose.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    81. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans? That seems to be a caricature of a creationist viewpoint.
      This verse indicates the universe exists for God's pleasure, not only mine or yours: Bible reference

      B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?

      C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*? Nope.

    82. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      My personal view would be that God created a variety of animals, and those animals have subsequently diversified and evolved from those original forms
      I've just started a bet hedging business, you seem like a potential customer.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    83. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans? That seems to be a caricature of a creationist viewpoint. This verse indicates the universe exists for God's pleasure, not only mine or yours: Bible reference

      No that IS the creationist viewpoint. They state that the universe and everything in it was created about 6000 years ago. God created the heavens and the earth then stuck us on it. If that was true, how can stars be millions of light years away? And what about supernovae? How can a star explode before it even existed?

      B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?

      If you remove them somehow after their existence, of course they would. But if you believe God created the physical universe for us, then he could have easily created it without these distant stars and it would have had no effect on us.

      C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*? Nope.

      This is just more of "God works in mysterious ways" crap. It is what creationists say when they cant explain something logically because it conflicts with their beliefs.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    84. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Let's also not forget that evolutionism has brought us such choice individiuals as Hitler and Stalin.
      Don't know what evolutionism is, but but if it's the same as evolution then youre right. Luckily it also brought us Churchill and Rooseveldt.
      The point is that evolution has been the justification for it's fair share of atrocities.
      Including the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, burning of Magdeburg?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    85. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Have you have ever watched the sun come UP, or enjoyed a nice SUNSET or asked someone to meet you at HIGH NOON???? If so you must believe in the idea of a flat earth too.
      Have you ever been HOPPING mad, or BESIDE YOURSELF with joy????? If so you must believe that angry people jump up and down on one leg, or that happiness causes spontaneous cloning.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    86. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      And then there are Catholics and the Pope
      Catholics and the Pope, whatever next?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    87. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      the successful steps, are the least likely to end up as fossils.
      Leaving aside your bizarre use of commas, how do you come to that conclusion?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    88. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What a brilliant post, I have bookmarked it. I'll use it whenever I have to tell someone, "hey, know what? You're as stupid as this guy!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    89. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Like I pointed out to someone on another topic, scientists discovered in 1975 that the earth was cooling. Now it's warming.
      So you're saying scientists change their views according to the evidence before them? And there was I, thinking you were trying to argue against them!
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    90. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      To answer it: if the earth's core has a purpose, don't you think invisible stars have a purpose too?
      The earth's core doesn't have a purpose. It just, like, you know, is. However it can influence us without violating the laws of causality. Some invisible stars cannot do that because they burned out before humans existed. Some stars are so far away that we might have ceased to exist, or gone somewhere else, before their light reaches Earth.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    91. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Uh, sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. You're confusing limits of archaeology and the fossil record with the behavior of natural selection.

      The fossil record is punctuated because virtually nothing survives as a fossil. If I remember correctly - and I probably don't, but whether the number's wrong isn't terribly germane here - Nova recently claimed that a creature from the Paleozoic era has less than a one in one billion chance of surviving until today as a fossil of the quality that current human science can identify.

      On the other hand, natural selection most certainly is a smooth progress. Well-meaning amateurs often use tiny seed populations to suggest how huge sets of adaptations would show up among a tiny group. There is a minimum size a population can be before it begins to succumb to serious problems from the emergence and doubling of recessive traits through repeated inbreeding.

      Even in the shockingly unlikely case that more than one beneficial adaptation were to show up in a single individual at a time, and even in a miniscule population bottleneck, one would see the adaptation go out in parts in the immediate few generations before it started to double up; that's just the nature of gene exchange. There is a blend between states.

      The phrase "punctuated equilibrium" is a very common catchphrase for one viewpoint regarding the status of the fossil record. I should be forward that I believe in this viewpoint, but that it's just a theory, and there are competing theories which are equally sound.

      The punctuated equilibrium viewpoint suggests that the fossil record has been largely governed by dice. Given some preposterous unlikelihood of survival over that timeframe, there will be some individuals in the slightly preposterously larger summation of all life forms in the history of Earth which manage to get themselves quite literally written into stone. If one believes firmly in the current viewpoint of statistics (as I do,) it becomes natural to suggest that despite a generally equal distribution of life forms which get fossilized, some areas which ought to be represented "roll low" and don't get any fossils while others "roll high" and get more than their fair share. (Dungeons and Dragons players are now nodding their heads sagely.)

      From that viewpoint, that there are holes in the fossil record is just the upshot of the game of chance, and so even when there ought to be a smooth transition from bacteria to Frenchman to monkey to modern man, there are just gaps where the smooth transition (and this is before we deal with branching, treeing, reuptake, or any of the other mess of nonlinear issues which should smooth the shape of the genetic pool locus out) just never got stuck in the right kind of swamp to make a pretty picture in the rock.

      That's where the phrase "punctuated equilibrium" comes in - there should be an equilibrium in the adaptation annealing to environmental pressures, but it's punctuated by holes in the fossil line due to dumb luck. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the way evolution works. It's fossilization, instead: it's about how you die, and just how badass your corpse really is. Evolution is smooth. Rotting leaves holes, in many senses.

      Mod parent down as confused.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    92. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Um. It doesn't really matter what you're convinced of. The primary basis of Hitler's political platform was that Darwin's work provided a mechanism by which a human subspecies could be qualitatively better than others. Hitler suborned scientists to claim that there was evidence of Aryan "supremacy" and that that subspecies was further along the path to a greater man, which he supported with a perversion of Nietzsche's übermensche dialogue device. That was his justification for the murder of his fellow man.

      You might as well suggest that Mao didn't believe in the power of the people. Look, horrible people can believe in reasonable science. It doesn't make the science bad, and you don't have to fool yourself by distancing the monsters from the science. Hitler was hyperfascinated with evolution. To suggest otherwise is a characteristic ignorance of the man's justifications for his pathological murder.

      Never fool yourself into believing that Hitler was insane. He was sociopathic, not insane. Hitler was sane, and moreover he was brilliant. Nobody could have guiled an entire nation and taken it from near-desperate economic collapse into a war machine which threatened the globe in 25 years without being brilliant. Moreover, though nobody could challenge him in the last ten years, they most certainly could have in the first ten; you need to remember that at first Hitler was giving very strong very convincing logical arguments built on rarely more than a single fallacy, in order for the people to have a platform on which to follow him.

      Just because the end was unjustified madness doesn't mean the beginning was. Before Hitler Germany was a reasonable nation, as it has been afterwards, and it's not like his showing up just threw a lightswitch and changed the Germans from weird to evil. The rise to power was gradual, and planned, and at the beginning very skillfully cloaked both politically and scientifically.

      Never undercredit a man which can do that much evil. That's how they slip past you, because you're so busy reassuring yourself that they're evil because they're incapable that they end up managing to take advantage.

      Hitler not only accepted but embraced and perverted Darwin's theories. Remember that as a defense against other political or social agendas masking themselves behind science. It happens a lot, these days.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    93. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Faith -- it's all you need. Be blind, be happy!
      If I'm going to join a social club (which is basically what a church is), I'll take one which doesn't require me to check my brain at the door.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    94. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Tassach · · Score: 1
      there are inaccuracies present which demand that you not interpret those texts literally
      HERETIC! The King James Bible is the Literal and Inerrant Word of God. I know it's true because Pat Robertson told me so.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    95. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Religion must be the only profession where the phrase "you're not expected to understand," is a valid answer for critical questions. Well, religion and IT. Sometimes, they don't seem so different. ;)

    96. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I'm not so opposed to the core concepts of Christianity (temperance, love, etc), or the social club aspects, but all the superstitious claptrap churns my stomach. I'm often tempted to reply to the proselytizers with something like "I'm glad you enjoy your cult, but please keep it to yourself."

    97. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe the universe was sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Repent, the Coming of the Handkerchief is upon us!

    98. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > No that IS the creationist viewpoint.
      > They state that the universe and everything in it was created ...

      I'm a creationist. Once again, this time with feeling...

      A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans?

      Now for your parry question:
      > If that was true, how can stars be millions of light years away?
      > And what about supernovae? How can a star explode before it even existed?
      Can't you think for yourself? You believe in the big bang, yes? If cosmological constants could change then, why do you think God could not change them at will when he created the universe?
      The Bible says God "stretched out" the heavens, and the stretching would INCLUDE LIGHT from galaxies that are far off.

      B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?

      > If you remove them somehow after their existence, of course they would.

      Perhaps the next time God creates the universe, why don't you hang around and ensure God doesn't goof around creating wasteful galaxies? Or perhaps you appreciate that, like the core of the earth, hidden galaxies just may have a purpose (even though you can't visit or see either)? Perhaps the stability of the universe? Yes?

      C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*?

      > This is just more of "God works in mysterious ways" crap.

      Astounding. *You* that claimed everything has a purpose. Do you also claim to *know* the purpose of everything, Mr. Super-intelligent? NO.

    99. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      If every answer you give is going to be that God did it that way because it fits in with the fucked up creationist view of the world, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    100. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Your pride isn't subject to reason. Goodbye.

    101. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > The earth's core doesn't have a purpose.
      Hmm. And you expect me to believe this article of faith... um, why?

      > Some invisible stars cannot do that because they burned out
      No problem.
      See this on why impact-to-humans isn't the sun around which creationism revolves.

      See this on why billion-year-old starlight doens't prove the age of the universe.

    102. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but this theory has exactly the same probability as any major religion of being true. In fact anything you can possibly come up with has an equal chance, or 1/n with n being the total possible permutations of creation and the events that follow.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    103. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      > The earth's core doesn't have a purpose. And you expect me to believe this article of faith... um, why?
      Occam's razor: it's a simpler explanation than assuming that it does have a purpose, since the latter requires an extra entity.
      See this on why impact-to-humans isn't the sun around which creationism revolves. [From the link: "do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?"].
      Of course cutting away large numbers of stars would affect the universe. You'd need a big knife, though.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    104. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      If cosmological constants could change then, why do you think God could not change them at will when he created the universe?
      Let me get this right: your argument boils down to "God is root and he could frig the timestamps and the access logs, if he wanted"?

      In other news, unicorns exist. They just choose to remain invisible, claims scientist, adding "I challenge anyone to prove otherwise".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    105. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      No, God is not in the business of fooling around with logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).

      Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level. Your argument boils down to: "NO ONE should be able to signal in any other form except TTL logic. It's forbidden! Forbidden, I tell you!"

      In other Slashdot discussion news, a strawman was setup and was ignored.

    106. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > Occam's razor: it's a simpler explanation than assuming that it does have a purpose, since the latter requires an extra entity.


      I *know* this "extra entity" you speak about, God. (And you could come to know him if you searched for him)
      Ockham, a deeply religious man, would have been disappoined with how you use his razor.


      > Of course cutting away large numbers of stars would affect the universe. You'd need a big knife, though.


      Good, we both agree on this point then.

      My point made to the other gentleman was that the absence of these invisible stars at the beginning of the universe may have had as catastrophic an effect as removing them now.
    107. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      No, God is not in the business of fooling around with logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).
      You'll burn in hell for denying his omnipotence.
      Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level.
      Well done, you've come up with a comment sillier than mine. Difference is, I know when I'm joking.
      In other Slashdot discussion news, a strawman was setup and was ignored.
      Wrong. Strawman was set up (by you), and not ignored (by me). You fail it.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    108. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      I *know* this "extra entity" you speak about, God. (And you could come to know him if you searched for him)
      And I know lots of unicorns. You could see them too, if you really wanted to.
      Good, we both agree on this point then.
      My point was that you can't spell "existing", dimmy.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    109. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > And I know lots of unicorns. You could see them too, if you really wanted to.

      The problems with your statement:

      - We both know you're lying
      - I know Jesus and I am telling the truth
      - Hundreds of millions of people will tell you what I told you

      > > Good, we both agree on this point then.
      > My point was that you can't spell "existing", dimmy.

      No, you arrogant fool. I used it purposely to mean "remove" - as in "excise a tumor." Look it up (here) and learn humility.

      Spelling doesn't mark anyone out as better or worse. Combining ignorance with pride does.

    110. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > > No, God is not in the business of fooling around with
      > > logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).

      > You'll burn in hell for denying his omnipotence.

      I won't.
      And yes, he CANNOT lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.
      http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php? name=R ead&itemid=2561&cat=3
      http://www.grace-through-fa ith.com/godlie.html
      http://www.gotquestions.org/W hat-is-God-like.html

      > > Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level.
      > Well done, you've come up with a comment sillier than mine.
      > Difference is, I know when I'm joking.
      Funny thing is even though I gave back in the same tone you dished out, that statement is correct by itself.

      > Wrong. Strawman was set up (by you), and not ignored (by me).
      Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?

      Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.

    111. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      No, you arrogant fool.
      Ooooh, get her!
      Spelling doesn't mark anyone out as better or worse. Combining ignorance with pride 'does.
      I won't argue that; I recognise an expert when I see one.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    112. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      And yes, he CANNOT lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.
      http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=R ead&itemid=2561&cat=3
      Hmmm, but can he do hyperlinks?

      Anyway, who told you that the can't lie? Him? Well neither can I, so ya boo.

      Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?
      That's not a strawman, it's an analogy. I note that you still haven't disproved the existence of my imaginary friends, just as I haven't with yours.
      Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.
      Or you'll do what? In any case, it's a lot safer than yours.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    113. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > Hmmm, but can he do hyperlinks?
      He can, but you can do cut and paste

      > Anyway, who told you that the can't lie? Him? Well neither can I, so ya boo.
      I'd rather believe an entity who's been proved right, than a liar like you.

      > > Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?
      > That's not a strawman, it's an analogy.
      An easily defeated misrepresentation of my position is a strawman.

      > you still haven't disproved the existence of my imaginary friends,
      > just as I haven't with yours.
      No one believes your imaginary friend exists.
      Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?

      > > Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.
      > Or you'll do what? In any case, it's a lot safer than yours.
      Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?

    114. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      You "got her". I pointed it out.

    115. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      An easily defeated misrepresentation of my position is a strawman.
      And when I post a misrepresentation, you may fairly call "strawman". Not before.
      No one believes your imaginary friend exists.
      You've asked them? Everyone?
      Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?
      I'm sure that at some time, most people believed the earth was flat. Does that mean it was?

      I'm sure that large numbers of people believe in other skydaddies. If they outnumber your club, then I asume they're right and you're wrong?

      Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?
      So much for "I am my brother's keeper". Hypocrite.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    116. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The question then becomes whether such a being would have goals substantially different than ours or not, or if it is merely a question of scale. Right now we're mostly dreaming about stuff like flying around between planets. Maybe the next step is just flying planets around between galaxies or something :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    117. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      So you're saying scientists change their views according to the evidence before them? And there was I, thinking you were trying to argue against them!

      What I'm saying is that science doesn't have all the answers. It is not the end-all, be-all answer guide to the cosmos. When scientists can go from "the earth is cooling" to "the earth is warming" in 30 years, obviously they do not have enough historical data (or evidence to back their findings) to present a correct theory. All I'm asking is that science not deem something (like evolution) as fact until it can be proven. And the Bible has been 100% accurate so far. That's why I base my beliefs in it rather than the scientific community.

      Now don't get me wrong - science has produced some marvelous achievements. But the primordial soup/we came from monkeys/we came from a bacteria chipped off from Mars stuff is hogwash, IMO.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    118. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > And when I post a misrepresentation, you may fairly call "strawman".

      Your misrepresentation was claiming my belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns - a much more easily defeated proposition.

      When you said: "In other news, unicorns exist. They just choose to remain invisible,..." ...you created a "strawman analogy". Read about it here (Valid attacks on analogies, #1)

      > > No one believes your imaginary friend exists.
      > You've asked them? Everyone?
      No. I polled a large enough sample.

      > > Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?
      > I'm sure that at some time, most people believed
      > the earth was flat.

      No.

      "No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."
      Source

      > Does that mean it was?
      Appeals to populism are meaningless. Appeals to personal testimony from witnesses are meaningful.

      > I'm sure that large numbers of people believe in other skydaddies.
      > If they outnumber your club, then I asume they're right and you're wrong?
      People may believe in tradition -- but we who believe in Jesus *know* Him.

      > > Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?
      > So much for "I am my brother's keeper". Hypocrite.
      You Hypocrite! How I can force myself upon a brother who wants nothing to do with me?
      You are responsible for your own soul.

    119. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      What I'm saying is that science doesn't have all the answers.
      No reputable scientist would dispute that.
      And the Bible has been 100% accurate so far.
      +1 hilarious.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    120. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Appeals to populism are meaningless. Appeals to personal testimony from witnesses are meaningful.
      So, which of the above categories does your assertion that millions of people have the same invisible friend fall into?

      I know that unicorns exist. I've seen them. How's that for a personal testimony?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    121. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > So, which of the above categories...
      The second - we know Him personally.

      > I know that unicorns exist. I've seen them. How's that for a personal testimony?

      Worthless - you moved from tearing down a strawman to "truthful testimony"!

    122. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      > So, which of the above categories... The second - we know Him personally.
      The same as I do with my unicorns.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    123. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      +1 hilarious.

      OK. Give me an example where the Bible hasn't been accurate.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    124. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      You only reinforced his point

    125. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with evolution theory (besides the fact that I believe in a literal Bible) is that scientists are quick to say that we evolved from primordial soup or apes or whatever it is nowadays but what you don't hear is how humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas.

      That is easy to explain. Both humans and bananas are made of cells. Those cells are very, very complex. Over most of evolution (billions of years) life was nothing but single cells or simple arrangements of them. Cells do a huge amount - metabolise things, divide, regulate their internal structure and chemistry, move, respond to various stimuli. Things such as bananas and humans are basically just different arrangements of these cells. It would be astonishing if we did not have a lot of DNA in common.

      Seems to me that you'd find a lot more fossil records that don't match a known species if evolution were as widespread as science claims.

      There are lots of such records. How many do you need?

      Personally, I think evolution is all bunk and not, as one of my more liberal friends said, fact.

      All you need to do is go out and look. Evolution is happening all around you. Bacteria are evolving resistance to chemicals we throw at them. There has even been evolutionary change in island birds within living memory.

      Evolution is fact - just open your eyes.

      And if we all did morph from primordial soup, why are there so many different species of plants and animals around? If the earth was one big hot molten rock, seems to me we'd all be the same species.

      Why? Look at how animals change through breeding and mutation even over a single human lifetime. Imagine what can happen in around 50 million human lifetimes! You can't - no-one can. The time is too long for us to think about. That is why we find evolution so difficult - it happens slowly, but over a very, very, very long time lots can happen.

      It takes more faith to believe in what man thinks he knows versus having faith in the One Creator.

      No. When a man 'thinks' he knows something, that is not faith. Evolution is not about faith. Its about being prepared to look and understand things for yourself, not being told what is true by others. This is called 'science'.

    126. Re:The whole idea of a missing link by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1
  16. Re:Bad Name by pianoman113 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course!

    But what, then, happened to all the elves?

    And, I might add, so much for all that "Undying Lands" talk.

    --

    Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
  17. Re:Theory on their extinction by Cadallin · · Score: 1

    Umm, Since they're extinct wouldn't that mean that the shire was successfully scoured. The hobbits being extinct and all.

  18. Small Hominids by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just think... once, in a strange land millions of years ago, beings much like us looked up and dreamed that someday, somehow, they would reach the treetops.

  19. Bwahaha by ShatteredDream · · Score: 2, Funny

    And they laughed at me for saying that Middle Earth didn't exist.... soon any day now they will find Orc fossils and roaving bands of Uruk-hai will crush the bones of obese Americans...

    Dammit get those pills and that straight jacket away from me!!!

    1. Re:Bwahaha by TedTschopp · · Score: 1

      I'm serious when I say this, but Tolkien did start a sequel to Lord of the Rings, which had as a plot device people finding an orc skeleton buried in the ground, and a cult formed up around worshipping the long dead orcs. He never got past a couple of pages, and threw it away becuase he said that magic had left the world, and there was really no good thing left to write other than a thriller story not a fantasy story. What is there of the story from his notes includes a wonderful definition of evil, which can be destilled down to the idea of evil being doing something contrary to ones own purpose or forcing something or someone else to do something which is contrary to their purpose. Fun stuff. ITs in the volumn 12 of Histories of Middle-earth if I remeber correctly.

      Ted

      --
      Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
    2. Re:Bwahaha by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Dammit get those pills and that straight jacket away from me!!!

      You mean strait jacket?

  20. Ho ho ho by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what, then, happened to all the elves?

    Continental drift. The undying lands ended up at the north pole.

    1. Re:Ho ho ho by Tobias+Luetke · · Score: 1

      Awesome, That means we will see them soon!

    2. Re:Ho ho ho by Nahor · · Score: 1
      Nope, what is below sea level is not "land". The seas sit on continental plates. "Land" is the emerged part of the plate.

      Merriam-Webster:
      1.a. the solid part of the surface of the earth

      What is below the sea is not the surface anymore.

      "Nope, he didn't drown, he made landfall". Right! ;)
  21. Re:Bad Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Didn't you wonder where they sailed off to at the end of the book? There you go.

  22. Re:Amazing timing... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because nobody notices scientific discoveries when the topic isn't hot.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  23. Completely wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They are not a new species! They were an old species of dinosaur toe cheese.

  24. Re:I'm sure... by Monf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, what was announced yesterday (by members of some team) was the results of a computer reconstruction of the brain, which analyzed impressions left on the inside of the skull by the pulsating brain- indicating a more powerful brain (for the size) than previously thought possible. (From today's LA Times: Data Bolster Claim of a 'Hobbit' Human Species

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  25. Better article by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    National Geographic from a while ago.

    was also mentioned on slashdot at the time.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Better article by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2

      Just to add, theres a further article on the same site.

      here :)

      Both of these are full articles with no crap about buy it now.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  26. Sequel? by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    The One Ring was destroyed in Mount Doom, leaving the door open for a new cycle of books with a new ring forged in Mount Half-Life.

    1. Re:Sequel? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 2, Funny

      This, of course, after a pair of Quakes formed the mountain...

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:Sequel? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, I bet these new books will be unreal!

    3. Re:Sequel? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a Far Cry from Tolkien's vision. You'll have a lot of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.s for suggesting *that* one.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  27. But Mr. Frodo! by chalkoutline · · Score: 1

    He'll never outgrow old Bullroarer Took!

    --
    There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
  28. Re:Also at $ciAm by tepples · · Score: 1

    (I didn't have to subscribe, YMMV.)

    My mileage did vary: "A Digital subscription is only $39.95!"

  29. Artist's Rendering by messerman · · Score: 4, Funny

    TFA didn't have it, but there's an artist's rendering of this species here (from http://www.mi.uib.no/~respl/tolkien/mapdocs/index2 .html)

  30. Re:Bad Name by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Obviously, this is the skull of Frodo or Bilbo (or maybe Sam), and Indonesia is where Valinor once existed. That's why they were so far from England.

    Everyone knows Valinor was in New Zealand. Maybe when Mt Doom blew up, it spewed Smeagol's remains to Indonesia, and that's what thay found...

  31. For those interested by Masq666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for those interested there's also an article about homo florensis at Bits of News

    --
    Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
  32. stop calling them hobbits! by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    it makes you look like unscientific amateurs.

    1. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it makes you look like unscientific amateurs.

      Yes, scientists are far too serious to give something such a frivolous name.

    2. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by simetra · · Score: 1
      and, prepubescent nitwits.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    3. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And naming the planets after Roman gods makes us look any better? Actually, naming them Hobbits is at least consistant with such scientific naming conventions.


      There are English units of measurements named "Jack" (3/4 pint) and "Jill" (1/4 pint). In computing, half a byte is a nibble. (A really bad pun.) Physics has "sausage instabilities". I won't comment on the fact that Americium is highly unstable. Maths has the "Butterfly Effect" and irrational numbers.


      Science is cluttered with anthromorphic personifications, plays on words, jokes, puns, brain-twisters and conundrums. It's interesting that the brightest of the bright are notorious for skipping class and having fun, and that those who listen to deadly-dull teachers loath and detest science. Personally, I think that it shows there's a serious flaw in the system.


      Anyways, to get back on topic, if someone wants to call these people after a fictional species (which is descriptive but rather useless), how is that any different from the old biological technique of looking at a plant or animal and calling it the latin name of the first thing they see?


      Sure, "yellow spots" tells you something. It tells you that you can't use that name to distinguish it from any other object in existance with yellow spots.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by Darby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maths has the "Butterfly Effect" and irrational numbers.

      <mathematical_pedantry>
      A rational number is a *ratio* of two integers. An irrational number isn't.
      </mathematical_pedantry>

    5. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, but the term comes from the Pythagorean belief that ALL numbers could be defined as a ratio of two integers.


      Rational and Irrational are not some play on words of "ratio", they are literally how the ancient Greek mathematicians saw such numbers, with respect to their mathematical religion. (The Cult of Pythagoras actually had the square root of two banned, because it was provably not a ratio.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by hyperstation · · Score: 1

      alright, alright, for dogs sake i stand corrected! bad day, i swear.

    7. Re:stop calling them hobbits! by jd · · Score: 1
      Hey, we all have our bad days. In fact, to be fair, I'd also argue the point that the tounge-in-cheek names do tend to hurt science at times, so your point did have a fair amount of merit to it.


      On-line discussions, because of the latencies and lack of body-language, do tend to be harsher than a real-life discussion would be. That's unfortunate, because it means that important points of view can be missed or not listened to carefully enough.


      Hey, it took me the better part of two decades to figure out ways to get my points across, and even then a bad day on my part OR on the part of those reading can totally wreck the whole effort. But it's worth it for the times that things do click.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  33. thank you! by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank you for actually referencing primary sources, and not some university or coporate PR generated press release!

  34. Re:Also at $ciAm by anocelot · · Score: 1
    WHAT?!? The print subscription isn't that much:

    USA: 1 year (12 issues) for $24.97....
    --
    This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
  35. Ultimate Movie Marketing by yintercept · · Score: 1

    The LoTR planting fake skeletons for gullible scientists to "discover" is the best movie marketing ploy since Mr. Arthur C. Clarke staging of a moon landing to sell his book "2001 a Space Oddyssey." But, I guess all of the people wanting a "scientific" explanation of this 6000 year old creation will fall for any marketing ploy planted by the Godless Left.

    PS: Hobbits are fantasy. Trolls, however are real. we post on /. regularly.

  36. Everything is a "transitional form" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Considering the subject even more deeply reveals the creationist obsession with "transitional forms" as a complete (perhaps deliberate?) misunderstanding of evolution in general.

    Everything is a "transitional form."

  37. MOD UP: +50 ABSOULTELY TRUE!!! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wish i had mod points right now.

  38. They missed a golden opportunity... by chinton · · Score: 1

    Homo Hobbitus

  39. Re:archeology is... by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

    they dig up these bones and have an idea what they once looked like based on skelital remains, but any more than that is pure speculation and theory...

    No. Bones tell you a lot. You can see things such as internal bone structure and points of tendon attachments which tells you about musculature. Many bones reveal a lot of detail about the flesh that was around them. The skull shows detail of the brain organisation within it, and this is particularly relevant to this new species. Looking back over hominid fossils, it is possible to follow brain evolution.

  40. Wet Blanket by 3nuff · · Score: 1

    Talk about setting up a thread for a million bad LOTR jokes.

    Could this episode seal the fate of Slashdot the Series? That's ok, I'll be downloading this seasons stories from a BitTorrent site. Oh, why bother this story will run again next week... :P

    --
    "Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
  41. Piltdown Man: If they say so, it must be true. by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, scientists are never wrong about this sort of thing..

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re: Piltdown Man: If they say so, it must be true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Huh? Piltdown Man was a LONG time ago in terms of scientific knowledge.

      What next? If someone discovers an advance in Chemistry, you'll bring up phlogiston?

      Somebody publishes amazing advances in terahertz imaging, and you counter with N-rays?

      Please give the scientific community some credit.

  42. Frodo Lives! by ZipR · · Score: 1

    Or, more correctly, lived.
    Guess those '60s fanatics were right.

    1. Re:Frodo Lives! by zoloto · · Score: 1

      You know, my mom still has her T-Shirt that said this when she went to school in the early 70's. It was hillarious to hear this from her.. It's a nifty old relic in a not so bad condition to say the least.

  43. Good luck actually CALLING them "Hobbits" by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    This brings to mind the origins of D&D... IIRC they tried to include Hobbits as one of the character races, but the Tolkien estate wouldn't hear of it. Thus, D&D has Halflings, which are virtually identical to Tolkien's Hobbits.

    Seems like they changed this in 3rd edition though, Halflings now seem a lot more like Kender from Dragonlance.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    1. Re:Good luck actually CALLING them "Hobbits" by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Halflings now seem a lot more like Kender from Dragonlance.

      Halflings are now all gay?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Good luck actually CALLING them "Hobbits" by HBI · · Score: 1

      Their holes are exceedingly well decorated and they dress really well.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Good luck actually CALLING them "Hobbits" by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I was thinking skinny, wanderlusting thieves ("HANDLERS!"), but yours is more succinct. ;)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  44. Somebody alert the press by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Funny

    they discovered what happened to the Oompa Loompas after Willy Wonka was done with them and Charlie took over the Chocolate Factory. Apparently Charlie tried to hide the bodies, but they were eventually found.

    Charley Bucket was quoted as saying "I got tired of hearing the same songs sung day after day, so I got rid of them." Apparently Charley was still taking advice from his Grampa Joe who is known as a very shady character.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  45. Re:archeology is... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative
    Nonsense. The brain leaves imprints in the skull which, if we're lucky enough to see a fossilized skull, we can see the imprint, and using the wonders of comparative anatomy, make some very educated guesses at the internal structure of the brain in question.

    In the case of Flores Man, these remains weren't even fossilized yet, but the principle is the same.

    It truly amazes me how people will pontificate so grandly on a subject which they so obviously hold so little understanding in. They really do not understand the methodologies and techniques that scientists employ.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  46. Gandalf for President! by fizban · · Score: 1, Funny

    Frodo Lives! err... Lived!

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

  47. The definition of species by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    I think that the definition of species is based on ability to interbreed. Horses and dogs are different species, because they can't get together and make babies.

    So, how do we decide that those little skeletons were a different species? Is it based on ``They were too ugly to ever get laid.'', or what?

    That's a semi-serious question, actually. I can believe that the smilodon couldn't interbreed with the Bos Primigenius, but how can we be sure those little hominids were not capable of interbreeding with us?

    1. Re:The definition of species by incom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not just interbreed, but with fertile progeny. Donkey's and horses aren't the same species afterall. And considering the scientists beleive they are an offshoot of homo erectus, it's pretty unlikely that they are compatable enough.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    2. Re:The definition of species by incal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to synthetic theory of evolution (neodarwinism), the key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations of animals (there are very different problems with the plants).

      Interbreeding isn't an issue: just think about dogs and wolves. Their offspring is still fertile. But in nature, wolves and dogs have sex not very often :).

    3. Re:The definition of species by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, a species is defines as a genetically isolated population. Dogs and wolves are considered seperate species even though they're genetically compatable because they simply don't interbreed under normal conditions.

      Either this is an inadequate definition, or biologists really aren't all that interested in rigor. By this definition we ought to consider Canis chihuahuaensis and Canis lupocanishibernensis different species, but both Mexican Shorthairs and Irish Wolfhounds are Canis domestica even though they obviously can't interbreed on their own. (And why would anyone want to help the process along?)

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    4. Re:The definition of species by Darby · · Score: 1

      but how can we be sure those little hominids were not capable of interbreeding with us?

      At least that's an easy question to answer if we want to.
      Clone 'em.
      Fuck 'em.

    5. Re:The definition of species by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "And why would anyone want to help the process along"

      To sell the IP rights to the mpegs to thehun.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  48. Homo Hobitus? by Atroxodisse · · Score: 2, Funny

    Homo? That explains Merry and Pippen. Wait...nothing could possibly explain Merry and Pippen.

    --
    Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
  49. Good summary articles by Zimmer and others by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
    Carl Zimmer, an excellent science writer, summarizes these latest developments with good background information on his blog. As he writes, H.f. could have been:
    1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
    2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
    3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
    4. Something completely different.
    Carl concludes that these new results make 3 or 4 most likely, explaining why "explanations 3 and 4 seem to come out strongest at the moment. Either one would mean that the Hobbit represents an amazing experiment in hominid brain evolution. They suggest that some human-like features emerged in hominids that were separated from us by two or maybe three million years of evolution. Yet their brains were mosaics, sharing features with us and with other hominids, and also had features of their own. These strange brains, Dr. Morwood argues, allowed Hobbits to do things some pretty elaborate things, such as butcher dwarf elephants or make fires. It would be wonderful to know how these strange brains were wired together, but we have to be content with their shadows. But even shadows can sometimes reveal a lot."

    For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

    And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

    And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

  50. Remember Ferdinand Marcos' Scam? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Back in the 70s a "lost tribe", the Tasaday, were found in the Phillipines. All over the press and National Geographic. They turned out to be actors, a scam perpetrated by the Marcos administration for who knows what reason.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  51. Re:Bad Name by Luthair · · Score: 1

    They died, no bones in ears for fossils.

  52. Re:Bad Name by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Informative
    No. Middle-earth is just a translation of the old Northern Eurpoean name for the part of the world inhabited by men as opposed to the gods, giants or other fantastic creatures: Midgard. It's just another name to call the world, not the particular name of Tolkien's imaginary world. He actually conceived of his stories as taking place the real world, but in an imaginary time.

    According to Tolkien, Minas Tirith was about at the latitude of Venice, and the Shire does correspond more or less to England. Don't trust the movies; they compressed the geography tremendously. (You'd never guess from the climactic scene that Barad-dur was supposed to be over 100 miles from the gates of Mordor now, would you?)

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  53. Consider reading Origin of Species by corngrower · · Score: 1

    At least enlighten yourself on what others believe. (Or does that go against your religion?)

    The evidence for evolution is really overwhelming.

  54. Talked about Before by Sanat · · Score: 1

    In the book Forbidden Archaeology just such a being was found during a mining expedition IIRC in a sealed cave devoid of air and when the air hit the form from the outside then it crumbled into dust.

    I have the book in storage at the moment so can't review the exact sequence and situation but as I recall the small being seen by several individuals was very similar to what was just described in this article.

    Maybe someone with the book can review and post the circumstances in better detail than my memory.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  55. Re:Bad Name by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Funny

    An imaginitive anthropologist would have named them Homo suzensis or Homo pedevillosi or something like that. Or possibly Homo tolkieni. But no, we get floresiensis which makes them sound like they had sound tooth enamel or something.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  56. Re:Bad Name by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

    I normally don't comment on sigs, but I have to make an exception on this one. the line: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. -Hillary Clinton" Isn't that just eminent domain? Don't just about all politicians do that at some point to lay a road or build a bridge?

    Maybe she wants to take away too much for too little gain or maybe the thing she wants to take away is too important to us. Maybe it's not. But just highlighting that someone is willing to take something away for the common good isn't really saying much more than that they appear to understand their options. That's not much more cleaver than pointing out that Hillary said "I know how to use the voting machine in the U.S. Senate chambers. - Hillary Clinton"

    TW

  57. Galadriel and the Terror of the Helcaraxë by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    But what, then, happened to all the elves?

    Continental drift. The undying lands ended up at the north pole.

    OF THE FLIGHT OF THE NOLDOR

    ...but Galadriel, the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone. No oaths she swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart, for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will...

    Now Fëanor led the Noldor northward, because his first purpose was to follow Morgoth... But as the mind of Fëanor cooled and took counsel, he perceived overlate that all these great companies would never overcome the long leagues in the north, nor cross the seas at the last, save with the aid of ships... He resolved now therefore to persuade the Teleri, ever friends to the Noldor, to join with them... But the Teleri were unmoved by aught that he could say...

    Then Fëanor grew wrathful, for he still feared delay... [w]hen he judged that his strength was enough, he went to the Haven of the Swans and began to man the ships that were anchored there and to take them away by force. But the Teleri withstood him... Then swords were drawn, and a bitter fight was fought upon the ships... at last the Teleri were overcome, and a great part of their mariners that dwelt in Alqualondë were wickedly slain...

    Then the Noldor drew away their white ships and manned their oars as best they might, and rowed them north along the coast... and the sea rose in wrath aginst the slayers, so that many of the ships were wrecked and those in them drowned... Nonetheless the greater part of the Noldor escaped...

    After they had marched for a great while in the unmeasured night, they came at length to the northern confines of the Guarded Realm, upon the borders of the empty waste of Araman which were mountainous and cold. There they beheld suddenly a dark figure standing high upon a rock... the voice was heard speaking the curse and prophecy which is called the Prophecy of the North, and the Doom of the Noldor...

    ...To evil end all things turn that they begin well; and by treason of kin unto kin, and the fear of treason, shall this come to pass... Ye have spilled the blood of your kindred unrighteously and have stained the land of Aman. For blood ye shall render blood, and beyond Aman ye shall dwell in Death's shadow...
    Then many quailed; but Fëanor hardened his heart and said: 'We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep...' So the main host held on, and swiftly the evil that was foretold began its work.

    The Noldor came at last far into the north of Arda; and they saw the first teeth of ice that floated in the sea, and knew that they were drawing nigh to the Helcaraxë... and there none yet had dared to tread save the Valar only and Ungoliant... Therefore Fëanor halted and the Noldor debated what course they should now take... the Helcaraxë they deemed impassable, whereas the ships were too few... Therefore it came into the heart of Fëanor and his sons to seize all the ships and depart suddenly... and Fëanor slipped away secretly with all whom he deemed true to him, and went aboard, and put out to sea, and left Fingolfin in Araman...

    But when they were landed, Maedhros the eldest of his sons, and on a time the friend of Fingon ere Morgoth's lies came between, spoke to Fëanor, saying: 'Now what ships and rowers will you spare to return, and whom shall they bear hither first? Fingon the valiant?'

    Then Fëanor laughed as one fey, and he cried: 'None and none! What I have left behind I count now no loss; needless baggage on the road it has proved... Let the ships burn!' Then Maedhros alone stood aside, but Fëanor caused fire to be set to the white ships of the Teleri...

    And Fingolfin and his people saw the light afar off, red beneath the clouds, and they knew that they were betrayed... and led by Fingolfin and his sons, and by Finrod and Galadriel, they dared to pass into the bitterest North; and finding no other way they endured at last the terror of the Helcaraxë and the cruel hills of ice...

  58. You can never prove a scinetific theory by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    I think everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, my biggest annoyance with the whole Evolution vs. Creation argument is that there is no definitive way to prove it - at least not definitive enough for me.

    But there is never a way to prove a scientific theory. All you can ever say is that it explains all your relevant data well. And Evolution meets this test.

    What you can do with a scientific theory is to disprove it. Evolution can be disproved, but creationism can't.

  59. Where's the science in this? by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1

    And whatever happened to "stuff that matters"?

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

  60. Creationists and evolution by Teun · · Score: 1
    Is it an evolutionary thing that the last true Creationists of today survive in the USofA?

    It must be!

    Or is it in the abundance of non-evolutionary, i.e. Genetically Modified food that only the US sprouts these people.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Crab legs with strawberry marinate by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been wondering how plant and animal breeding is not an example of macro-evolution.

    Wild strawberries are primarily for birds to eat and generally have a stronger and bitter taste compared to domesticated strawberries, their size is smaller concentrating the seeds on a smaller surface area. Only in the past 500 years or so have strawberries been domesticated to the way we now buy them in stores. Is this not an example of evolution? The plant has (been) adapted to prosper under different conditions.

    I think in the strawberries case most of the intermediate plants were not kept, maybe records of them have been. But, if people don't keep their in-betweens why would nature? And I doubt that if you did search for in-betweens in this case it would be very easy to find them. Just like it being difficult to find fossils of plants and animals from even further back in time.

    An interesting page that I read in the past which shows another and better written example is Carl Sagans' http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sctien/samurai_crabs.ht m Heike Crab which evolved a human face.

    1. Re:Crab legs with strawberry marinate by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      I've been wondering how plant and animal breeding is not an example of macro-evolution.
      It's just artificial selection rather than natural. Whether that falls under evolution is a matter of semantics.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  63. OT: Your sig by Darby · · Score: 1

    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

    OK, I just have to ask because it's been bugging me for a while.
    When I think of a range, I think of going to the range in the hills and blowing up old TVs, textbooks, clay pigeons etc.
    I certainly wouldn't run out and pick up something we shot out there because there are other people out there, and they might not have noticed me.
    So, is it a joke, like your dog would be tied up, hence even more disapointed. Or maybe he's so fast he can dodge bullets.
    Or are there "bird dog" ranges where it works differently?

    1. Re:OT: Your sig by Darby · · Score: 1

      Aha.
      That makes much more sense, but I missed that.
      Hopefully, the sig owner will bother to confirm this far off topic point just for closure.

    2. Re:OT: Your sig by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Thanks for asking, as I prefer that over leaving you with the impression you've already formed (which seems to have been derived from, I don't know, episodes of The Dukes of Hazard or something).

      I (and my wife) own (or are slaves to, dependin on how you look at it) two prize German Shorthaired Pointers. "Prize," in the sense that they are stellar bird dogs from champion lines, and are able to locate a hunkered down upland game bird (a quail, pheasant, partridge or other tasty favorite) in wet grass from 50 yards away. It's spectacular to watch them work a farmer's field or pasture. Their job is to show us where the birds are without spooking them off. We (my wife and I, or whomever is out with us), then poke around in the cover until the birds flush up. This happens very quickly, and you have to a very good shot to quickly dispatch the birds. When you miss, the look of reproachment from the dogs is, well, almost unbearable.

      So, to avoid that bit of melodrama, and more importantly, to avoid having to go to the grocery store to buy wildy inferior, chemically-treated poultry for dinner, we go to the range. This means shooting a clay pigeons thrown by very expensive machinery, but it's good practice for fast birds.

      The signature file also, of course, is a larger reminder simply to practice something to the point of being good at it before you start letting others depend on your performance. Plus, of course, the sheer political incorrectness of mentioning that I eat birds, which I shoot, and have dogs that help me do it, is no end of fun (despite the flames that sometimes get posted).

      Please, and I mean this, ask any questions you might have!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:OT: Your sig by Darby · · Score: 1

      Thanks for asking, as I prefer that over leaving you with the impression you've already formed (which seems to have been derived from, I don't know, episodes of The Dukes of Hazard or something).

      Not from the Dukes of Hazard. We actually used to do that in college.
      No dynamite arrows though ;-)

      Once the AC pointed it out, it was obvious, I was just having a brain fart I suppose.
      Anyhow, thanks for responding.
      Those look like some great dogs.

    4. Re:OT: Your sig by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Please, and I mean this, ask any questions you might have!

      Okay. I want to ask about this paragraph:

      Plus, of course, the sheer political incorrectness of mentioning that I eat birds, which I shoot, and have dogs that help me do it, is no end of fun (despite the flames that sometimes get posted).

      How is it politically incorrect to say that you eat what you shoot ? The very purpose of hunting is to get something to eat, isn't it ? And even if you just hunt for fun, it would be wastefull to leave the dead animals behind, wouldn't it ?

      So... Is this some kind of "meat is murder" -style activism, or is there a deeper cultural bias against hunting for meat ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:OT: Your sig by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How is it politically incorrect to say that you eat what you shoot ? The very purpose of hunting is to get something to eat, isn't it ? And even if you just hunt for fun, it would be wastefull to leave the dead animals behind, wouldn't it?

      Sorry if I wasn't clear. I like eating meat. I enjoy the act of hunting, and all of the tradition, dogs, equipment, and social conventions that surround it. I surely don't hunt for the sake of just killing critters (unless we're talking about, say, ground hogs that are destroying crops). I'm referring to political incorrectness in the sense that other people find these things to be offensive (like, eating meat at all, or hunting for it), and I like to poke fun at those people by not being shy about hunting.

      The whole "meat is murder" crowd (many of which still seem to enjoy nice leather shoes) don't just have a bias - they're just rabidly against eating meat, and they're that much louder about people like me that are personally willing to actually kill the animals that we eat. I guess that's just too much reality for them or something. But to clarify: I take very seriously the act of hunting, and I strive to always make sure that bird, deer, or fish is killed as quickly and humanely as possible - and that I cook it as deliciously as possible, and with as many friends and as good a bottle of wine as possible. So: I don't find killing or eating meat incorrect in any way - but I like to bring it up sometimes because I know it makes the crazies, well, crazy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  64. Carl Sagan by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

    http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sctien/samurai_crabs.ht m

    Has a bit of a story, but it's very interesting.

  65. Talk about déjà vu by miikrr · · Score: 1

    Or maybe this is not a completely similar article?

  66. The Locals by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 1

    I believe I've seen and read information on the dig for this. It's my understanding that the locals claimed to have recent historical memory of interaction with the apparent remnants of these. This apparently included leaving food for them. Can anyone verify this?

    m

  67. What is a species? by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The notion of a hybrid species is nonsensical. Individuals are hybrids, not entire species. Individuals descend directly from individuals, and are thus always hybrids of those individuals, at least in sexual reproduction. Species don't descend from sexual pairing of other species. Species are merely groups of individuals that are similar enough to successfully breed."

    Close but no cigar.

    First off the notion of what a species is, that I have read here, is not quite right. It's not as simple as "things that will interbreed".

    There are species whose populations (races, klines, what have you) will not interbreed and there are different species that will interbreed.

    See _Rivulins of the Old World_, Col JJ Scheel, 1968, TFH press 1968 for all sorts of neat examples of these.

    "But wait!" I hear you say, "if they interbreed then they're the same species". Well, no, that's not what a species is.

    The concept of species is an artificial one invented by man to make some sense of flora and fauna. He wants to pidgeon-hole them, classify them in a taxonomy (not an ontology!) so they make sense to him. But it's pretty arbitrary.

    What a species is, is what the guy who knows most about them say they are. Whacked, I know, but that's the way it works.

    We look for all sort of things, merisitcs, phylogony, geography, karyotype differences, DNA analysis so on and so forth, then we make an judgement call about where one species ends and where another begins. And, keep in mind, this changes over time. Animals and plants change, sometimes in as little as 5 years (Romand, Raymond, pers. commms, viz Roloffia geryi).

    Plus opinions vary. Some are "spltters" who will divide populations of a currently accepted "species" into a bunch of new species and "lumpers" will do the opposite. Some poor critters vascillate back and forth decade after decade based on who published last. The ICZN acts as the scorekeeper for animals (plants have an equivalent). They make sure the rules get followed but other than that don't referee as to what's what.

    Now why is there so much difference of opinion on the way these taxa are viewed? Becuase there's no right answer of course. It's all how we look at things and how we choose to classify them and in the end consensus wins and inevitably there are those who disagree. And probably always will be.

    As for species that are hybrid species I can't think of an animal off the top of my head but I can offer up Cryptocoryne x willisii as an example of a hybrid "species" (there are others). It's a cross of two known plants and we're reluctant to give it species status because it's so obvioulsy a hybrid - but it's common as dirt, grows like made and one way of looking at it is that it is a species. If I write it up as such... then it is! But we're content to view it as the way we do.

    Don't get me started on sub-species, that's even more messed up as the delineation between "populations" and "subspecies" is that well agreed on by scientists. I like Bill Eschemeyers example: Atlantic and Pacific salmon are subspcies of the same fish - there's a natural geographic break. If they they were separated by only a few miles or tens of miles then they're populations, not subspecies.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  68. Piece in our time by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "Do you realize that true Islam does not condone terrorism?"

    Do you realize if everybody spent all their time downloading porn there would be no war?

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  69. Maybe not by phorm · · Score: 1

    I think this is where they count in "mutations" or "aberrations"

    Certainly messed up genes could make something that was vastly different than its predecessors, but unless that something was able to reproduce and create like offspring I'd not consider it a new species (especially if it could reproduce and produce offspring of a like to its parentage).

    1. Re:Maybe not by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I think this is where they count in "mutations" or "aberrations"

      That is why I carefully chose the phrase 'sufficient differences'.

      A combination of bone structure differences along with skull formation changes indicates that we are dealing with more than a mutation or malformation.

  70. Re:Bad Name by dkalley · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. Middle-earth is just a translation of the old Northern Eurpoean name for the part of the world inhabited by men as opposed to the gods, giants or other fantastic creatures: Midgard.

    From OE middengeard. It's filled with all kinds of creatures, the untydras of "eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas ... gigantas" and wyrmas.

    An evilbrood of giants (ala Grendel), elves, monsters/evil spirits, other giants and dragons...for people who picked a more useful minor in college. I don't know what's sadder, posting Old English to slashdot or knowing what line of Beowulf to reference.

  71. Hitler was NOT a Christian by glMatrixMode · · Score: 1
    Hitler was a Christian
    I can't let you say such an absurdity. I didn't even read the rest of your post. I don't care what religion Hitler may have been raised in, the fact is that the only "religion" he stood for was kind of a neo-paganism, and he did all what he can to destroy the christian religion.
    --
    War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
  72. Problems with the conclusions by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1
    Feeding data into a machine does not a species make.

    Dr. Teuku Jacob first called the skull a pygmy with microcephaly. Other scientists recently disagree with this study's conclusions:
    However, some scientists who examined the remains, contest the study's conclusions and argue that the Hobbit belongs to the Homo sapiens species.

    Professor Maciej Henneberg, head of anatomy at Adelaide University, said he thought the bones were simply those of a normal human stunted by microcephaly.

    Henneberg spent several days in Jakarta last month helping to document the bones.

    Harry Widianto, a paleoanthropologist at Yogyakarta's Archeology Agency, said that the Hobbit was best regarded as a sub-species of Homo sapiens in its evolutionary stage between 18,000 to 30,000 years ago.

    Harry said that the debates over the Hobbit's species were a consequence of theoretical differences over human evolution
    Source

    Lets see now...

    There was a single (!) ancient skull discovered. It was in less than perfect condition (the bones "had the consistency of 'wet blotting paper'" as one article puts it)

    The study quoted in this article compared that single skull with a single (!) microcephalic skull.
    Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University came to those conclusions by analyzing virtual endocasts of a variety of skulls, including a microcephalic, Homo erectus, modern human and Flores.
    ...

    First, and most important, it is radically different from the microcephalic specimen she compared it to. This isn't a conclusive denial of Jacob's claim that Flores is nothing new -- one skull isn't enough -- but Flores and the microcephalic are so different it's hard to imagine how they could be one and the same.
    Source

    The Wikipedia article indicates microcephaly can vary in effect:
    Infants with microcephaly are born with either a normal or reduced head size. Subsequently the head fails to grow while the face continues to develop at a normal rate, producing a child with a small head, a large face, a receding forehead, and a loose, often wrinkled scalp. As the child grows older, the smallness of the skull becomes more obvious, although the entire body also is often underweight and dwarfed. Development of motor functions and speech may be delayed. Hyperactivity and mental retardation are common occurrences, although the degree of each varies. Convulsions may also occur. Motor ability varies, ranging from clumsiness in some to spastic quadriplegia in others.
    Source

    This Answers in Genesis article points out pygmies (see picture) were exant in that general geographic region, while other articles (no links handy) reported of island legends of pygmy tribes in recent history.

    In order for this study to conclusively disprove microcephaly, it would be useful to compare (a) multiple ancient skulls, (b) some in good, undistorted, condition, (c) with a realistic range of microcephalic skulls, (d) including pygmy microcephalic cases.

    It seems that (a,b,c, and d) were not done.

    This new article reports DNA was present in the bones, which have been sent for analysis. That should really help clarify this matter.
  73. Re:True Islam by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ahhh, but you ignore the fact that Christianity is exactly the same.

    No, Christianity is not the same, in fact it's the opposite. The Christian Bible teaches love, tolerance, acceptance ("turn the other cheek", "Love your neighbor", etc..) but Christians, over the centurys have twisted their faith to do bad things. Men can do evil things, and sometimes misguidedly blame Christianity, but the true faith is one of love, peace and charity.

  74. Re:True Islam by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    you ignore the fact that Christianity is exactly the same. [...] crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials
    It seems you ignore the fact that the 11th, the 16th(?) and the 17th centuries are not the 21st.
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  75. Re:Bad Name by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
    I don't know what's sadder, posting Old English to slashdot or knowing what line of Beowulf to reference.

    Are you kidding? To a true Tolkien fan this is worthy of m4d Pr0pz!

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  76. My objection to creationism by maysonl · · Score: 1

    is the utter blasphemy of it: creationists are calling God a liar. The record of evolution written in the rocks is unambiguous: evolution happened, like it or not. To claim otherwise is to say that God's world is lying.

  77. Re:True Islam by Suidae · · Score: 1

    I thought Christians were only supposed to use the Old Testament for historical reference. They are supposed to be living according to the teachings of Christ. Otherwise they'd have to do all the burn offerings and whatnot.