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
Clearly, His Noodliness is testing us.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
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
I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist -- So talking about this makes me feel a bit like a fish out of water.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Funny... following your link to "The Missing Link" says "The page cannot be found." So I guess that means it's still missing? :)
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
First, it's entirely unreasonable to entertain questions and concerns from unscientific proponents of so-called Intelligent Design. The debate ought not revolve around disproving Intelligent Design. Giving audience to those idiots is like teaching retarded children calculus: perhaps a noble endeavor, but ultimately pointless and frustrating.
Second, from the description, it sounds like gars and other crocodile-like fish. The pathway from gills to lungs needs to be fleshed out more, but from the description, this is a very interesting fish.
"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
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/93q2/creationfaq .html
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
This link to bbc news includes a picture of the fossil.
Doesn't look very tasty.
Don't Hate, Gestate
Intelligent Design is wrong for so many reasons, why do so many comment on it while not understanding it?
It's like saying evolution isn't true because my dad isn't a monkey.
And we're supposed to be the intellectuals...
Intelligent Design
Oops. Sorry, but I think I ate his noodliness last night. He's not a vengeful god, is he?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Heh, there's lots of missing links here in canada - calling each other hosers and swilling cheap beer, eh.
A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent. -- William Blake
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
Maybe holding your views in peace could be a solution? Jumping on the defensive on a site that is generally pro-science gives the appearance of being righteous yet unsure to some degree. Maybe living your truth is all that is required. Foaming and frothing at the mouth from either side of the issue is ridiculous.
Life is a gift. And my Karma couldn't possibly be 'Positive'
The Flying Spaghetti Monster just put it there to confuse us.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The best thing his noodly mightiness gave us was the ability to reason and think for ourselves.
I would say it is a test of if we follow others like sheep without reasoning and thinking individually, or if we use our god given minds to understand the objects provided by the natural environment around us to discover the truths for ourselves.
PS. God == Nature.
Try reading anything about god with that in mind! And then you can understand its true meaning...
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!
m = milli = 10^-3
M = mega = 10^6
325m years = ~ 118.6 days
Missing link may be a bit young don't you think?
Any of those missing links have tufts of hair around them?
(I'm thinking of old cave man movies where the have an asssssload of hair all over the body. They'd better not reappear and then dive into anybody's swimming pool. They'll clog it up whether or NOT they get snagged by the suction tubes...)
Then again, if they drown and then the pump dies from overheating and cubic feet of natty-assed-teflon-strong hair, they'll drift away like so much flotsam....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
> Flame away diephobic moderators...flame away.
You're a fookin returd.
Oh, and your post was really stupid too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
You can only find a "link", not a "missing link." Once found it is no longer missing.
/attempted humor
In much the same way as a hot water heater is unneeded since hot water is already hot.
Letter To Iran
The problem with a millions-of-years evolution theory for Christians is that if you accept millions-of-years, and the existance and extinction of dinosoaurs prior to mankind, then you accept death, disease, and suffering prior to the fall of Adam. This doesn't fit into the belief structure of Christianity which states that prior to sin the world was without corruption, disease or pain.
/., I try to be level-headed and not an ignorant Christian/creationist about the whole thing. I only hope, as other posters have mentioned, that these conversations don't devolve into name-colling or derogatory slug-fests. But that is sort of inevitable I suppose....
This of course, applies most specifically to "literalist" Christians, who believe in a literal creation account in Genesis. Many Christians sway on this point, and say "okay, well yeah I believe God uses evolution as part of his system," which personally I feel is an unfortunate decision, because it erodes the basic tenants of our faith and negates the entire sin->separation->sacrifice->salvation foundation of Christ.
Anyway, as you can see in some of my previous posts on
Anyway, in regards to this specific fossil, interesting stuff. I would tend to agree that the gill/breathing thing is pretty lacking--that part needs some flesh put on it (ha ha) before I think the at large community will see this as truly "transitionary" in nature. Bone structure etc... is a pretty major change, but if the primary biologic functions of the creature aren't changed (i.e. how it handles CO2/O2 exchange) then I wonder how big of a deal it is? I didn't major in bio though...(neither did I major in Christianity...but whatever).
That is amazing, but I consider the frog almost as amazing. It starts off as something that looks like a fish, and ends up as a tetrapod.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
the true origin of the universe
No one said anything about the origin of the universe. That is a mistake that Creationists make when trying to impute religious meaning into biological processes. "If evolution is true, it must explain the entire history of the universe." Wrong. Evolution describes the process of speciation. It says, "over time, species X will undergo genetic changes to such an extent that after n generations the resulting offspring will be a distinct species." The method of speciation is debatable, but the process of speciation is not.
If you have a problem with physicists and cosmologists about the origin of the Universe, that's something to take up with them.
Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions are true, trying to find evidence to back them up (all the time skewing your interpretations of the evidence based on your assumptions), and teaching those assumptions as facts to the unknowing masses in the mean time.
What assertions does evolution assume to be true? Be specific, and provide as many as you can.
I'm not saying that we need to _assume_ that God made the universe either (that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point),
Such an assumption has no bearing on evolution, as evolution says nothing regarding the origin of the universe, nor does it say anything regarding the existence of any deities. It does, however, beg the question of why the specfic deity God is being assumed to the exclusion of all other deities worshipped and/or acknowledged throughout human history.
but why can't we at least accept the fact that we don't have enough scientific evidence to make even an educated guess as to what the true origin of the universe is?
I do not understand the relevance of this question. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the origin of the universe.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I like how the first thing on their minds is giving us a blow-by-blow play of evolution vs. intelligent design. (See third paragraph) Is it too much to ask for a story that just says, "Hey look, we found this cool fossil that seems to coincide properly with the theory of evolution in a way that we haven't seen before" without bringing up how stupid intelligent design is? Hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that the existence of evolutionary changes might not play any role whatsoever in the proving or disproving of the existence of a higher power? I mean, it's God we're talking about here. He could've created the birds from the fish, then the land creatures from the birds by means of evolution like he created woman from man, if he wanted to. Or we could be trapped in a strange time loop and the fossils we keep digging up are really genetic experiments of creatures that couldn't survive and died out in the future. Actually, I'd better claim copyright on that idea so I can write a crappy mini-series for the sci-fi channel. Anyway, the point is that evolution really is still a theory. Granted, it seems like a pretty good one so far, but it's not exactly provable without either time travel or the witnessing of the generation of a new species in our midst.
Okay, so I get that you're just trying to "save" all of those crazy fundamentalists from believing in something that doesn't seem scientifically viable. Just thought I'd let you know that making fun of them doesn't really help your case. Though what really annoys me are the people who are into Christianity for purely political reasons and make the rest look like fools when they go up to bat for some foolhardy idea (a la Kansas), but that's a whole other discussion.
Because it's about grace. It really is about grace.
I would have worded it a bit differently, but I think you have a valid point. There is simply no way for us to know whether this creature is a member of a transitional species or just another species that at one time became extinct and until recently has been hidden from the eyes of science.
# man tar
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)?
When speaking of "creationism" in the context of evolution, the reference is typically to "special creationism", which postulates that a deity, God, created all species individually, rather than species emerging from common descent through evolution. Such a claim is inconsistent with observed reality.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution is built on hard evidence... no assumptions. Things like cladistics, morphology and genetics. i suggest you read up on www.talkorigins.com before commenting on evolution any further
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
I'd love to see this hard evidence you speak of. Just contradiction of my point doesn't help very much. :)
New Missing Link found! http://www.vexen.co.uk/holyshit/mudskipper.html
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.
The missing link was found???? Hey, it's not April 1st..
"The Matrix has you."
>that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point
Apparently, not, because you seem to have missed the point of article.
>A: aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms
>B: land animals that exist today do have arms
>C: this animal appears to be aquatic and it also has arms
>Conclusion: THIS MUST BE THE MISSING LINK!!!!11!!11
If you really read the article unbiased, it would be:
A: aquatic animals that existed 420M years ago didn't have arms, didn't had a strong enough sceleton to support their weight and didn't have lungs, so they couldn't function on land.
B: land animals that existed 350M years ago had arms to walk the land, could support their weight and had lungs, so they could function on land
C: There should be an animal between 420M and 350M years ago that would have a little bit of this and that so it could be function both in water and on land
D: To find that timeperiod and that environment we would have to dig over there, so let's go and dig
E: Woopsie-daisies! Here it lies! Has arms to walk the land, supports its weight and apparently had lungs, but still looks a lot like a fish!
F: This must be the missing link we were looking for! Hooray! And what a wonderfull thing that we could predict not only the existens of it but also the timeperiod and location? This most certainly supports the evolution theory! Hooray again!
Cheers!
/ Storm
There are daily versions of Windows from Win3.11 through Win95 all the way through WinME and probably slightly beyond.
They exist. They are burned onto CDs deep in Microsoft's campus. And they will never see the light of day. You'll have to take it on faith that Win95 didn't just spring into existence on August 24th, 1995.
"Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions" (sic)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I think you're trying to say that evolution makes unfounded assumptions. Probably the only real 'assumption' evolution makes that can never be tested, is that chemical processes have always worked the way they work today. This seems quite reasonable, since we have no reason to believe that the laws of the universe behaved differently in the past.
"next generation of 'scientists' will think that these assumptions have been proven"
This line shows that you do not understand the scientific method. One cannot *prove* evolution. It is a theory, and like all theories, can *never* be proven. People talk about the 'law' of gravity - but it's not a law. It's likely in the future it will be replaced by a better and deeper understanding of the universe.
How many times must it be said?!?
Evolution is a theory that can never be proved - it can only be disproved. Just like *every* other scientific theory. Despite a hundred or more years' research, it has not been disproved. In fact, the theory of evolution has been used to make predictions that scientists have validated. This means that evolution is likely an accurate description of how life on Earth has developed. It's called a 'falsifiable hypothesis' - one can design experiments that could potentially disprove evolution. NONE HAVE.
Compare this to 'intelligent design', where any inconsistancy between reality and the theory can be glossed over by saying 'God did it that way'. THAT's why ID is NOT science.
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.
You just hit the nail on the head. No matter what evidence appears, you can always say 'goddidit'. There is no evidence that could ever come up that might possibly damage the 'goddidit' explanation. It is inherently unfalsifiable, which make it scientifically worthless. One of the conditions that an explanation must pass in order to be considered a scientific theory is that there must be some way to disprove it. If cats suddenly started giving birth to iguanas or if we didn't find fossils in nice layers grouped by time period (excepting when the layers get shuffled around by geological activity), that would disprove evolution pretty damn fast.
Technoli
> 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
Hmmm... I'm curious. Is this Caltech program the result of a big bang in the transistor clouds?
When people (like Caltech) want an elegant, simple, highly functional piece of software, they get a Software Engineer (like me! :-) to do some intelligent design.
Then again, I could probably point to quite a few examples to disprove ID in the software industry. ;-P
Has anybody wondered what the missing link is between Windows 3.11 and 95? There is a very wide gulf there, both in the OS and the version number. They have to be related, though, because the have so much common DNA (dos).
I believe that you are attempting to make an analogy to suggest that common features does not suggest common descent. Your analogy, however, is faulty, as you are entites that replicate imperfectly -- biological life forms -- to entities that do not replicate at all. As such, your analogy demonstrates nothing.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
> 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. What about dinosaur fossils? What about this fossil they found in this article?
one other thing...
"aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms"
Wrong.
Dolphins and whales have arms (just not really as we know them). They are mammals, and don't have gills. They breathe air. The reason for this is that they are descended from land animals and over time their 'hands/arms' became fins.
If you don't believe me, look at an xray of a dolphin's fin, and compare it to an xray of a human hand - the bone structure is *very* similar.
No. No analogy attempted. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I was reading through the fray and just thought I'd use the moment to pick on the creaky dos underpinnings which should have been gone long before 1995. I have been an 'evolutionist' for my whole life. I find the offered alternatives so banal that I don't waste my breath on arguing the point with anyone.
Assume this animal uses oxygen as an energy source for chemical reactions. Traditionally it retrieved oxygen through the water. Yet after some time its lungs grew the capacity to retrieve oxygen through the air. 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?
The ancestors of this animal most likely lived in shallow water and perhaps came into contact with air all the time. It might have been able to jump out of the water for a very short period of time. Yet in order to evolve lungs that could take advantage of oxygen in the atmosphere there must have been some informational exchange.
I think some will argue that there doesn't have to be any information involved because random genetic change and natural selection will over time evolve a lung that can retrieve oxygen through the air. The major presupposition is that the genetic code that allows for breathing on land is implicit in genetic change. The group of possible genetic alterations included at least one genetic sequence which would result in land breathing capabilities.
If genetic change is truly random then it could have possibly happened somewhere that was not close to land. Therefore such a change would have not been selected. Then either the space of possible genetic changes is rather small (unlikely) or there is an informational element to evolution.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
You happily state your opinion, one that hasn't a shread of proof. But that's different of course...
Scientific proof is stuff that strenghtens a theory. There's plenty of that around, look at the nice land-water fossils on whales. It's not proof like scriptures, meaning there is room for doubt, you don't have to switch off your brain, but it's pretty damned good stuff.
It seems to say to me and a lot of people "Ook".
That it doesn't speak to your imagination but makes you go all, well, sceptical and scientifically indignified, is not surprising. Let me just say "Eek eek eek eek".
(sorry, I just thought, let's have some faith here, but you can google for yourself if you need to read up on those stupid doubting whales)
I think, therefore I am...I think.
....a good hint that I was joking (even though it might have been lame) was the mention of something as inconsequential as version number (particularly since the 3.11 was of the old style and the '95 was of the new type).
There's not really a contradiction like it seems. Take a look at the time before Noah:
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:4.
That also goes along with the reason we don't live hundreds of years like Methuselah. Everything changed after the flood.
Since you were too lazy to hit the link yourself try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Ok, that's done... I assume there will be no more questions.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
The whole article assumes several things... 1. Macro-evolution occurs. A quote: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history." This quote (and specifically the use of the term "history") shows that he had a pre-conceived belief about what happened, and he was going to interpret whatever evidence he found in that light. As I said in my first post, there's no way that it can be shown that this fossil is a stage of development between two (or more) species. The only thing we know is that this is an animal that we haven't seen before. 2. The time ranges that are being used. A quote: "We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period." They assumed the time period, and then you say that from the newly discovered animal they could "predict ... the timeperiod." How did finding that animal in that area tell anything about the time period?
One more thing...you said in your logic steps: "but still looks a lot like a fish." It seems like quite a logic leap to say that one animal that resembles some other animal must have been a descendent of that second animal.
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.
Go outside. See a cloud? That's how far above your head the joke went.
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.
The probability of a fossil forming is actually pretty slim. First of all, the organism needs to be at least partially solid -- bones do the trick, or a nice big shell, but squishy invertebrates, for example, are extremely unlikely to leave any trace of their passing. The organism also needs to die under the correct conditions and stay there relatively undisturbed for millions of years until human scientists get around to digging it up.
:)
Given that billions and billions of species have existed on this planet, it's not surprising that we've found some fossils, most notably those of the dinosaurs (ie. big, numerous boney things that lived at a time when Earth was conveniently swampy), but that doesn't mean that there's even the slightest possiblity that we'll ever find the remains of everything that ever existed.
Also, I've read about scientists observing evolution in action. Sure, they're only going to be able to observe relatively small changes in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean that the changes didn't happen... though they obviously don't have a complete fossil record to go along with their notes
By the way, judge people based on their comments, not their age. I'm 17, and I am sure that many of the MS bashes on here are a lot older than I am
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
On a less pithy note, how does one go about proving one's own existence? Is it indeed even possible to prove to oneself, let alone to others, that one exists? If indeed you can prove that you exist, and even better provide a methodology for doing the same, you are in danger of putting a whole lot of philosophers out of a job...
Since proof of the existence of God is not repeatable (personal, first hand experience by people who claim to have have some sort of encounter with said deity) is always chalked up to coincidence, delusion, or even outright deliberate lying, at least by the scientific method.
So the scientific method discounts the very possibility that God exists right from the starting gate, even if it _were_ true.
Not that it matters any... people who believe in God will continue to believe such. The most the discovery of this creature will accomplish is make believers in creationism that happen to have an otherwise rational mind think that it was an example of yet another creature that God made in the first place that has suffered extinction (while the other extreme end of believers will probably think this announcement is a fraud or hoax).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This appears to be yet another missing link
I.O.U One Sig.
"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.
According to Swedish radio this is not a direct ancestor to us. However this find is important since it is close to the trunk from which the mamals is derived.
I see a whole lot of text in the article, but frankly, until I see whether it's some gag (especially this close to Apr 1.) I don't care to read articles like this. At the moment I'm picturing a stone with the imprints of the stomach of a fish and 6 little shoes with a Nike Swoosh.
There is a very complete collection of fossils of proto-monotremes. In fact the oldest mammal fossil ever found is a direct ancestor of the modern platypus. Monotremes have this habit of living in holes in the ground, with the entrances either under water or temporarily closed for protection. This tends to make it easier to end up as a fossil rather than as a meal.
I suggest you read almost any credible book on paleo-biology and you'll see how we know more about the extinct predecessors of the platypus than we do about most other creatures.
"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess."
Two serious mistakes in one sentence. Evolution has been observed, and is much, much more than an 'educated guess.'
(And, incidentally, "Evolution on a cosmic level"? What does that even mean?)
There's some serious erroneous logic in this article's summarization of the find and of it's importance...
First, they compare it to the "reptile-to-bird" fraud (and yes, it's been proven by NON-CREATIONIST scientists to have been known to be WRONG and NOT what it was said to have represented, yet was displayed and proclaimed as such anyhow - that's fraud, it's a lie... BUT that's not the point here...); This comparison claims to be on the same level of importance and uses that earlier finding as justification for the assumption of this one being relevant to what they are claiming it is. Basically "that one was a link, and since that's one, this has to be another." Well, not really. It COULD be something totally unique.
Second, the assumption that this thing lived and died, therefore had offspring of another type of animal is just plain silly. We breed dogs with all sorts of other types of dogs, sometimes wolves, coyotes, and even Jackals and Hyenas (all in the "canis" family) and we always get offspring that are DOGS! If we suddenly found a skeleton of a St. Bernard no one would think to claim it's a rabbit's ancestor in a transitional period of evolution. It's just not logical. A fossil/remains can tell you ONE THING and only one thing... that the creature to which those remains belonged to LIVED AND DIED. It can't tell you how many offspring it had (it's suspect whether most can tell you if they had ANY - forget that half (give or take) of most all species is of a non-childbearing gender)), whether those off spring survived or not, and certainly not what those off spring looked like - other than to assume that in the "millions of years" of human record of the animals of our world that the off spring would be just like the parents; as we've seen billions of times in humans alone (much less the thousands of variants of animals and all their offspring!)
Third, they simply claim that this previously undiscovered creature is something "in transition" from one being to another when this is the first one found. How do they know that it's not just a unique creature that died out (ie: gone extinct). We've seen entire animal groups wiped out by over-hunting or poaching (the Dodo bird comes to mind), if this happened many years ago and it was not recorded by someone for us to know today, how would we know?! We're always finding new information about animals that have been long since extinct... And we're finding new ones once in a while too...
Fourth, they seem to ignore the fact that we have aquatic animals today that have feet-like appendages, fin-like appendages, and live in the water more of their life than not. Most are reptilian, but there are mammals too. That is a problem... Reptiles are cold-blooded and egg-laying. Mammals are warm-blooded and bear live young... There's no way to prove that this was an "adaption" to moving from water to land - else, why do animals like ducks still lay eggs (or the platypus, et al) and some mammals (whales, dolphins, seals, etc) live entirely in the water (but not breathe in the water like fish and some reptiles) bear live young like mammals if this is indeed an evolutionary change... Frogs are reptilian but they live more of their life on land than in water (so it's believed currently, this has been a back-and-forth debate for years)... and look at gators or crocs- reptilian, breathe oxygen without gills, and still are cold-blooded and not mammalian breeding...
There's too much speculation along the lines of "this is what we expect to see therefore it's what we see, and what was/is" thinking in these types of articles.
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. You can not test it, it can not be duplicated to ensure the theories hold out true, and the scientific principles of the methodology of study can not be applied to the evolution. When you take this into account and say "well we're here
-- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
What IS surprising, is that there is no image - not even the obligatory 100-pixel-across thumbnail, which links to a lame-ass 200-pixel-across "Large Picture".
That qualifies as the missing link then, doesn't it.
Let me ask you a question that is kind of OT. The link you sent is interesting - maybe you know of another that could provide a plausible answer to the following: have scientists observed genetic mutations (which is a foundation of evolution) that have produced positive outcomes? Every time I've seen a person or a creature of any kind with such a genetic defect, the defect has been an inhibitor to the person or creature's functioning. Has it ever been witnessed otherwise?
Yes, beneficial mutations are often observed.
The Talk Origins FAQ I've linked to is comprehensive, easily searched, and quite objective. Even better, it points the way to more in depth books, articles, and sources--you can, if you choose, go from a one-page FAQ summary all the way to the primary evidence. Otherwise, I would recommend a book such as Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is." Much more difficult than the FAQ, and a tiny bit dated, but also much more rewarding.
If you don't believe me, look at an xray of a dolphin's fin, and compare it to an xray of a human hand - the bone structure is *very* similar.
While interesting, this in and of itself does not indicate causality in one species being related to another.
As an exercise, consider the notion commonly called Einstein's Watch. Suppose you had a watch that could not be opened. All you have is the observation of the hands' motion around the face.
You assume there is a mechanism inside the watch causing the motion, and set out to model (or mimic) it. After years of research (trial and error), you devise a mechanism that mimics the motion of the hands (to within experimental error) and could also fit inside the watch body.
Now comes the tricky part. Do you then loudly proclaim "I've solved it! I know how the watch operates!" How can you KNOW this? Einstein's Watch has led me to think that as scientists, we never 'know' anything - we can only mimic and interpret within the framework of our own perspective; this perspective may be individual, cultural or as a species. Certainly we have some limitations in the things we CAN imagine, visualize or comprehend.
As a physical scientist, thoughts like these both frighten and excite me. But what frightens me even more is that segment of the scientific community that takes that leap from "I think" to "I know."
Indeed, Einstein himself once said (paraphrasing) "when you know something, you cease all understanding."
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Thanks. Don't take me wrong - I don't mean to be an ass or to flame. I posted like that not really to debate; rather, I want to learn and gather knowledge of both sides of the argument so I can make a choice myself.
1. There is a lot more about this just that it's "an animal that we haven't seen before". It's a tetrapod like we are. We've found aquatic tetrapod fossils, we've found land-based tetradpod fossils. This one is between the two. It has land-based features (i.e. lungs and strong limbs), and fish-based features (i.e. fins and scales). As such it falls between the two "groups" of tetrapods.
2. They didn't "assume" the time period. They looked in riverine rocks which are dated to having been deposited between 417 mil and 354 mil years ago to find the animal. They knew the time period it should come from (from the dates of aquatic and land tetrapods fossils), and they knew the type of environment it would be found in (riverine). So, they went to an area dated to that time period, that was riverine in those days, and found the fossil.
3. (Since you conflated two points in no 2), the point is that it doesn't resemble "some other animal", it resembles two other animals, a marine tetrapod and a land tetrapod. Ergo, transitional fossil.
Then I apologize if I was rude or unduly confrontational. The best advice I can give you is not to trust creationist sources; intelligent design was constructed from first principles as a way to deceive people without a solid grounding in biology and advance a particular religious perspective rather than an objective scientific conclusion. Always double check any fact or assertion made by creationists (or anyone else, of course). You will be amazed at how many creationist tropes, especially the underlying tenets of Intelligent Design, are unsupported by any legitimate research or are just flat-out lies. Again, the FAQ is an excellent resource.
(Even though the events have "already occured", as we have not yet seen the fossils they are still "predictions", as the observation has NOT already occured, and when it comes to testing theories, it is when the observation is made that really matters.)
This proves, once and for all, that this viewpoint is the correct one - that evolution is a "true" science. It DOES make testable hypotheses* and it CAN be invalidated through observation**.
*These predictions are interpolations of the data set, rather than extrapolations, but they're still predictions. If the data was discontinuous or chaotic, it would be impossible to make predictions as it would be impossible to produce a coherent chain.
**It's very important that a theory be subject to tests that could break the theory. In the case of evolution, finding an intermediate fossil in an impossible location (eg: in igneous rock, in completely the wrong location, etc) would falsify evolution. A trivial example of location - limestone is predominantly formed in shallow, warm oceans (although cold, deep-water coral does exist). If you were to find something that could never, ever reach such water, you'd have something that could potentially break the theory.
If you were to find plant or animal life that could only occur in extremely deep oceans (megalodon springs to mind), the Arctic tundra, or in the middle of continents, excluding anything that could simply be very very lost (trees don't generally get lost a whole lot, for example), in any significant amount in limestone rock, you'd have a good argument that the predictions of evolution don't match observation.
It is significant that whilst predictions demonstrably HAVE matched observation, no such falsifying observation has occured. (Claims of such observations are either known to be fakes or are so carefully protected against examination that they are usually seen as fakes by default.)
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)
As for your 3 camps, I'm firmly in 3, I don't believe in God myself, but I don't care whether you do. However, I do care when people egregiously misrepresent science.
Truthfully, we can't. First off there's no proof of anything in science. Secondly, we may indeed be descended from a different tetrapod species that made the leap from sea to land. However, we can trace our lineage to this time period, and this fossil shares many characteristics with our more fully land-based ancestors. As such it is a possible ancestor. Importantly, it's the first such one so clearly making the move from sea to land. It would certainly offer more advantage than no ear whatsoever. And I'd be fairly surprised if we did find any such fossils. Firstly, it begs the question of what a "hybrid" ear actually is. Secondly, the ear is comprised of very small bones, the kind that do not last, since they easily get wiped out by the fossilization process.
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.
Perhaps because it's smack bang in a time period where our ancestor species came out of the water onto land, and happens to be coming our of water onto land?
I think you'll find that evolution is a lot more gradual than you give it credit for. The main reason that we expect to find "jumps" in the fossil record is precisely because it is gradual. To simplify, speciation is theorised to be "faster" for isolated species, since their smaller population allows for swifter distribution of advantageous genes. Once they expand beyond their range, if they have evolved enough advantages, they very quickly expand even further.
So, if we look everywhere on earth, except for at that original range, we will find a "sudden" appearance of that species. Even if speciation was not "swifter" in isolated populations, we would expect to find this. However, if we did ever find the original range (a VERY unlikely proposition), we would find the gradual fossil record for that species.
...is that the the existance of those intelligent-design proponents is the number 1 piece of evidence that evolution cannot exist.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Let me add that if you EVER hear the laws of thermodynamics used to justify anything more complicated than "you can't heat up a this piece of thing to 100 F with a piece of thing thats 99 F", but not so complicated that you don't need a PhD in science or engineering to really understand what the conclusion is saying, it is most probably a wrong conclusion. That has been my experience, anyway :-) (Maybe that should be the 4th law of thermodynamics...)
Before this fossel was found there was only one missing link between fish and land animals. Now we have to find a link between fish and Tiktaalik roseae and another between Tiktaalik roseae and Land animals. Every Fossel found makes us more ignorant!
This is clearly why the creationists are right... by ignoring the facts they are clearly less ignorant about evolution than someone who has studied them and therefore must be closer to the truth
So where the fuck did NT come from?
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.
Hmm, dunno, I'm an athiest. I was brought up in a religious background, went to Church regularly, read the Bible several times over, and got Reborn. The ridicule from "buddies" I had to face came from Christians, and yes many of them were intellectuals.
So tell me, where exactly didn't I look?
That's the whole point of the article, and part of the reason this is so significant. They did calculations, checked with some geologists, made some predictions (or "assumptions" as you want to call them), and looked into them. It's called science.
Do you think the whole scientific community is a bunch of crazy people in lab coats, with weird hair, randomly mixing chemicals, occasionally shouting "Eureka"? He wouldn't have been on Ellesmere Island if he didn't have a good idea of what he might find and how it would show evidence for or against his hypothesis.
As to whether anything actually evolved from this creature isn't relevant because nobody is claiming that. It's more of: "Look at this, a fish with small legs! So at some point fish with small legs existed, as evolution predicted." Not: "Look! This is THE creature we all evolved from."
It's called "Carbon dating". Carbon dating is usually accurate to within a few hundred years. Hell, with a timeframe in the hundreds of millions of years, it'd only have to be accurate to a few tens of thousands of years to be useful.
If you have one fossil from 420,000,000 ± 8000 years ago, another fossil from 350,000,000 ± 8000 years ago, and then find a new fossil from 375,000,000 ± 8000 years ago, you can be pretty sure of the order they occured. That's the main point of the time line.
Is it really? If an old man walks down the street and says "My son is coming", you could make the prediction, or assume, that in a few minutes, a younger person who looks similar to the old man will walk past. If such a person walks past five minutes later, you can be fairly confident it's the son, and that your assumption was probably correct. You can never be 100% sure it's the son, but you can be fairly confident.
That's the point of science: using observations and previous knowledge to verify or disprove assumptions and predictions. Nobody will ever be able to say with 100% certainty that evolution happens, but so far, it meshes with reality a lot better than the alternative theories.
Maybe not
He said evolution on a cosmic level in other words, whatever we may think we know about the origins of life on Earth, there are billions of years of cosmic history that we can really only make educated guesses about. Biology has nothing to do with that.
In fact, we're not even sure about the origins of life on earth (note that I said origins, not development). All beginning of life experiments have failed, i.e. we have so far not been able to demonstrate the the emergence of the necessary proteins to form a simple cell in the projected conditions of the early Earth - all we have are the 'primordial soup' experiments which (outside of a sort of common folklore belief) really haven't shown how simple life can emerge from nonlife.
Re: showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago
Not so. Arthropods (millipedes and centipedes etc) first conquered the land around 500 million years ago and were walking around long before this newly-discovered beastie. Their fossilised footprints have been found. "The oldest body fossil of a land animal is a 430-million-year-old millipede."
"Our own ancestors, fish-like amphibians, first lumbered ashore a mere 370 million years ago. There they found a world teeming with plants and giant creepy crawlies."
Reduce, reuse, cycle
why do people always assume the little bugger was coming ut of the water and not going in? everything else we see in the world tends to go toward chaos rather than order. although they say the whales are more advanced than us anyway. And by they I do me the hitchhikers guide.
Let's assume the creationists are right, and that the creator built the earth in 7 days a few milennia ago.
Then the creator camuflaged this work to perfection:
1. Dinosuar bones
2. Carbon dating
3. Erosion and tektonic activites
4. DNA evolution
The allmighty obviously have _on-purpose_ misled us to find perfect support for evolution.
This must be for a reason.
Should we, his humble followers, try to reveal this perfect camuflage by shouting Creation?
I say _no_. The Creator have obviously done a perfect job hiding the evidence of creation, and planted false evidence for evolution to perfection.
He must obviously want us to conclude the evolution is the truth.
And even if we know better, who are we to try to find flaws in His effort to hide the nature of His creation.
It will at any rate be fruitless, for who think they can do better than the Allmighty, and find the evidence He has hidden to the ability of the Omnipotent?
As a creationist one therefore faithfully should document and support the beauty of the evolution, while quietly in your soul know the true nature of the universe.
So to the creationists I tell you: Abandon your blasphemic and arrogant ways. Preach Evolution!
"Fix it"
Because people such as yourself don't want to know the truth. My advice, don't even read the article, just go to your church instead. :/
Life should have never walked out of the water.
But you would think- at least I would -that for a lynchpin turn in the evolutionary progress of a species that one could dig up more than just one sample, look at it and point "missing link!". After all, it was a successful natural selection and should therefor be fairly wide spread.
I guess my question is why aren't we tripping all over these damn things instead of busting our asses finding just ONE, especially given the copious amount of fossil record we do find. I find it hard to believe that preservation is THAT hostile.
But then, I'm not the sort to hang all my Evolutionary hopes and dreams on exactly one sample either, like half the slashnot scientists here.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
right here.
> I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)?
Because its adherents want it to be.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> What IS surprising, is that there is no image
i cleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
Lots of other places covered the story, some do have pictures.
http://news.google.com/news?q=Tiktaalik+roseae
e.g. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&art
rant
Deep waters indeed! I have two points
evolution on a cosmic level: This is meaningless, I don't think the poster knows what he is talking about. What does evolution have to do with the cosmos? You are right in saying that biology has nothing to do with it, this is pure physics.
the origins of life on earth: You're talking about Abiogenesis here rather than evolution aren't you. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis is one of the those areas of science which we have little evidence supporting any of the hypotheses. All current indications are that this happened just the once, several billion years ago making this one of the most difficult theories to deal with.
And before any religeous cranks start jumping up and down saying this this is proof of a creator, the theory of abiogensis applies equally to creators too. That would be a "God of the Gaps" arguement and is as valid as saying it's turtles all the way down. I am always amazed that those with (maybe) a high school understanding of science feel confident enough to argue their "ideas" with people who have spent years actively researching subjects like evolution and cosmology. I can't imagine how many people stopped thinking because they were given an answer, without stopping to check whether it was the right one.
...But isn't the principle behind the "steps" of evolution simply mutation? Couldn't it have been possible that there WAS no missing link, and that suddenly a fish was hatched with legs, capable of breathing air? Does there HAVE to be an intermediate stage? Or is the idea of an intermediate stage perhaps based upon observations of other species' evolutions'(in which case that sounds like bad science)?
found this from anandtech forums, it didnt require me to register, has a pic and a model, interesting.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Sorry but there is a way of knowing if it's a "transitional species" (I dislike the term but I will use it in this context).
If you have an animal, lets call it B, that is a descendant of animal A and an ancestor of animal C, what features would evolution predict versus what features would it posses if it were just another unrelated animal?
Evolution would predict that animal B would possess intermediate features so that a progression can be seen from A to B to C. This can be seen in the skeletal structures of the limbs, not just the appearance of these structures but in their functional abilities. In this case, you are moving from a sea based fish to a land based animal, so this animal should possses the fin structure of a fish limb, but altered in such as way that a wrist exists (wrists are essential for land animals as it allows the support of a body out of water). That the animal is not a true land animal can easily be seen as it lacks the true features of land animals such as fingers and toes (phalanges). This is only one feature of the animal, there are many others. Crucially, all the predicted differences are seen. Where C differs from A, B has all these differences but not the the same extent as C
An animal that has no relation would not show this. It would have any number of differences, from number of limbs to bone structures. It would not share common features and it would certainly not "split the difference" between the 2 creatures either side of it in the fossil record.
This is basic science. One of the strengths of a good theory is that it should be supported by new data. Mantar, I'm curious as to your educational background, would you mind telling me why you believe what you do?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
You're correct in stating that a single feature does not indicate realtionships between species, and similar features have evolved separately (such as eyes) but I believe that this was a specific example rebutting an earlier argument (no water creatures having arms).
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
I had some thoughts along these lines a while back: that by insisting on Biblical inerrancy, the fundamentalists are guilty of idolatry, and that by ignoring evolution they're missing one of God's finest works.
Ah, here it is:
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
You can see it in his post. He quivers in submission. He does not want to face the gods, and reason with them. Because he has been told and has known somewhere deep down that the gods are unreasonable. He is the tool by which the religious fanatics rule the world. He will bear arms for them. Will cause the destruction of another World Trade Center. There is no difference between men of any religion who cannot reason. If only reason was more common the world would be a better place, and maybe somewhere the entity that started it all would be happy. I say maybe because who has the time (even for the creators of the universe) to care for the happyness/unhappyness of the ape descendent people of this insignificant little planet which cannot be observed from just a few million light years.
...I'm still on the wrong side of that evolutionary transition, you insensitive clod!
/me flops back into the deep sea out of shame for posting this joke
-Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/science.html
-Tom
I find it interesting that at both the very big, and the very small, there is a great deal of uncertainty. I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but after reading a lot of these threads (and being very reluctant to wade in) the points that are raised by the Intelligent Design people are nothing to do with fossil links and everything to do with the very small, i.e. the contention that there are certain biochemical features of organisms for which it is very difficult to demonstrate a plausible mechanism of an evolutionary origin, let alone demonstrate that any such mechanism actually occured. (I feel the worms wriggling now...) At the very big end of things, it took a long time for the 'Big Bang' hypothesis to become scientific orthodoxy because it flew in the face of the generally accepted idea that the universe has no beginning and is infinite in time and space. It's now become accepted that the universe is expandind and has a definite beginning. I wonder whether the body of evidence will grow that our understanding of the origins of the very small is also flawed.
I just can't wait until this Fossil turns out to be irrelevant or even false. like many other "missing link"s that have been discovered before. And all of a sudden all the Evolutionnists will change subject, talk about an other "missing link" that has been found. Its a nice pattern ;-)
Let me respectfully point out that the word you are trying to use in your subject is "cue" and not "queue"
No but, yeah but, no but...
I heard an interview with the scientist who helped find this and he said it was 'one of many' missing links to the evolution of land animals from fish, but certainly not the only one.
That being said, this is a wonderful discovery.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Humor on
/. reader, I for one find it hard to believe in evolution.
As a former lurker and long time
Devolution, maybe but Evolution, no.
Humor off
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Well, have you ever *seen* a tectonic plate with your own eyes?
:)
You're talking about Abiogenesis here rather than evolution aren't you. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis is one of the those areas of science which we have little evidence supporting any of the hypotheses. All current indications are that this happened just the once, several billion years ago making this one of the most difficult theories to deal with.
The only difficulty here is out inability to produce an extremely unlikely event under laboratory conditions.
Abiogenesis is not impossible. It is simply an extremely unlikely event. So why did it happen? Simple. Exponentiation.
Let P= probability of abiogenesis occuring in a suitable region over a period of one second. This is a very small number. However, what is the likelihood of it not occuring at all in a multitude of regions and over a long period of time?
Let N= number of locations. Let T=Numbers of seconds in period. Probability of abiogenesis not occurring in one region in one second is 1-P. This is a number which is very close to 1, but is less than one.
Therefore, probability of abiogenesis not occurring in N regions over a period of T seconds is given by: (1-P)^NT
1-P is a number which may be very, very close to one. But if N*T is large enough, the probability of abiogenesis not occuring will eventually drop to zero. Simple example: Let P=10^-10. Despite the extreme unlikelhood of P occuring, for N*T=10^12, (1-P)^NT ~ 3.72*10^44.
In other words, given only one location; after ~31,709 years, the probability of abiogenesis having occured at some point is a virtual certainty. The expected time interval for actual abiogenesis is I belive of the order of 1 billion years. There's considerable "margin for error" here.
May the Maths Be with you!
You mean this sucker is important evidence of evolution, has been missing for who knows how long, they found it, and now they tell us about it? Where was all the hoopla when it was missing?
Before they found it. I don't recall any scientists saying "This theory of evoution might be convincing if we could find a fish with toes, but until then...."
Nor do I recall anyone saying "Well we had this link, but Mortimer apparently slipped it into his pants and took it out of the Smithsonian, and since then it has been missing..."
What else are they missing and not telling us about?
Whole thing just deepens my suspicion. I want an accounting of all the links they claim to have, but for all we know have also gone missing.
Despite the extreme unlikelhood of P occuring, for N*T=10^12, (1-P)^NT ~ 3.72*10^44.
Whoops! That should have read:
Despite the extreme unlikelhood of P occuring, for N*T=10^12, (1-P)^NT ~ 3.72*10^-44.
(1-P)^NT is an extremely small number.
May the Maths Be with you!
The fish that crawled out of the water
I'm not saying I'm against darwinism, but where is the proof? A poorly written article on a no-name website? That dosn't exactly scream nobel prize winning work.
Huh? What no-name website? The Guardian is not exactly no-name, but more importantly, the source is Nature, as snooty a peer-reviewed science journal as you could wish for.
Why on earth is parent modded a troll? The GP makes absolutely no sense to me either ...
I fully comprehend the difference between abiogenesis and speciation through evolution.
It's vain of you to claim that you know how I think. In fact, you don't know me, or my thoughts. Lumping me in with the stereotype in your head of thoughtless religious nuts is really pretty small minded of you as well.
Let me ask you this, smart guy. It seems to me that the problem is somewhat greater than spontaneous generation from existent matter.
Where did the first matter come from?
Science is about observability and repetition of the observed phenomenon.
Scientists did not observe the initiation of the existence of matter, and were not present at the genesis of this universe. As such, they are limited to the facts that they can collect today. It is not possible to repeat the genesis of the universe, either. As such, it's not possible to follow the scientific method to evaluate the therories. Origins is not the stuff of science because it's really speculation. Note that I am not disputing that evidence can be collected, relationships between pieces of evidence can be noted, and explanations can be created, but not TESTED!
WRT speciation, it's true that we see differentiation between members of the same species and it is demonstrable fact that an evolutionary process exists within a kind of creature. However, it is not conclusive that lots of adaptation leads directly to speciation given enough time, adaptation and mutation.
We're not mindless religious zealots. We have the same evidence you have, and have differing theories about the activities behind the evidence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty thoughtless of you to generalize our worldview as the province of morons or the deluded.
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
It's not that God needs to be worshipped its that WE need to worship whether it's God, George Clooney or a Bugatti Veyron.
It's one of the fundemental aspects of humanity. I personally think its root lies in unswerving obedience to the Alpha Male or Alpha Female in our primitive past. None of us want to be cast out like Lucifer or Adam.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
I love the smell of burning karma in the morning!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
For anyone looking for more info plus a picture of Tiktaaaaaahtingy check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
I'm always impressed how fast wiki is with its updates, whoot!
.sigh
talk about OT..sheesh. Well I guess I participated.
anyway, AC-
"All that's really required to be a Christian is that Christ was the son of God and he died for our sins and was resurrected."
Like I said in my post, if you (your denom, whatever), believe that, and believe that the sacrifice of Christ was the only acceptable and required sacrifice to atone for all of mankind's sin, then you must believe that there was one original sin that separated man from God. This would be Adam's sin.
If we take a millions-of-years of evolution approach, then Adam came into the world (evolved from another species) with death/disease/corruption already present. IF this is the case, then as Christians, we must ask "Did Adam's sin really separate creation from God? Or has it always been separated? Was it created flawed?" Once you get into these questions, it really leads to "What good was Christ's sacrifice if there was no original sin to separate us from God?"
So while you can talk about "my faith" and "my interpretation", it really is just a very basic interpretation of the Bible as a whole: If there was death prior to Adam's sin, then there was never such a thing as a perfect creation, never a fall, never a separation, and never a need for an atoning sacrifice; thus Christ is false. It doesn't have much to do with interpretation or denominations-no Christ=no Christianity.
If you think it's so lame, how would you rationalize the existence of suffering, given an benevolent, omnipotent being?
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
... because it's coated in a thick layer of iron armour, which - when examined closely - turns out to be made of thousands and thousands of nails, accumulated over the course of 150-odd years, hammered in so hard that they've fused together into a single mass of metal.
This is what creationists are referring to when they say they have an 'iron-clad case'.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Nice analogy with human ancestors!
I would tentatively suggest that populations of "in-between" creatures (whether land-to-water or water-to-land, or between two other environments) would probably have worse survival rates anyway. Such populations would be subjected to predators in *two* environments, as well as being as-yet not so well adapted to survive and breed under these new conditions, etc., etc. Just enough of a population to survive, but not enough to contribute significantly to the fossil record.
And of course, fossils of in-between creatures that successfully made the transition from land-to-water are going to be quite hard to find.
Cheers,
Nalfy
-- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --
"I think the original poster would be happy if you could answer him why the big bang occurred when there was no time"
It didn't. Time didn't begin until the big bang occurred. That appears to be the part that you're having trouble with.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Is to find the missing link between Firefox 1.5.0.1 and Bon Echo (2.0 Alpha).
I find it interesting that at both the very big, and the very small, there is a great deal of uncertainty.
I do too, but I've always felt that it comes from the fact that humans aren't good at dealing with anything that isn't at the everyday scale - larger than an ant and smaller than a whale (do we see those everyday?!). We've evolved (and I deliberately use that term) to deal with this intermediate scale where seeing is believing, so a bacterium and the curve of the earth are contentious issues as it involves either indirect proof or blind trust.
I think that you opened the can when you mention "Intelligent Design"! ID is the bastard child of those who cannot stand the athestic property of science where God/god is not disproven, but actually not involved at all. As someone who writes clearly, deliberately and not overstating unproven ideas, I think you do yourself an injustice even mentioning ID. These biochemical features you mentioned, presumably Michael Behe's biochemical cascades, now have fairly established roots in other more "primitive" mechanisms, demonstrating how they may have "micro-evolved" (aweful word, sorry). Again, it's a "God of the Gaps" argument who people believe that gaps in scienctific knowledge equates to proof that science has failed, as opposed to knowledge that science doesn't have yet.
An adult conversation on /. , what is the world coming too!
There's always more to the story:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.htm
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
According to the Evolutionary timeline the first fish "arise" 500 to 450 million years ago. According to that same timeline, land animals first "appeared" 420 million years ago. So how does a fossil aged at 375 million years show proof a "missing link?" Stop making stuff up to prove that you're right. Microevolution makes since, this is bogus.
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.
Hmm. Seems like both sides have their propaganda machines, whether funded or not.
Seriously, if you want to keep the debate on a rigorous level, using deliberately inflammatory language is not helpful. Even if you think the characterizations are accurate.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The discovery of this croc is old, but the research and announcement is new. They finally have enough "evidence" to bring the case to light. Many scientists are upset with how science has been made a mockery lately. However whatever is told to us is what we will believe. Other scientists have found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, coming up with evidence that dinosaurs aren't really that old and MAY have lived on the planet with man. Most scientists, have considered this a travesty of science, even after a year of study. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/) Either way what makes it to the history books is what our kids will believe and listen too. The endless debate between Creationism and Evolution will only result in the destruction of man. One side doesn't like what the other side thinks and vice versa, one will have bombs and one won't. I really wish that they could have open and realistic debates on this on television and radio. Sorta like C-Span but for science. If this is already happening, it should happen more.
No, I think it remains meaningless. As you mention, though, our definition of 'time' is probably too limiting.
If we do go on to deal with multiple universes, the braneworld, or whatever multiverse system turns out to be most realistic, then I doubt we'll be talking about it in terms of 'time'. Using 'time' beyond the universe would indeed be meaningless, as time is inextricably linked to space and mass and motion; going back to the North Pole analogy, it would be like mapping things out in terms of North and West, and then trying to determine in those terms how to get to Mars.
I'd guess you'd use a more abstract parameter to describe such relationships; 'space' and 'time' are only useful within a universe, not between them.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Tiktaalik+roseae &hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
i'm sure i could find more if i tried
"I think it's funny how very common it is for scientifically-minded and non-religious people to arrogate in precisely the same manner when it comes to religious issues."
How can it be precisely the same when, in the case of science, there is evidence, and in the case of religion, only superstition and ignorance?
You see, that's the problem. People like yourself seem to think that there is some equivalence between the conclusions reached by religion, and those reached by science.
That is the worst kind of arrogance.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
Physical Chemistry, with recently a toe more in Chemical Physics.
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
The Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, right? The point is simply that we have a set of data from which we seek to extract some meaningful insight about the world. Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
To me, the issue is, and I think this was one of Einstein's constant battles with Quantum Mechanics as another example, is there, CAN THERE be, an alternate theory, inconsistent with our current view of evolution, that equally explains all the data. I fear that unless we remain open to that possibility, and view tests of evolution as attempts to falsify it (not verify it), it has reached the level of dogma that other posters have mentioned.
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
The point being made, as I understood it when I read it (I think in a biography), was that 'knowing' and 'understanding' are different. One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.' Perhaps it is simply a semantic difference created to make the point, but I've observed it among many scientists (chemists, physicists and biologists, including myself).
Computational Chemistry products and services.
I must use PREVIEW. I must use PREVIEW. I must use PREVIEW. I must use PREVIEW. I must use PREVIEW. I must use PREVIEW...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It is a very intriguing phenomenon. Obviously religion has something to do with it. It is no friend of open-minded discovery, of course, rather considers it both unnecessary and hazardous, so not really recommended. One of the early church fathers, I don't remember his name, said that since we have the Bible, humanity has no need of any further knowledge. At least 30% of US citizens proclaim to be evangelical Christians. Is it so strange that they would advocate a dead-end alternative to science, that makes empirical investigation pointless?
"you are in danger of putting a whole lot of philosophers out of a job..."
There's a joke there, but I don't have it. Anyone?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
When the Bible says that 'death' began with the original sin, I believe it is more accurate to not take death literally. Throughout the Bible 'life' and 'death' refer not to life and death here on Earth, but what happens to us in the hereafter. Hence Christ frequently discusses how through him we can achieve eternal life. He's not talking about living a mortal life forever, but that we will live forever in heaven with our Creator. Death on the other hand would be eternal seperation from our Creator, or eternal pain below. I believe mortal death existed before original sin, it was this spiritual death that Adam brought to us, and it was Jesus Christ that created a means for us to be redeemed of this death and live forever. This interpretation obviously is in keeping with evolution and old earth theory, and furthermore I think it makes more sense based on the teachings of Christ.
Mine is Physiology, mainly Neuro-Physiology and Epileptology.
Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, yes. We have a set of data from which we create a model but scientific progress comes from more data being obtained, it is not a case of examining a single watch and then declaring this area of science 'known'. We then compared our model to this new information to see whether it predicts this data or if this data breaks our model. If it does break it, then we need a new theory, however if it supports our model then our underlying theory can be regarded as being "stronger". This obviously does not equate to "more true" but "more certain that it is true".
Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
Absolutely, but this is not just "a fossil". This is "yet another fossil". Numerous transition species have been found, and in each case their features matched the features predicted by evolution. This is only being reported as more newsworthy as it's a transitional species showing the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling animals, i.e. when animals first came on land. Other equally valid transition species would be pachycetis and ambulocetis which show the transition of large land based quadrapeds to sea based animals, in this case whales, but no farfare was attached to these as it's not as "sexy". And this is not including such things as molecular genetics that have increased the certainty in evolution (A new science, unthought of in Darwins day, that demonstrates the relationship between species in a manner predicted by evolution, how does that not prove it beyond reasonable doubt?).
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
I understand what you are saying, that peoples views of evolution are polarised beyond the science due to the religous implications. Saying that you have a problem with the process of evolution is a little disingenous. I don't know of any evolutionary theorists who don't look at evolution as a product of the scientific method, gradualism and puntuated evolution theories highlighting this. What I do see are religous zealots lying (stating known falsehoods) in an attempt to preserve their world order by saying that evolution is wrong, not by scientific proof but by spin, hype and other machinations as shown by the Dover school trials. To a lesser extent, there are also atheists using evolution as prove that God does not exist.
One of the frustrations with evolution is that despite there being no evidence against this theory and mountains of evidence supporting it (unlike lamarkism or ID), people will still refuse to believe it due to their 'faith'. I do not claim that evolution explains everything but it gets to a point where you realise that you are banging your head against a brick wall of prejudice.
One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.'
Correct. We tend to disbelieve things that go against our inner beliefs. To a certain extent this is essential as it prevents us from credulously believing everything we are told, but I get your warning that long established theories should not be confused with dogma.
Yes
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Lets not jump to too many conclusions here! One stupid fossil and the worlds belief system is supposed to be forever changed? Here is the image (in Jap but you get the idea) http://www.chosun.com/economy/news/200604/20060406 0131.html
Lets face it, ID was a nice try but its a joke even to creationist.
Look here for some more scientific evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
That thing looks like one of those one-use Muppets from a musical number.
Is it just me, or does this happen a lot? Clearly, this is an article that would be greatly improved by a picture of the thing in question. Not even a thumbnail. Ridiculous! If I was elected Supreme Chancellor of Teh Intarwebs, I would mandate high-resolution images for all news articles concerning things that it would be easy to take a picture of.
This one isn't the worst I've seen, though-- the worst are articles *about pictures* that don't include the picture in question. Frequently, they don't even make it up to the 1000-word level that is proverbially regarded as equivalent to a picture.
Note to reporters: if you write about a legged fish fossil, include a picture of the damn thing! How else am I supposed to get it made into some sort of bumper magnet?
Hmm, well stated GR1NCH. I don't know that I agree, but you have presented a good thought. Thanks!
2. Why did the sea creatures decide to go on land?
To get to the other side?
You can't take the sky from me...
it is not a case of examining a single watch and then declaring this area of science 'known'.
We can consider the watch to be the entire body of scientific empirical data.
Saying that you have a problem with the process of evolution is a little disingenous.
Ooops. My bad. I did not mean the process of evolution, but the scientific process with which it is studied.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Your assertion that intelligent design comes only from the ignorant is just that, an assertion. It never ceases to amaze me how a proponent of evolution can sound exactly as ignorant as they fantasize their detractors to be. One of my favorite archived stories about the growing number of educated and PhD.'d who subscribe to the notion of intelligent design:
H OLTLT.html?ex=1144468800&en=7edd724c54c5cc80&ei=50 70
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/14/books/review/14
So, have another drink, while the rest of us continue reading our books.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
He isn't. By definition, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God just IS.Because God != the big bang.
God does not "get away without being created".
Again, by definition, God was not created, he Is/Was/Always will be.
When you're debating these issue, you have to make sure you're using the same definitions for specific words. Otherwise, you end up with asshats stating that a "scientific theory is just a theory".
Your post is only semi-insightful, because it makes the same type of flawed argument that creationists and IDers do.
The difference between the big bang and God, is that we hope someday to figure out what caused the big bang, religion already has a ready answer to "what created God", so they don't need to search any further.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Where did the first matter come from?
If you're requesting an abiogenesis viewpoint, I think the Miller-Urey experiment is an interesting experiment made to replicate these circumstances on an early Earth and its present basic components, and they actually made some quite surprising discoveries.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It's vain of you to claim that you know how I think. In fact, you don't know me, or my thoughts. Lumping me in with the stereotype in your head of thoughtless religious nuts is really pretty small minded of you as well.
Strike one. Your ad hominem response is typical. I'm not like those other ID/creationist proponents, how dare you lump me in with them. When you use the same logic and and misdirection as the usuall ID proponents, you are thinking just like the crowd. Further, by promoting a non-scientific claim promoted by a movement with a poor understanding of the nature of both science and religion, you are doing a disservice to both science and your religious beliefs.
Where did the first matter come from?
Strike two. Another typical reponse is to attempt to redirect the argument when things get sticky. Where did the first matter come from indeed. If you really knew any physics you'd know that this is a pretty rediculous question. Why not just ask what caused the big bang? At least then you would be asking a question that science hasn't answered to any satisfaction.
We're not mindless religious zealots. We have the same evidence you have, and have differing theories about the activities behind the evidence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty thoughtless of you to generalize our worldview as the province of morons or the deluded.
Strike three. You're out. And finally the inferiority complex comes in. I didn't call you a mindless religious zealot. I said ID/creationism is an idiotic idea pushed by people that misunderstand both science and religion. That does not mean you are a mindless religious zealot. It doesn't even mean that you're stupid. Ignorant perhaps, but not stupid. I happen to think that William Dembski is a pretty bright guy. He's wrong on several levels, and I question his motivations, but he's not stupid.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
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.
Yeah and Bill Gates said 256K of memory should be plenty too!! Lets not be so sterotypical here in your comments! I would say I'm an evangelical christian. I love science. I think it just depends how you actually interpret it. Evolutionist are only looking at it w/ one objective, it must fit evolution and further its objectives. The fact of the matter is that this fossil proves absolutely nothing! In the same manner that christians can prove God, you can't prove evolution. Its a "theory" (some would say a poor one) on a past historical event. No one was there, no one can "prove" it. Just make some guesses, thats it!
Yes, that's great, it's a historical account of people telling the ignorant masses that they'll be tortured for all eternity if they let the facts affect their conclusions. I don't understand how being recorded in a book brings their claims any closer to truth?
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
"Then you must answer the question how there can be an event when there is no time."
No, I don't. Time did not exist until the big bang occurred. The big bang and the beginning of time happened simultaneously. There is no "before" the big bang.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
It's a degenerate subspecies of unix.
That's not a technological issue. It's geo-political, socio-economic, but not technological.
Dark Reflection
"without implicitly assuming that there exist values of T 0"
should of course have read
"without implicitly assuming that there exist values of T < 0."
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It's called "Carbon dating". Carbon dating is usually accurate to within a few hundred years. Hell, with a timeframe in the hundreds of millions of years, it'd only have to be accurate to a few tens of thousands of years to be useful.
Carbon dating is not used for time periods in excess of 50,000 years. When dating rocks surrounding fossils to determine the approximate age of the fossils, multiple radiometric dating methods are used.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
"Evolution theory" is a science. Constantly repeating the same old rehashed "theories aren't scientific" nonsense is absurd.
"It assumes that the half-life of C-14 remains constant"
Yes it does. It makes this assumption based on massive amounts of hard evidence. The half life of EVERY radioactive isotope remains constant. We observed it over and over again with all sorts of different radioactive elements, with all sorts of different half lives. For the half life of carbon 14 to have changed, physics as we understand it must be seriously wrong.
"It assumes the amount of carbon that was in the bones in the first place."
No it doesn't. Its based on the amount of carbon 14 vs the amount of carbon 12. We know exactly how much carbon is there, cause we measure it. Its assuming the amount of carbon 14 vs carbon 12 is consistent. And there's mountains of evidence to support that.
If you think it's so lame, how would you rationalize the existence of suffering, given an benevolent, omnipotent being?
Because suffering teaches us to be more compassionate. How is that so hard to believe?
A couple years ago, I had my coat stolen at a bar. I was pissed, and rightly so, because it was right around Christmas, and I had to use all my Christmas money to buy another one. My father said something about the situation that completely took the wind out of my sails: he said, "You know what your grandmother would've said?" (My grandmother is SUPER Catholic, for the record.) "She would have said, 'Maybe the person that took your coat just needed it more than you did.'"
Hard enough to believe as it is, the entire world isn't about me me me all the time. Putting that in mind in reference to my coat, I didn't feel so angry about it anymore. I mean, after all, at least I HAD the money to buy another coat.
Really? I thought CTLR, He Whose Name Should Not Be Spoken, took a rib from VMS and from that created the Image of NT.
You could say the same for santa clause and the easter bunny.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
If god requires us to suffer to make us compassionate then he isn't really omnipotent.
A blog about stuff.
One thing I found interesting about the NYTimes article was the out-and out blunt way in which the paleontologists involved said that this answers specific challenges from Creationists. In the past, even though this would still be seen in scientific journals as a "transitional" species, the cultural relevance to the battle between science and creationism would never get mentioned, or even explored.
l _fossils) prosynosychus is one that I saw when I took a tourist trip to Cambridge a few years ago. The fact that scientists are bluntly calling this a transitional fossil is almost as interesting as the fossil itself.
So my theory is, after the recent battles between the two ways of thinking in the educational world, and after Eugenie Scott's seminars at the recent scientist convention (I can't remember the name of the organization) wherein she basically said that scientists need to play hardball and come right out and oppose creationism in a very public fashion, I wonder if these paleontologists were doing just that when they mentioned this creature as a transitional form.
There are lots of other transitional creatures out there; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitiona
No need to insult chimps....
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
Every fossil 'link' always makes sense from a functionality perspective.
For instance, why don't we find fossils of creatures with developed hind legs and not front legs? One would think some of these failures would be found. (or can only workable configurations get fossilized)
Obviously a mudskipper wouldn't work very well will rear fins/legs... and this creature probably wouldn't either.
If god requires us to suffer to make us compassionate then he isn't really omnipotent.
One of the defining characteristics of being human, from a religious standpoint, is the concept of Free Will. If you give something Free Will and then you force it to do something (or believe something, or act in some way, etc.) then it doesn't really have Free Will. So in essence, these are God's set rules for Himself and he must then work within the confines of those rules.
Personally, I think a world that was entirely perfect and all-pleasant, all-the-time... well, it would be really boring. We have conflict so that we can resolve it.
The way I see it, omnipotence isn't about doing everything yourself. What would be the point of that, or the fun? Part of the "fun" of watching the world is to see what people do in certain circumstances.
I would disagree; there is nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution, a biblical view of creation, and observed reality. There is however incompatibility between abiogenesis and creation. The theory of evolution does not assume either kind of creation as it's basis, instead it is simply a model for the way living things change to survive in there environment. I personally believe in a young earth (10,000-20,000 years), I also believe that evolution occurs all the time. There is no inconsistency here, I believe God created life and gave it the marvelous ability to survive. I do not believe that man arose from ape or that mammals came from the sea, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would compel me to. Now if you where to say that creationism is incompatible with a naturalistic view of the world I would agree, however you are using an old bait and switch tactic to farther your argument. You are using abiogenesis as it is applied with the theory of evolution to argue against a creator God. Abiogenesis is no more a testable theory than creation. Even if we could create life from nothing in a lab that only shows it is possible it no more proves that life formed from non-life than it does that an intelligent being could create life.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
I conclude that the cartel is not the result of GOD's direct intervention but instead a back seat grope fest and a broken prophalactic.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
There's a big difference between having your coat stolen, and any number of examples of *actual* suffering (insert your favorite war, genocide or natural disaster)
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
To get new habitat, of course. Let's say there were plants up there already, then the first animal to make it would become enormously successful.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Thermodynamics is "just a theory" but I'm willing to bet you expect a fire to warm you up. Gravitation is "just a theory" but you haven't floated away yet. Electromagnetics is "just a theory" but it's keeping your computer going.
..... but you've only got to catch them eating meat once, to prove that they aren't one! But every time you see them eating anything that isn't meat, you get corroboration for the idea, and the more that happens, the more confidence you can have in it being true.
Some things can't be proven, only disproven. It's very hard to prove for certain that somebody is a vegetarian
The vast majority of the evidence favours evolution. Furthermore, the introduction of a creator adds needless complication {why couldn't the process that gave rise to a creator who then created the universe just have created a universe?} which tends to disfavour any such hypothesis.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I would disagree; there is nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution, a biblical view of creation, and observed reality.
On the contrary. There is ample evidence to suggest that humans have not existed contemporaneously with all life that has existed. Physical evidence suggests that humans are a relatively recent emergence of biological life on this planet.
There is however incompatibility between abiogenesis and creation.
I did not reference abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not assume either kind of creation as it's basis, instead it is simply a model for the way living things change to survive in there environment.
This is correct. Evolution begins at the time that the first imperfect replicators exist. The theory then explains how those first replicators became the ancestors of all diverse life on earth.
I personally believe in a young earth (10,000-20,000 years),
This age is not supported by physical evidence.
I also believe that evolution occurs all the time.
This statement is supported by physical evidence.
There is no inconsistency here,
There is no inconsistency between stating that the earth is 10,000 years old and that evolution occurs. However, there is an inconsistency between physical evidence for the age of the earth and claiming that the earth is 10,000 years of age.
I believe God created life and gave it the marvelous ability to survive.
This claim is not falsifiable, and addresses a scope beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, and thus is not scientific. It may be true, however it is incompatable with science.
I do not believe that man arose from ape or that mammals came from the sea, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would compel me to.
It appears that you are unaware of the evidence and information within the theory of evolution.
Now if you where to say that creationism is incompatible with a naturalistic view of the world I would agree, however you are using an old bait and switch tactic to farther your argument.
I am not. I am stating that young-earth creationism is inconsistent with observed reality.
You are using abiogenesis as it is applied with the theory of evolution to argue against a creator God.
I am not. I do not apply abiogenesis to the theory of evolution, because abiogenesis does not apply to the theory of evolution. I also have not denied the existence of a creator God. I do not understand how you have drawn such conclusions from my statements.
Abiogenesis is no more a testable theory than creation.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It has not yet risen to the level of theory. "Creation", as is commonly used, can never be a theory because it involves claims that are fundamentally unscientific.
Even if we could create life from nothing in a lab that only shows it is possible it no more proves that life formed from non-life than it does that an intelligent being could create life.
I have never claimed that humans creating life from "nothing" would qualify as proof of abiogenesis. In fact, I do not believe that life from "nothing" is possible, as that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. I did not reference the origin of the first life forms at all, so I am puzzled as to why you frame your argument around it. I merely stated that special creation as described in Genesis is inconsistent with observed reality. I said nothing regarding the existence of any creator deities, nor did I say anything regarding the ultimate origin of the first life forms.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Um, I fail to see how a MORE extreme example of suffering should affect whether I feel compassion in the coat story. If I feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, doesn't that mean that I would, by logic, feel MORE compassion for a more extreme story?
Your story hinged on the fact that the thief might need the coat more than you, and that some people might have it worse than you. How does that line of reasoning work with murder, genocide, war, etc.? Does someone need your life more than you do?
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Our environment demands constant change for it itself is constantly changing. As already mentioned, there is no "missing link" for we are always in a "transitional" phase. More accurately, we (organisms) are always adapting to the new environment. There isn't a final organism, just a species that fits extremely well with all the others. Which begs the question: we don't seem to be playing nice with our planet or anything else on it... does that mean we're inferior to other species?
I hope you're not asking about my educational background so you can jest at my ignorance... and if so, I hope you're sorely disappointed :-) I'll probably not get a response back to this post since I'm a day late, but here goes anyway:
:-). 2 years of which were in physics. I have a strong scientific background... but I admit, not in biology. I love science, but my true interests are in human behavior.
:-) BUT, I draw conclusions about topics such as these from the belief that evolution (the macro flavor) is either completely incorrect, mostly incorrect, or at the very least, rooted in poor execution of the scientific method. I'll name two examples for this. BTW, whether they like to admit it or not, EVERYONE else draws conclusions from some basic "worldview"... there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Indoctrination usually occurs at a young age. :-)
I'm a software engineer. I spent 5 years in college before graduating (never transfer to another school your senior year
Why do I believe what I believe? First of all, I prefer a purely agnostic approach to the use of science to create theories, and later prove their validity. Science should start with observation, and not a conclusion. Secondly, my previous statement may be in error... I'm not too proud to admit that
-EXAMPLE 1-
When I sit down to write a piece of software, I work within a structured framework to solve a problem. Part of that process is understanding the framework and the set of rules that govern how the end product will work. Our wonderful universe is similar. There are a set of rules that govern the physical inner workings of the universe... and the biological processes as well. This "Biological Rule Set" (in this context, we are talking about evolution) is a subset of the "Physical Rule Set" (we would call this physics).
There is an obvious relationship here... evolution as a subset of physics cannot break the laws of physics. Take thermodynamics, for instance. On a macro scale, we understand that the universe tends towards disorder, rather than order. A cute little example of this: My brakes started going out on my truck last week (of course it had to happen when my car was in the shop). If the car salesman who sold me the truck 10 years ago had made a statement like: "You'll never need to replace this truck! It defies the laws of physics and it is constantly tending towards order, and evolving into a better truck!". We would certainly consider this man foolish, and out of touch with reality. I consider an evolutionist to be just as silly. Why then is evolution still a prevalent theory in science? Because someone early on decided that since we can't witness the process in our short-spanned lives (again, I'm talking about macro-evolution), it must take a really long time. A few others didn't like this idea, and decided that changes occur rapidly, but in spurts... punctuated equilibrium was born. But the problem still remains: How is it that lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, when doing so breaks a fundamental law of physics?
-EXAMPLE 2-
Since my real interests lie in human behavior, I try to also examine the historical and cultural context and what kind of impact they had on the topic. When evolution was conceived, it flew at the face of established religion. Those early pioneers of evolution were confronted with two problems: actually finding evidence to support evolution, and bearing any persecution sent their way from the established belief systems at the time. When virtually no supporting evidence was found... and Darwin's classical view of evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record (a constraint placed on the theory by Darwin himself), the evolutionary theory turned to politics for its salvation. Roe v. Wade was a turning point for evolution... they slapped an "Approved by Science" sticker on the theory, and the courts
# man tar
As we all know that the Bible is an unerring account of Creation, it is obvious to all believers that this fossil is yet another ploy by Satan to delude the so-called "scientists" who are blinded by logic and the scientific method. It's unbelievable to what lengths these "scientists" will go to accommodate these unholy scams into their imaginary, contrived model of "evolution" while it's all given in the Bible, plainly told for all who are just willing to open their eyes and believe...
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
It's like playing the Sims. It's more fun when the people drown/set fires because of their own stupidity, instead of forcing it to happen.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Yes, exactly!
No, wait...
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Testing
Let us see how well Darwin's theory of evolution holds up to the scientific method.
Observation: Darwin's theory of evolution will never be proven with the traditional scientific method, because it can't even meet the first qualification of this method, namely observation. We have no way to actually OBSERVE the actual process of evolution that takes billions of years to occur. At best we might speculate based upon micro-evolution of one species into a slightly different one, but human lifespan and history are far too short to do any real observation of the actual phenomena.
Things are already not looking so good for Mr. Darwin's theory, but for the sake of argument let's move on to step 2.
Hypothesis - Darwin's hypothesis was that variations in genetic distribution would cause some members of a species to be better adapted to survive than others, allowing those members to pass on the useful genetic traits to future generations. Eventually this process of natural selection is supposed to create brand a new species. Ok, we can move on to step 3.
Prediction - The submitted article has some element of prediction, eg, here's where we thought the fish with legs would be located, and how old it would be, etc. But this finding tells us nothing about FUTURE evolution, which is required for us to do step 4. So to meet the qualifications of step 3, someone needs to predict how, when, and under what specific conditions one species is going to evolve into another species.
Testing - Here's where the whole theory completely falls apart. Because of the inability to do step 1, eg, actually observing one species turn into a completely different one over millions of years, there's no way to even test the hypothesis!
Flame me all you want, but Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT a proper scientific theory, because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. It's unfortunate that it's presented as a factual proven theory by our schools and universities.
Your story hinged on the fact that the thief might need the coat more than you, and that some people might have it worse than you. How does that line of reasoning work with murder, genocide, war, etc.? Does someone need your life more than you do?
I'm not sure if you're actually trying to bait me or whether you're just refusing to understand what I was saying. I'll explain it as best I can:
I wasn't implying that my coat getting stolen was in any way some huge measurement of suffering. In fact, it was quite the opposite: I was stating that by such a small value for "suffering" (e.g. getting a coat stolen), I was still able to feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, because obviously he had it way worse off than I did. Thus, I felt compassion because despite my problems, they weren't nearly so bad as they seemed at the moment.
To take the example to your extreme: My small inconveniences, such as a coat getting stolen, also help me to feel compassion for those who have it WAY worse off than me, such as those who are getting murdered or caught in a war.
What's more, people who have experienced REAL suffering, unlike my ridiculously small amounts by comparison, are shown to have far more compassion than those who have not.
What's more, people who have experienced REAL suffering, unlike my ridiculously small amounts by comparison, are shown to have far more compassion than those who have not.
Shown by whom exactly? Sure, there are people who manage to forgive the killers of their children, their rapists, etc, but as far as I can tell, they're a minority.
To imply that their compassion makes their suffering worthwhile is, for me at least, too far a stretch. Particularly since it's the very existence of misery that makes compassion a necessity.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument, as long as it's applied to something as trivial as a coat being stolen or a scratch on a car. I just don't think it can be extended towards real issues. Particularly since it's hard to be compassionate when you're dead.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
"And where is the fossil evidence that the duckbill platypus evolved from another species?"
t ml
You aren't that same person who was claiming that platypi were crosses between birds and mammals, are you?
Platypi are monotremes, one of three different sorts of therians. Like all fossil records, their fossil record is skimpy, but not a mystery.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/monotremefr.h
At one time, before evolution or cladistics were really understood, laypeople found them quite weird. However, there is nothing evolutionarily inexplicable about them today. Nothing about them is really birdlike: from egg-laying to the bill, all their features are characteristically therian, the group from which monotremes, placental, and marsupials descended.
"True there are numerous species in existence today, but we cannot identify DIRECT parent and child species of any particular species, respectively."
Correct! Evolution works by branching. That means there are almost an infinite number more distantly related _cousins_ in the fossil record than there are direct ancestors of any living creature. Given how rare fossilization is (even for the dinos), there's no reason at all to expect every single creature that ever lived to fossilize, which is basically what you're asking for. You need to learn a lot more about how fossilization works.
Uh, no, we don't realize that because you are wrong. You are confusing a debate over the pace of evolution with its "tiny steps at a time" nature. Punk Eek was only ever about whether change was constant and steady (it's not), not over whether evolution works by and large via small gradual changes (it does).
YOU clearly don't know what Darwin said either. Darwin stated several times in origin that he didn't expect transitions to be steady, but to change and then remain in balance for long periods of time unchanged. Punk Eek was arguging against a view known as phyletic gradualism: which many have suggested was a bit of a straw man anyway.
Presenting yourself as an expert correcting the rest of us when you are clearly misinformed is, to put it mildly, ironic.
All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today--the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures--except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
As far as I know, there's no scientific evidence of anything to evolve at the "cosmic level" which I interprete to mean universe-scale phenomena. Nor, aside from some cranks, does anyone claim that anything on that scale has evolved in the sense of the theory of evolution. On the other hand, if you're talking about Earth and life observed on Earth, then there's plenty of evidence of evolution in action.
* note: I didn't say it was nessicarily false. The the historical accuracy this this case is not relevant to the story. There are deeper messages there, ones that can not be proved by scientific measurements.
Indeed, there would have to be a testable hypothesis based on well-defined concepts first.
'First, a background question: you know that a transitional species- a missing link- will itself be a species? Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species.
'Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.'
'If you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see the excellent and reference-rich essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution for the details) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)
So, going back to the post title, here's an analogy: given the existence of you and your brother, then both your mom OR your mom's siblings act as a missing link. They have traits common to both you and your brother. Given the existence of you and your cousin, then your grandmother OR your great aunts and uncles could act as a missing link. They don't have to be direct ancestors to be a link. They don't have to be dead to be a link- just older.
Given the existence of modern chimps (brain size 400cc) and humans (brain size 1200 cc), science expected to find hominids with traits similar to both. (Here the 'relatives' analogy doesn't quite work, because chimps live where fossilization is rare. Be like one side of you family always cremates their dead.) So far we have 20 main hominids. Look at the set of skulls science has. They're all fairly human, and they're all fairly ape-like, and they all are distinct species. Each is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)"
The fosil layer can be replicated in a VERY short amount of time, think about it, the bones if they were sitting in the open air for even thousands of years, not packed in by dirt, would probably not fosilize. Remember grade school science class, a jar of junk and dirt and water, to see how the layers land... that took 5 minutes.
What the hell kind of fucked up ideas about God do you have to have to think that God would put all this proof into the world that disproves the story in the bible? Can't you just accept that it might have been an allegory (or did Solomon's wife had teeth made out of sheep and a fortified tower for a neck)?
I'm a catholic and I spent 4 years at a catholic boarding school where I was taught mostly by priests. I think that the IDers who believe that the bible trumps evolution completely misusnderstand the purpose and the style of Genesis, and I got a lot of that belief from the priests that taught me.
Even the vatican has denounced ID as misguided.
That having been said, I don't believe that the validity of evolution and the existence of a god are at odds with each other. They're really disjoint questions. Answering yes to one doesn't require answering yes or no to the other.
_____
AFAICT, the heart of ID is that the 'proof' of evolutionary theory is nothing more than a godly prank on the scientific community, and the reason why there are (or rather, aren't) "missing links" is that the all-seeing, all-knowing God somehow 'forgot' to create some of the missing intermediate links in the palentelogical record.
They seem to further believe that 'we're right' is sufficient scientific cause to throw out a couple of centuries of accumulated proof and refinement.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/ embrace_your_inner_fish.jpg
Awwwwww.....
Lets not be so sterotypical here in your comments! I would say I'm an evangelical christian. I love science.
You are reinforcing the stereotype. If you are so fond of science, why don't you have a clue about how it works? Makes me suspect that your fondness is somewhat selective. Science never proved a thing. I thought everyone knew by now that the empirical sciences work with evidence, and proofs belong in formal systems such as math and logic. Claiming that a scientific theory is guesswork because it has not been proven is like claiming that Peter Forsberg is a poor athlete because he didn't make a single home-run last season. Wrong game.
Evolutionist are only looking at it w/ one objective, it must fit evolution and further its objectives.
Pot, meet kettle...
Anyone can go to a sperm bank and get some money in exchange for their precious bodily fluids. It's how I paid for CS books in college. There's probably a billion little copies of me running around somewhere, since I was tall, smart, and a college student.
Actually, that random link I found has a kinda cute picture of a duck looking down his pants. Heh. He looks sad!
Man, you really need that seminar!
Yes, yes, and yes. Getting back to the point, I did "look in the places that believers say the evidence is found", and the fact of the matter is the evidence for creationism isn't found there. All that you will find there is evidence that most of the people involved have not the slightest clue what they're talking about when they discuss science.
It's actually funny, because creationism to some degree kicked off my questioning. You see, I'd been brought up in RC, which has no real problems with evolution or science. It was only after I got involved with a bunch of reborns that I got exposed to creationism. It didn't sit well with me, so I started looking into it further and discovered that they were peddling worn-out, discredited old lies.
Not to say that something as simple as that was the cause of my rejecting religion, but it was one of the catalysts. I think your post exemplifies another catalyst pretty well too.
That's not a tectonic plate, that's a crack in the ground, that we have observed moving every once in a while. I could come up with dozens of (mostly silly) explanations for it. In casse it's not clear, I beleive Plate Tectonics is real. My point is, nobody spends much time doubting plate tectonics, though is is just as indirectly discovered as evolution.
"Seriously, if you want to keep the debate on a rigorous level..."
See, that's the problem. To the people like the GP (and myself, FWIW) there is no debate. To take a mundane analogy, it would be like sitting around the dinner table following a good meal, full and satisfied with lots of dirty plates still sitting around, when someone says "So I'd like to debate whether or not we just ate."
The idea you could debate such an "obvious" conclusion is ridiculous. Likewise, to myself and many others, the idea you could even begin to debate whether or not evelution is responsible for the complexity of life is absurd.
-Trillian
I get your point, I thought it would be funny to show that picture. Can you imagine if part of genesis said "And Lo, God spoke and the Earth's crust came to be, a continuous, stationary mass. And it was good."
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
"He said evolution on a cosmic level"
Yes, but that's meaningless, so I ignored that part in an effort to be charitable. I was taking issue with the "educated guess" part. The theory of evolution does not address the origins of life, or attempt to. Any attack on evolution based on origins is pointless, except as an unwitting admission of ignorance by the attacker.
Oh yea, verily I say unto you--it sure seems people are unlearning a lot about science these days. So, one more time for the record:
Claiming that a scientific theory is weak because it has not been proven is like claiming that Peter Forsberg is a poor athlete because he didn't make a single homerun last season. Wrong game. Science deals in evidence, which makes a theory more or less likely. Biological evolution has a lot of evidence, non of which proves it, but enough to make it very, very likely. Similarly, the theory of gravity (you know, the theory that stuff falls down) has lots of evidence, but not enough to prove that it's true. Nor did Charles Darwin make a single homerun last season.
Bonus redundant explanation: the end product of science is theory, not fact. Facts are things observed in nature, that may constitute evidence to corroborate or refute a theory. (For the logically inclined, facts tend to be existentially quantified, theories universally quantified.) Theories are what scientists produce and work with, and they never stop being theories to become facts, just like baseballs don't become hockey pucks. They just become more or less likely. Evolution through random mutations and natural selection is more.
When discussing evolution (or Apple, etc) you're supposed to turn humor OFF at the beginning of your post. Hope this helps!
Man, you really need that seminar!
Nope, I wasn't the one that was claiming that about platypi - I don't know what platypi are.
> You need to learn a lot more about how fossilization works.
True. I am realizing that I've been arrogant. I think I am searching for answers in the wrong place - I'll inevitably come up with more and more questions and never come to a real conclusion.
Thanks everyone for putting up with my posts on Slashdot.
See, that's the problem. To the people like the GP (and myself, FWIW) there is no debate.
I agree that there's no real debate between creationism and evolution. But if you want to be the side that espouses rigor and accuracy, pointless namecalling just hurts your own cause.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Platypi are multiple, er, platypus...es.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
OMG... I was joking. But, in this joke, the Cave Man just happens to have fallen into someone's uncovered, unfenced swimming pool. Then, his harried/hairy ass drowns next to the pool filtration extension.
Course, if he was leaning or listing up against the poolside, he'd be the Lis'ing Mink instead of the Missing Link...
Curious, though... I wonder if a DA would sue the pool owner for letting or facilitating the cave man's gene pool die in the swimming pool. (I'm assuming a reconstituted caveman would have SOME kind of rights, or, would he have been multi-grandfathered to get these rights we (supposedly) have today...)
image word... "octane"
(pool-preserved bar-b-qued cave man, anyone? Cave man Jerky, anyone? (Add that to the list of Alien Jerky sold in Nevado near/past Bakersfield))
(No, I don't really have a "beef" with missing links...I usually leave'm at the store cuz they cost too much to bring home that bacon...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I ask about your educational background as your comments puzzled me. You write as an obviously intelligent person (yes, I'm complimenting you) who is strangely uneducated in evolutionary theory (yes I'm insulting you, but hopefully only a little!).
Your belief in the agnosticism of the scientific method is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Science should be based on observations not preconceived conclusions with the data then being shaped to fit. I believe that you are also correct in that all people, scientists and priests alike, have their own worldviews and bias. That is the beauty and strength of the scientific method, it doesn't care what you think. As long as you follow this method, your results will be unbiased and the facts will be there for all to see. How people interpret these facts in another matter entirely.
Hopefully I will be able to deal with your 2 examples.
The first one is a classic piece of misdirection that people are often taught in religous cultures: that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodymics states that a closed system will tend towards entropy/disorder. The world we live in is not a closed system (one where the amount of energy is static) but open (where energy enters into the system from outside). In our case it is the sun that provides more than enough energy to combat any tendency towards increased entropy. This can be seen by the fact that nearly all life relies either directly (photosynthesis) or indirectly (consuming plant matter or animals that eat plant matter) on energy derived from the sun. The few that don't are those life-forms around hydrothermal vents which derive their energy from the heat at these vents. To use your analogy, this would be the equivalent of getting a solar powered mechanic for your truck, who replaces worn parts with better ones, thus giving you a better truck!
This is how lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, they do so with the energy provided by the sun.
You second point deals with a couple of issues: supporting evidence for evolution and the politicisation of evolution.
Supporting evidence for evolution was fairly sketchy at this time. The shape of finches beaks is not a resounding confirmation of a theory but it was the start. You say that virtually no supporting evidence was found and this was probably true in the middle to late 1800's. But what is important is that what evidence there was supported evolution and that as more evidence was found it all agreed with the predictions of this theory. You also mention the contraints of the fossil record. It is fairly obvious that evolution could be shown to be false by the fossil record, and I'm not talking something as extreme as finding the skeleton of a homo sapien in the belly of a T. Rex but even something as subtle as an intermediate species showing traits that neither it's descendents or antecedents possess. Fortunately for evolution, the fossil record is congruent with the predictions of evolutionary theory to the extent that this new fossil species was predicted to have the anatomical features that it did and live in the location it was found in. The current state of the fossil record shows overwhelming support for evolution.
The second part, the politicisation of evolution I will admit to not being too knowledgable on. Not being american I cannot tell you the true significance of abortion to evolution, but I cannot understand you when you go from the 1850's to 1970's in half a sentence and then say that "evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record". You miss things such as the Scopes monkey trial where evolution was argued to be correct.
The true politicisation of evolution has come from the religious right who's world view is threatened by it's undermining of one of it's central tenets, creationism. I disagree that evolution has no place in schools. It is a scientific theory and as such should be taught in science classes. Science shou
I can't explain how much I respect the fact that you use a tone of derision while failing to address any of the meaningful components of my response. It's admirable how much you demonstrated the capabilities of your intellect.
Want to score some points? Drop the ridiculous attitude, and start conversing like an adult. I brought up some points that are *not* misdirection, ad hominem, or "inferiority-complex" related and you ignore those. Thanks for your ad hominem attack against me personally, and against people like me, though.
Hind-quarters of a large rodent, indeed.
I appreciate that you can respect Dembski's intellect. For what it's worth, Gould was brilliant - although his worldview affected his science to the point of making his intellect lack productivity. He was, simply, wrong.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If being in a book makes something true, than most Christians are in deep, deep doo-doo. Hint: "the Da Vinci Code". :D
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
but the scientific process with which it is studied.
Or rather, discussed. Ooops again.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Thanks for your intelligent and interesting replies - I was waiting for a bunch of flames and for my comment to be moderated to oblivion so I'm pleasantly surprised.
I do think Behe's arguments are flawed (I've just read Darwin's Black Box) and I understand why so many get angry with him. His attempts to explain biochemistry to the layperson are actually incredibly confusing, and he does often effectively argue 'I don't understand this so there must be no evolutionary solution'. What's interesting - and why I'm not afraid to mention ID - is that a more important idea arises out of his book, which is to turn the question on its head and ask whether it's possible for science to detect design (regardless of the mechanism, which could be evolutionary). It's a shame that much of the discussion around ID focuses on evolution-bashing, rather than on really looking at this question. (See the article this story refers to where it says ID proponents will be upset by the 'missing link').
I've also just read William Dembski's The Design Revolution. This book is much better written, and really focuses on the question of design detection. He uses the illustration of SETI to establish precedent for a scientific framework for the detection of the actions of an intelligent agent and looks at the philosophical and mathematical implications of applying this to origins of life.
I am a theist, and that is the main reason why I am interested in the above. I certainly agree with you that I "cannot stand the athestic property of science" - but I have no desire to put up with bad science just because it might chime in with my religious beliefs. It's worth noting that understanding motivation tells us nothing about the validity or otherwise of a scientific theory. Richard Dawkins is probably the most 'evangelical' atheist I have come across, but his science must be judged on its own merits.
I don't think there's yet a coherent 'theory' of Intelligent Design, but I do think there are important questions being raised - unfortunately amongst a muddle of half-baked ideas and theories, many of which at best count as pseudoscience, and the Creationist people have jumped on the bandwagon because it adds some credibility to their science.
I would compare the current situation to the work of Lamarck - at a big picture level he was really along the right lines, (and those who wanted a naturalistic origins story were prepared to accept his theories) but the actual science was profoundly wrong, which anyone who has studied basic science can appreciate. I hope there's a 'Darwin' for ID. But I'm also willing to accept that it may all come to nothing.
Thanks for a good conversation - hope you don't mind my long reply.
I live in Europe too, and I may have the answer for you. I first of all noticed this bit
and I find you simply left the missing link off of the list. The missing link is, of course, G.W.Bush - "one small twit for president represents a large step backwards for mankind" - to misquote a famous American.Then I came on this
and, if I may give you my opinion, the words "Microsoft" and "evolution" should not be included in the same discussion.And then I came upon this
and I thought that surely you jest. Why do you exclude the many serious women and children (not to mention dogs, cats, and canaries) in Europe who have trouble to believe in creationism and/or intelligent design ? If it came to a push, you might even have the kindness to include non-serious people ( such as myself, for instance).How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I agree with you on several points. I think you are spot on regarding Behe's attitude. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is nothing more than "arguing from ignorance". Some biochemists have been offended by this and resolved to proove that his "irreducible complexity" arguments are just ignorance, with the result that one of the biochemical pathways that he descirbed as being irreducibly complex has been found in a simpler form doing another job.
I'm not all that knowledgable about Dembski's work as I'm not a maths fiend but I distrust a scientist who has publically stated that Religion should supplant Science. You mention motivation earlier and his is obviously theistic, to the detriment of his scientific work (he has never published an article in a peer reviewed journal supporting ID, the one he did get published that is often said that was has no mention of ID in it).
The Lamarck comment was interesting as most people don't even know of it. Saying that the current situation is the same as his is not correct, I am afraid. Lamarckism lasted only a short time as the central underlying principle of aquired characteristics being passed on can easily be shown to be wrong. A pig with a missing leg does not give birth to piglets with missing legs. Darwinian evolution is very different. The supporting evidence is very strong (q.v. this new fossil species) with no conflicting evidence (like a homo sapien fossil in the stomach of a T.Rex). That's not to say that there is no ambiguous data, but this is data that could be interpreted in different ways, rather then data that is definitively supporting/conflicting.
ID is an awful philosophical construct. It has neither the neccesary credentials to be a science (no supernatural influences allowed) and nor does it make any predictions about future discoveries (such as what features would be expected in a transition species - a job that evolution did very accurately in this case). Different people have different definitions of it but in every case, the only purpose is to attempt to discredit evolution, not further our understanding of the world.
Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood me with regard to Lamarckism - I was comparing the state of ID to him, not of evolution or origins science in general. In other words, I'm admitting that the science behind ID has serious problems, but I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction; just as Lamarckism was right (big picture - inherited characteristics, gradual changes etc.) but wrong in pretty much all the details, I think that the thrust of ID is right (looking for real evidence of design in biological systems) whilst many of the details (e.g. the human blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved) are wrong.
Where I differ from you is that I don't think "no supernatural influences allowed" is a reasonable criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, cosmology was held up for years because the 'Big Bang' implied a definite start to the universe, and a definite start was thought to imply a cause ('who lit the fuse?'). Only as the evidence became compelling was the thoery accepted. Attempts have been made to exclude the possibility of a first cause by postulating an expanding and eventually contracting universe ('big crunch') - but really there is no answer to this because we can't know what happened before the bang.
I understand your viewpoint that ID is just an attempt to discredit evolution, but I don't think that's true based on what the ID people are saying (i.e. those that have published real books and papers - not 'Creationists' jumping on the bandwagon). Both Behe and Dembski state frequently that they have no problem with evolution being the general mechanism of species development. Again, I think there's confusion between motivation and the actual ideas that are being thrown around. I'm quite certain that Dawkin's motivation is to eradicate theism (he recently made a TV show entitled The Root of all Evil that attemps to show that religion is just that). But this has nothing really to do with his scientific theories and research (although he was trading on his name and reputation as a scientist when he made that programme). As a theist, I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit.
The peer review issue is often cited as a reason for regarding ID as pseudoscience; I think there's a chicken and egg issue there. It's worth noting that The Origin of Species was published as a book. There are plenty of ID books in print that can be pulled apart and tested - as many biochemists have done with Behe's work. Papers that are explicit about ID will not get published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals until the ideas that are proposed are acceptable to the peer reviewers. I think this is a shame, because the sort of work that Dembski is doing (is it possible to determine if there is design in biological systems?) is important - the answer might be 'yes it is, and there isn't any'. I believe science can both ask and answer this question (but that is just a belief) and I hope that the forum to do that will emerge and all the nonsense of young-earth creationists bashing evolution will stop.
I do understand and appreciate that ID is distasteful for a number of reasons. I've just read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and if that is all I had read I would agree with you 100%. But I've also just read Dembski's The Design Revolution and it's really, really good stuff. If you've enjoyed this discussion then I would really recommend reading Dembski's book. You probably won't agree with its conclusions, but I think you will find that it does give some promise of adding to our understanding of the world, and I would put it in that category of books that give a stimulating intellectual experience even if many would disagree with it overall.
You are on to something there. I guess I can only "prove" to myself that I exist. I mean, to me it seems quite obvious that I exist. However, I can't prove that you exist, and I certainly can't prove to you that I exist. And, for all I know, it is 1000% more obvious to me that I exist than it is apparent to you that you exist, if you exist that is.
Oh, okay. Now I get the Larmarck comment.
What I struggle with is that people look at science with a view to include a supreme being as you mention "I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction". Science doesn't care about deities, it is neither for or against their existence. It only cares about what can be shown from data, this is why the definition of science does not allow supernatural involvement as this by definition is outside of science. When you allow this, all scientific studies stop. Why is the sky blue? God made it blue. Why do we breathe air? God made us that way. Real scientific endevour comes from seeking out answers from experimental data. Evolution is a product of this, where the data suggested a theory which has then shown to be in agreement and indeed predictive of future findings.
I can't see how the Big Bang theory requires supernatural involvement. It is dragged into theses debates because of it's implications, not the science behind it. There is no real logical difference between asking what created the Big Bang and what created the (undetectable) Supreme Being that created the Big Bang. At no point do you increase your level of knowledge, all you are doing is adding a unproven and undetected element to your theory which the data does not support.
Your comment on Richard Dawkins is a valid one. You say that you "find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit". I would argue that religion is not his area of expertise and his views on it should be seen as such, views. In the same vein, I could say that " I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-science, but I am compelled to examine his religous works on their own merit". Dembski falls into this category, a man who has sacrificed his objectivity for a theistic crusade against "methodological naturalism" (the explaination of observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions)
Peer reviewed journals are the gold standard of scienctific work. Origins of a Species was published as a book because peer-reviewed journals did not exists at that time. Books were the method in which you distributed your finding: Pricipia Mathmatica and Descent of Man being two of the greatest of these. Peer reveiwed journals were created as scientists realised that anybody could publish a book and the mere fact that you had your work printed gave no validation of your work. Peer reviewed journals ensured a mechanism where all printed articles passed a high standard of scientific method and also meant that people could not make unproven claims. That is why all new science is published in journals and all scientific books cite these journal articles when they are published.
It's common for the Creationists/ID'ers to complain that their work is not published as it goes against the scientific establishment, but the truth is they are not published as they are bad and often lazy science. If some work was done, that followed the scientific method and shown evidence for ID or creationism or the existance of God, all the scientific journals would be clamoring to publish your work. The scientific acclaim would be massive and a Nobel prize would be guaranteed along with fame and fortune. True revolutions in science such as quantum physics are published as they are good science. People might not like what is written, but this work will always be published.
If I come across the Demski book, I will give it a try but I find it difficult to give much credence to a book which has been so roundly critised by other Mathmaticians, especially those who are the originators of the theories he uses (No Free Lunch Theorems - Wolpert) but I will read it given your recommendation.
I do totally understand where you're coming from, and I agree with most of what you're saying. My point about the Big Bang is that it was originally seen as implying a first cause, so was avoided rather than considering it on its own merits - until the weight of evidence became too great for it to be ignored. The mass of knowledge that was added to cosmology by this theory was held up for a long time because of religious (atheistic) beliefs. It never required a supreme being, but my perception is that it left a bad taste in the mouth for many scientists because a 'god' was an obvious candidate. ID does not require a supreme being either - if a designer is demonstrated then it could be space aliens - but obviously theists would be quick to point to a god/God as the answer. I hope that we can get a coherent framework to determine design (or lack of) in biological systems so that the issue can be settled.
Thanks again. Since you're willing to read Dembski if you get the chance, I think perhaps I should reciprocate by reading a Dawkins book - I've been wanting to read The Blind Watchmaker for a while so I'll pop over to Amazon!
But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that people who think that everyone is a little bit right are simply ignorant and confused, and that things are little bit more certain than that. But to know how it is, you need to learn some things. That's the downside to it. You need to make an effort, read some books, take a course. Or, you could take another puff off your joint and settle on that everyone is a bit right, and let's stay friends and talk about something else. Up to you.
I've enjoyed this too. This is the first thread on slashdot where I've managed to have this sort of intelligent conversation
I see what you're saying about the Big Bang and can well believe it. Many scientists are wary of dealing with theories that COULD posite an external creator due to the very small (but incredibly vocal) minority of religous zealots who then take this possibility (possible in the scientific interpretation of "not impossible" rather than the everyday interpretation of "slightly probably") as hard proof. The scientists then have to spend all their time correcting people and defending their work rather then doing any new work.
Design has not be shown in evolution. That is not to say that it is not there because as a former scientist, I feel that the correct mindset is to be open but skeptical of all possible explanations: that any theory that isn't known to be false is a possibly valid theory but I require proof for me to accept it as valid. One of the major problems with ID is that for it to be a theory, one would have to change the definition of science to the point at which astrology and the like woulld become a science. This cannot be.
I predict that the next battle of science and religion will be one of the biggest. After Big Bang/Genesis, Evolution/Creation & Design the third one will the the neurophysiological basis of conciousness against the religious idea of the soul. I think that this will have more greater implications than the other likely one of Artificial Intelligence.
By the way, the best Dawkins book is "The Selfish Gene" rather than "The blinfd watchmaker".
To anyone who has wondered why or how we know what we know through science and also anyone who loves 'blowing their mind' on really cool facts and figures I have to recommend "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. Many of the questions asked above are well and truly answered in this wonderful book especially in relation to our knowledge of the fossil record and the incredible improbabilitys of an organisim ever actually becoming a fossil.
Exactly. So how did the change occur if there was no time?
The Archaeopteryx bridged nothing. It's been proven to have been a real bird and not just a midpoint of evolution.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, by supposing that wasn't just a Troll post:
There are some things that you say in your post that suggest that you don't really know much about religion.
1- "Religion provides a great numbing effect"
If you make a good study of the effects of religion on the lives of many adherents I think you would quickly clear up for yourself the misconception that "numbing" is a universal effect of religion truth.
2- "It's easier to just give in to religion"
Having "given in" to a religion, and feeling pressures all around me to not live as I believe, I would have to disagree with you there. I can't think of any person that I know (from any religion) that feels like religion is the easy way out.
3- "All this killing in the name of religion is nuts."
The fact that I, and everybody I know (especially the strongly religious) agree with that statement, suggests that you've missed the point somewhere.
The trouble is that there are some religions that have exactly the effects that you've described. If you're looking for reasons to discount religion, you can definitely find enough bad examples. If, on the other hand, you're not trying to fit data to a pre-conception of what religion is, it is very easy to see that there are religions that are valuable to humanity.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The last post was from April 6th, but oh well.
The matter for the big bang had to have come from somewhere, so I don't see how the 1st law could be misused in that respect.
In general, the laws of thermodynamics that I know about state something along the lines of "given system A, that system A must now do this, or that, etc." In general science has to take the 'initial conditions" as a given, although we can keep pushing back farther and farther in time. So if science were to understand a universe before the big bang with less energy or more entropy than the big bang had, then the laws of thermodynamics would have something to say, namely that there would be a lot of explanation needed for how the universe increased its energy or decreased its entropy. However, right now, we more or less take the big bang as the first thing in the universe we can explain, and maybe the beginning of time itself (not that I understand what Hawking really means by that...), so thermodynamics only has something to say about what happened after the big bang.
Throughout history, philosophers and theologians have recognized that every cause must have a prior cause, and that cause a prior, etc, all the way back to infinity, or to some first cause (God). I believe Aquinas also claimed that even if time had no beginning, so the universe would be infinite, there would STILL need to be a "cause" of the entire infinite timeline, and we would still need God. What I think you are saying echoes that, so you are in good company. However, I personally was quite convinced by Kant's argument against the validity of arguments like this for proving God's existence. Essentially (and I'm not doing him very much justice here), Kant said that we must assume in our thinking that every cause has a prior cause, which is why the argument is so compelling, but that doesn't mean that this assumption is true. It may simply reflect the nature of our thought. Then this argument doesn't show that God exists, but only that as a practical matter, we must assume that he does.
You all sound like a bunch of buffoons. None of you have even seen it. I was able to see a drawing but that is it. The article I read said "Researchers found several fossils between four and nine feet long. The creature was a fish -- with scales, fins and gills -- but it moved its head independently of its body, could drag itself along on land as today's seals do, and may have walked, although the research team did not find fossil hindquarters to test that hypothesis." Where is are the lungs? More hopeful (faith?)banter about nothing. Maybe you can find another old monkey tooth and draw up another caveman(see Piltdown man and Ramapithecus). Maybe you should drop the agenda and really look at the facts. You have been looking at fossils for years and still have the same old tired "theory." First of all, how did what ever was there before "Big Bang" get there? What was it? Second, the principal steps en route to the origin of life as envisioned by evolutinary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of "simple" milecules necessary for life. (3) From these some proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds)that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themeselves. NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN. The chance of life forming apart from a creator on this rock is 1/10 followed by 113 more zeros. Any thing over 1/10 followed by 50 zeros is considered never to have happend. Getting the correct left handed 20 amino acids to line up and form a protein, considering there are over 100 some are right handed and some are left handed, is ridiculous. If somehow the amino acids did reach the organic soup the idea of polymerization is contrary to what takes place in that environment. More than likely a depolymerization would have taken place, breaking them up. If some how they survived this volatile envirenment either the oxygen in the atmosphere or if no atmosphere at this point, harsh ultraviolet radiation would have destroyed them. So before you go (again) adding this unseen, unstudied, artists rendition to my family tree the basic begining needs to be solved. Evolutions can't even get us to the first and oldest fossil let alone "bridge", "transition" or any other term you may use, to any creature. The uneducated, bible thumping, cretins know the beginning and it makes perfect sense. See Genesis chapter 1, its all in there.
Modded "Off-Topic"??? Like nobody else here posts off-topic for a joke.
This was probably modded by the person who thought I was serious and posted a smug reply only to delete it (and my reply to his/her reply) after I pointed out that it was a (perhaps bad) joke. Note the reference to the version numbers which seems not to realize that they are from different versioning methods.