New Dinosaur Species Is a Missing Link

An anonymous reader writes "A new dinosaur provides a link between what paleontologists consider 'early' and 'later' dinosaurs. There's a gap in the fossil record between the oldest known dinosaurs, which walked or ran on their hind legs about 230 million years ago in Argentina and Brazil, and other predatory dinosaurs that lived much later. Daemonosaurus chauliodus helps fill in a blank in dinosaur history."

Comments

And now there are TWO gaps!

[Anonymous Coward]

And now there are TWO gaps!

Re:And now there are TWO gaps!

[hoytak]

It's the key idea of "The Bisection of the Species", a book written by Darwin's lesser-known great-great-great-grandson who studied computer science. Incidently, they both had similar beards.

Re:And now there are TWO gaps!

[Black Parrot]

It's the key idea of "The Bisection of the Species", a book written by Darwin's lesser-known great-great-great-grandson who studied computer science.

A classic binary search...

Incidently, they both had similar beards.

Well I don't know about Pappy Darwin, but the Younger Darwin surely knew that he'd never get any respect as a computer scientist if he didn't have a big bushy beard.

At least if he used UNIX...

"Daemon"osaurus?

[TheABomb]

Did it run on Linux?

Sorry, but it is /., so I had to ask.

Re:"Daemon"osaurus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it run on Linux?

If it was running Linux, it wouldn't be extinct.

It would still be running, and hold the record for longest uptime.

Re:"Daemon"osaurus?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It ran on the ground, but Linux may well have ran on it.

If you watch closely, you can see it running in the background in Jurassic Park.

Re:"Daemon"osaurus?

[nanoflower]

Linux or Irix? Given that the interface that the girl uses when she says she knows this was a little demo file system interface written for Irix (and how many SGI systems they used in the movie) I think it's a safe bet that's what they showed.

Species 404?

[PPH]

The missing link?

Re:Species 404?

[rossdee]

Thats OK, this is slashdot - nobody is going to click on it to RTFA anyway.

Re:Species 404?

[sumdumass]

Dude, it said in the title the link was missing. Where were we supposed to click?

Now there are two gaps ..

[jc42]

In the ongoing "discussion" with the creationists, it has occasionally been pointed out that whenever a biologist finds a fossil that fills in a gap in the fossil record, one result is to replace the one gap with two gaps. Thus, no such discovery can ever persuade the creationists; it just adds to their list of known gaps in the fossil record To them, evolutionary theory can't be ready for prime time until all the fossil gaps are filled in. They don't acknowledge the patterns that biologists find in the (admittedly very sketchy) fossil record.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[The End Of Days]

What I always wonder is why bother trying to convince them? Who cares? Let them be ignorant.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Anonymous Coward]

What I always wonder is why bother trying to convince them? Who cares? Let them be ignorant.

Because they are waging their influence on entire school boards in some US states. That is a very large number of people who are going to grow up ignorant.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Skidborg]

You honestly think voting matters anymore?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Jarik C-Bol]

ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask:
In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this? have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?

Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no. Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have. As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.
Sure, some groups may not accept what you think, but others will, and that pretty much sums up human existence.

Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life. I'm ignorant of the precise internal workings of a hybrid electric automobile, as well as how the exact details of how the north-bridge in a computer works. I'm also ignorant of the exact details of the rise and fall of the Byzantine empire, but not knowing these things does not prevent me from having a decent life, and refusing to learn them only precludes me from working in a few very specialized fields of work. This whole blood feud between religion and science is pretty pointless when it comes down to the day to day lives of most of us, and I'm starting to get tired of it.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly? Aside from your entire argument, that was a great argument.

As a parent of two kids in public school in Kansas, yes, I am concerned. I could also point you to several other states, Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor. The Creationist movement is quite active, and if we don't stand up to these idiots, they will happily eviscerate public school science education.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Nursie]

"In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person?"

Biological and medical science wouldn't be where they are without knowledge of evolution and DNA, part of the whole picture is our evolutionary pattern.

BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.

Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life.

Teaching ignorance of life sciences to an entire generation is a recipe for total scientific failure later on, not to mention that teaching blind faith over critical thinking in general is a terrible idea.

What one person believes is irrelevant. What is taught to entire generations of children will have an impact on the future of the country.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[kurzweilfreak]

Guess you won't be getting a new flu shot next year! Let me know how that works out for ya...

You may be ignorant about all those many things, but what you aren't is trying to convince everyone else that those many things work through magic rather than how we know they really do, and that the "electricity theory" of hybrid engines and computers is all a lie sent by the Devil to make you sin. It's one thing to think what you want about something, but it's totally another to try to convince everyone that the scientifically accepted explanation is a load of crap to try to insert your own particular brand of mythology in its place. I mean, who wants to major in biology? That's just silly!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[kurzweilfreak]

It also makes a difference which particular brand of mythology your politicians subscribe to when they decide to start making public policies because they believe the End Times are coming in their lifetime, so fuck long-term thinking.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[similar_name]

Let's say .1% of the population if properly educated will help to advance mankind. It may be understanding a disease or how a virus mutates that leads to better treatments. It may be the engineering (math, physics, chemistry) of the next addition to our infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, phone, internet etc.).

Personally, I think teaching millions of children who would rather be ignorant is a fair price to pay for the thousands that advance our civilization. Correlation may not equal causation but a quick look at per capita education spending does not support the view that a wide swath of knowledge has a negligible affect on your life.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Nursie]

All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.

What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean that because it's not possible to trace a direct lineage from a given fossil bone to yourself, that you have doubts that any of it happened?

That's not to say I don't believe evolution. I just get really offended when someone tells me I can bring up questions about it.

CAN'T
CAN'T
CAN'T

Sorry, pet hate. Also, nobody's telling you that you can't question it. What you actually can't do is make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't), tell your followers that this proves evolution is all lies, exclaim that as a result it is now 100% certain that god did it, and then (and this is the bit that gets people like me really upset) demand to use my tax money to spread your dumbass beliefs to everyone else's children.

Hell, if you have legitimate concerns about specific areas of evolutionary theory then I'm sure people would be glad to hear 'em. At this stage it's highly unlikely that they would derail the whole thing, because it matches reality so well. But it would be really cool if there was a Einsteinian relativity -> Quantum physics style leap at some point that allowed us to understand the whole thing in a new way. (The Newton->Einstein jump, IMHO, was the discovery of DNA and how it works, though of course this knowledge is still incomplete).

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[__aaqvdr516]

Understanding our evolutionary path gives us insight into our behaviors. Our continued success is a trait that was molded upon the past success of our evolutionary path. The windfall you speak of is the consciousness raising understanding of everything that encompasses our evolutionary heritage.

Your bets are wrong. Don't worry though, you're not the only one.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[PmanAce]

What I always wonder is why bother trying to convince them? Who cares? Let them be ignorant.

Uhhh...have you seen the increasing numbers in the Tea Party recently?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[pookemon]

So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?

I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist. My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views. I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots" - I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.

Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[c6gunner]

For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor.

Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Antecessor
Homo Erectus
Australopithecus Afarensis
Ardipithecus

How far back do you want to go?

It's rather irrelevant, anyway. Let me rephrase your complaint:

"You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."

Yep. Makes perfect sense.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[internettoughguy]

He is probably more opposed to the presentation of both "sides" as if they stand on equal footing. For example no one will complain if a social studies teacher explains the conflict between religious fundamentalism and science.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And you're not going to convince imbeciles like that. Write them off, minimize them. Try to counteract their idiocy where possible. Don't waste energy trying to convince morons. You'll only frustrate yourself and make sentient beings like pigs jealous.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[ArcherB]

Sorry, pet hate. Also, nobody's telling you that you can't question it. What you actually can't do is make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't), tell your followers that this proves evolution is all lies, exclaim that as a result it is now 100% certain that god did it, and then (and this is the bit that gets people like me really upset) demand to use my tax money to spread your dumbass beliefs to everyone else's children.

DING-DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said "I just get really offended when someone tells me I can't bring up questions about it." See, if I question it, some kind of ignorant, Bible thumpin' bumpkin that is using ignorance to prove the existence of God.

You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Black Parrot]

Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.

Of course, if the rest of us weren't so complacent when it's time to vote for the school board, that problem might go away.

The Texas State School Board pulled some of its usual idiocy not too many years ago, and actually motivated people to get out and vote some more sensible people in. But by the next election complacency had set in again, so the kooks got their seats back.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[adamofgreyskull]

You can have a decent life because you don't need to know how a hybrid electric automobile works, this is fair comment, so should schools be allowed to teach that small fairies and leprechauns sprinkle each motor with magic dust and that's what makes it work? Allowing children to remain ignorant of the theory of evolution is one thing, actively teaching them that creationism is just as valid as evolution is quite the other.

Your analogies are ridiculous and they fail spectacularly. They fail because we're not only talking about ignorance of subject matter, but also actively teaching an alternative "theory" (it's not a real theory because it can't be tested) which is based on hand-waving, supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Not all children will grow up to specialise in fields that require them to know about the theory of evolution, just as most won't need to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine, but why fuck them up before they begin?

It's not just about some petty squabble between two different ideologies. People are railing against a culture of willful ignorance and an inability to think critically that could have extremely serious implications in the future. If you can look further than the end of your own nose, you should be worried.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

Yes, it matters. It matters in medicine. It matters in education. It matters in public policy. It matters in understanding the fundamental underpinnings of the human race. It matters in knowing who the fuck you are and where you came from.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and shrug your shoulders at systemic ignorance, by all means, fuck off and have a nice day. You can take your mealy mouthed acceptance of the fundamental rejection of human knowledge and take a flying leap. The rest of us will stand up for the truth even if you won't.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Nursie]

"You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't."

Where did I do that?

I asked a couple of questions of you, but I didn't make up a straw man and knock it down, as far as I can tell. Who's making shit up now?

I wasn't accusing you of pushing your agenda into schools, by the way, I have no reason to think you (specifically) are doing that.

However, 99% of the "questioning" of evolutionary theory in this day and age is exactly of that character. Sorry if that means you have to make it extra clear that's not what your about, but the signal to noise ration is pretty extreme right now.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Anonymous Coward]

No... to creationists, evolutionary theory, at least with regards to the notion that man evolved from a lesser species, is simply false... they view it as nothing but a misguided effort by mankind to render the very notion of a supreme being as irrelevant to our existence, and would thus no longer feel that they needed a God. As far as a traditional creationist is concerned, no creatures evolved into any recognizable existence from something lower, they were simply brought into existence, fully formed, brought about by the imagination of God. Gaps in the fossil record are irrelevant.

And creationists typically *do* acknowledge the patterns that biologists find in the fossil record, but the similarities in various species that are typically attributed directly to evolutionary ancestry are instead viewed by them as artistic fingerprints that simply point to the same creator.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Zakabog]

160,000 years ago

I mean its not very hard to find which is surprising considering how hard fossils are to make.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?

I do. I also choose not to have my children lied to in school, which makes educating them a lot harder.

I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.

Then you reject the biology you claimed to have studied, and for what? A handful of Bronze age myths that you find more compelling than empirical evidence? I guess congratulations are in order, if you find that to be laudable enough to admit in public.

My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.

Are you also going to educate them in every other creation myth from every other religion? My kids know about Creationism. We dissect that oddball assertion on a regular basis, as they have a lot of school friends who spout off the popular rhetoric of the churches they attend. But it's mythology, and doesn't belong in a science class. Nor does it rank anywhere near the level of science.

I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots" - I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.

Should I award you a medal? You apparently don't understand the difference between groundless assertions and methodical research. Here's a hint: when a person chooses to reject the latter in favor of the former, they are an idiot. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about Creationism, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine beliefs or the coming of Xenu. If you choose bullshit over knowledge, don't expect to be respected by the rest of us.

Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.

The backdoor is the attempt to teach Creationism as science. Let me make this totally clear for you: CREATIONISM IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE. I don't care one whit if you teach it in comparative religion class. I don't care if your pastor spouts off about it while you sit in a pew. You are free to believe any whacked out crap that you want, but KEEP IT OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you keep making this false claim about not finding species that are direct ancestors of other species? The poster you were responding to you linked to hominid species that are (very likely) direct ancestors of the modern human.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Black Parrot]

Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man.

Someone has already responded to that last faux pas. As for the rest, consider how sparse the fossil record must be. If you went looking for the skeletons of your ancestors, what percentage of them could you find from two generations ago? From ten generations ago? A hundred generations? A thousand?

And that's a species that likes to put its dead where they can be found again.

Now consider what are the odds of any individual (dinosaur) that lived at least 65,000,000 years ago would be preserved to start with, remain undestroyed for all those years, and then be found by us. It's no surprise that some species are represented by only a single partial skeleton: Most species probably aren't represented in our collections at all.

Also, there's not necessarily a notable change in morphology when a new species arises. Biologists generally think of species in therms of interbreeding; when a population splits into two new populations due to some barrier to breeding, you may not be able to see any difference by looking at skeletons - sometimes it's purely a matter of behavior. The morphological differentiation is able to set in because of the lack of interbreeding, but it might take many, many generations before it is significant enough to identify a skeleton as belonging to one or the other.

According to Wikipedia, the familiar T. rex ranged over most of western North America for a million and a half years, and we've only got a bit over 30 specimens. "some of which are nearly complete skeletons". And then the article goes on to call this an abundance - most species are not nearly so well represented. But this "abundance" is about one full or partial skeleton from the entire species every 50,000 years - for a species numerous enough to sustain a breeding population across almost half a continent.

So go figure the odds of any species being represented at all, let alone a record that shows a single recognizable evolutionary step.

Looking for examples of "this species evolved into that" is basically a fool's errand, arising from ignorance and/or lack of critical thinking about both biology and taphonomy. Science can only find what's there to find, not any and every arbitrary demand. IMO we're lucky to be able to learn as much about our universe as we have.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[MaXintosh]

Your objection is laughable. Without even going back a million years, I can give you fossil series from old world savanna Alces gallicus, and from Alces latifrons to Alces alces. I know equus (horses) can boast a similarly robust fossil series. So can a number of other taxa. But you know what? Even if we never found a single fossil, ever, the evidence for evolution would be robust - There's biogeography, there's genetics, there's morphometics, there's observed natural selection in the modern world, and so on. One need but google "Evidence for evolution" to be bombarded with so much rigorous scientific evidence as to simply overwhelm any braying to the contrary.

But it'll never be enough. We could find every fossil, sequence every genome, and compile so much evidence it would collapse a library, and people are still going to reject evolution. It's rarely a rational thing, and more often than not it's predicated on misinformation and other beliefs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, just for a moment, that your objection isn't born out of religious fervor, but that would mean that you're instead woefully misinformed.

Evolution is a theory, and a fact.Faith, to be blunt, doesn't enter into it.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.

We can and do, where we can prove a complete relationship. Primarily bacteria, in this case.

But we are primarily talking about fossils here. We have to have definitive proof that species X was the direct ancestor of species Y to make that claim. We can use a variety of methods(DNA, and morphology, for example) to determine that species are in a familial lineage, but that's not proof of direct ancestry. So, this being science and not applied mythology, we can only state that these two species are part of an ancestral line.

Finally, you apparently don't understand that species evolve as groups, and that there is no clean break between any two species as they diverge. It's not like species X will suddenly start giving birth to species Y. And by the time reproductive isolation has brought about complete speciation, there may have been dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of subspecies which developed in this lineage. Coming millions of years later, which one will you arbitrarily pick as the definitive ancestor? The fact that you don't see the problem with your question betrays a deep misunderstanding of how the process of evolution works.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[shadowofwind]

My take on the whole controversy....

Evolution by natural selection poses a problem for Christianity because its very brutal process. If its God's natural order, then this brings into question the goodness of God. It also brings into question the idea of sin, since natural selection is argued to produce behaviors historically regarded as sinful. Furthermore nasty animal traits appear to go back hundreds of millions of years, which is difficult to square with common concepts of a 'fall' from paradise.

Individual Christians may deal with these issues by just leaving them unanswered. I think that for most people that is a reasonably pragmatic approach. However, not everybody is comfortable with that, they want certain things to make a certain kind of sense. So broadly speaking, some try to resolve the conflict by disbelieving in science, and others by disbelieving in religious ideas of right and wrong.

At the heart of most Christian criticism of evolution by natural selection, as I understand it, is the feeling that something of importance has been left out. I think this feeling is correct. On the other side, people react against what appears to be a tendency to make up stuff which stands in contraction of known facts, calling it the truth. I'm sympathetic too that view also.

I think that the apparent contradiction between natural selection and morality can be resolved, and in a way that actually deepens and enhances our grasp of the essential truths that both sides care about. But it seems that very few people are interested in reaching for that. Christians I've talked to who question evolution seem not to realize how strong the scientific case really is, and how weak their own arguments are. And they mostly seem uninterested in educating themselves on the subject so that they can find better arguments. I guess that would take a great deal of time and energy, without any obvious payoff, and along the way they'd have be willing to give up anything they previously believed that turns out not to be true. On the other side, understanding what's of value in the criticisms of evolution would require a humility and desire to do that, which apparently isn't as much fun and personally empowering as making fun of stupid people. So both sides keep going over the same ground over and over, and not much new is learned.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[jjohnson]

Exactly. This is why everyone should be well-educated generally, not just in whatever narrow field they choose.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[cbhacking]

Exactly. The process of evolution is gradual. Speciation doesn't occur in a single generation, or even in a single lifetime.

Consider equines. Horses and donkeys clearly share an evolutionary ancestor. In fact, they haven't even completely diverged from that ancestor; despite "obviously" being different species, they are inter-fertile. The offspring (mules) are infertile, so it is reasonable to call horses and donkeys different species; they can produce live offspring, but those offspring are a genetic dead end.

OK, how does that relate to my point? Well, sometime many millennia ago, there were a group of equines that, although not exactly like today's donkeys, were close enough that you would call them donkeys. There was a similar group of "horses". Here's the weird thing: they were the same species (interfertile and producing viable offspring). Somewhere over the millennia since then, the two groups, breeding primarily within their own group and not between groups, reinforced certain traits to the point where cross-group offspring were no longer fertile.

The question for you: how the heck do you define where speciation occurred? Was it when the (still interfertile) groups started moving apart? Was it the first member of each group that could not produce fertile offspring with more than half the potential mates in the other group? Was it when there was one member of each group which were mutually incapable of producing fertile offspring with any descendents of the other? For that matter, how do you define thr groups themselves? There were probably some fertile proto-mules for a while, which didn't fit cleanly into either group. They either died out without reproducing or were merged back into one of the groups, the line would nonetheless have been somewhat blurry.

Now, next question: how do you determine, from the fossil record, where that speciation occurred? Which of a bunch of old horse/donkey-skeleton-like rocks (that's all fossils are) was once an animal that gave rise to modern horses which can't produce fertile offspring with modern donkeys? How do you distinguish, from the fossils, that it was X, and not the parents of X, or the children of X, or possibly the specific children of X by Y? How do you distinguish that it was X and not X's sibling that got a slightly different set of chromosomes and was no longer able to produce fertile offspring with his or her corresponding member of the other group, yet went on to breed successfully and pass those chromosomes onto the other members of the group?

Seriously, demanding to see "direct ancestors" in the fossil record is absolute stupidity. I'm no biologist (as I'm sure any biologist reading my post noted) but I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless. Combine that with the way that most individuals never get fossilized, much less last long enough after fossilization to be found today (never mind the many fossils that we don't have yet; new finds are still occurring). Given all that, it'd be a minor miracle to have gaps of only 1000 generations in a direct chain of ancestry. That's enough generations for some pretty significant changes, when you're looking for incremental differences between a horse and a donkey. 1000 generations ago, your ancestors were recognizably human, but they still looked different enough from you today that you wouldn't have been able to call them a "direct ancestor" or not from fossilized bones - and they were probably still close enough that you'd have been interfertile!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[furgle]

Part of me reads this and thinks: "this is a great way to troll"

• 1. Take an unpopular position in an argument. Take it deep into your persona, including backstory.
• 2. Sound reasonable, polite and upset, without actually asserting your position or defending it.
• 3. ???????
• 4. Troll profit!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[WNight]

I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.

That's quite a testimonial for your school.

My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs.

Why? If you don't think evolution is right why not teach Pastafarianism or something else you don't believe?

But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.

Both. ROFL. As if there's only "A god did it" and "A god didn't do it". There are 900 types of baptists, let alone all christian sects, or worse, all religious beliefs. And then there are the "Aliens did it" and other beliefs. Do you teach your children about the Greys AND the Klingons? How do you explain the head-bump/no-head-bump schism in Klingon society?

I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots"

Of course not, someone with beliefs is hardly in the position to be throwing the idiot stone.

I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.

It wouldn't matter, a valid point is valid even if rude, and a wrong one wrong even if polite.

Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.

Ahh yes, and if the government school taught holocaust denial, or that HIV was good for you, you'd still be fine with the taxes and the influence on your kids? Even though it'd take much work (and without money to send them to a better school you'd be doing it all alone) just to address all the lies and unfounded claims, let alone give them an actually useful education as well?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with.

First, let me ask, what exactly are you trying to persuade the creationist into doing?

We have species that look alike presently. We had canines for instance, that if we knew nothing about them other then their fossils, we would probably call different animals. So evolution as in one species becoming another and splitting and become yet another in the fossil record is a little of semantics to begin with. But more importantly, it's largely is not completely an inference from what we can see. Without the complete chain, it's literally someone's imagination building off the available evidence to come to a conclusion.

So if you are asking a creationist to supplant the concept of a god of their imagination that created everything with a concept of your imagination that this became that, and these two separate creatures were the offspring of the same parent species, you are probably going to have to show them without any gaps. Otherwise, you are essentially saying trust me, I got all this evidence which sort of seems like all the different breeds of dogs, cattle, or sheep or whatever, but it's actually not because we don't know much about them other then what we can imagine from their bones.

We can boil it down even further to the least complex scenario. You are essentially asking creationist to trust your imagination over their own because you said so and lots of others agree despite the fact that some other book said so also and a lot of others agree. If you want to persuade them, then offer them more then they already have with their existing beliefs. Right now, it's just different, not more when you look at the core of it.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[dgatwood]

It also brings into question the idea of sin, since natural selection is argued to produce behaviors historically regarded as sinful.

Ah, but that misses a very key truth about natural selection: goodness is also rewarded by the system. Tribes and herds and hunting packs survive better by working as a team. Similarly, the hunted also survive better by working together for the common defense. Monogamy prevents the spread of diseases and makes it easier to determine parentage. And so on.

For every sinful thing that natural selection selects for, one can also point out a good and holy thing that natural selection selects for, assuming that one takes the time to look. And so, evolution and natural selection can be thought of as a battle of good versus evil, played out on a planetary scale.

Either way, the folks arguing for evolution should take comfort in the realization that it has only been about 500 years since Copernicus posited a heliocentric universe, and to my knowledge there are no longer any mainstream Christian sects that still believe in a Ptolemaic universe.

When I was a child, I thought like a child....

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[WNight]

ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask:
In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this?

I don't believe it. But it's much more in line with all the physical evidence than "Spaceghost made us cuz he was lonely".

have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?

Once again, not a belief. But yes, a tremendous windfall - being able to independently evaluate thing has helped in all facets of life. From avoiding a bad mortgage to avoiding beliefs.

Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no. Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have.

Being religious strongly correlates with believing what people tell you. Many people believed GW Bush's lies about Iraq because they trusted a fellow religious believer, and over a million people were wrongly killed, and now they've got that blood on their hands.

In other news that same stupidity caused many people to buy a mortgage they knew they couldn't pay back without questioning the system that allowed this. How's it feel when your whole country's wealth is stolen in a Ponzi scheme?

As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.

Unless it convinces you to avoid medical treatment. Or any of the other problems associated with being gullible.

Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life.

Or, you can't but you just don't know it yet.

I'm ignorant of the precise internal workings of a hybrid electric automobile, as well as how the exact details of how the north-bridge in a computer works. I'm also ignorant of the exact details of the rise and fall of the Byzantine empire, but not knowing these things does not prevent me from having a decent life,

But surely you know that there are right answers to these things and just making them up isn't going to work. If you needed to fix your hybrid would you pray or read the book?

This whole blood feud between religion and science is pretty pointless when it comes down to the day to day lives of most of us, and I'm starting to get tired of it.

Oh no! We assumed y'all were having fun. We'll stop pointing out that belief in magic is retarded then. After all, your feelings, and the burden of protecting them, weighs so heavily on us all.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

You comment is really interesting because it shows how ignorant of the problem you actually are.

You can have a decent life because you don't need to know how a hybrid electric automobile works, this is fair comment, so should schools be allowed to teach that small fairies and leprechauns sprinkle each motor with magic dust and that's what makes it work?

If that was a belief held and circulated for thousands of years and thought to have something to do with your existence after death, then yes, they should be able to teach it or in the least, allow it to stand. However, seeing how that's not the case, your analogy simply fails.

Allowing children to remain ignorant of the theory of evolution is one thing, actively teaching them that creationism is just as valid as evolution is quite the other.

The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.

Your analogies are ridiculous and they fail spectacularly. They fail because we're not only talking about ignorance of subject matter, but also actively teaching an alternative "theory" (it's not a real theory because it can't be tested) which is based on hand-waving, supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Not all children will grow up to specialise in fields that require them to know about the theory of evolution, just as most won't need to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine, but why fuck them up before they begin?

Most children are capable of using X with Y and T with S. I do not see a problem with any child knowing of both as long as they know where it belongs. And do not think for a minute that it's too complicated for them as they do it right now when changing controllers to play the same or similar games on different gaming devices or computers. IF the children know of creation or ID or the flying spaghetti monster, it will not fuck them up any more then Pluto not being a planet now has fucked up almost 50 years of students.

It's not just about some petty squabble between two different ideologies. People are railing against a culture of willful ignorance and an inability to think critically that could have extremely serious implications in the future. If you can look further than the end of your own nose, you should be worried.

Nonsense. Anyone who is going to be in the position to impact the future will have went to college and the topic is covered there quite well. Your grasping for straws here. No one graduating high school will ever invent the newest drug or cure any disease that a high school level of biology or science will give them. They will have taken college or they will find someone who was in college to further anything they might come close to finding. Furthermore, the kids who would want to go into a field where this knowledge might remotely be deemed important, are the same kids who already know the knowledge. Knowing about creation, religion, or anything contrary to science does not stop kids from critically thinking.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[WNight]

BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.

Be careful, knowledge burns them.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Do you consider creationism to be on equal footing as evolution within sciences? That's the big question. I doubt most would object creationism to be in religious education (if there is such a thing in the US).

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Jerom]

it's when reading post like the above one that I wish I had modpoints! Well written good sir, I salute you.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[AmonTheMetalhead]

ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask: In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this? have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?

Tthe understanding of the concepts of evolution have indeed been very helpful in my life, it allowed me to better understand the scientific method, my origins and i can apply principles of evolution to other fields. Oh, and i do not believe evolution, i accept it as scientific fact. I would love if someone could disprove it as that would further my understanding and knowledge, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no.

You just lost.

Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have. As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.

Your problem is that you think people believe in evolution. They do not. They acknowledge it as scientific fact. That is a very important difference. Believe requires no evidence.

Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life. I'm ignorant of the precise internal workings of a hybrid electric automobile, as well as how the exact details of how the north-bridge in a computer works. I'm also ignorant of the exact details of the rise and fall of the Byzantine empire, but not knowing these things does not prevent me from having a decent life, and refusing to learn them only precludes me from working in a few very specialized fields of work. This whole blood feud between religion and science is pretty pointless when it comes down to the day to day lives of most of us, and I'm starting to get tired of it.

Unfortunately, religion does interfere with daily life, it's time we put that myth behind us.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[AmiMoJo]

This goes back to the Christian notion of God, which itself can be split into two parts: the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. The OT God was a complete bastard, being petty and jealous and committing genocide. The NT God is loving and caring but mostly hands-off. Most Christians seem to believe in the NT version which is how Jesus described him.

The problem is that you can't have a god who is both caring and living but also does not get involved in things directly. Imagine you were a student and you went to away to live in student halls of residence. When you got there you found that the heating was broken, the mattress had springs coming through, the taps leaked and there was not hot water, damp was everywhere and the place infested with cockroaches. Then someone tells you that the landlord knows all about these problems and has the power to fix them. He really cares about you and wants you to be happy, it's just that he doesn't actually do things himself. He offers his support and encouragement, so you are told, but you are going to have fix all that stuff yourself. Okay, it might take decades to sort out and you will have moved on before then, but have faith that one day it will be quite habitable. Does that sound reasonable?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

The crucial matter is that creationism is a belief/point of view but is wanting to be taught as a science which it blatantly isn't (e.g. new evidence should produce an adjustment/refinement of the current best theory)

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

How about a complete lack of critical thinking?

Teaching kids to just believe anything as "it's a matter of faith"?

Teaching kids to ignore what their own senses/experiences tell them and instead believe some stuff written in a book ages ago that makes no rational sense?

I always thought that schools are about education, not indoctrination. If "God" wants to be in schools, he can damn well give the lessons himself (unless he's too busy planting fossils to test our faith).

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[paul.hatchman]

The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.

What bollocks.

Following your argument through to its logical conclusion means that if any claim by any religious sect contradicts the school curriculum we could no longer teach that topic. It is not just creationism, by the time you add in the beliefs of the raelians, scientologists and every other cult out there, you'd not be able to teach anything at all. Should we not teach Native American history because the mormons tell us they are a lost tribe of Israel and therefore teaching their real history is now prohibited by seperation of church and state? What a ludicrous concept.

Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

We'll always need people to flip burgers, clean toilets etc.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

A quick question:

Is there any feasible way, any possible evidence that could ever "disprove" creationism?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

I wish a similarly well written post could be made by a creationist to give us an interesting discussion, but it seems that the critical thinkers all seem to be on the evolution "side". I wonder why that is?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Rysc]

The problem isn't ignorance, the problem is teaching people to reject reason in favor of faith. Faith is all well and good but it does not build bridges or cure diseases (apocryphal stories to the contrary notwithstanding). Teaching children that rejecting reason is okay is always a recipe for disaster

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[c6gunner]

Everyone else kinda jumped on you and decimated most of your comment (cbhacking did a particularly good job), so I'll just take the bit that's left:

And again, since you're reading comprehension is obviously weak, I never said that the the lack of this evidence is proof that evolution is false. I said that this is a pretty big fucking piece of evidence that we have not found YET and if I even bring it up, I'm instantly ridiculed. It's almost as if I walked into a %place-of-worship% and started saying that %Deity% doesn't exist.

You're being ridiculed because you clearly don't understand how evolution works, and instead of trying to learn you're going around complaining that there's missing evidence. The fact that you're making comparisons to religion only makes you more worthy of derision.

If you start saying things like "you know, we have no direct evidence that any Jews were gassed in WW2", what do you think the implication would be there? If you say "We have no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved with 9/11", what's the implication there? If you go around claiming "You know, nobody on the Earth could ACTUALLY see Apollo 8 on it's way to the Moon", what do you suppose might be the implication there?

You don't get to make idiotic statements with ominous implications, and then pretend that you're "just asking question". It's dishonest, it's cowardly, and it's fucking annoying. Yes, I know all the conspiracy theorists do it all the time; if they're your role-model, you've got serious issues.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Taco Cowboy]

"So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself?"

I simply fail to understand why people voted parent message "Troll".

What the parent message says is true.

You just do not let others teach your own children how to think. You have the responsibility too.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[ArcherB]

Excellent point and excellent example.

And I fully agree that there is a ton of evidence to support evolution, including evidence that shows that two separate species share a common ancestor. However, and this is my point, we have no record that species at all. We have no record of any parental species whatsoever.

It's like the parent said: "You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."

First, I never assumed we were "miracled into existence". Next, bad example. Even if we never met our own parents, we can assume we have them because everyone else has parents, and we've actually met some of them. We've even seen kids being born to parents. So it's actual parents are not required to prove that we have them. Now what we had never seen anyone's parents and no record or memories of them ever existing?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[paiute]

I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.

Email the Consumerist about getting your money back.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

Having sex with?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

Nonsense. Anyone who is going to be in the position to impact the future will have went to college and the topic is covered there quite well. Your grasping for straws here. No one graduating high school will ever invent the newest drug or cure any disease that a high school level of biology or science will give them. They will have taken college or they will find someone who was in college to further anything they might come close to finding. Furthermore, the kids who would want to go into a field where this knowledge might remotely be deemed important, are the same kids who already know the knowledge. Knowing about creation, religion, or anything contrary to science does not stop kids from critically thinking.

As long as we don't let them vote, then we'll be okay

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[GooberToo]

Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor.

Ultimately, it boils down to, "who cares?" You should have involvement in their education. Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities. Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.

Frankly, introducing kids to creationism is absolutely a good thing (not to mention is part of evolution's history [spontaneous creation, etc]), so long as its well balanced against evolution. Most kids won't find it very funny to hear, "God thinks you're an idiot and plays tricks and created all these things to prove you're an idiot and we fully assume you'll ignore everything you can physically prove around you in your world. Oh, and there is little to no evidence to support this theory." Versus, "Evolution is demonstratively proven. Here is the long list of cases which support evolution."

I personally believe the exact linage of human evolution is far and away unknown as the supporting evidence is almost completely lacking (changed and revised and still doesn't really agree with what is actually taught); contrary to popular teachings. In fact, the facts actually indicate the accepted linage is false; contrary to popular teaching. Evolution in general is all but fact and is extremely well supported. That, however, doesn't mean the general theory of human evolution is wrong. Humans are clearly evolving.

But my rant illustrates my point. Present the available information. While they may not completely accept popular doctrine, hook, line, and sinker, chances are they'll quickly side with evolution and have an understanding of popular options, which in turn will make it far less attractive down the road. Besides, for a lot of people, people simply don't care one way or another.

As an example, kids hear about duals of honor too, even in very glorious light (not to mention constant depictions is culture, TV, movies, etc), yet how often do you hear about kids throwing gauntlets down and dueling to the death. Knowledge is power.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[khallow]

Surely, of all the species that have ever existed, and all the species that are STILL EVOLVING TODAY, you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.

How do you show a direct ancestor is actually a direct ancestor? Once you get beyond genetic testing (and most fossils don't have genetic evidence), then you can't. This problem is not well-formed because we don't have the means to answer the question in the affirmative past a few recent and limited cases.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[ArcherB]

Your objection is laughable

And that is my point. I do not "object" to evolution. I am bringing up the point that if you even ask a question about evolution or show where evidence is missing, I get ridiculed. Most religions allow for more questioning over the existence of God than pseudo-scientists allow for evolution.

Even if we never found a single fossil, ever, the evidence for evolution would be robust - There's biogeography, there's genetics, there's morphometics, there's observed natural selection in the modern world, and so on.

Right! I agree and even said as much. TFS is about finding the "missing link". Well, no it's not. The missing link is that elusive species A that evolved into species B. You said yourself that we have not found it when you said, "Even if we never found a single fossil..." meaning that we have not found that single fossil.

But don't you think it's odd that we haven't found it? There are about 10 million known species alive today. We estimate that there are about 100 million species total. Since most of these species didn't exist 60 million years ago, mathematically, that's approximately 1.6 NEW species a year. Even if we only know about 10% of species, shouldn't we find 1-2 NEW species every 10 years? (Of course, NEW means that it didn't exist last year... not NEW as in it's been around but we just found it). So far, in the past thousand years or so, we have cataloged zero newly evolved species.

Now, again, I'm not saying evolution is false. And you can stop trying to convince me that's it true because you are preaching to the choir, so to speak. But do you really think it's scientifically valid to ridicule those that bring up facts that even you yourself confirm? Where in the scientific method is it valid to throw out data, or lack thereof, that doesn't fit your model? Maybe the model needs to be refined a bit (or is it "laughable" to even suggest such heresy?)

Here's a valid model that would explain why missing links remain missing:
Evolution happens in spurts after radical environmental change, but slows to a stand still in a stable environment. During these "spurt" periods, an evolutionary parent may go extinct rather quickly, not leaving much in the way of fossil evidence (of course, by extinct, I mean evolved to the point of a new species). Once evolution produces a species that is successful, evolution stops until that species is no longer successful, say, due to a change in the local environment. For example, the special ancestors of elephants may have evolved fairly rapidly to adapt to a changing environment until it because successful in the form we see elephants today. None of those evolutionary steps on the way to becoming an elephant lasted long enough to produce enough fossils to be found. Since we only know of 10% of living species, our knowledge of extinct ones are exponentially smaller and finding fossils from a species that was short lived is next to impossible.

But rather than bring up a logical argument like that one, your response was "Your objection is laughable." The most awesome part is when you railed against religion for its inability to have an open mind or accept new ideas. That's rich!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[ArcherB]

I agree that cbhacking made an excellent post. He did a great job of explaining how the evolutionary model works. But in response to my question, he offers the following:

I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless.

In other words, "it's hard". I agree, it's very hard.

He also used the donkey and horse as evidence for evolution. However, I said in my first post that we can point to several examples of species that share a common ancestor, but we have never found that ancestor. dbhacking gave an example of my point, and then said that we don't have any true record of that ancestral species because... it's hard. Even if we were to find a common ancestor for the donkey and the horse, it would be hard to prove that it was truly the ancestor of both the donkey and horse.

I'll take it a step further. Neanderthal and humans lived side by side, they were able to interbreed and their offspring was fertile, yet they were different species. Neanderthal either went extinct by dying off being bred into modern day humans. We have found Neanderthal fossils, even some Neanderthal DNA, and we have proven that Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor to homo sapiens, but, like we've heard so often before, we share a common ancestor. Like I said in my original post, "all species share a common ancestor" if you go back far enough.

I offer a possible explanation as to why it's so hard to find fossils of ancestral species. It considers that evolution happens in spurts. Basically, a species established in a stable environment will not evolve fast enough to detect, even over a biological timeline. But once that environment changes, the evolutionary pace quickens to adapt to the new environment. One species would evolve into many competing for the same resources. Those that are best adapted to the new environment survive and continue to evolve. It is possible that more than one set of adaptions will be successful, especially if a population is divided. This could produce "evolutionary cousins" like the horse and donkey, but the species that evolved into both of them would not have survived long enough to leave much of a fossil record. Species living during this evolutionary spurt would be the ancestral species we are looking for, but since the changes is so rapid, no distinct species is around long enough to leave a fossil record that is easy to find.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities.

This is the crux of your argument, and the point at which it fails. Creationism is not fact. It is not supported by facts. It is a lie. There are any number of lies(call them creation myths if you want) one could add to my child's science education. And none of them should, because science education is about teaching facts and the process for finding facts, not some superstitious nonsense that the teacher would like them to believe.

Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.

I don't "hide" Creationism. As I pointed out in another reply, we dissect these weird beliefs regularly. The fact that they know about Creationism doesn't bother me at all. It's the fact that it is taught as science, when it is clearly religion, that pisses me off.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Artifakt]

As the parent of a 27 year old Tennessean who may soon make me a grandparent, I second your concern. I also point out that she has chosen to avoid buying a house closer to her workplace because she wants to live in a school district that provides a decent science curriculum for that potential grandchild, and is willing to commute more to do it. Judging by the difference in property taxes and housing costs people will endure to get their kids in a school where they can be confident real science will be taught, a lot of people here are essentially voting against this law with their pocketbooks. However, it's the majority that bothers to vote which rules, not us 'moneyed elites' so the law may well pass.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Abstrackt]

Other kids tell my kids what to think too but I taught them to think for themselves. Children aren't stupid, they're just ignorant; if you teach them critical thinking skills they will use them.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[GooberToo]

You're not looking very hard. Even over the last several generations, we have directly observed new species evolving. Furthermore, we have proof wolves evolved into dogs. Various felines have evolved into cats. And this is the extremely, extremely short list. Literally, evolution is basically proven. Its fact.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[GooberToo]

Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.

I don't "hide" Creationism.

Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief. Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.

And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory. Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains. And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.

At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[CarbonShell]

I agree. If you look at all the species you will see that if there was a creator, he either was not good or had a real bad sense of humor.
F.i. why give bats eyes, or why the fundamental flaw in the human throat where you can either breath or swallow?
There are cases like this in each and every animal out there.

Also the typical 'half an eye' example will come up, but if you look at the multitude of different types and development of eyes, it clearly shows

Now I am no biologist or anything, but I can see that there are imperfections in everything, and this leads me to believe in evolution (no one says it was perfect) rather in one superduper perfect god that seems to have gotten his 'education' the same way as George W Bush.
In fact it goes for any 'god'.

And if others will not or cannot critically evaluate everything and think on their own there is nothing you can do and trying is a waste of time.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Raenex]

My own senses tell me there is a God or else I would have just killed myself many years ago.

Alternatively, you chose to believe in a God to avoid killing yourself. A Buddhist might believe in enlightenment and some kind of eternal lifeforce. Neither point of view is based on hard evidence. I'm an atheist and haven't killed myself, even if I think life is ultimately pointless.

Do you really think someone that gets an 8 year theology degree completely lacks any critical thinking?

The sad part is when desire to believe a certain viewpoint overrides critical thinking.

If it weren't for atheists we wouldn't need any critical thinking any way.

I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean.

And anyway, do I really need critical thinking to read a blueprint?

Critical thinking helps you reject false authority and instead debate decisions on merit. Science and critical thinking put the religious authorities in their place. Those who seek to corrupt science do so to regain their lost position.

Furthermore seeing as how "critical thinking" is more philosophical than anything, how can it truly be taught? It is based completely on one's personal opinion.

Laughable. It's evidence and reason based. We didn't come this far in our science and technology by just having opinions.

God calls us to be obedient and serve. Not to lay around and do what ever we feel like until judgment comes.

So here's the mythological authority. Stuff it.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Raenex]

How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly?

It's a moot question. Everybody is taxed to pay for schools, kids or not. What's given in a public education is the concern of all the public.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[DEmmons]

if one admits there are now two gaps they are admitting that this fossil really does fit in between and thus is further evidence for evolution. two gaps cannot support creationism. it would instead have to be argued this is either a completely unrelated but similar-looking creature, or that somehow it fits within the same 'kind' as one of the others (which seems unreasonable to say the least). I was a young earth creationist for most of my life, but i eventually had to admit the pattern of corroborating evidence is so compelling that the only way to not see it is to hold your eyes shut. This by no means hurt my faith in God - I find it actually fits Him much better, and is also a much more interesting way to create the world. I could write quite a bit more on the subject but this doesn't seem at all the right place for it. Instead, I'd rather present these two points: one, that some young earth creationists can indeed be persuaded (especially if they are not being mocked in the process), and two, that anyone who sees this new beautiful and fascinating find, and immediately is compelled to argue about how it was made with anyone and everyone, is really missing out on the intellectual and aesthetic enjoyment that God was probably hoping to see as we find more of the neat stuff He made.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[TheLuggage2008]

We had canines for instance, that if we knew nothing about them other then their fossils, we would probably call different animals. So evolution as in one species becoming another and splitting and become yet another in the fossil record is a little of semantics to begin with.

So there was a time when it was believed that different breeds of dogs were so varied that they could not all be the same species. Then scientific investigation into the matter found that not only are they all part of the same species, they all descend from a common progenitor akin to wolves. An example of people absolutely believing one thing (as you imagine above) that was ultimately undone by sincere scientific inquiry, not leaps of faith and certainly not "semantics" either.

Without the complete chain, it's literally someone's imagination building off the available evidence to come to a conclusion.

Utterly ridiculous. You're claiming that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence that evolution can be dismissed? Scientists hypothesize based on available facts. They then work to see if those hypotheticals point to new discoveries, and if new discoveries are made that relate to the hypothesis, they test those notions against newly acquired facts. If the hypothesis holds up for long enough in the face of repeated testing it becomes a theory (still open to review and disproving). What doesn't happen is one bloke finding a fossil that appears to be of a fish-like creature going around trying to convince Christians that fish used to live in rocks since fossils are quite 'rock-like' in their consistency just because he's using his "imagination" to determine what he'd like to think is true.

You are essentially asking creationist to trust your imagination over their own because you said so and lots of others agree despite the fact that some other book said so also and a lot of others agree.

Creationists are being asked to do nothing more than be open to the notion that as new information and facts come to light that old beliefs may come crashing down. Sometimes that's in the form of people learning that birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than reptiles are, sometimes it's learning that the fantastic things you were taught about your super-powered invisible friend in the sky are bollocks.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to suggest that the faithful are entitled to invalidate scientific inquiry because it doesn't have every possible shred of evidence on everything, when they do not require ANY shred of evidence to justify continuing to cling to their childish superstitions.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.

Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution? Creationism lost the debate long ago. Should we waste time in with every other failed explanation for the universe in our classrooms, too? Why not flat earth? Hey, let's bring back Vulcan as an explanation for volcanic activity! And I'm sure that explaining meteorological events using Thor won't be a complete waste of time. Maybe we can start teaching blood letting in medical school again. Teach the controversy, right?

Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief.

You can make this claim for literally every stupid or disproved theory that mankind has dreamed up.

Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the truth.

And here is where your reading comprehension apparently fails completely. I don't ignore it. I discuss it with my kids all the time, along with all the other weird bits of religion they run into. Seriously, are you unable to read?

And bluntly, you're ignorance and anger doesn't change anything. Like it or not, creationism is a theory.

No, it's not. Not a scientific theory, at least. It offers no evidence or explanatory power. It makes no testable claims. It's not science. And I will be angry about it as long as yahoos continue to try and get it accepted as such.

Granted, the theory has more or less been completely disproved but a theory it remains.

No shit.

And like it or not, its a theory which children are extremely likely to encounter throughout their life. So if you actually care for the education of your children, you have exactly one choice - and hiding from it isn't one of them.

As I said before, and you completely missed, my kids are exposed to it. Just not in a science class, where it does not belong.

At the end of the day, it absolutely does not matter one bit if YOU believe in it or not. It matters that other people believe in it and that your children may be influenced by it BECAUSE of the fact you hide from reality. Do your child justice and provide a well rounded education - not half an education from within a Kleenex box.

I've changed my mind. You are right. Tomorrow, I will demand that the science class teach Greek mythology instead of physics. And the week after, Norse mythology instead of geology. Maybe we can throw out chemistry and concentrate on some of the Native American mythologies after that. Why not? If we follow your suggestion, we're just cramming bullshit into the classroom anyway.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

Following your argument through to its logical conclusion means that if any claim by any religious sect contradicts the school curriculum we could no longer teach that topic. It is not just creationism, by the time you add in the beliefs of the raelians, scientologists and every other cult out there, you'd not be able to teach anything at all. Should we not teach Native American history because the mormons tell us they are a lost tribe of Israel and therefore teaching their real history is now prohibited by seperation of church and state? What a ludicrous concept.

Nonsense. They have been doing it for years without any problem. You see, you teach it within the scope it is in and not as an absolute that trumps any religious beliefs. The reason why roman and Greek mythology isn't infringing is because it is taught in a way that says this is what these people believe or believed. You can teach evolution within the realm of science and not make any statements about any other beliefs or religions held.

Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.

Well, if evolution was instructed as how you just claimed, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem creationist see from a government forced propaganda machine that is the school is that science and evolution is being taught in class in ways that leave the student believing there is no other way. That's where the issue comes in and why the vast majority of ID or creation intrusions seem to be centered around the entire concept of something else could be true too. And that really is the problem people are having with ID, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia, allowing other things to remain possible instead of shoving evolution as the only way.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure, could you ever disprove anything other then trying it and it not working or witnessing the supposed act and noting or recording the differences?

I'm not saying by any means that creationism is science, I'm saying that it isn't disproved by science nor could it. But that doesn't mean it never happened or that it never could happen. At best, science has found a way that didn't need it to happen.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.

What in the world makes you think it would be ill educated people? Religions play a large role in the interactions and behaviors of people and if you don't know how that effects some, you are the one who is ill educated. I never said indoctrinate them into the religion.

Why teach something that is wrong?

Because you do not know it is wrong. IF you think you do, then you are acting in the same way the religious are and are wrong yourself. Even if evolution as we know it now is completely on the mark in how a single cell entity can divide and create this complex diversity we see in nature today, it still does not mean creation is wrong. It just means it isn't needed.

Children don't have enough real facts to learn that we have to make shit up to teach them

"We" didn't make anything up. Someone a long time ago might have, but we will likely never know if it was made up or not and you certainly do not know. Religion is a fundamental human right. Denying someone that right is simply wrong. Trying to make them think only as you do is even more wrong.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

No, the problem is that retards like you equate creationism to a scientific theory. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT. It doesn't provide testable hypotheses, and therefore does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom.

Perhaps you should open your eyes and read the damn shit in front of you. I have never said religion or creation is a scientific theory. In fact, what I said here was that science shouldn't be making claims about creation or a religion in the first place. And yes, that is because of the same damn reasons you have mentioned above.

Talk about it in Philosophy or Religion classes, talk about it at church. Fine. But pushing creationism as an "alternative" theory is right up there with teaching kids that leprechauns are responsible for making all the gold in the world.

I have never pushed creationism as an alternative theory to evolution. I have said evolution doesn't disprove creationism but I think you already know that. More specifically, what I said in the post you are replying to is that science cannot teach a subject at a place where the population is compelled to attend, in a way that says their religion is false. When that is done, no one will care about science holding a different opinion then someone else as long as people know the facts of the opinion when dealing with the subject at hand.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

We're trying to get them to shut up and to stop pressing their backwards agenda via subversive legislation. We don't care if they make their own lives a pit of self inflicted ignorant misery but fuck all if we'll let them dilute laws and school books with anti-intellectual nonsense.

I repeat, I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with. I attempted to explain it, you must have gotten lost somewhere in between "it" and "is".

In order to maintain their internally consistent world view they don't respond to, or don't recognize any sort of legitimate science authority so you have no basis for an argument. At times, i feel the only tools we have are humiliation and belittling. Once, just once, I'd like to see a legislate stand up before congress or a state assembly and say "On behalf of all the free-thinking, brilliant souls of this country: /Fuck off/"

What in the hell are you rambling on about? I have never seen anyone who believes in creation think that way. Perhaps if you would keep your thinking in line with reality, you could see their issue more clearly and wouldn't be so frightened by it.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

So there was a time when it was believed that different breeds of dogs were so varied that they could not all be the same species. Then scientific investigation into the matter found that not only are they all part of the same species, they all descend from a common progenitor akin to wolves. An example of people absolutely believing one thing (as you imagine above) that was ultimately undone by sincere scientific inquiry, not leaps of faith and certainly not "semantics" either.

lol..NO. It's actually quite the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was attempting to say if we had no knowledge of them at all other then their fossils, we would classify them as different species based on their divergence of breeds alone. It's reality that allows us to know they are the same species because we interact with them daily.

Nice work in trying to press your science as superior though. That's the work of a true believer.

Utterly ridiculous. You're claiming that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence that evolution can be dismissed?

Not at all. I'm saying that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence, you have to use your imagination to connect the dots and make the claims evolution makes. In this regard, you are essentially asking religious people to replace their imagined scenario with your imagined scenarios because you think you are right even though they think they are too.

Scientists hypothesize based on available facts. They then work to see if those hypotheticals point to new discoveries, and if new discoveries are made that relate to the hypothesis, they test those notions against newly acquired facts. If the hypothesis holds up for long enough in the face of repeated testing it becomes a theory (still open to review and disproving).

Just because they test their imagination doesn't make it any less their imagination nor does it make it accurate. The entire principle of science is that it can be wrong and corrected- even after years of thinking it was right. IF you deny that, you would simply be wrong.

What doesn't happen is one bloke finding a fossil that appears to be of a fish-like creature going around trying to convince Christians that fish used to live in rocks since fossils are quite 'rock-like' in their consistency just because he's using his "imagination" to determine what he'd like to think is true.

I'm not sure you have a point here, but in case you do, what is it?

Creationists are being asked to do nothing more than be open to the notion that as new information and facts come to light that old beliefs may come crashing down.

Why? I mean religion isn't even scientific so why is science demanding religions to abandon their beliefs at all? Certainly there is no problem with someone holding religios beliefs and scientific beliefs at the same time and applying them when appropriate is there? Why is it that you seem to insist that any non-scientific entity has to shape it's beliefs to mold your reality?

Here is a hint, even if evolution is entirely possible and would be the explanation of how life evolved into the complexity it is today naturally, it still doesn't disprove anything about creation. It only makes a statement that it isn't needed or that it can be done a different way.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to suggest that the faithful are entitled to invalidate scientific inquiry because it doesn't have every possible shred of evidence on everything, when they do not require ANY shred of evidence to justify continuing to cling to their childish superstitions.

Actually, I was saying the entire opposite. Scientific discovery isn't able to invalidate religious theory based on evidence of something being a possibility. Hell, scientific discovery doesn't even do that to scientific theory based on something else being a possibility. So why are you insisting that is must be done with religion?

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

This is why creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

Any reputable theory (except maybe string theory) has experiments (even thought experiments) that can give results which would cast doubt/disprove a theory.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[benhattman]

Well, if evolution was instructed as how you just claimed, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem creationist see from a government forced propaganda machine that is the school is that science and evolution is being taught in class in ways that leave the student believing there is no other way. That's where the issue comes in and why the vast majority of ID or creation intrusions seem to be centered around the entire concept of something else could be true too. And that really is the problem people are having with ID, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia, allowing other things to remain possible instead of shoving evolution as the only way.

I'm confused, because you seem to be arguing for creationism, but you don't seem to actually understand the mindset of its proponents well at all. Most creationist proponents believe that anyone who disbelieves their teaching will suffer forever in some afterlife. It's their belief that anything which detracts from their teaching in any way is morally wrong.

Creationists don't really want ID + Evolution taught. They want evolution destroyed because it doesn't exactly match their scriptures. But, they've been fighting this battle for 100 years and know they can't win in the classroom with creationism only. So, they want to use ID as a way to pry into science curriculum. If every classroom in the nation were teaching evolution and ID, you can bet (I would) the next move would be to allow teachers the right to choose whether or not to include evolution in their class studies.

That's the actual mindset at play here.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[benhattman]

I'm sorry, but it's actually much simpler than what you think. The theory of evolution contradicts the first few chapters in Genesis. In a lot of churches, people are taught that anything which casts doubt on the absolute truth of the bible is a false teaching. Therefore, evolution must be false.

Your argument includes other smaller arguments people make to justify their initial position, but if the bible started with Genesis 12 instead of 1 (after creation and the flood and babel), we wouldn't be having this debate. At least not in America.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

This is why creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

I'm confused, could you state why? We have genetically altered and species and showed that we can create new species so it's not like creation is a complete stretch.

But when I said you couldn't disprove anything, I mean things in science as well.

Any reputable theory (except maybe string theory) has experiments (even thought experiments) that can give results which would cast doubt/disprove a theory.

Sure, but I don't believe I was ever arguing that creation was a theory. I have always argued that the existence of a theory doesn't discredit creation, even if the theory seems to be true. I have argued that to supplant one belief with the other is the same mental process as involved with either belief in the first place. And doing that in schools ends up pushing a religious belief onto others which is just as bad as pushing religion in the schools.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

I'm confused, because you seem to be arguing for creationism, but you don't seem to actually understand the mindset of its proponents well at all. Most creationist proponents believe that anyone who disbelieves their teaching will suffer forever in some afterlife. It's their belief that anything which detracts from their teaching in any way is morally wrong.

I'm not arguing for creationism at all. I'm arguing against science disproving it when it hasn't or somehow taking a person's right to hold a belief away. And even if creationist believe others will go to hell or Deny's or whatever if they don't believe in their religion, it's irrelevant as science doesn't speak to religion and that belief doesn't speak to science making a claim within science. It's not until the claim is made outside of science where a conflict exists at all.

Creationists don't really want ID + Evolution taught.

Your right. They want evolution taught in a way that doesn't tell little Johny that their religion is bunk which happens way to much today.

They want evolution destroyed because it doesn't exactly match their scriptures.

I'm sure there are a few who believe this way, but they are in the extreme minority. Evolution does not disprove creation at all. IF you think it does, then science has become a religion for you.

But, they've been fighting this battle for 100 years and know they can't win in the classroom with creationism only.

I don't know anyone who wants creationism only. In fact, I know several religous schools that do teach the scriptures that also teach evolution. They just do so in the context of science and don't make absolute statements about religion with it.

So, they want to use ID as a way to pry into science curriculum. If every classroom in the nation were teaching evolution and ID, you can bet (I would) the next move would be to allow teachers the right to choose whether or not to include evolution in their class studies.

I think you should really think about your paranoid delusions. Now you basing your objections on what you fear might happen.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[shadowofwind]

Does that sound reasonable?

I would regard it as craven to stoop to kiss such a God's ass, and moreover I don't think its reasonable to assume that God is good and then try to bend our perceptions to fit that assertion. Better to also consider the possibilities that God is non-existent or even evil, or some combination of those, and look to see what is actually the case. Here are a few additional observations though.

A reason your residence hall is not in good repair, is every weekend the residents get drunk and trash the place. Furthermore, whenever someone shows up to try to fix things, whether on their own initiative or sent by the landlord, that person gets harassed or even assaulted by the residents, who try to steal his tools and apply them to further mayhem.

Of course part of your point is that the residence hall appears to have already been a mess before you came to it. The world was already quite messed up before man arrived on the scene, and man was already messed up before we arrived as individuals. My solution to this second problem, which is more personal, is to accept that my own identity shares something with humanity in general. I suffer as a result of what others have done, but this is natural in the sense that I am a part of humanity. I'm not saying that I should accept abuse on the grounds that I deserve it. To the contrary, I choose to fight what I see as wrong. But to fight it effectively, I've got to be honest about what's mine. This highlights another reason why the messed up condition of the world can't just be fixed by decree. There are evils that are apparent, and evils that are hidden below the surface. If you try to force all the apparent wrongs to be right, without understanding where they spring from, then it just makes those deeper problems worse.

As I see it, the solution to the more general problem is in large part the same. Man evolved into being in a world that was already a moral disaster, but man is a part of something greater than itself which from its present standpoint it can't easily see. Eden is not in the historic past: natural history is corrupt all the way back to its apparent beginning, like a cobweb that fell from heaven. If looking for a god that is lord of this world, the god we find is corrupt also. But that doesn't mean there's no help at all.

Clearly, in order to cure the world, a person has to understand the nature of the disease. But knowledge is power, as they say. So if you're already morally compromised, then giving you the knowledge that you need to right yourself also gives you the means to dig yourself deeper. Every good idea that is a blessing, like money for example, or nuclear physics, also gets twisted into a curse, if that's what we do with it.

If 'god' was involved in the world, what would god's hands look like? In some sense that would be us. I think your point, that its not enough just to say 'everything will be fixed in the future', after death or after a 'second coming' is valid. If we're not content with the status quo, then we should try to do something about it. And that requires hard effort towards facing the nature of the problem we're trying to fix. Or, if we'd rather party and trash the place, then we've got that option also.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[shadowofwind]

If the Bible started at Genesis 12, the argument would as you say disappear for most people, since most people don't think very much about such things. But the underlying contradiction would still be there, and we would still suffer from many of its symptoms. It is appropriate for Genesis 1-11 to be the way it is because it does fit with the main thrust of what comes after.

The arguments I described are real for many sincere and intelligent people, not just justifications for their faith in the Bible. If the majority of people aren't interested in thinking or arguing honestly shouldn't mean that the remainder of us can't be either. Its a waste of time for us to frame our arguments in terms of the views of people who don't really care about finding answers anyway. But the majority views are also strongly shaped by those of the minority who give the subject more attention. Most people who believe in evolution don't really understand it either, they're just embracing the position of experts who appear to be more worth following than Christian theologians.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[shadowofwind]

It also brings into question the idea of sin, since natural selection is argued to produce behaviors historically regarded as sinful.

Ah, but that misses a very key truth about natural selection: goodness is also rewarded by the system

Yes, but evil is also rewarded. What kind of a system instituted by a loving god rewards both good and evil? This problem is even pointed out in the Bible. "God causes his sun to shine upon the evil as well as upon the good, which is an aggravation of the evil."

evolution and natural selection can be thought of as a battle of good versus evil, played out on a planetary scale.

In the scientific theory of evolution, evil prevails where it does either because it is favored by natural selection, or else from random happenstance. There aren't any players besides necessity and chance. Introduce any other element, and you may be onto something, but you are also arguing against the existing theory and its most prominent proponents.

Which side of the 'battle' is God on? If he's on the good side, then he's not omnipotent. If he's above the battle, then he's not good. If you redefine 'good' to encompass the existence of the battle, then that's a pretty weak 'good', in my view. Even if all Christians embrace evolution, its still a loss if that's the strongest vision of good that they can find.

Not that your point has no value also.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[paul.hatchman]

And we teach gravity as if there is no other way and every other scientific theory in which there is no scientific controversy. Evolution (when taught at all) is not taught any different to anything else in science. It is you who really you who don't get it. Creationists will reject anything, even a solidly evidence back theory because it conflicts with their religious belief. There is no way to teach evolution without them getting their panties in a twist because anything that conflics with the bible must be a priori incorrect.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom because it's not science. It makes no testable predictions and thus isn't science.

It's relatively easy to disprove something in science - if an experiment doesn't match our current understanding, then there must be a problem with how we think things work. e.g. you can perform Mendel's pea plant experiment and if you get significantly different results (and your methodology isn't faulty), then we have to revise our model of genetic inheritance.

There's been plenty of scientific ideas that were once thought to be true, but when experimental data contradicts it, it has to be thrown out. A classic example is the luminiferous aether hypothesis that was abandoned when Einstein's special relativity was found to be a far more accurate model. Belief doesn't really enter into it - there's just different models that attempt to describe different aspects of the universe.

Creationism, though, is a religious belief and thus proof isn't required or indeed possible. You're right that a scientific theory can't discredit creationism the same way that you can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns. I think you'd be rightly upset if a biology class started teaching about invisible pink unicorns rather than plant cell membranes with the explanation that they're just swapping one belief with another. Invisible pink unicorns might or might not exist, but the observable universe is precisely the same either way, so it is meaningless to argue over it - it's just a matter of faith as to whether they exist or not.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

I don't know how your senses tell you that there is a God, but I've never wanted to kill myself and I'm an atheist. Maybe your need to find meaning has led to your belief and I'm glad that you've found it useful.

I don't think that anyone completely lacks any critical thinking, but it does seem to be a vanishing commodity these days. I've got no idea about apologetics, but a quick glance at their website gave me an impression of religious articles with some crackpot ideas. That's just my initial opinion though, I haven't read anything beyond the titles - it might have some really intelligent articles for all I know.

I don't know why you associate critical thinking with atheists, as critical thinking is most often applied in other areas of life rather than religion. I would argue that you some level of critical thinking is very useful in reading a blueprint, i.e. if there are any discrepancies in the measurements then it's generally cheaper to find out about them before building. I'm sure code monkeys can churn out perl scripts to match a well written spec, but I'd much rather have someone who can understand the bigger picture and suggest alternative approaches. Similarly, an office clerk who figures out a more efficient way of doing their job tends to be more valuable than someone who blindly does exactly what is asked of them.

I think critical thinking with no idea of politics or tact is a bad combination and doesn't help teams. There's a right and wrong way to go about changing things and rocking the boat, but a lot of successful businesses are made by questioning how things are done.

Critical thinking is partly a function of intelligence and partly learnt. It can be taught by showing plenty of examples and examining the reasoning behind them (it has to be practiced as well). A well thought out argument can be followed and understood by others and often supported by evidence which then gives it a lot more weight than just a personal opinion.

Schools have religious studies for learning about god(s) and there are always plenty of religious organisations for learning about God. Science classrooms are not the place for discussing creationism except maybe to provide an example of non-science along with astrology and homeopathy.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[The End Of Days]

Wait, which god? There are so many, and most of them are complete assholes...

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[The End Of Days]

No, actually, that's not the case at all. What's done with state money is the concern of the state's residents, which they generally determine through a representative process. The federal gov't may well be distributing money (unconstitutionally) to "even things out" but that doesn't give Californians the right to tell Tennesseans how to run their state.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Raenex]

The federal gov't may well be distributing money (unconstitutionally) to "even things out" but that doesn't give Californians the right to tell Tennesseans how to run their state.

As long as they're accepting federal money, the whole public has a vested interest. If the states don't like it, they can stop accepting the money. But even so, the Supreme Court has been applying the Bill of Rights to state or local governments. Teaching religion in science class at a public school violates the First Amendment.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

Your evidence depends entirely on how you label species.

Nope. We can determine derivation among related species via a number of methods, including genetic and morphological comparisons. You should educate yourself about things like horizontal gene transfer, which can paint a very rich portrait of decent. For example, in comparing 3 species, if you find that all three species share HGT point X(say, virus DNA which was integrated into the genome), which only 2 share HGT point Y(another viral integration), then you know that the 3 species are related(as they all share the same HGT point X), but that the 2 species with HGT point Y diverged from the common ancestor after the introduction of point X, and are thus more closely related to each other than the third species. I do wish that more Creationists would educate themselves in biology enough to know this trivial stuff, but then, those who have the drive to do that rarely remain Creationists.

Do they have different number of chromosomes?

Some do, some don't. And differing numbers of chromosomes do not always preclude interbreeding.

So do several species that interbreed. Do they interbreed? So do wolves and dogs.

Yes, because one was bred from another. Dogs are not naturally breeding with wolves, thus are considered a different species. In addition, there is a significant amount of genetic difference. It's fairly likely that we humans can interbreed with chimps, though I'm not aware of any attempts to prove or disprove that. Are you going to call us the same species on that basis?

Do they produce sterile offspring? Happens to groups that are considered the same species.

It is not the norm in members of the same species, for the simple reason that species which generally produced sterile offspring will be selected against fairly heavily(competing for resources while not contributing to the gene pool).

So what you're saying is that there's lots of proof that our arbitrary labellings don't quite fit with reality. Great science there buddy.

No, he's just proving that you are not well versed enough in biology or are too brainwashed by mythology to see that your objections are not even coherent in terms of what we know about species. I suggest that you remedy that before attempting this line of argument again.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

I don't think you are paying attention. Just look around here where people claim evolution is a fact that disproves creationism.

Sadly, its you who doesn't understand anything.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[RockDoctor]

Children aren't stupid, they're just ignorant; if you teach them critical thinking skills they will use them.

And then they'll burn in hell.

And in the process, they'll be on the receiving end of all sorts of shit from their contemporaries - literally shit if they go to some of the less gentle schools of the world - which will make their lives feel like hell before they die. So you'd better have kids with pretty strong characters.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[jc42]

I'll take it a step further. Neanderthal and humans lived side by side, they were able to interbreed and their offspring was fertile, yet they were different species.

Actually, this has been debated quite a bit by biologists, who haven't quite agreed on the classification. Some say Homo neanderthalensis; others say Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Note that "species" is an abstract concept, not a fact of nature. It's our classification scheme, and we aren't always right when we classify something.

Anyway, last May there was a paper published in Science that describe the results of a systematic comparison of fossil Neanderthal nuclear DNA with that of several groups of modern humans. Their conclusion was that it's almost certain that 1-4% of the genetic material of modern non-African humans is of Neanderthal origin, and this genetic material isn't found in the tested African populations. Basically, there are genes in the tested populations (in France, China and New Guinea) that are also found in some well-preserved Neanderthal fossils, but not in the tested African populations. The conclusion is that Neanderthals interbred with the Cro Magnons and other "modern" humans, and modern non-African humans should consider themselves as part Neanderthal.

There were a lot of jokes along the lines of "This explains some of my friends." It also validates a lot of suspicions that the many physical features shared by modern Europeans and Neanderthals aren't entirely due to convergent adaptation to European climates. Some features probably are due to convergence. E.g., the light skin coloring is a straightforward adaptation to colder, less sunny climates. But many common facial features are probably due to interbreeding.

Anyway, the conventional conclusion right now is that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is the correct classification, and we have to look a bit farther back to find our closest non-human ancestor.

Note that understanding the study's results requires not just good knowledge of how DNA works, but also an understanding of the statistics used. The latter is a problem for over 99% of the population, who may not want to believe the results, but lack the mathematical knowledge required to do a valid job of debunking. Archaeology and paleontology aren't the only subject that require a good understanding of certain kinds of statistics; effective plant/animal breeding also requires such understanding. Without the required statistical knowledge, you can rant on the topic, but you really can't do much valid reasoning.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom because it's not science. It makes no testable predictions and thus isn't science.

As long as science does not say religion is wrong, then there is not problem. But religion is a human right recognized around most of the world and if Science says something about it, then the inverse needs to be allowed. Now granted, science on it's own does not say anything about religion, but you don't have to look to far here to see people make claims that science proves creation wrong.

It's relatively easy to disprove something in science - if an experiment doesn't match our current understanding, then there must be a problem with how we think things work. e.g. you can perform Mendel's pea plant experiment and if you get significantly different results (and your methodology isn't faulty), then we have to revise our model of genetic inheritance.

How would you disprove the relationship between a Pongidae and homo or that they were in fact two distinct species? While we are close at observing some aspects of evolution in nature and in the lab, we haven't really saw it unless we start changing definitions specifically for that event. There are quite a few things in science that you cannot disprove yet the evidence supports the theory's point.

There's been plenty of scientific ideas that were once thought to be true, but when experimental data contradicts it, it has to be thrown out. A classic example is the luminiferous aether hypothesis that was abandoned when Einstein's special relativity was found to be a far more accurate model. Belief doesn't really enter into it - there's just different models that attempt to describe different aspects of the universe.

Exactly which is why science doesn't disprove something else non-scientific wrong. If just shows a way it can be done.

Creationism, though, is a religious belief and thus proof isn't required or indeed possible. You're right that a scientific theory can't discredit creationism the same way that you can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns. I think you'd be rightly upset if a biology class started teaching about invisible pink unicorns rather than plant cell membranes with the explanation that they're just swapping one belief with another. Invisible pink unicorns might or might not exist, but the observable universe is precisely the same either way, so it is meaningless to argue over it - it's just a matter of faith as to whether they exist or not.

Well, if the entire world through a series of reported events claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed because of eye witness statements over the past several thousand yours, yes, I think it would be permissible to mention invisible pink unicorns in the classroom.

You see, you are trying the abstract (maybe without even knowing it) interpretation of religion without considering the source. That vast majority of any religion is little is a lot like how we know our history. Someone claims something happened, it gets circulated and accepted or rebutted by others that saw it. Sometimes people are taken at their words because the events support what they say. If you ask me, there are a lot of exaggerations within the bible. Probably a few mistranslations or things taken out of context. But the fact remains that it's been accepted as true for the most part for thousands of years which makes the entire pink unicorn thing off the mark. They really aren't the same even if you cannot see that.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[riverat1]

Every species is either a transitional species or an evolutionary dead end. It appears that sometimes evolution proceeds at a faster rate than at other times but proceed it does and so everything that stands the evolutionary test of time is a transitional species.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

As long as science does not say religion is wrong, then there is not problem.

The main problem is that creationism cannot be classed as wrong or right - there's no evidence either way. That is why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. By all means discuss it in a religious studies classroom - I've got no problem with people's personal religions, I just don't agree with forcing it upon them.

When people claim that science proves creationism wrong, they are not using "prove" in any kind of rigorous manner. My own opinion is that the wealth of detail about the universe that science has uncovered has eroded religion's position of describing the physical world. Some religions don't try to cover that ground (as far as I know, buddhism doesn't provide a creation story), but where they do they don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

From what I remember, the bible's description of rainbows (a sign of the covenant that the earth will never be flooded again) is somewhat shallower than the incredible amount of detail that science can specify about the behaviour of light and diffraction. There certainly doesn't seem to be the same controversy over what should be taught about the nature of light in science classrooms.

How would you disprove the relationship between a Pongidae and homo or that they were in fact two distinct species? While we are close at observing some aspects of evolution in nature and in the lab, we haven't really saw it unless we start changing definitions specifically for that event. There are quite a few things in science that you cannot disprove yet the evidence supports the theory's point.

It's very tricky to prove/disprove a relationship between two species without living populations as the definition of a species is not very precise. In a lot of ways, a "species" is just a convenient grouping of individuals that makes it easier to talk about them. The amount of data that you can get from one fossil tends to be limited to the physical form of a creature and there's a lot of guesswork to try to figure out where creatures should fit in our model of what happened.

It's pretty easy to design experiments to verify/disprove evolution in a lab - you can apply different selective pressures to a population (typically bacteria/insects or something with a rapid reproductive cycle) and observe what happens to see if it matches the theory or not. There has been so many variations of experiments involving selective pressure and it's effect on populations that it's inconceivable that evolutionary theory is completely broken. As far as I know, there's very few cases where a scientific theory cannot be invalidated (string theory being the only one I can think of).

Well, if the entire world through a series of reported events claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed because of eye witness statements over the past several thousand yours, yes, I think it would be permissible to mention invisible pink unicorns in the classroom.

If all we have is eye witness statements, then pink invisible unicorns would probably be part of cryptozoology as eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I don't think that cryptozoology belongs in a science classroom either, although there is a much stronger argument for it being there than creationism. e.g. Evidence could easily be gathered for the existence of the Loch Ness monster, but so far the evidence (faked photos, eye witness accounts) is too weak for most people to accept that it exists.

Also, I don't believe anyone who claims to have "seen" a pink invisible unicorn as they cannot be seen. The whole point about pink invisible unicorns is not whether they exist or not, but on the complete lack of methods to determine their existence. You may choose to believe or disbelieve someone who claims to have experienced one, and when lots of people believe it, it can be generally accepted as true. Even when accepted as true, their study

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[sumdumass]

The main problem is that creationism cannot be classed as wrong or right - there's no evidence either way. That is why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. By all means discuss it in a religious studies classroom - I've got no problem with people's personal religions, I just don't agree with forcing it upon them.

Even if you state it like that, it doesn't matter. Mandatory education for citizens cannot in any way teach the child to accept or deny any religion. If you mention that other people believe from their religion other things and explain why you can't talk about it in more depth, you have accomplished that.

When people claim that science proves creationism wrong, they are not using "prove" in any kind of rigorous manner. My own opinion is that the wealth of detail about the universe that science has uncovered has eroded religion's position of describing the physical world. Some religions don't try to cover that ground (as far as I know, buddhism doesn't provide a creation story), but where they do they don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

From what I remember, the bible's description of rainbows (a sign of the covenant that the earth will never be flooded again) is somewhat shallower than the incredible amount of detail that science can specify about the behaviour of light and diffraction. There certainly doesn't seem to be the same controversy over what should be taught about the nature of light in science classrooms.

Actually, I believe it's destroy the earth by flood again, not just flood man. And I'm not sure what makes that shallow to you as what science can understand could possibly little more then the workings of it. The bible's conception tells why the process it there, not how the process works. They are tackling two entirely different issues.

It's very tricky to prove/disprove a relationship between two species without living populations as the definition of a species is not very precise. In a lot of ways, a "species" is just a convenient grouping of individuals that makes it easier to talk about them. The amount of data that you can get from one fossil tends to be limited to the physical form of a creature and there's a lot of guesswork to try to figure out where creatures should fit in our model of what happened.

Yep. This was my point.

It's pretty easy to design experiments to verify/disprove evolution in a lab - you can apply different selective pressures to a population (typically bacteria/insects or something with a rapid reproductive cycle) and observe what happens to see if it matches the theory or not. There has been so many variations of experiments involving selective pressure and it's effect on populations that it's inconceivable that evolutionary theory is completely broken. As far as I know, there's very few cases where a scientific theory cannot be invalidated (string theory being the only one I can think of).

You can put a car into a compactor and watch it evolve into a really big paper weight or you can leave it sit in a field and evolve into a pile of rust too. What we see in the lab is natural selection in evolution but what we don't see is one complex species coming from another or branching into two distinct separate species. We do see what we would think leads to this given enough time, but in the time we have been watching, the best we have done was played with semantics and watch changes happen. To this point, I'm not away of any religious explanation that has a conflict with science. It's not until the lines are drawn together and the jump from these changes that we see means this is likely what happened does the conflict come into play.

If all we have is eye witness statements, then pink invisible unicorns would probably be part of cryptozoology as eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I don't think

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[GooberToo]

Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution?

Wow, your post completely proves you're a complete fucking idiot. Go read the fucking thread. You'll quick see your post is complete stupidity.

Seriously, pull your head from your ass and realize the world is larger than you and a mirror. Get over yourself.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

It took you four days to come up with a response that answers not a single issue? Bravo. You are truly a master of the written word, and your intellect is stunning.

Much Later?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too bad that they didn't define "much later" in the article. 230 million years ago and 205 million years ago is only about 10% difference in gap from now. If much later is 65 million years ago, then I'm not sure if this really fills a gap.

Re:Much Later?

[Black Parrot]

It is too bad that they didn't define "much later" in the article. 230 million years ago and 205 million years ago is only about 10% difference in gap from now. If much later is 65 million years ago, then I'm not sure if this really fills a gap.

When people express interest in a "missing link", it's not the chronological gap that interests them. It's the gap in the record of the evolutionary development of features - usually morphology, when talking about dinosaurs.

New* Dinosaur Species

[FiloEleven]

*For very old values of New.

Missing Links

[Zeike]

Every 'species' (really every individual) is a missing link. This is how evolution works.

Re:Missing Links

[scotch]

Lots of dead ends, too.

Re:Missing Links

[DaveWick79]

To be subjective, was the fossil dated based on its features attributing it to be a transitional fossil between the Eoraptor and Tawa?
Or was it placed in that gap because it was dated such first?

It's an important distinction, as if the three species overlapped in date (two were alive at the same time) or this new find is newer than the species it was supposed to transition to, its status as a "missing link" or even a transitional fossil is false. There's not much information out yet about this but my guess is that it is placed in a gap due more to convenience than any proven time period. This is why these missing link discoveries are so ridiculed by creationists, and until this unscientific procedure of placing fossils in the timeline is improved, it is deservedly so.

Re:Missing Links

[Nursie]

Every creature that reproduced, you mean!

Anything that dies before it spawns is a dead end.

Re:Missing Links

[Kjella]

Are you trying to say a dog can't have evolved from a wolf, because we still have wolves? That a species branches off doesn't imply the old species must go extinct, they may very well exist in parallel. Even if it turns out a crossbreed isn't the transitional form and newer than that, it's still strong evidence of a common ancestry. That we today have mules is strong evidence of a past common evolution of donkeys and horses sharing ancestors.

In short, you're spouting creationist garbage and while it doesn't sound like you're one of them, you're certainly one of their useful idiots. Science is fallible, we know our knowledge is incomplete and keep improving it. Sometimes we learn that what we thought in the past was wrong, but we learn and improve. Like others have pointed out, filling one gap makes two new so you can't win.

*BSD is dying

[tepples]

Where else would a "daemon" run but on FreeBSD? But then of course, Netcraft confirms that FreeBSD is dead.

Re:*BSD is dying

[Black Parrot]

But then of course, Netcraft confirms that FreeBSD is dead.

And so are the dinosaurs - I think you're on to something!

Re:Y r u so stupid?

[Skidborg]

You're like my very own tiny, angry, Slashdot pet.

Aww. Isn't that cute.

Evolution is a continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

The is no such thing as a missing link, because there is no stable state - every new generation is a link to subsequent generations.

Re:Evolution is a continuum

[m50d]

Which is why we need a better definition of species than the current notion of being able to interbreed - every creature could interbreed with its parents, yet somehow along the way we end up with different species.

lazy journalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems complusory that any story in the media about fossils or evolution must include the phrase "missing link" at least once - it's just a lazy journalist's shorthand way of describing something subtle and complex that they couldn't be bothered thinking about. My suggestion- ignore any one using this phrase - they are either ignorant, lazy or trying to tell you lies.

However..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, it is a continuum. However, you might not have found all the little intricate steps in the fossil record.

Suppose you suspect one species evolved out of another as they are almost the same except for a large beak on the newer species. If you later find a specimen that has a rudimentary 'beaklet', you might call that the missing link you've been looking for.

Dear USA

[Intrepid imaginaut]

We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one.
Kind regards
The rest of the world

Re:Dear USA

[afex]

We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one. Kind regards The rest of the world

Dear R.O.T.W
If you can't stand the mindless comments, get out of our website.

Regards,
USA-run/hosted websites.

(i kid, i kid..)

Re:Dear USA

[RockDoctor]

Dear R.O.T.W

If you can't stand the mindless comments, get out of our website.

Regards,

USA-run/hosted websites.

Let's come to a reasonable agreement ... you use slashdot.us, and the rest of the world will stick to slashdot.org.

Which begs a question :
Domain Name: . . . SLASHDOT.US
[SNIP]
Registrant Name: . . . Host Master
Registrant Organization: . . . Geeknet, Inc.

Which begs another question ... and it redirects to slashdot.org. Unsurprising.

[bloody "lameness" filter!]

Re:Y r u so stupid?

[Skidborg]

Aww. You're a good little boy, yes you are.

*pats apk on the head*

Fake!

[Cytotoxic]

It is a fake. The "fossilized" quarter is a dead giveaway.

Heh!

[Benfea]

I was just reading the section in Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth in which he expresses how annoyed he is whenever these articles use the phrase "missing link".

ZOMG stop persecuting Christians!

[Benfea]

This poster is clearly persecuting Christians! Make him stop! Make him stooooooop! [/sarcasm]

Re:Shouldn't have trolled apk 1st then, stupid

[Skidborg]

Waaah. Waaah. Waaaait a minute. You're a solid decade older than I am unless you started posting on Slashdot at age five. How on earth do you get through daily life if you don't even know when to quit a conflict with a second class troll? How long is your list of personal enemies? When I'm sixty will I still be able to come here every day for a few minutes of entertainment at your obsessive rage?

Also, now that the people with mod points have moved on to other threads I don't really care if I was caught red handed. According to the mod points distributed, people enjoyed the picking on your ranting more than the ranting itself. So I trolled you once in a single thread; you fell for it hook, line, sinker, and motorboat, and are now stalking me across the entire face of Slashdot in order to try and make me look... what exactly? It's not ashamed, since your posts are more embarrassing than any reply I could give. It isn't angry, since I have a life outside of Slashdot and am just using this for my personal amusement. Silly? You might have a chance there. But you'll have to start posting either more witty or well researched posts to counter mine. Of course, if you're doing it all for my entertainment, I have to thank you for all the fun it has been so far. Keep it up.

Hmm, maybe that was a more eloquent answer than this deserved, and I should consider myself trolled. All right, one point to you, however you're counting score for this little game.

Re:U saying it shows U care & U only did it 2

[Skidborg]

No, I'm not crying, yet. But yes, I might be an entirely unreasonable sociopathic pathological liar who doesn't care if he contradicts himself at all, but that might be hard to prove from Slashdot posts. And if you're touchy enough you might consider the first post in this thread to be trolling, but since I didn't get modded on it, apparently nobody else did. When you get an account and some mod points you can come back and rate it down if it is that important to you.

Re:UR rant reply & admission of trolling shows

[Skidborg]

Oh dear, I have only one possible reply to your crushing tactics and wit: he he he hah hah hah bwahahahahahaha!

Re:Are you a licensed practicing psychiatric pro?

[Skidborg]

I believe you just spectacularly failed a detect sarcasm check, apk. I admire your attempts to be a one man army though.

And I'm afraid you've been deceived at some point in your life. Even if what I did was genuine trolling, and everybody in the whole world knew that I did it, it doesn't change the fact that nobody freaking cares

. Go ahead. Sue me. Haul me before the courts and declare that I'm a troll. Yell it from rooftops, and get it on the 6 o'clock news. It will raise all the public interest of "Dog Bites Man". It's a fact of life: nobody has pity on a guy who intentionally talks with people whom he believes to be trolls.

Until my next genuinely new post then. I'll be seeing you there. Oh, and hey look, nobody who you don't personally know has modded either of us for any of this yet. This must mean the universe itself it tuned in to see the drama of our struggle.