The missing link?

[Ursus]

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

[Formosus Viriustus]

This news item got me thinking. We haven't evolved all that much these last 47 million years, have we ?

I mean, 65 million years ago Tyranosaurus Rex still ruled the earth. Mamals were already around at the time, if I am to believe those popular 'natural world' programs. That's a silly thing to do, of course, I know. Still, if they are to be believed those early mamals looked a bit like a cross between a dog and a pig. Brrr.

 

And hey, presto, only 18 million years later we have this adorable little lemur. If we can believe the picture in that article. An equally silly thing to do, of course. Why, if that is a correct picture, we haven't evolved at all these last 47 million years. That cuddly little fellow might well be my twin brother.

 

F rmosus

[sylla]

This report is everywhere.

 

As paleontology goes, it seems like great stuff, and the "Lemur" and "Tarsius" advocates will certainly have a good time.

 

But the main conclusion of this and many similar articles ("the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists... and creationists)" is simply ludicrous; there has never been such kind of "debate". Science and faith play in different dimensions; period. This only shows the ignorance of the average media.

 

The mere title of this article is absurd too; paleontology must unavoidably "draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record", just because the vast majority (99.9999.... %) of us, living beings, will not make it to the fossil record, for any reason. Only the fossilized

Edited May 20, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

But the main conclusion of this and many similar articles ("the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists... and creationists)" is simply ludicrous; there has never been such kind of "debate". Science and faith play in different dimensions; period. This only shows the ignorance of the average media.

You are aware I take of the court cases in the south of the US concerning education and evolution? The debate is very much in existence. Scientific American magazine featured this story and included a report on two or three museums trumpeting their biblical science. Only a few weeks ago, I came across a glossy pamphlet in my local burger bar proclaiming that science is wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old. Believe me Sylla, the debate exists and isn't going to go away until the christian fundamentalists do.

 

The mere title of this article is absurd too; paleontology must unavoidably "draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record", just because the vast majority (99.9999.... %) of us, living beings, will not make it to the fossil record, for any reason. Only the fossilized "links" can be studied in any way; the rest of the "chain" is "missing".

Absolutely, and some of that record is lost to us, either by tectonic movement pushing the fossils beyond reach, or even destruction, or by the process of weathering. The plains indians of the american west used to find what they called 'Thunder Horses', which were the remains of Brontotheres exposed by rain and wind - now gone altogether. then again, some priceless exhibits have been destroyed by warfare, especially in WW2.

 

Then, any fossil is a "link"(even death ends) that was "missing" until somebody found it; for better or for worse, most of us will eventually become "missing links" by definition. In fact, I hope that will be my case.

Not at all. A missing link is a fossil that connects two disparate branches of evolution in theory only (until a candidate is found). Only if you are responsible for two seperate descendant species could you possibly be considered.

[caldrail]

This news item got me thinking. We haven't evolved all that much these last 47 million years, have we ?

Well.. We still eat, defecate, urinate, dream, bonk, and sleep afterward. Guess you might be right.

 

I mean, 65 million years ago Tyranosaurus Rex still ruled the earth.

Oh no he didn't. He was was top carnivore in one region - that of the North American continent (which was seperated in towo by an inland sea across what is now the central plains). By virtue of this creatures size, paleontologists believe it was a solitary hunter with territories it guarded - there is however some circumstantial evisdence to suggest they hunted in packs (!!!). A word of caution. T Rex was ionly strutting his stuff in the last two million years of the Cretaceous Period which was a very unhealthy time for life on Earth. Volcanism was rife as tectonic movement was causing all kinds of coastal re-alignment. The Deccan Hills of India for instance emerged in this period, one

vast single flow of lava as the crust broke up, a smaller version of the earlier and catastrophic P/T Event that killed off more than 90% of life on Earth.

 

Mamals were already around at the time, if I am to believe those popular 'natural world' programs. That's a silly thing to do, of course, I know. Still, if they are to be believed those early mamals looked a bit like a cross between a dog and a pig. Brrr.

There was a large variety of mammals in the Cretaceous ranging from tiny mice and shrews to badger-like creatures, eking out a living under the noses of the dominant dinosaurs. I should point out that the dominance of the dinosaurs was coming to an end anyway. Birds had evolved (an offshoot of dinosaurs of course, but very much a group of creatures better able to adapt than the pterosaurs),

mammals were becoming more common and diverse, and with the arrival of a meterorite over Mexico, the K/T Event and it's aftermath would favour small creatures or those with some protection against the enviroment.

 

And hey, presto, only 18 million years later we have this adorable little lemur.

The global hothouse that followed the Cretaceous Period allowed smaller species free reign because the larger dominant creatures had perished. Birds were, for a short time, the major carnivore, and some terrifying flightless birds stalked the jungles. Insects had a brief re-awakening (never as large as the Carboniferous Period examples), and the various mammalian branches were bcoming established. The ancestors of whales were still capable of walking on land (presumably something similar is true of dolphins). In fact, our primitive ancestors are late-comers in the race.

[sylla]

You are aware I take of the court cases in the south of the US concerning education and evolution? The debate is very much in existence. Scientific American magazine featured this story and included a report on two or three museums trumpeting their biblical science. Only a few weeks ago, I came across a glossy pamphlet in my local burger bar proclaiming that science is wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old. Believe me Sylla, the debate exists and isn't going to go away until the christian fundamentalists do.

Debate: "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers".

You can debate science vs science or faith vs faith, because those would be homogenous propositions.

Science vs Faith is not a debate, no matter how those pamphlets call it.

Besides, "biblical science" is an oxymoron.

If you disagree, just post your operative definition for "debate", so each of us can select one; thanks in advance.

 

Not at all. A missing link is a fossil that connects two disparate branches of evolution in theory only (until a candidate is found). Only if you are responsible for two seperate descendant species could you possibly be considered.

That's because you think that evolution goes there jumping from step to step; wrong. Mama ape didn't give birth to a baby human one day.

Evolution is happening all the time; the change of one species into another is a looong gradual transition. We're little different from our parents and offspring. It's a never-ending "chain", and each one of us is a "link" (yes, even the dead ends).

By "us" I mean "living beings" (even the quasi-living Virus).

Here is an excellent example: please read it carefully.

If you disagree, please post your source. Thanks in advance.

Edited May 21, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Science vs Faith is not a debate, no matter how those pamphlets call it.

Besides, "biblical science" is an oxymoron.

If you disagree, just post your operative definition for "debate", so each of us can select one; thanks in advance.

No good arguing with me on that point. The debate between science and faith started in the middle ages. It's been a lethal debate too. Plenty of scientific individuals got fried alive for their opinions.

 

That's because you think that evolution goes there jumping from step to step; wrong. Mama ape didn't give birth to a baby human one day.

Erm... No... I don't. If you want to know what I think, please feel free to ask.

 

Evolution is happening all the time; the change of one species into another is a looong gradual transition.

Yes. Correct. Have a gold star. For two gold stars, can you tell me why Darwinist Theory of Evolution is not a complete answer to biolgical progression?

[Formosus Viriustus]

Debate: "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers".

You can debate science vs science or faith vs faith, because those would be homogenous propositions.

Science vs Faith is not a debate, no matter how those pamphlets call it.

Besides, "biblical science" is an oxymoron.

If you disagree, just post your operative definition for "debate", so each of us can select one; thanks in advance.

 

Ah, yes, but the die hard atheists use the Evolution Theory to try to 'prove' that god doesn't exist.They engage in the debate. So if two parties agree that they are having a debate, who am I to say they are not ? I think both sides are equally stupid. Trying to prove scientifically that god or gods or whatever supernatural things don't exist beyond any doubt is stupid. Taking any religion literally is equally stupid. But there doesn't have to be an irreconcilable contradiction between a more abstract kind of theism and a scientific world view. I have a problem with the fact that those two opposed groups only make up a tiny fraction of people, yet they completely dominate the 'debate' and get far more attention than they deserve.

 

I think it has a lot to do with our tendency of seeing things as 'either / or'. That has plenty of uses, it's the most powerful logic tool. But many things ar not 'either /or'. They often are 'and /and' or 'neither / nor'. But many people feel uncomfortable with that. They want simple and unambiguous answers to everything.

 

 

Formosus

 

[Kosmo]

[/color]Well.. We still eat, defecate, urinate, dream, bonk, and sleep afterward.

 

You forgot the most important part!

 

Evolutionists never tried to prove that Gods do not exist but to find out how the life and humans appeared and evolved. Some people believe that what those scientists say contradicts what the Gods told them. This confusions will last until the Gods decide to update their sayings or people stop believing in fairy tales. Don't hold your breath it will take a while as I think that true-believers have an evolutionary advantage over evolutionists.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Kosmo

[Formosus Viriustus]

Evolutionists never tried to prove that Gods do not exist but to find out how the life and humans appeared and evolved. Some people believe that what those scientists say contradicts what the Gods told them.

 

Yes, evolutionists aren't necessarily fanatical atheists. I only follow those things from a distance, I'm not too interested, but I think that there are some atheist activists out there who actually go after anybody who doesn't wholeheartedly agrees with them and claim that evolution proves that all religion or any belief in a non-material reality is nonsense. Although I am a materialist myself, I think they are as narrow minded and as intolerant as the people they target. For convenience sake they pretend that all people who are not equally uncompromising materialists as they are, belief that JC created heaven an earth in 4000 BC or something like that.

But any discussion on the subject is pretty nonsensical.

... I think that true-believers have an evolutionary advantage over evolutionists.

 

Yes that's the key to the succes of organised religions, isn't it ? Give me a 100 men who are convinced that if they die in my cause, they will go straight to paradise, any time over 200 die hard atheists who would of course do the sensible thing and try to save their own skin in the first place.

 

Formosus

[Nephele]

Yes that's the key to the succes of organised religions, isn't it ? Give me a 100 men who are convinced that if they die in my cause, they will go straight to paradise, any time over 200 die hard atheists who would of course do the sensible thing and try to save their own skin in the first place.

 

FYI, Formosus... My father was an atheist who was willing to die for a cause when he defended our nation in WW II -- because he knew that defeating Hitler and the Japanese Navy was the sensible thing to do. My dad was a very brave man. My mother, also atheist, served her nation, too, in the Women's Army Corps. I'm proud of both my parents, and I happen to be a second-generation atheist.

 

-- Nephele

[Northern Neil]

I'm proud of both my parents, and I happen to be a second-generation atheist.

-- Nephele

...as is my daughter. I am the first generation, in this case! I must agree with Formosus, though. Religion tends to perpetuate itself far more efficiently than Atheism, and the views of the small minority of the truly devout tend to drown out the views of the (recently estimated) 30% who are knowingly or otherwise atheist, and the other 65% who really dont care. On the other hand, no atheist so far as I am aware was ever a suicide bomber who murdered other atheists, who happened to believe in a different kind of atheism... so there is no self destructivity built into the atheist psyche! all mind boggling stuff.

 

Getting back to topic, I am somewhat puzzled as to why this fossil, beautiful and intact as it is, is being lauded as 'the missing link' or as a revolutionary find of a human ancestor. Surely, any primate fossil (and there must be at least a few)

from 40 million BCE or before must, by definition, be a human ancestor - Just like the mammalian reptiles of the Triassic, or the lungfish of the Devonian. The intense debate usually surfaces much more recently, when one tries to untangle the branches of the hominid line.

 

Personally, I dont like the term 'missing link'. For me the fossil chain from distinctly ape-like to definitely, albeit primitively human, seems more or less continuous.

[sylla]

No good arguing with me on that point.

You know, Biology is not Philosophy; it's hard science.

If you don't know what evolution is, there's no way you can disguise it by circular argumentation.

[sylla]

I'm proud of both my parents, and I happen to be a second-generation atheist.

-- Nephele

...as is my daughter. I am the first generation, in this case! I must agree with Formosus, though. Religion tends to perpetuate itself far more efficiently than Atheism, and the views of the small minority of the truly devout tend to drown out the views of the (recently estimated) 30% who are knowingly or otherwise atheist, and the other 65% who really dont care. On the other hand, no atheist so far as I am aware was ever a suicide bomber who murdered other atheists, who happened to believe in a different kind of atheism... so there is no self destructivity built into the atheist psyche! all mind boggling stuff.

 

Getting back to topic, I am somewhat puzzled as to why this fossil, beautiful and intact as it is, is being lauded as 'the missing link' or as a revolutionary find of a human ancestor. Surely, any primate fossil (and there must be at least a few)

from 40 million BCE or before must, by definition, be a human ancestor - Just like the mammalian reptiles of the Triassic, or the lungfish of the Devonian. The intense debate usually surfaces much more recently, when one tries to untangle the branches of the hominid line.

 

Personally, I dont like the term 'missing link'. For me the fossil chain from distinctly ape-like to definitely, albeit primitively human, seems more or less continuous.

Maybe we should move this debate to THIS THREAD.

 

As usual, the main problem when comparing atheists and religious people ("theists") is in the basic definitions.

 

First of all; what is God? Any God.

 

Even more important; what do regular people think God is?

 

My personal experience is that, by using more or less stringent criteria, both active theists and active atheists are minority.

 

The vast majority of regular people would be more aptly described as passive agnostics; personally, they couldn't care less if any divinity exists at all.

[Nephele]

The vast majority of regular people would be more aptly described as passive agnostics; personally, they couldn't care less if any divinity exists at all.

 

I also couldn't care less if any divinity exists at all, but I am nevertheless a-theos -- "without god; godless." The concept of god just didn't merit enough importance for discussion at the dinner table in my household when I was growing up. I don't even think it merits enough importance for discussion here, but after reading Formosus' posting (which I'm sure he meant in all light-heartedness), I felt obliged to make the (gentle) point that atheists do feel passion for causes as strongly as do theists, and many atheists are willing to die for their convictions.

 

Now, Northern Neil has made a valiant attempt to get this topic back on track. I suggest we follow his lead and do likewise.

 

-- Nephele