Slashdot Mirror
Evidence of the Missing Link Found?
HUADPE writes to tell us CNN is reporting that scientists in northeastern Ethiopia recently discovered a skull that they think may be evidence of the "missing link" between Homo erectus and modern man. From the article: "The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- 'comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."
Nice headline but since the fossil record is an incomplete record, not just because we haven't found all the fossils out there but also because not all animals that have existed became fossils. So when looking at the tree of life it's perfectly fine to call any fossil we dig up a missing link. But then again it's also safe to say the missing link is still yet to be dug up and in fact never will be dug up. So it's a meaningless term. All this talk of the "missing link" is just rhetoric that keeps people studying and enjoying what is actually being discovered.
I'm replying to you because you sound like you might actually get something from this, but just so you know, most people don't care about the creationism vs. evolution debate. The two views are not contradictory. Understanding *how* something functions or was put together doesn't mean it wasn't made. That logic is akin to:
That's a really fallacious argument. I am fully capable of simultanesouly understanding how computers are made and still believing that Dell exists. Now, not to knock your or anybody else's intelligence, but most people are average, by the very definition of average. The problem is most people also think they're smarter than average, which is statistically impossible. So just face facts and realize that if you "get it", most everybody else probably does too. Your're arguing a debate that doesn't really exist.Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Cheers.
Even leading evolutionists no longer claim that evolution was a slow graduate change. Because, if it was a slow gradual change than there would be lots and lots of transitionary species as predicted by Charles Darwin. Darwin knew there was a scarcity of these transitionary species, but he predicted that a lot of them would be found.
Today there are only a few, disputable, examples of transitionary species. What the fossil record appears to show is that species appears suddenly, then they stay unchanged (or with minor changes) for the rest of their existance.
This is why evolutionists have now come up with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium basically states that when evolution happens, it happens so fast that it can't be observed. The punctuated equilibrium theory is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable.
I'm really unimpressed with the "ancient human" fossils, and frankly am tired of seeing new "missing link" fossils discovered. These things always end up failing to live up to the headlines. 90% of these ancient human reconstructions turn out to be complete garbage. But hey, they get the headlines and they have icons, what other scientific evidence do you need? I mean we all know the lochness monster really exists too, right?
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
One nineteenth century minister, considering the then brand new evolution debate, had an idea.
When Adam was created, why didn't he immediately collapse from low blood sugar? Because he had the products of digestion already in his veins -- he probably even had the remains of a meal in his belly. This was a meal which he never actually ate , as moments earlier he'd been an inanimate lump. A human adult is the product of a long developmental process; his bones and sinews are knit through a lifetime of activity, which in Adam's case never happened. Adam was conceived as if he were the product of an ongoing process, even if that process never happened. And thus Adam would have had a belly button of course.
If not Adam, why not the world, and all the creatures in it? Clearly the world God conceived, in order to operate, would have to be the product of a similar process of development, and it would show all of the manifestations of that process, even if that process never actually happened. Indeed, evidence for evolution would be the very hallmark of the Creator Himself.
This seemed to the poor fellow a splendid idea. He felt certain the the religious side of the debate would lay down its arms and embrace evolution. Naturally, he was completely wrong. The religious side of the debate was the forerunner of the modern Fundamentalist movement, and much preferred a science whose purpose was to prove religious dogma. Under this naive man's idea, the free inquiry into evolution becomes practically sacred, something that no human authority has any right to tinker with.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, no. The problem is that evolution as a theory has many different forms accepted by today's biologists and scientists. Evolution has been molded from its original versions back in the 17th and 18th centuries into what we see today. When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it. It almost reminds me of the formation of denominations in Christianity.
I'm going to assume that you believe in God, from your post. If not, please by all means disregard what I'm about to say. Trying to score a point for God will never happen at the creation vs. evolution table. Like you said, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, unless God proves himself. If the theory of evolution is ever completely debunked by man, those who "convert" from evolutionism will likely find some other theory to put force behind that still doesn't affirm God's existence.
And yes, I'm a Christian and I'm not here to get into the creation/evolution debate. I used to be a firm believer in evolution, so I know many of its weaknesses and not once have I been successful in sharing the news of Christ by attempting to disprove evolution. I can vouch that the general concept of macroevolution is fundamentally flawed at most every level. But that's like declaring a problem without offering a fix... it comes down gracelessly and makes it less likely for a person I'm conversing with to actually come to me for answers.
Sharing Christ effectively means putting behind such useless debate. God proves himself without our help, so all we can do is share his word in a loving manner and tell those we care about what He has done in our lives. And if that's hard, we can point them to useful Bible reading. Take for instance the book of Romans, where Paul debunks some of the myths about God which are sadly still believed by very many Christians today and have become the unloving face of Christianity that repels non-believers.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
There is overwhelming evidence for common descent (macroevolution).
And I have to agree that atheism is pretty much a religion (just like religion can't prove there is a good atheism can't prove there isn't a job).
Strawman. Many atheists do not claim there is no god (I presume that's what you meant to say). Furthermore, even for those that do, this belief does not mean a religion, since religion is not defined in terms of belief in God
Deists believe in God, but they are not religious. Buddhists often do not believe in God, but they are religious. Religion, by definition, either means an organised system of worship for a deity, or a set of beliefs based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Agnoistic is what all the non-religious should be.
And many atheists are agnostic.
At least, assuming you mean in the sense of "Doesn't know if there is a God". Agnostic can also mean "Claims that we can't know if there is a God", and by your misguided "a belief equals religion" idea, that would make agnosticism a religion too!
How does the saying go --- "If your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail"? The only people who claim that atheism is a religion are those who (a) are themselves religious, cannot conceive of someone who does not subscribe to a religious doctrine, and therefore forces everyone into the religious mold, or (b) doesn't understand the meaning of the word atheism.
"Evolution was a slow, gradual change that happens over time. We just happen to dig up random fossils and see dramatic changes from the previous, older species.We forget that there were sometimes 10,000's or 100,000's of years in between the two species."
Most species are stable over an average of 2 million years. A sequence of fossils found at 10K or 100K intervals wouldn't show much change. Very often a new derived species is found in the same sequence and seems to have popped out of nowhere. The two species coexist in the same geographical location.
"There isn't one "link" between two species."
Technically, they are called transitional forms. Yes, some have been found, but the normal mode of speciation seems to be so rapid that it is very rare to catch it in the act.
"A situation where one day a parent gives birth to a dramatically different, more advanced offspring that is more evolved then the parents doesn't happen."
You are wrong. Spontaneous, beneficial mutations can and do happen, but they don't seem to be a common method of species formation.
-------------- Back to Our Main Story... -----
The fossil is of interest because Homo erectus seems like it should be our ancestor, but the jump from them to us seems too far in one speciation event. This fossil that was found might be an unknown subspecies of erectus that is closer to our species and thus help prove or disprove our descent from the erectus line.
According to mitochondrial DNA studies, Homo sapien is about 250K years old. This fossil is not only a very complete skull, but it also _might_ date from the time of the creation of our species. It is exciting in two ways.
So, are you excited now?
I'm not trying to troll.. but theres something I just don't get.
Back when the books were written most of the things Jesus did were amazing.. yet today your average children's entertainer can do them. Things like slight of hand and such... Even his "respawning", can be explained in other ways and I won't even go into living in a desert for 40 days if you know what you're doing.
Don't you question this even remotely?
Also why would you trust some book which claims it and only it is correct? Isn't that sort of like listening to Microsoft when they say "We're innovating the market, making our software more secure and making dreams happen"? They're blowing their own horn and disagreeing with them makes no difference. Don't you see the bible in this light at all? Maybe I'm missing something.. but the bible to me just sounds like PR for a religion like you're average company. I don't deny there could be a God (or several, or none at all), but there is just part of me which instantly goes "hell no" when I hear stuff like "only believe in me, have no false idols" or "I'am the only way into Heaven, join me or burn in hell". These sort of things seem cheap tricks and turn me off..
I'm honestly not trying to troll. I'd just like to know how your mind works because mine screams bloody murder (or stupidity I suppose), the second religion gets remotely involved in anything. Some parts of religion I agree with (be nice to everyone, everyone is equal etc.), but most of it seems about on par with your average fantasy novel, just a bit older.
I like muppets.
You're high, right? California is responsible for about 15% of the rest of the US's GDP. If we were our own Soverign Nation, we'd be in the Top-10 Strongest Economies in the world (between France and Italy).
We produce the majority of the food you eat everyday. Take this example: Florida makes Oranges, but the oranges there are watery, overly-tart, and have terrible texture. That's why they go into juice. 99% of the Oranges you eat (table oranges) come from California (although Austrialia has some tasty naval varieties too), because they have superior flavor, and texture.
More Software companies call Silicon Valley home than anywhere else in the country, including Google.
And our Wine is better than the rest of the countrie, even the cheap stuff. Go down to Trader Joe's and pick up a bottle of Charles Shaw, aka 2-Buck-Chuck. Best $2 you'll ever spend on wine. I work in a restaurant that deals almost exclusivly with California wine, and most stuff I try is on par with anything you'd find from, say, France or Italy...
If we cut ourselves off from the rest of the nation, it'd be you guys who'd be hurting. We could jack up Ag tarrifs and laugh all the way to the bank.
"All warfare is based on deception."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
"Missing link"? That's not scientific terminology, and it hasn't been scientific terminology for many, many decades now. The only ones talking about "missing links" these days are creationists who are under the impression that Darwin's Origin of Species is the latest and the greatest on the science front.
My other body is also not wearing any.
There's genetic replication, and there's memetic replication. Since time immemorial, the cultural and political elite have had smaller families (the Catholic Church is the most extreme example of this--a celibate priestly caste exerting near total cultural hegemony for over a thousand years.) Aristocrats, scientists, artists, and clerics have all tended to have fewer children, and recruited from amongst those who do bear children to replenish their numbers. Slippage does occur, but the pressure of loss of prestige and influence will drive even the most reactionary forces to moderate their positions; tolerance and a willingness to consider new ideas confer too much of a competitive advantage to be ignored. The cultural imperialism of the West in the third world doesn't exist because we are forcing our ideas upon them, but because they desparately want what it produces.
The current conservative reactionary bulge will dissipate as their children engage in the complexity of public life and discourse, in the same way that conservative judges tend to drift to the left in the daily practise of considering complex issues. Like it or not, the real action is in science, technology, art, and intellectual expression. And while the bulk of conservatives may be content to merely consume the products culture produces, the most ambitious amongst them will want to participate. The admission price for participation is a serious consideration of other ideas--culture does not reproduce asexually. The alternative is decline, irrelevance, and even domination by those willing to make the effort. It has ever been thus, and I see nothing that would prevent this from continuing.
The only question is whether the new cultural elite will emerge from the ranks of the reactionaries through recruitment and subversion, or whether America will come to dance to someone else's tune. But simple biological reproduction is pointless if cultural fitness (including the capacity to practice scientfic research) is compromised. If six of your seven children die because they cannot feed themselves, you're still going to die out.
No one ever seems to talk about exactly why Christians were fed to the lions. Rome at the time was actually quite a tolerant society and people freely practices hundreds of religions and nobody really cared. When Christianity first arrived, it was treated as just another strain of Judaism.
However, unlike most of the hedonistic and polytheistic religions of Rome, early Christians were quite boisterous and disorderly about their beliefs in grace and eternal life and were determined to convert everyone they encountered. Kind of like the nuts who preach on street corners today, but much worse.
The early Christians would show up at other temples and scream at the people there about their worshiping slighting the "one true God" and they would suffer eternal damnation. (This is similar to what Christ himself did and is the reason he was crucified--for being an asshole.) Before too long, their fanaticism had managed to piss off just about everyone else in Rome and it got so bad that the Senate was forced to pass a law outlawing the practice of the religion in order to preserve the peace. (Only two religions were ever outlawed.)
Christianity went underground for about a century and it became known as a weird and psychotic faith practiced by the emotionally disturbed who met secretly and drank blood and ate human flesh ("eat of my body, drink of my blood"). Public sentiment was harsh and the punishment was death. The lions at the coliseum didn't happen till a couple of centuries later and wasn't specifically aimed at Christians, but was simply the means of carrying out punishment for all capital crimes (and entertaining the masses while doing so).
[Hopper, The Heathen's Guide To World Religions]
So there you have it--the early Christians were fed to the lions because they were fanatical assholes who deserved it.