New Skeleton Finds May Revamp History of Human Evolution

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Skeleton Finds May Revamp History of Human Evolution

Posted by timothy on Friday September 9, 2011 @11:19AM from the history-is-written-by-the-known-survivors dept.

brindafella links to a series of articles published yesterday in the journal Science "on Australopithecus sediba, explaining that skeletons found in the Malapa cave in the World Heritage listed 'Cradle of Civilisation' push back to 1.97 million years the oldest known tool-using, ape-like pre-humans." As is typical, the full Science articles are paywalled, but the abstracts are interesting. (If you're a university student — or, in some cases, an alumni club member — you may have full journal access and not even realize it.) NPR has a nice article on the find as well.

131 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Take it with a grain of salt... by BlueCoder · 2011-09-09 11:24 · Score: 1, Informative

Evolution of full of evolutionary useful adaptations reinventing themselves. Doesn't mean it's direct ancestry.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
1. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by geekoid · 2011-09-09 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is one of several candidates to be a critical transition find.
  Right now it,s it looks like it might be, but more study needed. It wouldn't be for first one that turned out to be from a species that ended up being an evolutionary dead end.
  It's pretty interesting find, and the NPR article is a nice review of what it means and whats going on.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by jhoegl · 2011-09-09 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell are you talking about?
3. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  So say we all!
4. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Xaide · 2011-09-09 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  There is the theory of the Moebius, a twist in the fabric of space, where time becomes a loop.
  
  --
  No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
5. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by MimeticLie · 2011-09-09 12:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That was what the scientists behind the discovery argued on Science Friday. Even Berger, who found it (and was implied to be saying it was a human ancestor) argued that it was more significant in opening up our idea of what morphology defines the genus Homo than in being a possible ancestor.
  
  The Science Friday story (audio on the left side of the page) is definitely worth listening to. Quick version: sediba has some features, in the hands and elsewhere, that are associated with the genus Homo and our direct ancestors. But it also has very ape-like qualities that make it less likely to be a direct ancestor. It's also notable in that it was discovered as two very complete skeletons rather than fragments, as many transitional species are.
  
  Cool story all around.
6. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by cultiv8 · 2011-09-09 12:18 · Score: 2
  
  Loop where time becomes a.
  
  --
  sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
7. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, what does this even mean? Did you leave out some nouns? Verbs? It's hard to tell. This post is nonsense.
8. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by MightyMartian · 2011-09-09 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is a hominid, that much is clear. It may not be an ancestor in the way your grandfather is an ancestor, but it is most certain that there's no wheel invention here, these are features peculiar to our lineage.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
9. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by MightyMartian · 2011-09-09 15:42 · Score: 2
  
  He has no idea. He's spouting crap. If he's seriously asserting that these transitional features were later reinvented by a later hominid, he's pretty damned ignorant of hominid evolution. He may be referring, I think, to, say, whales re-evolving morphological features present in ancient aquatic chordate ancestors, but the very fact that the distance between a whale and its fish ancestor is hundreds of millions of years and the distance between this hominid and modern humans is a few million tells you just how little this guy is thinking.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by thunderclap · 2011-09-09 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  That quote is 125,000 yrs old so we are the happen again.
11. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by vuke69 · 2011-09-09 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  A loop where time becomes.
  
  --
  Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
12. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-09 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  There are indeed numerous examples of independent parallel evolution of very similar things in both close and very distant species, so I don't understand the heat directed at GP.
13. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Samantha+Wright · 2011-09-09 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Time comes where a loop be.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
14. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Samantha+Wright · 2011-09-09 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Turn the first "of" into an "is". Don't they have Markov chain bots where you're from?
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
15. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  wasn't that in an episode of seaquest?
16. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by RoLi · 2011-09-09 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, actually the whole "out-of-Africa" theory is standing on a weak foundation.
  Basically anthropologists made a lot of assumptions when formulating that theory and the whole thing falls apart with new DNA-tests.
17. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by 517714 · 2011-09-09 21:39 · Score: 2
  
  It must have been too "inconvinient" to use spell check. I'm not sure which is weaker - their arguments or their diction.
  
  The death of the Out-of-Africa theory
  New finds and research results prove the theory that said that human evolution happened exclusively in Africa.
  So is the title wrong or the first sentence? It doesn't really improve from there unless you are a grammar nazi in search of a target rich environment.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
18. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Joce640k · 2011-09-09 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Am I missing something? Isn't this cave in Africa...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
19. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Pino+Grigio · 2011-09-10 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's enough to say that it's a cousin, as every single other creature on this planet is.
20. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Pino+Grigio · 2011-09-10 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  The article in Nature says no such thing. It is far more nuanced, tentative and uncertain than your summary.
  
  Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought
21. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Pharmboy · 2011-09-10 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's enough to say that it's a cousin, as every single other creature on this planet is.
  But unlike chimps, this is a kissing cousin, we could have interbred with them and may have. Not necessarily our direct ancestor, but lived in the same world as our direct ancestors, and didn't win the evolutionary lottery.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
22. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  I don't understand the heat directed at GP.
  I'm going with language barrier prejudice.
23. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  But unlike chimps, this is a kissing cousin
  Neanderthals were 'kissing cousins,' because they lived at the same time as modern humans in the middle east.
  
  we could have interbred with them
  I don't see how you could possibly know that.
  
  and may have.
  How? Assuming you mean "us" as modern humans, we've only been around 200,000 years or so. This specimen is 1.9 million years old.
24. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by MightyMartian · 2011-09-10 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  We're talking here about bipedalism, hands much closer to humans than the other apes, in other words a suite of morphological features. It's absurd to think that this some early dead end and the same large-scale features evolved again in another hominid line a few million years later.
  I'm not saying these two specimens or even their particular lineage were ancestral to us, but clearly those adaptations are precisely what one would look for in pushing back in time.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
25. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-10 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense. We all know that time is a cube.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
26. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Oligonicella · 2011-09-10 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  At this paucity of specimens and with this frequency (indirect guess) of generation? It's not the millions of years, it's the millions of generations. If you're going to compare fruit flies, then you have to use 1mo=20yr for a scale.
  
  So, do you have reference to numerous examples of species with a 20yr generation and an equivalent population to early hominids which exhibit convergent evolution?
27. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Sean+Hederman · 2011-09-10 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmm, let's see. There's more genetic variation IN Africa than out of it. Almost ALL major human ancestor fossils have been found IN Africa. Almost ALL major human cultural innovations have been found EARLIEST in Africa. The Out of Africa theory implied that the last African exodus would have moved through populations which were more primitive than us (e.g. Neanderthals) and we found 4% Neanderthal DNA in all non-Africans.
  Sorry, WHICH weak foundation are you referring to?
  A "purist" Out of Africa theory is indeed dead since there is evidence of SOME movement back and forth; but the needle is firmly on the "Africa" side of the clock. Oh, and BTW, the Multi-Regionalism theory is bunk. Not only is it outdated, but also based on an very poor understanding of how evolution and genetics works. Now is it possible that some particular fossil may have arisen first outside of Africa? Yes, but highly unlikely, and if so would not be likely to have been a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens (although some of it's African cousins could have been).
  As an aside, I didn't bother disputing the article you sent, since it's rubbish.
28. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-11 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  The article he linked is referring to the possibility of back and forth movement into and out of Africa. Findings have suggested that homo erectus might have evolved more in Eurasia after leaving Africa than evolving in Africa then leaving it.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
29. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by Sean+Hederman · 2011-09-11 16:59 · Score: 1
  Yes, I grasped that. Since there is more Homo Sapiens genetic variation IN Africa than out of it; that IMPLIES that Homo Sapiens evolved there. Any Eurasian Homo Erectus either:
  
  Is not a direct ancestor
  Moved back to Africa
  Has older cousin fossils awaiting discovery in Africa
30. Re:Take it with a grain of salt... by benhattman · 2011-09-12 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  In general, it's highly unlikely we'll find any fossils of great great great great etc grandpa Homo Sapiens. There is just too much time and too little likelihood of a given specimen being fossilized. But, we will find a lot of great great great etc cousin Homo Sapiens. That's what this fossil sounds like, and just because it's not quite in the direct line doesn't mean that it can't teach us a lot about ourselves and how we evolved.
Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:26 · Score: 1

Don't they do this every couple of years?
1. Re:Again? by Beelzebud · 2011-09-09 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  No, as a matter of fact, they don't, jackass.
2. Re:Again? by sunspot42 · 2011-09-09 14:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're seriously trying to support the assertion "they" do this "every couple of years" because of "Nebraska man"? "Nebraska man" hit the papers in 1922. Once a century != "every couple of years".
  Basic math fail.
3. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Look up the history of 'nebraska man'. 1 tooth and they extrapolated a whole species.
  I did look it up, on Talk.Origins and it's a pretty bad example. If you take "they extrapolated a whole species" to mean "a prominent paleontologist identified the tooth as an ape tooth" and "an artist painted a rendition for a popular news periodical of a possible species the tooth came from," then sure.
4. Re:Again? by MightyMartian · 2011-09-09 15:44 · Score: 2
  
  Basic history fail too. What is it about evolution, and human evolution in particular, that brings out the retarded fuckwits?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  "What is it about evolution, and human evolution in particular, that brings out the retarded fuckwits?"
  They heard too many children's stories about talking snakes.
6. Re:Again? by Samantha+Wright · 2011-09-09 18:49 · Score: 2
  
  Nebraska Man was debunked in 1927. What was the name of the museum, so we can avoid it or its de facto successor?
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
wait a second by AvitarX · 2011-09-09 11:31 · Score: 2

I thought civilization had to do with agriculture and an end to being total nomads, so one could build a city.
Tool use is great and all, but not civilation I would think.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
1. Re:wait a second by turkeyfeathers · 2011-09-09 11:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I thought civilization had to do with agriculture and an end to being total nomads, so one could build a city.
  Civilization is defined by the use of monetary instruments. The more advanced the civilization, the closer they are to using Bitcoins.
2. Re:wait a second by Skidborg · 2011-09-09 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  If we were to invent cheap spaceship cities and give up stationary living, would we no longer be civilized?
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
3. Re:wait a second by AvitarX · 2011-09-09 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  If they didn't have agriculture there would be a fair point I think.
  Though you called them cities, and I said "allowing cities" so I think you're hypothetical counter is at best only half counter.
  My point was tools aren't civiliztion, and I would argue that complex communication isn't either (but there is a case for that), it's cities that make civilization.
  Thus nomadic barbarians being called uncivilized.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
4. Re:wait a second by meglon · 2011-09-09 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking the whole "uncivilized barbarians" label came about less because the didn't have cities, which some did, but more for their propensity of pulling peoples livers our through their sphincter at a moments notice (or other acts of telling people to frak off that didn't meet with the aforementioned persons liking).
  
  --
  Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
5. Re:wait a second by cyberchondriac · 2011-09-10 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's not as if the "civilized" Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, (the endless list goes on) didn't do "barbaric" things like that as well. Mankinds history has always been violent, regardless of class. Mostly the label of "Barbarian" comes from a bias .F'instance, the Celtic tribes had laws, mathematics, and technology (i.e. among other things, all indications are that the celts invented (chain) mail, an advanced form of armor that the "more civilized" cultures borrowed), yet were still considered "barbarians" by the Romans.
  I think the name was probably due to their living tribally rather than in large cities.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
6. Re:wait a second by moogaloonie · 2011-09-10 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  A truly advanced civilization would have discovered free energy, eliminated scarcity and would need no money. Have you ever seen Star Trek?
For most subject topics in peer review they do by BlueCoder · 2011-09-09 11:42 · Score: 1

Even if you are an AC I'm still commenting.
I would say articles are submitted on main line tracts of every topic every week. Just to get it published means it's worth paying attention to. On the other hand it also means you'll see another revolutionary evolution/refinement every couple years. As far as the subject matter I think it's very apropos.
P.S. And yes I transposed a word in my previous post.
Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:45 · Score: 0, Funny

See, more proof that evolution is bogus and creationism is true. The evolutionists just have to keep changing their story.
1. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by xevioso · 2011-09-09 11:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Nono, you have it wrong. Evolution is wrong because of all the gaps that keep increasing. See, say you have fossil A and E. The creationist says, "Aha, there's no fossil between A and E! There's a gap there!" Then the evolutionist finds fossil C, which fits nicely between A and E. Now the creationist says, "Aha, now there's a gap between A and C, and between C and E! You've just created MORE gaps!" This is creatinionism logic at its finest.
2. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  funny.. but you nailed it.
  The problem with creationism is that it's based on faith (it's in the book, so it's true), while falsibility is the basis of science. (facts, theory, more facts, re-evaluate, new theory)
3. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by next_ghost · 2011-09-09 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  How is that supposed to be a "proof"? Scientists are less wrong today than they were yesterday. Creationists on the other hand are still exactly as wrong as the bronze age goat herders who came up with the creation fairy tale several thousand years ago.
4. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by theshowmecanuck · 2011-09-09 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  I beg to differ. By my reckoning, this proves that the history of the earth now goes back at least 7000 years.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
5. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by camperdave · 2011-09-09 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  I see... So the creationist theory cannot be proven false, and the evolutionist's theory is proven false time and time again. I get it!
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
6. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-09 13:05 · Score: 2
  
  That and any correction is taken that all evidence is wrong. "Yes we now believe homo habilis coexisted with homo erectus instead of preceding it." = "Did you hear that? All their hominid data was wrong."
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
7. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Opyros · 2011-09-09 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  So after an infinite amount of time, the set of gaps in the fossil record will resemble the Cantor set?
8. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Slashdot+Assistant · 2011-09-09 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  I find it baffling that modern-day creationists, given the vast amount of information available to them, can still be more wrong than someone living thousands of years ago.
  This biblical literalism appears to be a more modern fad. Some of the great thinkers of church history would be appalled at the way in which creationists discredit their religion by clinging to literal interpretations of scripture in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Augustine is a good example of a notable Christian two-thousand years ago who realized scripture will have to be continually reinterpreted as new information comes to light. Reinterpretation is not without its pitfalls, but it's better than trying to defend a verse that is clearly indefensible in the face of evidence.
  I like the way you summed that up. Succinct and on the money.
9. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  ID in no way specifies a thousands-of-years-old Earth, as few theists per se do, but carry on with the boilerplate YEC Straw Man / outright deliberate lie, while you can.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
10. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
  
  --Darwin, concisely summarizing his Natural Selection theory, and the personal and social challenges accepting our pre-existing forms is likely to be, circa 1800
  
  ...oh wait, that was actually...
  
  --Jesus, saying the same thing, a couple thousand years earlier
  
  Seems pretty consistent over that time to me.
  
  By the way, you may want to familiarize yourself with what a Bare Assertion Fallacy is.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
11. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Cstryon · 2011-09-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I should point out that there is a silent sizable chunk of religious folk that embrace science and evolution as the how. Starting with the big bang (maybe) a little (or maybe a lot) of influence to eventually create humans (but not necessarily just home sapien). What we have in scripture as to how it all happened is (at least in my opinion) the way who ever wrote it understood what was being said, or written. If God created the universe, it would be foolish to limit how he did it.
  
  --
  Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
12. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  You are incorrect. About 40% of all Americans believe that humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago. Among creationists YEC is the overwhelming majority view.
13. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't even used the term "ID" in your demonstration of what "ID" supposedly is.
  Typical.
  Let me put it to you succinctly. "Creationism", as you use it, and imply it -must- be used, is an erroneously-constructed concept that includes two totally disparate concepts--the notion that the world was created thousands of years ago, and the notion there is a God. There is no necessary relationship between those two premises. "Creationism", as it is used typically, is simply presented so that this fallacious concept-formation can be embedded in a word and the demand to accept it in totality (both premises) or reject it in totality (both premises) can be presented.
  Per Aristotle, who knew how to construct -proper- concepts, "Creationism" means -one thing only-, the premise that the universe was created by an intelligent being, irrespective of its age. Anyone hearing it used as an accretion of multiple premises should stop, realize they are dealing with someone so dishonest and irrational that these traits are embedded all the way down in their psyche to the very way they use words, and walk away.
  One can believe the universe was created, and believe it is millions of years old. Period. This is a valid use of the term "Creationism", and any particular content beyond this requires specific qualification. Accreting it with any other premise as a definitional characteristic (again, per Aristotle) is just bullshit. Unfortunately, theists often don't realize the purpose of the term (though they should--embedding fallacies in individual words is par for the course in politics), and some actually adopt this usage. After that, no argument can be viable using the loaded word--which was the intent all along.
  So, so much for "Creationism". As for the term I actually used, "ID", this is a view that overlaps, but is not synonymous, with Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism (and "designed by aliens", for that matter), and the overwhelming majority of people -supporting ID-, including the "founders", are Old Earth Creationists. I know they need to be definitionally the same for your argument you are parroting from Dawkins et al for the millionth time. Sorry, even though it's obviously useful and necessary for you to claim they are, they still aren't, and your premise is still false, the millionth-and-first time.
  I trust you can work something so simple out without needed to bring in a Venn Diagram.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
14. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  ID is creationism, but not all creationism is ID. It also helps to distinguish ID(TM) a la Behe, Dembski, Discovery Institute et al. from "intelligent design" in a general sense. I would call it "ID theory" but there is no theory to be found in it.
  ID advocates are very specific about what they think is created (life) and very non-specific as to when and how and by whom. They may also be sympathetic to anti-big-bang cosmology and naturalism in general, though there's nothing in the ID arguments that really address these.
  ID doesn't demand YEC, but it also doesn't contradict it. ID is a small subset of creationist dogma, namely the part that says "evolution (of x) is impossible because (yz), and the only alternative is design."
  The common aspect of ID and creationism both is that they distrust established mainstream science, for reasons that don't really have anything to do with the science itself. The motives are political and religious. Neither contributes anything to scientific research or literature.
15. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  The common aspect of ID and creationism both is that they distrust established mainstream science, for reasons that don't really have anything to do with the science itself. The motives are political and religious. Neither contributes anything to scientific research or literature.
  
  Okay, continue to claim this. It will likewise continue to be directly false. If -nothing else-, Darwin's Black Box contributed significantly to my knowledge of the several-hundred-item causal chains of immune response on a specific biochem level. If -nothing else-, it has necessitated closer specification of testability within propositional claims. And, naturally, it is wholly inappropriate to dismiss a priori a viewpoint which is backed in the respects it is, not backed in the respects it is not (with quite candid assessment of this by Behe et al), and open to further refinement. The Theory of Relativity would have been gone in the 1920's if it were a hundredth as stridently suppressed. Of course, it wasn't, despite being quite nascent itself in terms of testability--and we both know exactly why, and that those motivations have nothing to do with concern for the advancement of science.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
16. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless of what you learned from Behe's book, he has religious motives for taking his position.
  Behe doesn't say that science is useless - far from it, and he even accepts evolution by common descent. But he goes a step further and claims not just that science hasn't explained all the mechanisms of evolution, but that there are some things it cannot, even in principle, explain.
  He then goes on to suggest that supernatural explanations should be considered since naturalistic ones are not up to the task.
  Of course, other scientists went on to prove him wrong about irreducible complexity, and the rug of his distrust of science was pulled out from under him.
17. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of what you learned from Behe's book, he has religious motives for taking his position.
  
  And, I assume you aren't saying this is relevant to whether or not what he says is -true-, because that'd be textbook Genetic Fallacy.
  
  he goes a step further and claims not just that science hasn't explained all the mechanisms of evolution
  
  The cases haven't even been exhaustively enumerated--how would one do anything else than accurately note science hasn't explained them all? If you say it will before even defining the scope of proposable IC cases, well, sure, but that's simply untestable psychic assertion. More "hope" than science.
  
  He then goes on to suggest that supernatural explanations should be considered since naturalistic ones are not up to the task.
  
  Explanations outside the default context, and avoiding "naturalistic" as just being a tautological substitution for "what I think is natural", sure. Same as how someone might encounter a fluorescent cat, and wonder how we might explain that, and then investigate it to accurately conclude what is correct--design. In this case, design as fact, rather than design as hypothesis, but the only distinction really is if you like the time period we happen to be discussing being applied.
  
  Of course, other scientists went on to prove him wrong about irreducible complexity,
  
  Odd, people in biochem here don't even seem to be able to do that with -me- here. I'll need something way more definitive being presented on that claim with respect to Behe. Especially since claiming "proof" is anathema to claiming to be staying in the domain of science for all topics, for theist and atheist alike.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
18. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  "But...but it's not creationism!"
  ID uses the same old tactics: 1) nitpick evolution to eat away at its credibility and foster doubt in the public mind; 2) come up with some examples that it's "impossible for evolution to explain," and/or argue that evolutionary theory is not scientific; 3) hide ulterior religious motives by not mentioning God and putting on the trappings of science; 4) get your agenda adopted by elected officials and school officials who have the power to promote it for you.
  None of which actually educates anyone, it just allows its proponents to gloat over their hard-won domination. Yawn... nothing new to see here.
19. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  So, you've got just an Ad Hominem... in four parts. Indeed, nothing new to see here. But since lately everyone replies to me Anonymous Coward, I can't even tell if I'm still responding to the same person. Makes thread continuity difficult... so, really, I'll have to wait for a more conducive time for discussion.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
20. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  > So, you've got just an Ad Hominem... in four parts
  Don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to refute ID here. That's already been done by many more capable than I. Scientists have thoroughly demolished it, which you obviously don't see.
  No, all I'm trying to do is get you to be honest about your motives for defending it. That would indeed be something new.
  P.S. I post AC because the mods are typically on crack.
  P.P.S. captcha: stabbed
21. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Since you're confident they have "demolished" it, and you wouldn't be taking such a claim on "mere faith", why not simply present your refutation, and be informative to Slashdot--if you think you can, and this isn't mere poseur bluff?
  I get quite a lot of that, actually. Show me otherwise.
  My motives? I'm a theist, and I don't like a priori suppression of hypotheses that are uncontroversially accepted as within the domain of "science", based upon criteria that virtually every other scientific principle would have failed at they hypothesis-formation stage, if applied at its original proposal, such that we'd never know of it. And I don't like this being done as sheer hypocritical arbitrariness completely provable as such by taking every single scientist's published papers and pointing out the untestable premises contained in it, line by line, until we get to a hundred and move on with life. Thing is, I agree that inferential support is a valid scientific criterion, -and so does every scientist-, except when the topic of ID comes up.
  So, in short, honestly: A) I'm a theist, have never made any attempt to hide this (refer to my posts and my sig I've had for 8 years, if unsure on this), and B) I don't like science being damaged, especially by people claiming they are supporting it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
22. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not here to do your homework for you. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover for starters (no doubt you have, and no doubt you disagree with it). Not a scientific document, to be sure, but the testimony showed ID for the charlatan it is - warmed-over creationism in sheep's clothing (or a bright white new lab coat, if you prefer).
  And for the rest of you Slashdotters who aren't up to speed on ID, visit the TalkDesign Web site for an introduction.
23. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  So, handwaving and links.
  But, glad to hear you take your definitive determinations of scientific questions from lawyers--as long as they wear one of those cool black robes and sit on an elevated platform.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
24. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by theshowmecanuck · 2011-09-10 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't believe it, you are the first of a great many ID believers who are of this mindset. However for me to believe you have any brain power (if you are an ID believer) you would have to tell me that you think it is possible for God to have used evolution (starting with apes) as a means of creating and improving on 'man'. And that six days is allegorical and could just as well meant six billion years. Too many retards in your camp insist that six days means six days, and that the earth is six thousand years old. I don't believe that the allegories in the bible are mutually exclusive of evolution, and in fact believe evolution was the mechanism that lead to our present state of being (whether initiated by God or not).
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
25. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if I were a theist, I'd pray that you will eventually come to understand that ID does nothing for science and nothing for religion. It's entirely political.
26. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Empiric · 2011-09-10 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  And as an advocate of science, I hope you'll come to the factual conclusion that those who proclaim themselves as champions of the "science versus religion" false dichotomy, in fact do nothing but damage both science and religion.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
27. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by DamnStupidElf · 2011-09-10 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  The central support of ID is generally an argument that certain complex structures could not arise by naturalistic processes in the time-frames that modern evolutionary science has discovered. The arguments are generally broken down into statements about irreducible complexity (no viable evolutionary path between an original phenotype and a current phenotype) and specified complexity (the impossibility of creating information by random processes).
  
  The former argument I attribute to a lack of imagination. For instance there are well-defined stages of eye evolution, and almost all intermediate stages are present in some species observable today. Many ID advocates nevertheless use the eye as an example of a structure that points to design, apparently ignoring the multitude of research on specific evolutionary models and examples from nature.
  
  The latter argument is simply mathematically and physically incorrect. The basic definition of specified complexity almost exactly matches the criterion for compressibility; an example of a random letter, a random string of letters, and a string from a Shakespearean play is a good example. Guess which of the three is highly compressible and also used as an example of specified complexity. This should not be surprising because all living structures are essentially the result of "decompressing" the information stored in genes as they are repeatedly expressed or inhibited in complex feedback loops. It is trivial to create specified complexity by creating random formal grammars (context free or context sensitive, for example) and then generating random strings in the language by iteratively choosing a random production rule to extend a string of grammatical (terminal and non-terminal) symbols. It is trivial to generate random strings that look very much like Shakespeare (meter, word choice, etc.) but lack semantic meaning, yet I see no way of using the definition of specified complexity to distinguish between the two. A fitness function seems to be necessary to judge the semantic content, but given a fitness function over the language in which the strings are produced there exists an evolutionary processes to produce strings of ever higher fitness by randomly combining and changing the most fit strings that have been produced so far. Fit specified complex structures exist precisely because they can survive and reproduce, not because they are specified and complex.
  
  Physically it can be shown that the sun is capable of converting its energy into tremendous amounts of information stored in the physical state of the Earth. Even if the Earth was a solid uniform sphere at some point in the past the repetitive heating and cooling by the sun would create more information (reduce local entropy) in the Earth over time by changing its configuration away from uniformity. The sun itself received its store of energy from an even more energetic star before it, and ultimately received its energy from the even more energetic big bang. Ultimately, ID must reduce to the sole argument that the laws of the universe and the initial conditions must have been intelligently designed. Given that even the rules of the game of life allow Turing completeness, it seems unlikely that the particular laws of our universe are necessary for sentient life. The anthropic principle suffices to explain why humans, and not aliens or glider-computers, are discussing this on slashdot. Given that the initial conditions of the big bang appear to be highly uniform, as well as the subsequent development of the universe, it seems likely that there is either no designer or that the designer is extremely subtle, to the point of being undetectable. Belief in a being because of an abundant lack of evidence does not, to me, seem scientific.
28. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Macka · 2011-09-10 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's because creationist Christianity (usually evangelical) is a cult. It's not recognised as such by most because it's become so main stream; but any religious sect that preaches absolutes (e.g. the bible is inerrant) and is blind to any other way of thinking is a cult.
29. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  So, so much for "Creationism". As for the term I actually used, "ID", this is a view that overlaps, but is not synonymous, with Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism
  What I love is watching ID advocates twist and squirm to avoid using the word "create," e.g., "these designs would have been brought into being by an intelligent agent." As if the equivocation fools anyone.
30. Re:Proof of Intelligent Design by alexo · 2011-09-13 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  we now believe homo habilis coexisted with homo erectus
  Please keep the forum family-friendly.
Outliers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 11:57 · Score: 0

Tracing human evolution from one random set of remains would be like extrapolating the history of human intellectual thought by picking one random person from slashdot.
1. Re:Outliers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  Comparison FAIL.
  Thought != Gene structure and DNA.
  Something more correct would be to compare that to extracting the basic repeatable human Psychology footprint from a single individual. Something repeatable, generally similar, and after comparing 2 or more subjects profiles, many things are the same while outliers are more noticeable.
  (Some people clearly lack critical thinking skills)
Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by damn_registrars · 2011-09-09 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

As is typical, the full Science articles are paywalled
Indeed, the articles in question are behind the Science paywall. But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on; now all NIH-funded (read: US government-funded) research must be published in a way that allows for free access. Science, Nature, and other high-impact journals have ways to comply with that when needed.

However, the journals do need to be able to make money to pay their staff and meet their business expenses. Maybe the model doesn't fit modern times, but it is what it is.

And we are talking about the journal Science, one of the most widely subscribed journals anywhere. You might not even need to go to your closest university to read it; there is a good chance your local public library has a subscription to it as well. You may even be able to get to it online if you're creative.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by MimeticLie · 2011-09-09 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on;
  Not changing very quickly, though. At the end of the Science Friday segment about this Ira Flatow asked the scientists about the high resolution scans they made of the skulls and made an offhand comment about 3D printers and releasing the data to the public. The scientist made a big deal about how they had made the data available for months now, if you were a scientist and showed up at the Smithsonian.
  
  So close, and yet so far away.
2. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by camperdave · 2011-09-09 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I want to know where I can get a high res scan/3D "print" of my own skull.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
3. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by bmo · 2011-09-09 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can do this.
  Go to a place where they have CAT scan, a hospital or a private company.
  Get a scan
  Call up a company with a Dimension printer or other 3D printer. There are 3D printers that also do powdered metallurgy sintering with lasers. (and nowadays there is more 3D printing technology than you can shake a stick at. Can you say "powdered metal ceramic"? I knew you could).
  Send them the data.
  Have them print it.
  Pay for all this.
  --
  BMO
4. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by PopeScott · 2011-09-09 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  You know that would almost be worth it. It would be pretty damn cool to have a model of your own skull.
5. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by rokstar · 2011-09-09 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  If I had a 3d printed model of my own skull, i would hold it up any time company was over a comment about how alas, I knew him.
6. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by martin-boundary · 2011-09-09 16:34 · Score: 2
  
  It would be pretty damn cool to have a model of your own skull.
  
  Even better to play Shakespeare while holding your own skull in your hand.
  Alas, poor me! I knew myself, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; I hath borne me on my back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination I am!
  Who knew it would only take a 3d printer to hack a Shakespeare play?
7. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by travisb828 · 2011-09-09 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  You could become an AAAS member. http://www.aaas.org/membership/
8. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  The only time I have ever had a CAT scan done, they refused to give me the data. How the hell do you accomplish this?
  Are you not American or something?
9. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by damn_registrars · 2011-09-10 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on;
  Not changing very quickly, though
  For work sponsored by the US government, it is changing very quickly. I've seen numerous papers in both Nature and Science that were released at no cost because they were the product of federally sponsored work, and even far more papers are going straight into journals that release all their published papers to the public.
  
  Of course, other countries will set the regulations they see fit for the work they pay for. And non-government-funded research has its own regulations behind it.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
10. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by jc79 · 2011-09-11 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  However, the journals do need to be able to make money to pay their staff and meet their business expenses. Maybe the model doesn't fit modern times, but it is what it is.
  
  Some journals don't even pay their staff or even need to meet many of their business expenses. A comment by "MrBendy" here gives this interesting perspective (emphasis mine):
  
  I was a journal editor for several years and, like George Monbiot, was left astonished by the shamelessness with which this racket operates.
  In particular, I did all, and I mean ALL, the donkeywork personally, from licking envelopes to commissioning reviews to copy-editing all contributions. Yet not a cent did I receive from the publisher, a well-known British academic publisher. In effect the considerable operating costs of every part of the journal's work up to setting, printing and distribution were carried by me personally, using my spare time, and to a limited degree by my employer (a university) in so far as I was able to use a little normal work-time on occasion and pass the journal's (substantial) postal costs through my departmental office. ...
  The final indignity for me was, on inquiring of the trustees about succession planning, being told that it was essentially up to me to persuade someone else to become editor. In short, it was my problem and mine alone and I was expected to continue working for free to generate large profits for the publisher and a small rake-off for the trust until or unless I could find a mug to replace me. ...
  For the publisher, of course, this extraordinary combination of unpaid and unresourced amateur production, which reduces costs to a bare minimum, and the opportunity then to maximise revenues through the lucrative exercise of legal and financial power, is immensely attractive as a business model.
11. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by damn_registrars · 2011-09-11 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Some journals don't even pay their staff or even need to meet many of their business expenses. A comment by "MrBendy" here gives this interesting perspective (emphasis mine):
  That isn't a huge surprise that someone was not getting paid to review articles; I know academics who do that at essentially their own cost as well.
  
  There are indeed many problems with the system as it is. Unfortunately it is what it is because we allowed it to get this way. Which is a sad explanation for it, but it isn't going to change dramatically overnight. Personally I would have preferred to see this paper in PNAS or PLoS One (both of which are free and high impact) but the prestige is still with Nature and Science.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
12. Re:Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science by jc79 · 2011-09-13 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not just not getting paid to review articles; he was the editor of the journal, and did it for free while the publisher charged a fortune for access to the content.
  I'm astonished that people have put up with this for so long. It's time for people to vote with their wallets - if university libraries (journals' biggest customers) refused to buy journal subscriptions then the journals would face a huge shortfall in income and be forced to change their business models.
What's great about science by dbet · 2011-09-09 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

New evidence = new theories.

As opposed to politics and religion, new evidence = character assassinate those who presented the evidence.
1. Re:What's great about science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Oh dear.
  This is modded Interesting instead of being flamebait, troll, or offtopic.
  At this point I've just about thrown my hands in the air and given up since this sums up a common attitude I've seen on /.
  (Note: For people who will be modding this as flamebait or troll, I don't care if the parent hates religion and politics. That's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinions. But taking a topic that's about a discovery of a skeleton that supports new theories and using it to harp against religion and politics by using a tenuous connection and then being modded UP even for a moment disturbs me.)
2. Re:What's great about science by supersloshy · 2011-09-09 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  This happens in science too. New "evidence" = new criticism and testing those new findings. That's one of the great things about science: it's possible to test everything like this.
  Politics, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. You don't know how well something will work for certain until you try it and even then there are so many other variables that you don't even know if anything you changed did any good or bad, and then everybody praises/criticizes you for it either way.
  And Religion is WAY different. Religion is about keeping tradition: "new evidence" (for what?) almost never exists, and when it does it has to be proven accurate somehow, which is really complicated. Out of all of the three things, this one doesn't even belong. It doesn't function like science at all.
  
  --
  "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
3. Re:What's great about science by microbox · 2011-09-09 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Your response was very confused.
  
  + Politics is about being seen to have the answers, and "mastering" all opposition, so of course politicians nay-say each other continuous. Political epistemology has nothing to do with whether you try something, but whether it will make you powerful.
  
  + Religion can have very sophisticated epistemologies, but always works from a set of givens. For example, we /know/ God exists. The set of givens can differ from "everything is the good book is literally true", to "Jesus was a saint who was far wiser then me or you."
  
  + Politics intrudes on science insofar as science is conducted by human beings who are naturally attached to their ideas, and their prestige and influence.
  
  The most sciency disciplines don't have too much trouble with new information. The less sciency (social sciences) have huge issues when it comes to accepting new information /because/ they see knowledge as politic, and thus engage in politics. (See first point above.)
  
  --
  
  Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
4. Re:What's great about science by Ixokai · 2011-09-09 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing the point.
  The point is the scientists look at the evidence and come up with new theories.
  The religious and political groups look at the exact same evidence, in the exact same scenario, and lie. Its not an attack against the religious: its that the religious react to the exact same evidence with attacks on the scientists character and spouting grand conspiracy theories, and arguing their point with grand handwaving and nothing else.
  Religion isn't incompatible with science; but where religion meets politics, science becomes anathema as it represents reason and questioning where only the absolute acceptance of presumed fact is allowed. Even if that "fact" is totally, utterly, completely devoid from any reality.
  And the "fact" I speak not is of religion -- you can be fully religious and very plausibily support scientific understanding. But you can't be a religious-political nutjob and be able to actually read english (especially the Constitution).
  "Politics and religion" are mutating to become this hybrid monstrosity in the United States at least, where actual rational thought is a simply Wrong. That is a completley different thing then Religion by itself, which has its components of faith -- but many, many, many, MANY scientists have been able to easily reconcile faith and science.
  But mix politics into religion, and religion becomes tainted -- you don't believe in "climate change" but not because of faith, or anything religious. Anything scientific is anti-faith, period. And /power/ drives the whole movement at that point-- because there is no point to politics but power-- so with religion driving, and politics directing, ignorance becomes a virtue.
  Its not anti-religion to be worried about that. All religion isn't bad. The merger of religion with politics in our system, where any evidence-based scientific development is simply flatly assumed to be a lie -- THAT is a problem.
  Religion doesn't have to be anti-science, or vice-versa.
5. Re:What's great about science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  I think you're missing the point.
  no u. tfa was about some science papers. anti-religion trolling is off topic, but it's modded up every time here.
6. Re:What's great about science by Empiric · 2011-09-10 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's one of the great things about science: it's possible to test everything like this.
  
  Ah, no, completely false. Did you even think to propose that a test to differentiate this finding from a one-off birth defect was necessary, as a hypothesis? I'm betting no, because this was presented as "science"--the general appearance of being so is generally immediately sufficient for most as long as the thing proposed being something they already want to agree with.
  
  The reality is, the majority of propositions in the range of sciences are not testable, and propositions are held as supported by strength of inference from "knowns". This is particularly true in anthropology (give me that test that shows this pottery is from Culture X, just because it's of a style, material composition, and physical location of Culture X known to have been there--those are all "merely" inferential support), and becomes even more so as we move into "softer" sciences, such as psychology.
  
  Even in the "hardest" of "hard sciences", physics, we still can't test whether the Copenhagen or Everett interpretation is true, after a century. Why are these proposals accepted as science? Because they have great inferential support from knowns, and, from your testable-only perspective, because it says it's science, and says something you like. That's good enough for 99% of the population. Only reason to object, really, is the simple fact that a scientist or science teacher, who, encountering a proposition he/she doesn't like, decides to exclude it based on testability criteria, is just a hypocrite with respect to the rest of his professional career, who is actively damaging science and people's understanding of science, for the momentary benefit of dismissing a particular personally-disliked proposition. If you actually value science, understand that this is actually quite a bit more nuanced than you suggest, and is an area where Philosophy of Science can be quite informative.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
7. Re:What's great about science by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-10 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  New evidence = new theories.
  As opposed to politics and religion, new evidence = character assassinate those who presented the evidence.
  Haven't read all that much history of science, have you? Yes, scientists are just as prone to character assassination of people who disagree with them as anyone else.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
8. Re:What's great about science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  not going to argue against your post...
  However, I want to know - how come there are apes, and there are humans, but nothing in-between?
  Surely there are only 2 possibilities:
  1. Evolution only followed one line, where each successive mutation replaced the previous one, meaning therefore there would be no other animals at all, only humans...
  2. Evolution happens in all directions, at any stage, meaning we should have apes and humans and many similar animals as the evolutionary tree sprouted at every step of the way. But instead we just have a few species (probably a lot of sub-species) of apes, who are mostly the same developmentally, and humans, and no evidence whatsoever of any link between them.
  Not trying to argue a point - I just want someone to explain the above to someone who just doesn't have enough faith to believe in evolution.
9. Re:What's great about science by dudpixel · 2011-09-11 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  sorry, forgot I wasn't logged in - above post is from me. replies welcome. not trying to argue religion - leave the religion out - I just want answers to my questions...and I cant promise there are not more questions to follow. I just find it hard to follow...surely I'm not alone.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
10. Re:What's great about science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-11 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'd recommend you read Relics of Eden by Daniel J. Fairbanks. It is a short and very easy read that explains in detail what the DNA differences are between humans and apes, and the kinds of changes that occur when populations split and evolve in new directions.
I'm already an expert by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 12:32 · Score: 1

I read it in National Geographic at the dentist's office.
She compared my teeth to the ones in the photos, not very favorabley.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-09-09 15:25 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
its behind a pay wall by Osgeld · 2011-09-09 16:22 · Score: 0

cause right now its mostly smoke and guesses, they dont want you to see that before they get your dollar, much like the carnies and the spook house.
If anything was solid it would at least make a few moments on the evening news for free
You people are idiots! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 16:35 · Score: 0

Everyone know that the earth is only 6000 years old!
You all must be communists.
FINALLY by australopithecus · 2011-09-09 17:20 · Score: 1

ALL HAIL AUSTRALOPITHECUS
Re:Rick Perry by Black+Parrot · 2011-09-09 17:28 · Score: 4, Funny

What's his take on this? Seriously..
I'm guessing he hasn't received his copy of Science yet.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Rick Perry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 18:14 · Score: 0

He's excited to find evidence that not only Republicans existed 2 million years, but that their core values are practically unchanged since that time.
Re:Rick Perry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 19:19 · Score: 0

He'll call his previous campaign boss Al Gore and get some of Al's science buddies explain it to him using very small words.
Missing link? by Provocateur · 2011-09-09 20:10 · Score: 1

It' behind a paywall, sadly. We'll never get to it now...

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
1. Re:Missing link? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yes you will. If you want, you currently can look at the "Supporting Online Material" links for each of the papers now. It's not very satisfying, but they contain some information related to the main papers. In a year people will be able to access the articles in Science by registering on their web site. For example, it means you can now view the bunch of articles on Ardipithecus ramidus from 2009, and it means you can also look at the previously-published papers on Australopithecus sediba from April of last year.
  So, it's more of a "delayed link" than a "missing" one.
2. Re:Missing link? by dudpixel · 2011-09-11 00:26 · Score: 2
  
  They found the missing link - it said "404 - File Not Found"
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Rick Perry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 20:46 · Score: 0

The evolutionists have changed their minds again. It just goes to show how unreliable evolution "science" really is. But God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and you can trust in His word.
Re:Rick Perry by jacob1984 · 2011-09-09 23:46 · Score: 1

The evolutionists have changed their minds again..
This isn't a flaw... this is a feature.
Re:Well by Hognoxious · 2011-09-10 00:18 · Score: 1

# Tooraleye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ay
Tooraleye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye USA... /#

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Take it down a salt mine... by Hognoxious · 2011-09-10 00:21 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, time loops YOU!!!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Rick Perry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 04:26 · Score: 0

The evolutionists have changed their minds again. It just goes to show how unreliable evolution "science" really is. But God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and you can trust in His word.
Yes, with a new EVIDENCE
Yep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 05:31 · Score: 0

We don't live in an ideal world. Our noblest ideas are imperfectly implemented. But that doesn't make them any less noble.
Though the implementations may have some similarities, the philosophical differences are of primary significance.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith rejects observation so that belief may be preserved"
-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
fook paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-10 08:31 · Score: 0

and thus its not true unless i see fullarticle, they are lying.
Re:Rick Perry by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:42 · Score: 0

Maybe some kind person could pony up a subscription for him. But then again, he probably wouldn't understand any of it; that alone would be cause for suspicion to a knuckle-dragger like Perry.
Re:Rick Perry by benhattman · 2011-09-12 16:12 · Score: 1

Officially, he'll have none. It's a losing proposition. He's made it clear to the people who want to hear it that he doesn't need facts from any experts. Once that's clear enough, he doesn't need to talk about it anymore. The fundies know he's one of them, and bringing it up just makes him look nutso to more moderate voters.