Missing Link Found Between Human Ancestors

simetra writes "Researchers with a University of California, Berkeley team are now saying they have 'proof' of human evolution. Fossils have been found linking two types of pre-human species." From the article: "The remains of eight individuals found in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia belonged to the species Australopithecus anamensis -- part of the Australopithecus genus thought to be a direct ancestor to humans, according to a report due to be published Thursday in Nature magazine. 'The fossils are anatomically intermediate between the earlier species Ardipithecus ramidus and the later species Australopithecus afarensis,' he said."

Comments

Oh, but that's just microevolution, you see

[roystgnr]

Even the creationists admit "microevolution" happens now; but they still won't admit macroevolution until you can turn the bacteria into a puppy before their eyes.

Re:In all seriousness though

[IAmTheDave]

Well, the problem is that you can't prove evolution. While this discovery certainly bridges the gap and piles on more evidence for and in favor of evolution.

Evolution is (GASP!!!) a theory - a solid, understandable, almost indisputable theory. Think of it like a murder case. The knife, DNA, motive, etc. might certainly remove all reasonable doubt... but without a video of the event, 100% proof of the event is impossible. That's why we have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" instead of just "proof" - because the evidence is mounted high, but it's not something that's observable in real time.

It leaves open the door for dispute, no matter how flimsy. It's something that we have to deal with, and will have to deal with forever.

Re:Intelligent design

[Guano_Jim]

Now the real question is, who put those fossils there?

Well, that's obvious.

Ramen.

Context for the results

[amightywind]

Here is a nice diagram that gives some context to the finds. "Missing Link" is hype and "Proof of Evolution" is very misleading. But the diagram is an amazing summary and speaks for itself.

What are you on?

[x2A]

"the problem is that you can't prove evolution"

What the hell are you talking about? Evolution is a known fact, we can even see species evolving ourselves. Like that lamb that was born with six legs... there isn't a species of lamb with six legs, it parents didn't have six legs, which means that a change must have occured. This animal wasn't able to walk by itself, which means that without human help, it would die... this is the natural selection bit. An animal born with better eyes/ears that could see/hear it's hunter/prey better would have the oposite effect.

The "theory" bit ISN'T that animals evolve, the "theory" bit is the path which evolution has taken to get everything to where it is now; which species have come from which etc.

Let me say one more time: evolution happens, we know it happens, we see it happening, it is not theory.

Re:What are you on?

[digidave]

Inheritable genetic mutations drive evolution.

Re:What are you on?

[plunge]

"Those things that I pointed out were not considered jokes, and were considered big finds that "proved" Evolution was real."

I'm afraid that if you actually read the real history of these finds, you'll find that you are wrong. The proof of evolution does not rest on any one single fossil, and all your examples are rather minor footnotes in the history of evolutionary biology, not "THE" anything. Only one major hominid fossil fraud ever lasted for more than a few years, and that was in part because no one was studying it because it wasn't very interesting.

Now, for years, journalists have been aggrandizing this or that fossil find as THE proof, but biology doesn't work like that. Again, there are THOUSANDS of key, hominid fossils known, all of which form a coherent picture and pattern of hominid evolution.

"he problem is that everything they find some human with a deformity, that it is the "missing link"."

There are all sorts of different morphological methods to distinguish deformity from normal, healthy adulthood, many based on understanding of what different deformities exist today and what sort of bones evidence they leave and what all sorts of different growth speeds and so forth do to tissues and thus end up in fossils.

But one of the easiest to understand without getting a forensics degree is the sheer unlikihood of finding ONLY a certain type of fossil in a certain place at a certain time, ALL of which have the same charactersitics. You can claim that they are all "deformities"... but then why do we ONLY find fossils of that sort at that time in that place and NEVER any "normal" individuals? And why do the "deformities" happen to all fit together in a particular sequence over time? I realize that this "deformity" thing is the last excuse that creationists can come up with in the face of the fossil evidence, but it doesn't hold up to anything more than a minute of reflection.

"Post one specific finding that proves evolution from the past that you base your belief in please."

Ok. I pick the twin (or triple, depending on how you look at it) nested heirarchies of all biological life that ever existed. That is, of all the currently living animals and fossilized species of which we are aware, they all fit into the exact same cladistic tree of branching ancestry no matter what method we use to compare them. For instance, we can determine the relationships of various species genetically in much the same way we do paternity tests. This creates a family tree. Or, we can use fossil and geological evidence to create a family tree based on inferred relationships in time and place. The two trees we build from these two different methods are identical. We can also build a tree based on just looking at morphological characteristics alone (though this might fold into the fossil evidence depending on how you look at it).

Again, all those trees are identical. Do you see the significance of that?

And that finding is even more startling when you consider all the different ways that the tree COULD be. For instance, even if you consider just 29 major taxanomic groups, there are already more than 10 to the 27th ways to arrange these groups into a nested tree. And yet, whether we measure yb morphology, genetics, or fossil/geological methods, we always get the same one, single tree. Even if you claim that one or another of these methods was somehow in error, that still wouldn't explain why they give the SAME answer. When things are in error, their results are not coordinated: the values they give are random, or off by different amounts. Instead, they are all the same. Only the truth of the implication can really explain that convergence, meaning that each of these methods allows us to check the accuracy of the others in an extremely robust manner.

Re:In all seriousness though

[OwnedByTwoCats]

"To Prove" means different things in mathematics and in science. In mathematics a proof is absolute, eternal, and contingent on stated axioms. A theorem that has been proven is true, given that its axioms are true.

In science, proof means "supported by evidence to such an extent that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse". Both stronger and weaker than mathematical proof; stronger in that no axioms are required, weaker because new evidence may be discovered.

Evolution, in the sense of the 3+ Billion year history of life on earth, is as proven as any statement about the real world can be. It is incomplete, but enough of the overall shape of that history is known that some startling predictions can be, and have been, verified by finding new fossils of old creatures to fill in the gaps. This is "Evolution, the fact."

Evolution, in the sense of the mechanisms that account for what we see in the history of life, and in ongoing behavior of living things, ranks with the standard model in physics and the periodic table in chemistry as fundamental explanations of the nature of the universe. This is "Evolution, the theory."

Re:Cease fire...

[abigor]

No, only in the popular vernacular. In science circles, it's strictly gravitational theory. In scientific parlance, "theory" means "as close to 100% solid fact as we have". That's why evolutionary theory is, well, a theory. The merits of it are really only debated by anti-science cranks and religious types.

Re:Well and...

[Jonny_eh]

What you claim about the new testament being retranslated, and transcribed over the years is true. I'll disagree with you on the point about the old testament though. The five books of Moses, which make up the most important part of the old testament, are taken directly from the Hebrew Torah. The Torah has been transcribed flawlessly, not even a letter changed, for at LEAST 2000 years. The Dead Sea scrolls contain a full copy of the Torah, and it matches the current editions that we have exactly. The methods for transcribing the Torah are very strict, and leave no room for error. If you are reading a torah scroll, and find an error, it's a religious requirement to stop reading it, and replace the section with the error.

If it was possible for the Torah to be transcribed for 2000 years perfectly, who's to say it hasn't been transcribed perfectly since it was written? Jews believe that the words of the Torah are God's words, so any mistakes in transcribing it would be misrepresenting God's word, which is bad.

When Jews study Torah, they study each phrase, word, and letter, finding meaning everywhere possible, therefore no mistakes are allowed.

Whether the reader injects the meaning, or the meaning exists to be found, is anybody's guess.

Re:Cease fire...

[fafalone]

That's really still a misconception of how strongly supported these things are, and a failure to seperate EVOLUTION (not really a theory) and the THEORY of natural selection (which the person without much understanding of biology can't seperate from evolution, and thinks is the same as 'theory of evolution). Because of the massive convergence of evidence from things like fossils and molecular biology, and it's absolutely irresponsible to argue that evolution is on the same level as theories like gravitational waves. It's more like this:
Gravity is overwhelmingly supported by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being a distortion in spacetime is a theory which has changed many times.

Evolution is similarly overwhelmingly support by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being natural selection of favorable-to-reproduction genetic mutations is a theory which may be modified as new evidence is discovered.

THAT is what the actual scientific consensus is. No one is disputing evolution, at least no one who actually is aware of and understands the evidence. The evidence is so strong that arguing evolution is like arguing that gravity might not exist. If you want to challenge how those processess proceed, go for it. General relativity is open for revision, natural selection/genetic mutations driving it is open for revision. Gravity happens. Evolution happens.