I guess someone had to post the obligatory missing link story. So, in case you did not hear, scientists have unveiled what they claim to be the fossil remains of a 47 million old skeleton that may explain the key link between early formed primates and modern Homo Sapiens. You can read more about the story here. The remains has both non-human and human-like features which may provide key evidence that human beings evolved from earlier form of primate like being. From the article:
It has, among other things, opposable thumbs, similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals. It has fingernails instead of claws. And by examining the structure of its hind legs (one of which is partly missing), scientists say they can see evidence of evolutionary changes that would eventually lead to primates standing upright.
Okay, sounds convincing, but it sounds like there is some clear publicity going on as well. One of the scientists states: “‘Ida’s a direct human ancestor. But he said he was comfortable with the publicity surrounding it.”That’s part of getting science out to the public, to get attention,” he said. “I don’t think that’s so wrong.” The only question I have is, if this find is so amazing, why did it take them 20 years to bring it to the public’s attention. The fossil was found in 1983. It sounds more to me like scientists looking for more grant money and publicity, but I could be wrong.
The whole evolution debate is very similar to the global warming one. Many want to claim that the “science is settled” and are so dogmatic that they don’t even wish to engage in discussion or actual science that might contradict their world view. Evolution is somewhat similar, however both sides are very dogmatic. If you want a good read about the dogmatism of Evolution I would recommend GK Chesteron’s article here. Its a long read, but its funny and worth it. Among other points he makes he argues that the difference in man and beast is really a difference in type more then anything. If man did come from beast then the implication is that at some point a “person” was born which was no longer a beast and was fully human, even if this transistion took millions of years to reach the magic point, which certainly could happen. The other point he makes (which I appreciate) is that scientists are so interested in proving Darwin was right that they end up being at least as dogmatic as the craziest religious sect whom they scoff at. It is easy to reconcile Christianity with science . . . both are a matter of faith.
So, did evolution occur? Personally I buy at least some form of evolution. I don’t know if we evolved from ape or not, but I do believe that if so, there is some intelligence that guided that evolution. I find nothing contradictory between Christanity/Judaism and evolution myself. I will say that it is at least as likely that our DNA was planted here by aliens as evolution occured, at least there is about equal amounts of evidence to suggest either possibility. In fact, Robert Dawkins (the famous atheist) find more evidence that that we are in fact descended by aliens then created by God, so that tells you a little about the evolutionists mindset right there.
Technorati Tags: evolution
May 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Thankfully Darwin’s discovery of evolution completely rules out the possibility that man came from some dirt that a god used to make an image of himself out of, and that woman came from a rib of this dirt-man. Compare the amount of interlocking data from every applicable scientific field including geology, physics, and even molecular biology, all having observational experiments done, that test and prove the hypotheses of evolution occurring, with the DISCREDITED FAIRY TALE – a big invisible monster that nobody has ever seen or heard did it.
It is frightening that mass delusions of supernatural beings still exist today. It is the same thing as saying that my invisible fire breathing dragon is more powerful than your multi-headed fire spewing sea monster. So, come around to my way of thinking or I will commit atrocities for it.
Everything from the murderous blood stained Sky Daddy who drowned virtually all humanity and other life, sentenced everyone to leave Utopia after Eve (persuaded by a talking snake) ate a magical apple, had Jonah take a ride in the belly of a whale, ruined the life of Job, told Abraham to murder his own kid, killed all the first born of Egypt, had his chosen people commit genocide on the original inhabitants of Palestine, to letting his own son be nailed to some wood so mankind could party with a ghost – is a FAIRY TALE that humanity needs to reject if we are to see many more generations.
By the way if you are dumb enough to believe that this fable is real; in the Bible, the murder count is God/millions – Devil/zero. Whom would you rather spend time with, a vengeful monster or a “fallen” angel who thought he had a better way? I am NOT promoting the Devil, just illustrating the craziness in this stupidity.
Hopefully if you were previously deluded, after reading this you will see how foolish you have been. Society needs to accelerate its retreat from worshiping outlandishly absurd fictional psychopathic beings.
There is no middle ground.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Fizz, your impeccable logic has converted me. Except I missed the part where you explained how exactly did Darwin’s discovery completely rule out that man was created by God? How does Darwin even disprove the Old Testament?
There is also much scientific evidence that evolution is also a crock. For instance, how do you explain the almost complete lack of a pre-cambrian fossil record and with in a very very short period of time (historically speaking) there is a literal explosion of life. Science cannot and does not account for that outside of their own fairy tales and mythology.
Are all the stories in the Old Testament real? I have no idea. However, I don’t have the arrogance to assume to know those kinds of answers. Certainly there is a middle ground between belief in a Christian God and evolution, your rambling diatribe against Christianity proved nothing.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
The thing looks like a monkey to me. Love it how publicity-seeking scientists can turn lemonade into lemons.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“The only question I have is, if this find is so amazing, why did it take them 20 years to bring it to the public’s attention. ”
Because they didnt have the technology to make it look right until now ?
Theres one very important word in this on-going debate between creationism and evolution.
“Before”
Whos to say that the properties to create and sustain life were not put in motion long ago by some power we cant imagine ?
Sorry fizzy, I see purpose and intention in whats going on around me and refuse to believe that we are all some fluke of existence. What a horrible existence it must be to go on believing that your life is of no value or consequence but for the short time you’re on this rock.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“all having observational experiments done, that test and prove the hypotheses of evolution occurring”
point of order madame chairman … you cannot prove a hypothesis or a theory for that matter … at least not in the philosophy of science
May 19th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Bryan,
actually it is quite possible to have “a literal explosion of life” explained by science — not by Darwinism per se, but by evolutionary theories.
if you assume that genetic codes are “answers to problems” the problems being the environment we live in … in other words what are called “genetic algorithms”
you can get a huge diversity of “potential answers” or different species really quickly.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
They found the missing link between humans and apes. Cool. Now they only need to find the missing link of dogs, cats, rats, horses and all the other species. When they are done looking for, we current humans will probably be the new missing link because we will be martians by then.
Oh, and Fizzmick_PaChee is the missing link between apes and Richard Dawkings. (If you believe in evolution, then you must take that as a praise.)
May 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Why is the right so hell-bent on denying science? When did it get like this? I am utterly confused…I was raised in a Republican family in the conservative south and went to Christian schools. But I never would have the audacity to question the cummulative work of thousands of scientists who have millions of cummulative hours of education and research experience. Nor would my family or any of my teachers/professors throughout my life. I guess what I am trying to say is, when did the political right start embracing the beliefs of the religious fringe? And I’d also like to advise that unless you’re a scientist then you really don’t know what you’re talking about. And apparently there aren’t many scientists in the political right?!? Anyway if republicans don’t want to be the party of no, they need to stop saying NO to science and start saying NO to the religious right.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“Oh, and Fizzmick_PaChee is the missing link between apes and Richard Dawkings.”
well … evolution has run into some dead ends
i like richard dawkins’ wife. his book and theory of the selfing gene … eh … did not buy it
but his wife makes a good knitting book
(i am a mayr girl … not a dawkins girl … even if his wife does knit
)
May 19th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Bryan, I totally agree that evolution and belief in God do not contradict each other.
The best way it was ever presented to me was by my old minister when I was growing up, who was a strong believer in evolution and Genesis.
The way he viewed it, the “World” was in fact created 4000 years ago. The “World” being earth as viewed by civilized humans, which only began when civilization started at about that time. We started seeing the World and God at that point in the way we seem God now. I think that’s what’s meant by creation as it relates to us.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
OP: The only question I have is, if this find is so amazing, why did it take them 20 years to bring it to the public’s attention.
You should spend a few moments reading the story first. The fossil has been stashed away in the basement of a fossil-hunter in Germany since he illegally raided an area with lots of fossils. When the raiders were given amnesty he never came forward with it.
@Bryan McAffee: how exactly did Darwin’s discovery completely rule out that man was created by God?
It doesn’t. Reason does. Believing in God is EXACTLY like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The only difference is who made up the fairy tale. We know how each of the fairy tales came to be, why someone wants to treat one differently than the others is utterly inexplicable.
@Bryan McAffee: There is also much scientific evidence that evolution is also a crock.
Actually, no, there isn’t. There is EXACTLY zero evidence that evolution is a crock. Given the fact that we can OBSERVE evolution, your statement only shows MASSIVE ignorance on your part.
Also, absence of substantiating evidence of a certain kind is not the same as evidence of absence. Your “pre-cambrian fossil” rant is the same as it has always been, and it has been totally crushed. Not that you would either read nor understand that.
@Bryan McAffee: Are all the stories in the Old Testament real?
No, they are not. In fact, the most stories of the Old Testament have long since been proven wrong. There was no mass exodus from Egypt, no walls came tumbling down etc. We know this for sure. The Old Testament is ALL fairy tale, and as all fairy tales it has some tiny grains of truth in it, some stories are based on real-life events, but it is as a book, all fairy tale.
@Erin Perry: Why is the right so hell-bent on denying science?
They discovered some time ago that appealing to un-educated truckers and Nascar fans is a wildly successful way of getting votes. Appealing to ignorance over “intellectual arrogance” gets you the mass vote. It is sad. The Republican party once was a party of small government and intellectual rule. Now it is the party of big government and mob rule.
May 19th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
If certain people want to deny the hard-won scientific truth of the Theory of Evolution, if they want to take the side of ignorance and stupidity, then that is fine with me. I have no problem with it. Just so long as they call themselves “conservatives,” and “Republicans,” then I agree 100%. Go right ahead. That’s what being a conservative is all about anyway. That…and evil.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:55 am
It is Richard, not Robert, Dawkins, unless this is a different atheist who happens not to consider evolution a viable alternative hypothesis for a man in the sky answering prayers, which is unlikely. You cannot believe in some form of evolution if you believe Adam and Eve existed, or else you would be contradicted the Bible, which is the magnum opus of Christianity to begin with. I don’t understand the reasoning of anyone who believes in a Judeo-Christian God.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Look, it’s really very simple. Darwin’s theory proposes that al life forms are linked, by very small incremental changes. Right? OK, so at what point did a soul evolve? Protozoan? Sponge? Fish? Amphibian? Mammal? Primate? Ape? Man?
Grow up.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:41 am
“Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.”
-The Famous “Robert” Dawkins on Ben Stein’s Expelled movie.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:46 am
to Doris P Pipensucker:
What do you mean by a soul? Your question doesnt make sense, seeing as a ’soul’ is not something we can observe. Conscience you mean maybe? Who knows. probably when a species can see its own refelection and realise what its looking at, or can mimic life with ‘art’.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:51 am
I don’t believe there is any such thing as a soul.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Hey Bryan
I love your comparison between the evolution/science debate and the global warming issue. In both cases you’ve got people supporting two completely opposite views, certain that there way is absolutely true.
I just want to comment on the idea of believing in a Judeo/Christian God, yet at the same time believing in an old earth developed by natural processes, such as evolution. I think one of the most important things about Christianity is that you do not compromise in your belief, and if we are to declare that “All scripture is God inspred” we can’t turn around and say, “but God didn’t create the world in seven days, just as His word says He did.”
If we are to believe something as fantastic as a man being dead for 3 days, and then coming back to life, I think it’s useless to start trying to make other scientifically questionable beliefs more respectable.
Personally, I’m following with interest an Australian phycisist, John Hartnett, who has written a number of books justifying a young universe.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Lol, apparently the evolutionist dogmatists all come out early in the morning. I’m not going to go point to point with the church of science and “reason” (mostly because I’m too tired) but if you are so knowledgeable about evolutionary biology you are aware that there are certainly problems with many aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are still articles of faith that you must accept in order to believe like how the first “life” began, how beneficial mutations occur, etc. etc. If you guys are as honest intellectually as you think you are, then you must recognize that there have been radical changes in thought regarding how this all occurred in the last 20 years. There are reasonable hypothesis, but to claim that this is somehow hardcore scientific fact is nonsense.
Also, your assertion that “every story in the old testament has been debunked” is also crap. Please provide a source for this assertion.
I would like to thank everyone for proving my original point, the evolutionists are just as dogmatic and unwilling to consider the ID/religious option as the whack-job religious nut is to consider evolution as an option. It’s also interesting how you feel the need to come and insult everyone who might feel or believe differently, I thought you liberals were the bastion of openness and diversity?
May 20th, 2009 at 3:20 am
Tom, that is a good point, and I do choose to believe in things like miracles, especially the resurrection of Christ. However, I think that it is arguable that we may not have a full picture of how the world was created from the Bible. For instance, the Bible also says to the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. So maybe 7 days of creation really meant 7 thousand years, who knows. I just don’t presume to know the unknowable.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Yes, Richard Dawkins, not Robert, apologies. I knew it was Richard, I’m not sure why I wrote Robert, damn intertubes.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Bryan, if you were knowledgeable about evolutionary biology you would be aware the how the first life began is not covered by the theory of evolution. You’d also understand that Darwin is not where the theory ends any more than gravity ended with Newton. You seem to lack an understanding of how science works.
Scientific theories change, improve, as more evidence becomes clear.
Darwin didn’t have the technology to make all the observations that we do today, so no he wasn’t right about everything. That said, Evolution by natural selection has held up again and again in every biological discovery since it was put out including the discovery of DNA. That’s “hardcore science”, it’s about as hardcore as it gets in modern day science, few if any other theories has held up so well to the test of time and has been supported by so much evidence.
Do you get paid for writing on this site? Lol indeed.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Bryan
The Cambrian explosion occurred over a period of 80 million years. Thats not exactly a very very short time as you say. Also considering the simplistic nature of animals at the time, such a scenario is not implausible. Consider how quickly a virus or a bacteria evolves to adapt to fight off drugs. Simpler organisms are capable of evolving new features extremely quickly.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:35 am
The Discovery Institute has been good at propaganda for ‘intelligent design.’ Even though intelligent design has no testable propositions (and therefore outside the scope of science even if it is real) the Discovery Institute’s marketing has been potent.
So I don’t blame the scientific community for fighting back in kind, and doing it in what looks like a very precise and calculated manner (they even have a website for it already: http://www.revealingthelink.com)
May 20th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Ok, I’m probably jumping way out of my depth here. I don’t particularly want to start fighting for intelligent to design or evolution, as I’m not a scientist and therefore all I believe (and it really is belief) was discovered and promulgated by someone else.
I just want to ask that we stick to science. What I mean by that is that it’s useless saying, “you don’t understand this” and criticising the other person. It doesn’t help make any argument any more convincing.
Something that’s necessary in all intellectual debates is a mutual respect for the people you dissagree with.
Thanks