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.
This link to bbc news includes a picture of the fossil.
Doesn't look very tasty.
Don't Hate, Gestate
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 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
m = milli = 10^-3
M = mega = 10^6
325m years = ~ 118.6 days
Missing link may be a bit young don't you think?
> 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
Actually eating spaghetti and noodles in general is approved, sort of like going to communion.
Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
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
> If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are.
What makes you think that?
What is the probability that an organism will become fossilized, survive erosion and other hazards for millions of years, and then actually be found by someone? I.e., how good a sample do you think the fossil record is.
How easy would it be for you to find your own ancestors' bones going back 100 generations? Or just 10. What do you conclude from any gaps in that record?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Stupid comments? The MS bashers do what they do in all seriousness, my comment was a joke.
I don't know of many real scientists that believe that there is actually a debate, they know religion and science are completely seperate issues. However, when Christians inject their beliefs into public education systems that serve everyone's children, thats where the "at odds" comes in. I don't know what you mean by evolution on the "cosmic level", but there is absolutely no debate when it comes to evolution being the means by which each species arose from those before it. If you are one of those people that buys into the "it's only a theory!!!1111", then you arent a scientist. Science is a whole lot of "theories", but theories in a scientific sense are not the same as theories in a conventional layman sense. If evolution was a "hypothesis", then there would be room to argue, but in science if something is a theory, there is a lot of evidence to support it.
Anyone who takes any part of the Bible or any other religious text, especially those written before, oh lets say soap, was invented, has no place in science and especially no place in public educational policy. If you want your kid taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah put T. Rex on his ark, and that people who carbon date fossils have an agenda, there are plenty of private schools for you.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
So you are saying, that evolution researchers have an unfair advantage, because they not only have a theory (evolution), but also facts (fossil record) to prove the theory is sound?
"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.
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.
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.
We don't, that's why you won't find the term "missing link" used scientifically. It could have been one of many species that subsequently became extinct. However it's an example of a fish that developed features that we find in land based animals so it's at least an existance proof.
If you have a problem with it, no-one is insisting you believe it. You're welcome to your personal beliefs. However, you are (and have in your previous posts) disputing science based on those beliefs. No matter what evidence is put before you showing evolution to be correct, you would twist it or deny it because your faith does not allow for it. At least, unlike many Creationists, you seem to be willing to admit this. However, like many other Creationists you seem to feel that science must conform to your personal beliefs.
Keep in mind that if you're a biblical literalist, it is not just evolution you must deny, but also physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, and many others. They all point to an old Earth and contradict a literal reading of Genesis.
As I said before, you're welcome to your personal beliefs, but evangelising bad science based on those beliefs is not welcome.
The sad and simple truth is that you have to take it on faith that "this must have happened" to truly make the evolution theory work. That's fine, and that's ok... but it's not scientifically sound.
I think that all modern science, and probably all science through history as well, has to make assumptions for the sort "this must have happened." Science has an element of circular thinking in it. Evolutionary theory is nothing special in that regard.
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
right here.
> 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
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.
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.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Tiktaalik+roseae &hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
i'm sure i could find more if i tried