Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Fossil Offers Clues To Primate Evolution
langelgjm sends in an update to a story we discussed over the weekend about an extremely well-preserved fossil of an ancient primate, Darwinius masillae, that sheds light on an important area of evolution. The 47 million-year-old specimen has now been officially unveiled, and while many media outlets are stumbling over themselves with phrases like "missing link" and "holy grail," it's clearly a very impressive find. "Discovered two years ago, the exquisitely preserved specimen is not a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but hints at what such an ancestor might have looked like. According to researchers, 'The specimen has an unusual history: it was privately collected and sold in two parts, with only the lesser part previously known. The second part, which has just come to light, shows the skeleton to be the most complete primate known in the fossil record.' The scientific article describing the find was published yesterday in the peer-reviewed, open-access journal PLoS ONE. Google's home page is also celebrating the find with a unique image." Science blogger Brian Switek offers some criticism of the academic paper and the media swarm, saying, "I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well."
... says it's a hoax. Any takers?
Actually, even if not, the circumstances are now rather dubious. Hopefully it hasn't been damaged in the course of it being sold in two parts and shipped around in private hands.
Oh noes! People made money off it!! Science was "hindered"!
Please. Any hindrance is temporary (47 million years old and it's been a couple more years! Avast!!) and the fossil getting this much attention can only help the cause - money pouring into the area isn't a bad thing either unless you really like staying a poor researcher.
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
That people can get elected without having basic modern ape like intelligence is the scary bit, this primate was probably more self-aware than many of those elected officials.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
nt
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
This story is actually a couple of days old and was previously covered by Slashdot.
Also, Slashdot is usually a bit behind on the breaking news, such was the case with the Sun/Oracle story and several others.
This is more of a media event than a true major discovery. All orchestrated by the History Channel.
See this article.
Why is this 'news', it is an old report IF you look at archeology reports.
Why is everyone so behind the times?
... says it's a hoax.
Of course it's not a hoax...it's my Ex. I just forgot where I buried her.
Interesting New Scientist blog: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/is-ida-a-pop-star-fossil-or-po.html They seem to make two main points- firstly that the whole thing is degenerating into hype, but more interestingly that there wasn't a big debate here anyway. Yes, it's a missing link, but it's one that all rational people knew must have existed somewhere. It hasn't ignited debate between creationists and evolutionists, for the reason that they don't really debate each other anymore- at least not in scientific circles.
Question: Are long tails in primates based on an expressed gene? I mean, has there ever been a documented case of a human being with a long tail?
Silly yes, but I've always wanted to know. Also curious if it would help with balance (improved martial art skills)
Life is not for the lazy.
You're an idiot.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
They mean that it is a relative of modern humans, but not a direct ancestor. You inherited DNA from your grandmother, but not your aunt.
http://www.mhall119.com
Not a chance. They'd have to reduce the Hitler coverage to do that.
rj
I'm sure this'll settle the debate.
I hardly believe anything Congress or the House says anymore. Calling them ancient fossils isn't going to help matters either.
It's weird that people think following the supposed arbitrary whims of a giant invisible daddy figure in the sky is a decent basis for morality.
http://www.google.com/ - check out today's logo.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
But its foot bone look similar to a humans so it got to be a missing link. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
She was found in 1983 by an anonymous collector. She was sold to the University of Oslo two years ago.
Tony.
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
Correlation is not causation. Just because different "racial" groups statistically have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept) doesn't mean that race has anything to do with it. The assumption that this difference is caused by "racial"/genetic factors, without offering any evidence to support that assumption, is invalid and may be considered racist.
The history of humanity suggests that culture is the overriding causal factor. Asians and Europeans are just as capable as Africans (or any other "race") of having a primitive, oppressive and destructive culture, as has been well established through the ages. For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known. Also, contrary to popular prejudice, there are African countries that are doing pretty well.
The only question is whether or not it indeed had a Human father and a Cylon mother.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php
1) Wary, not weary.
2) Nobel Prize for X, not the Peace Prize.
Unless you're from Alabama....
I was going to slap you down with mah pimp hand, but it looks like you done been slapped already. It is impossible to get real morality from an imaginary sky daddy. Real morality comes from examining the world: right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look. You stopped looking as soon as you heard that a sky daddy will spank the evildoers for all eternity. That's not morality, that's pathology.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They seem to think that the preservation provides good evidence for the Noachic flood - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link
Scientists really do need to discover a crocoduck, but I doubt that would even cause these idiots to shut up. They have so much foot in mouth they resemble a hoop.
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism:
biology
biochemistry
genetics
physics
astronomy
astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
Are you positively ABSOLUTELY sure it is 47 Million years OLD?
Really?
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1382
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Unless you're from Alabama....
Or an Anonymous prick.
Creationists didn't hava a any leg to stand on....
Never did, it is simple an example of sensationalist journalism...
Anybody who thinks that creationists will simply give up one day when you show them a missing link is wrong.... creationists will simply point out that to them you just created two new missing links in the family tree....
The don't have arguments... just their dogma, you are not going to convince them.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It looks like something ate a small monkey and got projectile diarrhea on their website. Someone should hack in and add some flies to it.
"You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?
ie, are Asians and Europeans just as capable of certain African peoples of sprinting or long distance running?
have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)
Ridiculously silly.
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known
I think you need to learn your history a little better. You're discussing myths and falsehoods, which makes whatever your beliefs about some "cultural" reasons utterly irrelevant.
As I understand it, IQ tests were largely developed by whites. You'd think that if they were biased, they'd have fiddled it so they came out on top.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The other way round, consider swimming.
Now you might say that the brain is a part of the body like any other, but that can't be right because ... well, it's different, and Stephen Jay Gould said so and anyway you're mean and it's NOT FAIR!!!!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Admit it, you're just pretending to be from Alabama. It's obvious.
If you were for real, you wouldn't be able to read.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You are trying to use hearsay to slander Kucinich, while giving the impression that you are being reasonable. You aren't. The important point for any readers to take away from this conversation is "So, as before, we basically don't know."
Everything else is unsupported innuendo designed to cast aspersions on Kucinich, which is exactly the type of slander I accused right wing loons of. Thank you for providing an example of the unfairness I mentioned.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
sorry for not being a physics freak. so they are saying that isotope decay rates differ on earth from other environments? that is pretty much huge in itself.
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
Are you positively ABSOLUTELY sure it is 47 Million years OLD?
Being a geology fan, I like to think of it as "47 million years YOUNG"!
I think you have lost your marbles.
sigh...
You do know that it was not too long ago that it was hypothesized that Afrikans* had "fast twitch" muscles that enabled great speed, but reduced long distance running, AND that Europeans had "slow twitch" muscles that were poorly adapted for speed, but excelled at long distance running. This was all prior to the 1990s when all those Afrikan runners started winning marathons.
Long story short, people are people. We all work with what we have. I have seen many examples of people with huge potential go to waste, and many examples of people who just refuse to lay down and die despite tremendous obstacles.
* I spell Afrika with a "k" because Afrikans spell it with a "k".
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Way to go with a logical fallacy.
Also, you exhibit a deep lack of understanding with respect to most of Christian history.
Of course it's 47 million years old, the creationists are using this to cast doubt on the fact that it is older than 6000 years. Most likely they purchased it privately to destroy it, but they couldn't because it's DOLOMITE, baby!!
I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
Shorter WheelDweller: Evolution is false because the bible is "so right" about a couple of things
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Of course... YOU'RE sitting at YOUR computer, on YOUR internet connection using YOUR Firefox installation to learn things yourself. By that logic, YOU'RE smarter than everyone else. Hey, you play WoW don't you? Call it a hunch.
A poor hunch. I don't own a computer - I have one given to me by my employer. I don't use Firefox. I don't and have never played WoW.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
So that is why people from Alabama grow banjos on their knees? The teacher never told us why.
Ezekiel 23:20
Without some timeless being which created everything, there is no absolute truth, which means that morality is a construct of society, and reflects the values of that society.
Sorry, but 1+1=2 does not require "some timeless being" to accept, and the Golden Rule is simple ethical algebra that doesn't depend on your opinions of the FSM. Space and Time may be relative, but Planck's constant and the speed of light are not. Morality may be a construct of society (note that I'm not accepting this hypothesis, merely working with it for the sake of a thought experiment), but Human society is created by a pack of social apes with a huge degree of common wiring, including mirror neurons, and inevitably reflects that fact. Pure moralistic relativism of the sort that that the religious so loudly and publicly worry about would only be possible in beings of pure thought, which we are decidedly not, and even if we were, basic game theory would militate against certain ethical formulations; cooperation is a first-rate survival trait in Darwinian terms (which may well be why we evolved mirror neurons in the first place).
Some elements of morality are purely subjective and slippery; others derive purely from our hard-wired brain circuitry, which in turn stems from millions of years of evolution; and others still derive from basic mathematical truisms.
Thus, this comic seems terribly appropriate (PhD Comics ftw): http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?
So you claim that physical attributes are related to intelligence? If not, you're off topic; if so, you're not worth arguing with. Anthropometric theories of intelligence have been utterly discredited since the 1940s.
have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)
Ridiculously silly.
Your inability to come up with any substantial response is a sign of ignorance.
You might want to educate yourself. For example: Intelligence across cultures
As I understand it, IQ tests were largely developed by whites. You'd think that if they were biased, they'd have fiddled it so they came out on top.
It's not that conscious. No conspiracy theory is required. Cultural bias slips into IQ tests without the designers noticing, but it's a well-established fact now that it has. There are efforts to eliminate cultural bias from IQ tests but it is unlikely that this is even possible; for example, visual processing, although language-independent, is culturally determined to a massive degree. For a little background here's the same link I gave to the other guy: Intelligence across cultures (APA).
Besides primate evolution is essential to the church. They start as vicars, progress to bishops and eventually end up as primate.
So you claim that physical attributes are related to intelligence? If not, you're off topic; if so, you're not worth arguing with. Anthropometric theories of intelligence have been utterly discredited since the 1940s.
Haha, nice try. It's clear and undeniable that different families have different physical attributes. It's clear and undeniable that different families have differing level of susceptibility to different diseases, conditions, etc. Is one really to believe that everything is heritable EXCEPT for anything to do with the brain...really? What makes the brain exempt from evolution and heritability?
Your inability to come up with any substantial response is a sign of ignorance.
How about this--if you had said the SAT was culturally biased, you MIGHT have a point. Brainpower is brainpower.
Looking at your post history, it seems as if you're just trying to troll but I feel like this point needs to be addressed
A key one is, "Why must the Bible mention dinosaurs?". The oldest book in my home is a '73 VW Chilton's manual, but why should I expect *IT* to detail every step of evolution, DNA, and the singularity?
You shouldn't expect that information in a Chilton's manual. Though, if the book didn't even hint at the existence of your engine, vaguely described the workings of the other components of the car, contradicted itself frequently, and was blatantly incorrect on major points, you might question the knowledge of the books authors.
I'll just pick out one: "contradicted itself frequently". Please site just one source on this, and, please, save me some time and use it in the correct, full contect.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
How about when man was created - before or after the animals? The J thread and the E thread contradict each other right in Genesis.
In fact, tons of contradictions can be found just by following the J vs E threads in the OT - Noah is another easy one (was it 2 of each animal, or 2 of most animals and 7 of some others? J and E contradict each other here)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It's clear and undeniable that different families have different physical attributes. It's clear and undeniable that different families have differing level of susceptibility to different diseases, conditions, etc. Is one really to believe that everything is heritable EXCEPT for anything to do with the brain...really? What makes the brain exempt from evolution and heritability?
Nice straw man. I never claimed the brain is exempt from these. My claims are that intelligence is a culturally biased concept, that intelligence tests consequently have an inherent cultural bias, and that "race" is irrelevant in determining intelligence, its correlation with culture being mere coincidence. Not a word you said has done anything to refute these claims, for which the scientific evidence is overwhelming and widely accepted.
But the death blow to your argument is that there are no races. Individual/familial genetic variation is so much greater than genetic variation between races that the latter is insignificant, making any "racial" distinction on the basis of superficial appearances such as skin colour meaningless. That makes race a purely cultural concept.
How about this--if you had said the SAT was culturally biased, you MIGHT have a point. Brainpower is brainpower.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but I think you might be implying that brainpower is purely genetically or "racially" determined. If so, that's wrong; environmental factors including culture have everything to do with it (ref.: Nature, Nurture and Early Brain Development). It starts right in babyhood where interaction with the baby is an important factor in determining brain development. How this interaction is done is culturally determined to a high degree.
It continues through adulthood where our mode of interacting with the environment is culturally determined and determines which brain parts are stimulated and strengthened and which are not. For example, London taxi drives have enlarged hippocampuses because they have memorized the entire London street map. More generally, our visual processing capacity has been massively increased for the recent few generations due to television and the image culture; simultaneously, most of us now have the attention span of a gnat and have become impaired in our ability to read a book or otherwise stay on the same task for hours on end. Conversely, our ancestors would have considered MTV a form of visual torture; their brains couldn't possibly handle it. These are all very real aspects of biological brain development that are culturally determined. (Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains is a good social commentary on that phenomenon.)
More proof? The Flynn effect: average IQ scores worldwide tends to increase about 3 points per decade, reflecting improvement in education standards worldwide. They have to periodically recalibrate IQ tests because of that. In a more extreme example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points in only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982 (see the wiki article for the reference). There is no way for any of this to be caused by genetics. Genes don't change that fast.
In short, denying cultural influence on brain development is just as silly as denying genetic influence on the same. And "race" is a genetically insignificant factor compared to individual and familial genetic variation, which puts any and all nonsense about Africans being stupid due to genetic inferiority in the rubbish bin where it belongs.
Your candor is appreciated. Yet reality is indeed a strange thing when we have been taught to perceive it by others.
I assure you I am finding marbles which I never even knew I'd had.
Satnam - "I respect the truth within you"
-Joe
Nice straw man. I never claimed the brain is exempt from these.
Ok, if you didn't, then cool--that makes up a lot of what I disagreed with. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you claimed that culture causes intelligence--I took that as meaning intelligence has no heritability. Glad we agree on that point after all.
p.s. I still don't understand:
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known.
That makes race a purely cultural concept.
Yes, race IS a cultural concept. I would not argue that point. I think I've been pretty clear in the last couple points about mentioning "certain African peoples" etc rather than saying "Blacks." As an example, using the example of Kenyan marathoners, most of the marathoners come from a small area of Kenya, and many are of same tribes. Tribes due to inbreeding are probably as closely as you can be related and not striclty be talking about families. "African" may not mean much, but when you look at the performance of sprinters and marathoners, it's hard to argue that many people of direct African descent dominate the scene.
I think you might be implying that brainpower is purely genetically or "racially" determined.
No, not at all. Let me put it this way--I don't believe people are getting smarter..well, maybe in some ways, but that's slow evolutionary change. I don't believe that we are in anyways smarter than people 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago, etc. 20,000 years ago? We might be smarter than them, hard to say. We're most definitely smarter than our ancestors of 100,000 years ago, etc.
Is intelligence genetically determined? IMHO (as far as I know, the science is still largely up the air), yes--with a but. The but is of course your genes give you a potential, doesn't mean you have to fulfill it. How many people with Michael Phelps' body would train hard enough to do what he did? How many people with Einstein's brain would do what he did? Difficult to say. I definitely believe genetics play a large part.
The point is, IQ, SAT, all these tests you keep talking about, they measure something, but it's open to interpretation as to what they measure. That's why I said you maybe have a point about SAT. Beyond that, when I said "brainpower is brainpower" what I meant is there are smart people, smarter people, and stupid people (and millions of variants in between). I believe in something called intelligence that is perhaps not universally quantifiable in a test, but that exists nonetheless.
Is "race" a genetically insignificant factor? Perhaps. The issue is that "race" and "skin color" are all most people think about. In reality there are basically clusters of somewhat related people. Is there a "Black" race or an "Asian" or a "White" race? -- absolutely not. The difference between your average East African and your average West African or South African can be huge. Ditto East European and North European, etc.
The modern world with all the movement and intermingle will completely undermine the concept of race in no time.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_2.jpg
"Lematre was driven by God."
Speculation.
"The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth."
hearsay.
"That means that the universe had a creation."
speculation + hearsay = false conclusion.
Look, I don't care if people believe in god, but you shouldn't be looking for my approval anyway. Please don't try and use scientific arguments to support that which is inherently faith-based and is _not_ provable (nor disprovable). Having said that, to try and use the absence of evidence against god as evidence for god is pathetic. Why do theists suddenly (after thousands of years) require proof for their beliefs?!?
Also, a god that is outside space and time, "kicked-off" the universe at the big-bang, and then left it to its own devices, is starting to sound very different from the Christian god...
Japanese and Korean women have dominated many marathon races.
Paula Radcliffe, an European woman, has broken all marathon records.
For many years, Europeans dominated long distance races, even after some celebrated victories by the likes of Abebe Bikila and there was an Italian Olympic champion recently.
Why Kenyans and Ethiopians are dominating now? Because they have set up a well organized training (with very few resources) and train harder than anybody else (some Kenyans that ply they trade in Mexico were surprised at how unwilling local Mexican runners were to do more training, this history is repeated in many other places. Say what you may about excessive training, these Kenyan chaps were more willing to put the effort, the fact that they were winning all races in the Mexican running calendar seems to probe them right).
And even then you get some Moroccans that beat the heck out of them...
Something else you forget is that genetic variability amongst people from Africa is far greater between them than in relation to Europeans and Africans.
When it comes to sprinting, dominated by Caribbean nations and the US, funnily enough the black people in those countries are more likely to have European blood due to the systematic rape of black women by men of European descent during slavery.
Recently countries like Nigeria and, surprisingly, Saudi Arabia, are generating better sprinters. The reason is not genetic, the interest in the sport has grown and more people train harder to achieve better results.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As I understand it, IQ tests were largely developed by whites. You'd think that if they were biased, they'd have fiddled it so they came out on top.
Someone did fiddle it and made a version that's a bitch for people unfamiliar with black urban culture to pass.
It isn't a well established fact at all. Some people think it is, or find it more politically expedient to pretend they think so, but there's no proof at all.
As to "people in non-Western cultures often have ideas about intelligence that differ fundamentally from those that have shaped Western intelligence tests", well they can think to moon is made of cheese fi they want - it doesn't make it so.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."