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."

7 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

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

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

  4. 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.
  5. Stop! by temojen · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  6. 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
  7. 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.