Slashdot Mirror
Missing Link Fossil Discovered
choongiri writes "The Guardian is reporting the discovery of a missing link of evolution. From the article: "Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.""
Can we please stop using this "missing link" terminology? It's one of those terms often bandied about by creationists, but it has very little meaning in science. And anyway, everytime we find another transitional fossil the creationists are just going to point to the two gaps on either side of the new transitional and say, "Now there's two missing links! Nyah nyah nyah!" They already don't believe evolution is possible anyway.
Now as for this find, there's something very important here that the writeup isn't covering. The scientists used their theory to not only predict the existence of such a transitional species, but also where, geologically, it would be located. And guess what - they found what they were looking for exactly where they were looking for it! Talk about predictive power! The predictive power of the theory of evolution is one of its many strengths, and one often overlooked by science-deniers.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
The fossil record is (and always will be) full of holes for the simple reason that not everything gets preserved (and some environments make preservation extremely unlikely), and there's no "magic fossil" that's needed in order to make the big puzzle fall together.
For the most part, the big puzzle is already together. Yeah, there are lots of areas where we'd like to have more detail, but "missing link" implies that we're looking for some sort of Holy Grail, and are in a jam without it.
That simply ain't the way it is.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power."
This certainly goes against creationism but afaik the only difference between evolution and intelligent design is that intelligent design claims statistics is insufficient and a divine guiding hand was required, wouldn't this missing link be required for either model as both need to go from water to land?
I stole this Sig
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)? Whatever science comes up with, one can always back out and say that the system as a whole was created by an omnipotent external creator. So what I don't get terribly well is why all the fuss about evolution in the first place, unless it's only dogma that's important?
(For me anyway, it's the notion that dogma, existing power structures and beliefs which are important -- rather than any serious notion of consistent broader philosophy -- that's scary.)
> I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
To the extent that anything is ever "proven" in the natural sciences, evolution was "proven" well over 100 years ago.
And of course, nobody expects creationists to sit in stunned (or any other kind of) silence, regardless of what evidence is presented.
> Let's not oversimplify this discussion. Thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this debate have passion, and conviction.
Yes, but one side has facts and a theory, whereas the other has a well-funded propaganda machine and a lot of self-appointed spiritual advisors telling the ignorant masses that they'll be tortured for all eternity if they let the facts affect their conclusions.
> As a creationist, I welcome advances in knowledge that arise from investigation of the physical realm. I respect men (and women) of science, and applaud this new discovery - but that changes not my conviction that a creator made the planet as it is.
To paraphrase the old saying, facts won't dissuade anyone from a position that isn't built on facts to begin with.
> There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Except as a religious/social/political issue, creatinism was nailed back in the nineteenth century.
> I'm not looking to start a debate on this issue, but I am hoping to raise the level of discussion by respectfully asking those who would use this occasion to ridicule people with whom they disagree to please refrain. This is a complex issue and cheap shots are not productive. I will refrain from ridicule as well. Deal?
For my money, people who express ridiculous views are entitled to all the ridicule they reap. (Unless they're insane, in which case we should show a little sympathy for their plight.)
If you would care to identify any of the creationism evangelists who are insane, it would help things alone.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
As a scientist, creationism isn't on my radar at all, and quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not you believe it. What I do care about, is people such as yourself misrepresenting both science and religion as something that they are not, claiming you know things that you clearly do not. And then blaming good scientists for your own ignorance and lack of insight.
The fact is, evolution has been satisfactorily proven to work. Creationism and intelligent design are DOA, and the only open question about these idiotic ideas, is how much damage are they going to do to both science and religion before they finally go down for good.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
Actually, it is impossible for any nails to be placed in the coffin of creationism, because it isn't a theory that is able to be proven or disproven. However creationist proponents have placed creationism in opposition to evolution, so this can place a nail in the coffin of that use of creationism.
Oh, and creationists who claim that evolution and creationism have equal evidence backing up each theory (or even better, that there is more evidence to back up creationism then there is to back up evolution) ARE idiots. I'm always happy to hear evidence that helps prove creationism, but I've yet to actually see any. I've seen logical thoughts (as in "but how could it have happened? it's all so complex" although they do rely on premises that can be neither proven nor disproven themselves), but no direct real evidence (for instance, evolution was just a thought, a theory, until fossil records were discovered that helped prove it).
Respectfully
aussie_a
I think one of the effects of this is that it is making religious people stop and ask themselves what they really believe, and why they believe it.
As for what I think, I like to think that He put it together personally, in a way that is portrayed symbolically in Genesis. But, like I say, without some more revelation, we will never have anything more to add to what the scriptures say.
I just realized: without revelation, creationists are in the same place as the evolutionists would be if they stopped finding fossils long ago. All the creationists can do is reinterpret the data (scriptures) they already have.
Note: Please forgive my generalized language (creationists, evolutionists, etc.). I kind of did it on purpose, because I think most of us have the tendency to lump people into one extreme or another.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
> If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are.
What makes you think that?
What is the probability that an organism will become fossilized, survive erosion and other hazards for millions of years, and then actually be found by someone? I.e., how good a sample do you think the fossil record is.
How easy would it be for you to find your own ancestors' bones going back 100 generations? Or just 10. What do you conclude from any gaps in that record?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Stupid comments? The MS bashers do what they do in all seriousness, my comment was a joke.
I don't know of many real scientists that believe that there is actually a debate, they know religion and science are completely seperate issues. However, when Christians inject their beliefs into public education systems that serve everyone's children, thats where the "at odds" comes in. I don't know what you mean by evolution on the "cosmic level", but there is absolutely no debate when it comes to evolution being the means by which each species arose from those before it. If you are one of those people that buys into the "it's only a theory!!!1111", then you arent a scientist. Science is a whole lot of "theories", but theories in a scientific sense are not the same as theories in a conventional layman sense. If evolution was a "hypothesis", then there would be room to argue, but in science if something is a theory, there is a lot of evidence to support it.
Anyone who takes any part of the Bible or any other religious text, especially those written before, oh lets say soap, was invented, has no place in science and especially no place in public educational policy. If you want your kid taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah put T. Rex on his ark, and that people who carbon date fossils have an agenda, there are plenty of private schools for you.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
And this sentence just goes to show that you don't get it. Evolution can never be "proved". Like any scientific theory, it can only be falsified or strengthened by further evidence. A scientific theory of anything physical (ie, not abstract) can never be proved to be true - that is one of the essences of science. Even the most seemingly elementary of scientific theories over the years have been falsified, and subsequently modified to accommodate new evidence, and even the qualification of physical vs abstract theories isn't strictly true (there are whole branches of mathematics dealing with whether or not the rest of mathematics is based on sound foundations).
Neither true Creationism nor its bastard cousin Intelligent Design can be falsified. They are not scientific theory.
"If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are."
Really? Because the biologists--you know, the guys who actually do the math to figure that sort of thing out--say otherwise. I don't mean to suggest that your casual inference is somehow not as persuasive as the life labors of scientists who waste their time with experiments, observations, professional collaborations, and measly testable predictions. Your unsupported hand-waving is certainly good enough for me. But just in case anyone reading your comment thinks that it in any way represents an educated opinion, you might want to read the FAQ.
I've already said it once in these comments, but it bears repeating. The ignorance required to be a creationist is stunning in its own right. But it's the arrogance that really knocks my socks off. It's one thing to just not know how a complicated science works - very few people do. It's quite another to assume that the well-educated, hard-working specialists who unanimously disagree with you also don't know anything, simply because you don't like the facts they discover.
"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess"
Horseshit. It's a well constructed theory supported by vast mountains of evidence. It is the foundation of the entire science of biology. Every biologist in modern times has spent their career testing it, and found it solid. If it's an "educated guess" then plate tectonics is a wild shot in the dark.
We don't, that's why you won't find the term "missing link" used scientifically. It could have been one of many species that subsequently became extinct. However it's an example of a fish that developed features that we find in land based animals so it's at least an existance proof.
If you have a problem with it, no-one is insisting you believe it. You're welcome to your personal beliefs. However, you are (and have in your previous posts) disputing science based on those beliefs. No matter what evidence is put before you showing evolution to be correct, you would twist it or deny it because your faith does not allow for it. At least, unlike many Creationists, you seem to be willing to admit this. However, like many other Creationists you seem to feel that science must conform to your personal beliefs.
Keep in mind that if you're a biblical literalist, it is not just evolution you must deny, but also physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, and many others. They all point to an old Earth and contradict a literal reading of Genesis.
As I said before, you're welcome to your personal beliefs, but evangelising bad science based on those beliefs is not welcome.
The sad and simple truth is that you have to take it on faith that "this must have happened" to truly make the evolution theory work. That's fine, and that's ok... but it's not scientifically sound.
I think that all modern science, and probably all science through history as well, has to make assumptions for the sort "this must have happened." Science has an element of circular thinking in it. Evolutionary theory is nothing special in that regard.
> It would seem that there would have to be some sort of informational exchange in order to determine air was a candidate source for oxygen. How did this happen?
For an intuitive notion of "information exchange", evolution extracts "information" from the environment by trial and error.
Crudely put, if evolution tries A and B, and discovers that A works and B doesn't, it has extracted one bit of information from the environment. (Actually not always a whole bit due to redundancies between A and B, and redundant trials, and the fact that "works" is often a matter of degree rather than a boolean predicate. But you get the idea.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ya'll are just looking for reasons to blast the religious community... I think it's awesome that they found this evidence, but I don't think it gives me the right to go out trying to tear down people's beliefs.
Ambulocetus was predicted by evolution
Evolution doesn't predict this. Saying it does is a common mistake. Prediction involves things that haven't happened. The fact that creatures are on dry land and the assumption that life began in the sea (which I am not arguing against) requires some transition to get from water to land. Working backwards from what is observed today, creatures on dry land to what is believed about the past is what requires this required transitional creature (or missing link). Evolution doesn't predict it, it requires it.
A creationist, which I am not, having a different origination belief, would not need to have the ambulocetus exist. The fact that abulocetus did exist is just one more creature that existed and is now extinct.
Again, to restate my point, evolution doesn't predict a creature like ambulocetus, it requires it.
You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.
Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.
(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)
In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.