Slashdot Mirror
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."
God put all those fossils there just to test us..... :-)
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Now, I'm sure that by now my opinion regarding ID and its proponents is well-known, and I'm equally sure that the majority of the Slashdot community are in agreement, but there is one positive thing I can say about ID: it's thrown a spotlight onto the theory of evolution, and has stimulated many concerned people towards a more comprehensive understanding of the theory (as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the word 'theory' as it pertains to science). Also, it seems like there have been some major advances lately...this latest story hot on the heels of the walking fish discovery, that have gone a long way towards silencing the detractors of evolution. Whether these advances are truly happening at a faster pace than in the past, or said advances are merely being perceived as such due to the increased attention evolution has been getting of late, is difficult to say...but the central point remains that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID have both been placed under the harsh light of truth, and it is ID, not evolution, that is shrivelling away.
ID has done quite a bit of harm to the minds of young people, but by virtue of the controversy, it has also done some good. Think of it as...well...evolution in action.
Anyway, this latest news is great....now I finally have something solid to point to when my fundie friends stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'missing link! missing link!'.
Rationality will triumph....it's just going to take us longer than we'd like.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What did they do! Now we have to find four missing links to put between these they just found!
BTW, FP?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
This is about the third story on "missing links" reported on Slashdot (and in the rest of the media) in the past week.
The name "missing link" implies there is a problem with evolution, and this "link" solves it, when this is in fact not the case. There will always be gaps in the fossil record, and we should not call every discovery that happens to be within one of those gaps a "missing link".
As is always said, creationists love the discovery of "missing links", since every time one is discovered, the original gap is replaced by two new ones.
You illuminate a good point. For the creationist folks, they'll continue to dispute this because their blind faith requires it. It's like the entropy argument. They'll say that spontaneous organization can't happen because of entropy and ignore the fact that entropy only applies to closed systems.
It's cool that they discovered this but it won't change the debate.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
from the we-were-apes dept.
Speak for yourself, Zonk. I know I was never an ape. My distant relatives are a different story...
This guy's the limit!
Umm.. not a whole lot? Science doesn't have a specifically anti-Christian bias. Certain Fundamentalists simply just see something there and use it to play up their own sense of persecution.
Would anyone say a metallurgist has an anti-Christian bias?
click here to see what the missing link is all about...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How much you want to bet these guys have an anti-christian bias?
Are you suggesting rationality can't co-exist with religious beliefs?
Trolling is a art,
Why can't people think that God put an devolved form of life on the planet and we evolved like the Scientists say?
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's an assertion.
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.
I do love that they argue that you can't proove evolution but, in this book, some guy wrote long ago that's been translated and interpreted countless times, it says God made the world in 7 days and thus it is true. There is a certain amount of faith necessary to go from theory to fact but it's a very minimal leap compared to believing in the literalness of biblical text.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
My karma is always excellent, and my posting philosophy is to never be swayed by the potential of bad karma. There are plenty of places to post outside of Slashdot, but holding yourself back results in the mediocre quality that gets you on average modded down.
Thank you for almost getting it :-). Intelligent Design is not science, it is not a theory, it is not something testable by the scientific method. It is a proposal for a minor change in the philosophical underpinnings of modern science. The reason why it should be discussed in science classrooms is because even at the level of a highschooler, you don't want students to take the philosophical basis for what they are being taught for granted.
The issue at stake is to teach rational and sound thought in learning rather than as another poster said "fact after fact". Teaching critical thinking is just another term for teaching philosophy, and while you don't want to teach a straight mythology, you do want to consider the limitations of scientific inquiry, which intelligent design delineates quite starkly and with a fairly good rational model to step off from.
Considering Intelligent Design forces us to not take for granted the philosophical underpinnings of current scientific inquiry. Why is this important? Because science is not philosophy, but depends on a philosophical framework that can be exploited by politics and religion. Knowing this can make us more aware of the exploitation and more resilient to its efforts to sway public opinion.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
Think of it. It would have never happened if Q didn't hard convinced Picard to close that transtemporal abnormality.
Léa Gris
"Da, Gee Fred, It dosen't look good for us?" B. Rubble
Sig Hansen?
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.
an ill wind that blows no good
"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.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
How much you want to bet these guys have an anti-christian bias?
The facts have an anti-fundamentalist bias.
Perhaps I've been going about experimentation and research wrong, or it only applies to the scope of my own fields of study, but I thought theories were either supported or disproved. Proof is completely valid, accepted as true. It's always a bit of a stretch to use it in science.
It can be more of flamebait in a way. A news article cites findings and exclaims proof only to instigate an argument with the other side. More flock to it.
Anyhow, I don't want to detract from this interesting article. I just found it a poor choice of words for an article related to science. Definitive proof will always be elusive, but I'm glad to see we're still headed on the right track for evolution.
Fun Zoid RPG
(They won't concede the point, of course, but it's fun to watch them backpedal, spin, skid, etc.)
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
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.
Name your species -- whales, domestic dogs, cattle, modern antelope, sharks, squid, tapeworms, whatever -- and the fossil history won't be perfect but it'll be substantial. Darwin's insight was to explain the mechanism for change between one species and another -- but in terms of physical evidence, "Have we found many other 'missing links'?" is a no-brainer, because even back then the evidence was piling up.
The whole set of events that resulted in Darwin's Origin of Species was all about the enormous new body of evidence for species changing over time. Between the geology of Darwin's day, which showed the earth was of much greater antiquity than had been thought, and the colossal fossil finds that were happening, naturalists were presented with a raft of examples of transitional species: dinosaurs of course, but also all manner of species like fossil camels, burly "terror birds," and on and on. They were presented with overwhelming examples of species evolving, but they had to get their heads around the evidence to explain how things had happened.
And yeah, that does mean creationist objections to evolution have things exactly backwards when they talk about no evidence being there. Evolutionary theory started with evidence piling up to the point where it had to be explained.
The news just doesn't go crazy when someone finds a new fossil shark tooth, and it does play up the hominid remains. That's the only reason you had this idea.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Laying aside the whole evolution/creationism/design thing, the language used by these archaelogists is a big red flag.
..."We have proved that one (species) is transforming into the other" [--- how did they manage to prove THAT, without even any mention of how the fossils were dated?]
Count the number of times they use language like "proved", and also words like "for the first time", "unambiguous", "It is the only place in the world",
This is not the language of careful scientists. These are people touting themselves, their research and their region in spectacular ways. It is grandstanding. It may be that the results are valid, but I think we have every right to be skeptical until other scientists weigh in.
No, "the theory of gravity" is a theory because we don't know how it works. We have theories. Some of those show merit, and are actively being examined scientifically. It may be "as close to fact as we have", but that's not saying anything. We could have almost nothing, and that would still be "as close to fact as we have".
The fact that objects fall toward the earth and other large bodies happens and is not the "theory" bit. No one is disputing that things fall. If you examine the scientific history of various theories of gravity, though, you will see a lot of dispute.
Would you say gravity waves or spacial distortion are indisputable fact? What about HG Wells-era gravity "rays," or the Dilbert theory of gravity as the expanding universe?
Fact: things fall. Theory: gravity waves.
Fact: we are here. Theory: evolution.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
"Law" is a largely obsolete term that means "a simple scientific theory that seems to be reliable." These days, science is moving so fast that hardly anybody presumes to call anything a "law" anymore, no matter how reliable a theory might be. However, for historical reasons, the word "Law" is often retained for older theories, even after they are shown to be wrong. For example, the "Law of Gravity" is still understood to refer to Newton's theory of gravity, even though it has been shown to be inaccurate and has been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
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.
"Posted again (forgot the line breaks the first time):"
:)
Repeating the EXACT same thing TWICE, doesn't work either, sorry.
"The Bible precludes any possibility of evolution."
If you read it that way, I guess. But then the Bible is clearly pretty wrong, on the evidence. If you take the Bible as true over and above the evidence, then you are contradicting yourself, because before you seemed to be claiming that there was empirical evidence showing the bible to be good history. You can't have it both ways.
"Reality doesn't change because someone believes it, though that's exactly the philosophy which underpins evolution."
Nope, exactly the opposite in fact. Evolution, like all empirical science, assumes that the basic laws and functions and processes of physics and chemistry and so forth work the same in the past as they do today.
"There's the evolutionary account. There's the Biblical account. There are those who are consistent in their beliefs by believing one or the other. There are those who are completely confused and self-contradictory by trying to claim they believe in both."
I don't see the self-contradiction there, but whatever. Evolution, however, still isn't a "belief." It's an empirical conclusion.
"Absolutely nothing existed. Then something existed. That is clearly outside of the laws of the universe."
First of all, the scenario you describe is by no means the most accurate description of the start of the universe. Second of all, no it wouldnt really, but that requires an understanding of physics and thermodynamics. But thirdly, and most importantly, evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe. It doesn't even come into play that we know of for several billion years "later."
"Making any assertion whatsoever on the origin of life is at its root, a religious belief."
What, and simply claiming that it is makes it so? Why? How? Your previous line of logic, that the origin of life has something to do with the start of the universe has already failed as, well, silly. Now you seem to be talking about at least the origin of life, which is on the right track, but still wrong. Evolution is not a theory of life's origins. That's a different branch of explanation (though still solidly within the realm of science, not faith).
"I will agree about how solid and incontrovertible the evidence for common descent is. Plants, animals, and humans all bearing descendants "after their kind"."
Ah yes, "kinds." A term with no solid specific definition, which you will re-define completely at the drop of a hat. Tell me, are camels and llamas the same kind, or different? Are false killer whales the same kind, or different kinds? Define "kind" if you can: should be amusing.
Common descent, as you may or may not know, refers to the common origins of all life. Humans are apes, which are simians, which are primates, which are placental mammals, which are amniotes, which are tetrapods, which are vertebrates, which are eukaryotes, and so on.
"The answer has always been 100% consistent with the Biblical account of creation, yet scientists will pull bone out of 50 feet of rock and claim it as the grand explanation for everything."
If that's the limit of your understanding of how science works, then no wonder you are so incredulous. I suggest that you learn more about what is actually known and done.
"They'll claim the Grand Canyon is geologic evidence for millions of years of erosion, when Mt St. Helens shows similar features which developed in a matter of minutes."
Except that they aren't at all similar (good grief: the GC is 100,000 times larger than St. Helens, and the "canyon" elements radically and identifiably different since they were formed in radically different ways). And the fact that you are willing to claim that they are only demonstrates your willingness to, knowingly or not, repeat falsehoods in service to your belief.
"We won't agree here on wha