Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Missing Link Found Between Human Ancestors

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the we-were-apes dept.

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."

28 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. Naww... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Funny

    God put all those fossils there just to test us..... :-)

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Naww... by dc29A · · Score: 4, Funny

      God put all those fossils there just to test us..... :-)

      You mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    2. Re:Naww... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Funny

      God put all those fossils there just to test us..... :-)

      But the Bible leads us to believe that God wouldn't do this. However, the sacred scriptures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster explicitly say that He does do this; therefore, FMSism is the one true religion.

    3. Re:Naww... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't find a missing link. Now that they've found the fossils, they are no longer missing! Unless someone loses them. :-(

      What they have done, though, is to create two new gaps.

  2. Why Intelligent Design Is Good: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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

    1. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Good: by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the biggest problem is that we don't put enough emphasis in schools on the methods and criteria of analytical thought, and instead just teach fact after fact after fact. Which is more useful to know?

      If you tell someone "This is the truth" then what you get is someone who believes what he hears. If you show someone how to find the truth, what you get is someone who can make his own descision about what he is told.

      You see this every day with stupid lawsuits from people whining because they weren't told that something could be dangerous, when the ability to think rationally and apply logic to a situation should have made that obvious!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Good: by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah, but what you've missed is that many humans seem not to have this capability for analytical thought you would like to teach. I'm not sure whether its been beaten out of kids by their brainless parents, or whether they were born that way, but a large proportion of the current adult population really can't think analytically at all. Moreover, it's a very hard thing to test for in a standardized way. How can you leave no child behind, if you don't have a standard by which to determine if they are behind? Facts, on the other hand, are very easy to test for.

      Put another way, offer to pose a word problem to most adults and you'll see pupils dilating in fear. Now, you and I and the rest of the "smart" people know damned well that all a word problem is is a way to test if you can actually connect phyical conditions to a static, rules based concept (typically arithmetic or algebra). It's coming up with 2+3=? instead of a teacher asking you what 2+3 is. The latter is easy, the former is more complex.

      This problem is continued at higher levels, even through the graduate degrees. During my masters work, most of the courses (in strucutral engineering) focused on applying the proper techniques to solve for stresses and stains in materials based on a set of given loads. Well, sad to say, that is the easy part of any task. I didn't have a single class that was focused on determining how to figure out what loads were actually going to be acting on the materials. And that happens to be where the real work is. I can teach a high school graduate how to find the right table and apply a simple formula to get an answer. It's much more difficult to figure out where the loads are coming from in a complex load path.

      So, yes, we need more focus on critical thought. Unfortunately, I don't see things getting better from either the political or practical side.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  3. Will the media stop calling them missing links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. In all seriousness though by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:In all seriousness though by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    2. Re:In all seriousness though by BWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the creationist folks, they'll continue to dispute this because their blind faith requires it.

      While I am a scientist, I also believe in God, and that was partially my point in the original post, albeit glibly stated. The amazing thing about the creationists and the fundies is that there is no allowance for thought. Look, we have been given the gift of choice and the gift of intellect so that we can question and discover the wonder of the universe through science. Nothing out there says that God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehova etc...etc...etc... cannot work through science. Of course this is partially the deal that ID folks want to play up, but the problem with their perspective is that they *are* blinded by preconceived notions rather than allowing themselves the dangerous and subversive prospect of questioning and thinking for themselves.

      For my part, I don't care what people decide to believe or not as long as they don't tell me what I have/should believe. More importantly, there are fundamental issues related to education and economic development and freedom that are dependent upon having a basic understanding of how things work scientifically and mathematically. To cripple education through the agenda that the ID folks are proposing is doing a disservice to us all.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:In all seriousness though by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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."

    4. Re:In all seriousness though by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the funnier ones that I heard was from an ex-student of mine( he was with Focus on the Family). They were doing a demonstration of Carbon Dating. So they took samples and showed that there were incorrect. One of the better ones was a knife blade from a knife that was made the previous year. When I mentioned that the dating requires the item to be from something living or once living material (such as the wooden handle of the knife), he replied that there was nothing written to indicate that, so it could not be true.

      It was good for a chuckle. But it did show me that the moral majority group was alive and well.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. apes? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  6. Re:Suuuuure they are by jx100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. i've got your missing link right here.... by pxuongl · · Score: 5, Funny

    click here to see what the missing link is all about...

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. I don't get it. by cosmotron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:I don't get it. by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image. ... so that would imply that god is an omniprsent monkey. Zealots prefer to worship the image of an old guy with a white beard and hair, they're not so keen on worshipping Koko the signing gorilla.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  10. Stop! by temojen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intelligent Design is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's an assertion.

  11. It is this hesitancy that ruins your Karma by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. All this marvel would have never happened by La+Gris · · Score: 5, Funny

    Think of it. It would have never happened if Q didn't hard convinced Picard to close that transtemporal abnormality.

    --
    Léa Gris
  13. Context for the results by amightywind · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  14. Re:Suuuuure they are by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How much you want to bet these guys have an anti-christian bias?

    The facts have an anti-fundamentalist bias.

  15. Re:Well and... by Syberghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, there is a whole spectrum between "the Bible is literally true" and "there is no God".

    I've always thought one of the best portrayals of this is the musical Jesus Christ, Superstar. If you look carefully at the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and the Apostles, Jesus is growing increasingly frustrated that the people closest to him just don't get it; so much so that he begins to lose faith himself in the path he's on, and has to seek reassurance that any of his message will survive.

    Those people who "don't get it" are the ones who wrote the New Testament. It's even worse with the Old Testament, where the documents we have now are even farther removed from what was written closer to the time of the events described, and in some cases represents written transcription of tales told by word of mouth.

    It is likely (and I'm of the opinion that God doesn't exist, but I'm setting that aside for this discussion) that everything in the Bible is simply a bunch of flawed humans trying to get their minds around stuff they didn't really understand, and then it got translated and retranslated and mistranslated and untranslated and other words I can't be arsed to make up at the moment, and doesn't represent what people actually SAW or were told at all. This is possible without being any kind of evidence for or against the existence of God.

    So, let's not confuse Creationism with Religion. The one comes from the other, but the two are not the same thing, and invalidation of the one doesn't speak to the other.

  16. One way to point out inconsistencies by bwintx · · Score: 4, Funny
    Whenever the subject of bird flu comes up, ask your nearest fundies whether they're worried about it coming to [wherever you are]. Then, ask why. Then, point out that, unless they typically handle strange birds that fly into their yards or are poultry workers, they can't get bird flu -- unless it mutates to a form that can be transmitted from human to human. They've heard that often enough, they probably won't even argue -- until you explain that mutation is part of evolution. Therefore: if they're afraid of getting bird flu...

    (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
  17. "Proof" = Grandstanding? by balaam's+ass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Laying aside the whole evolution/creationism/design thing, the language used by these archaelogists is a big red flag.

    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", ..."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?]

    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.

  18. Re:Well and... by plunge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2000 years takes us nowhere near far enough to claim that the text is some sort of unaltered missive. Yes, we have copies from 2000 years ago. But we also have more recent copies, and we also have older copies, and the overall conclusion is that the text changed a lot. In fact, it's pretty solidly supported at this point that the Genesis story is cobbled together out of two separate creation myths. In fact, we even know these myths.

    Before Moses, people spoke of seven _generations_ of gods who created the earth, the sixth having the bright idea to create a servant (man) whom would allow the seventh generation to rest while man continued working. Other cultures spoke of the gods creating man and woman together. Others spoke of the creation of Adamah, a man made of red clay, a golem creature. And so on.

    "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?"

    Modern scholarship and an analysis of the text.