Missing Link Post?

[xenic]

Really, DBR, you are simply going to repeat the claim that finding 1 fossil proves evolution? I suppose I might be willing to take proof that the discovery of 1.5 in between 1 and 2 "proves" real numbers, but I hardly think the discovery of 1.75 when 1, 1.5, and 2 are already known really makes that much of a difference.
I'm sure Viking can comment from a more informed background, but IMO that linked article (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor) reeks of sensationalism.

[Duke4Ever32]

Really, DBR, you are simply going to repeat the claim that finding 1 fossil proves evolution? I suppose I might be willing to take proof that the discovery of 1.5 in between 1 and 2 "proves" real numbers, but I hardly think the discovery of 1.75 when 1, 1.5, and 2 are already known really makes that much of a difference.
I'm sure Viking can comment from a more informed background, but IMO that linked article (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor) reeks of sensationalism.

Yeah, I'm curious to see how this plays out. Interesting that while DrudgeReport is screaming this story in its headlines, most of the major news networks have no mention of it. Seems like that says something, no?

[Fish80]

We need his expert analysis.

IMHO, the Lemur-Monkey fossil is more evidence than it is proof. But then, I'm a mathematician, and proof is a little more strenuous for me.

[Maxwell1977]

At first I thought it was a joke. I've been reading the subject since I was young. I had no idea that there was a missing link between monkeys and lemurs. Who cares? I suppose they're implying the missing link between men and apes, which doesn't exist.

[DukeUsul]

The problem with finding missing link fossils is that as soon as you find one to fill a gap you create two new gaps to fill. Those who demand a missing link to prove evolution will likely not be satisfied by this find. Now they have two missing links to demand evidence of!

I would have a difficult time saying that any one fossil proves evolution, but it seems that this is another important fossil find that adds to the preponderance of evidence. I think DBR's statement that this moves evolution from theory to fact is taking it a step to far. Like all science, this just adds to the body of support for the theory. Just like all the body of support for Einstein's theory of general relativity or quantum mechanics theory. And like them, more evidence will lead to further refinement of the theory. And maybe someday any of these theories will be replaced with something much better. But until then, they are the best explanations we can find.

PPB anyone?

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

I suppose they're implying the missing link between men and apes, which doesn't exist.

I disagree. Explain Dante Calabria.

[hc5duke]

I disagree. Explain Dante Calabria.

careful, insulting simians can anger a lot of posters on dbr

[bjornolf]

Sorry, I've been out of it recently I guess. I just read the front page article about it. Who found Bilbo Baggins?

[RPS]

IMO that linked article (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor) reeks of sensationalism.As I understand it (and I don't pretend to be an expert), we already have all kinds of transitional fossils. Evolution has lots of supporting evidence and, crucially, is extremely useful (try to imagine immunology without it). The theory/fact question/debate relates to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is (those interested might check out Ken Miller's Only a Theory for more info). That said, my view is that the idea that this discovery somehow "significantly changes the landscape in science, religion, and culture" (Our Call's claim) doesn't make sense to me at all. As a Christian, it doesn't change a thing for me.

[xenic]

PPB anyone?

Have things really changed this much around here? It used to be that anything that was posted on the main page was fair game for the Main Board...

[gus]

a discussion of evolution does not belong on PPB.

I agree with Xenic. This article is silly and sensationalistic. This line for example:

"this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution"

Evolution has been confirmed for a very long time. It has withstood decades of rigorous scientific testing across many disciplines. To state that one fossil found hanging in someone's living room is what "finally confirms" requires a complete disregard of scientific history.

here (http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php) is an article criticizing the sensationalism of this announcement, and suggesting the conclusion, that Ida is a precursor to humans, is not well supported.

That said, it is a remarkable looking specimen, and i'm interested in what some of the scientists around here think.

[Bluedog]

Yeah, I'm curious to see how this plays out. Interesting that while DrudgeReport is screaming this story in its headlines, most of the major news networks have no mention of it. Seems like that says something, no?

Well, CNN now has it as its main article on cnn.com with the headline "Fossil common ancestor of monkeys, humans?" The article itself is titled "Scientists piece together human ancestry." Although it doesn't have the word "evolution" anywhere in its entirety.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html

[Johnboy]

Have things really changed this much around here? It used to be that anything that was posted on the main page was fair game for the Main Board...

That has confused me as well. These days, I'm pretty sure the Main Board is strictly for discussions of the recruitment of John Wall. <-kidding!

No, but seriously, the Main Board is now NCAA Basketball and Duke even if there's a DBR link/article.

[Frybay]

Evolution is a hopeless religion to self

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Now let's talk about something we can agree on - how much we are going to beat Chapel Hell College by in football & basketball the year! GTHC

[hc5duke]

Evolution is a hopeless religion to self

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Now let's talk about something we can agree on - how much we are going to beat Chapel Hell College by in football & basketball the year! GTHC

boards are more fun when people disagree, imo. though i'm surprised some people are still anti-evolution these days.

does this push this thread to ppb?

[hughgs]

boards are more fun when people disagree, imo. though i'm surprised some people are still anti-evolution these days.

does this push this thread to ppb?

This thread reminds me of this comic:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

[weezie]

I think Tyler is the missing link.

[UVaAmbassador]

boards are more fun when people disagree, imo. though i'm surprised some people are still anti-evolution these days.

does this push this thread to ppb?

It just depends on how you define "anti-evolution". If you mean people who argue that evolution isn't possible, then I agree with you. On the other hand, there are those, like me, who believe that this kind of evidence only shows that evolution could explain the origin of life, but whether or not it actually was the historical event accounting for the development of life requires a leap of faith on the part of secularists every bit as significant as those who believe in creationism.

[xenic]

It just depends on how you define "anti-evolution". If you mean people who argue that evolution isn't possible, then I agree with you. On the other hand, there are those, like me, who believe that this kind of evidence only shows that evolution could explain the origin of life, but whether or not it actually was the historical event accounting for the development of life requires a leap of faith on the part of secularists every bit as significant as those who believe in creationism.

You do realize that evolution does not address the origin of life, right?

[pamtar]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/uploadedImages/Media/Images/Mugs/Ken%20Ham.jpg

This guy reeks of scientific realism...

[UVaAmbassador]

You do realize that evolution does not address the origin of life, right?

I do. Unfortunately, the many folks who think that evolution debunks all religion don't understand that.

[xenic]

I do. Unfortunately, the many folks who think that evolution debunks all religion don't understand that.


Why did you say "there are those, like me, who believe that this kind of evidence only shows that evolution could explain the origin of life" then?

[UVaAmbassador]

Why did you say "there are those, like me, who believe that this kind of evidence only shows that evolution could explain the origin of life" then?

Because I was preemptively responding to a potential conclusion that many folks frequently, and incorrectly draw from evidence of evolution.

[killerleft]

I think Tyler is the missing link.

Does he have a belly button?

[hc5duke]

Because I was preemptively responding to a potential conclusion that many folks frequently, and incorrectly draw from evidence of evolution.

So you're saying evolution doesn't refute some type of creationism, fine. On the other hand, creationists pretty much flat-out reject evolution, and that's just narrow-minded, ignorant, and absurdly illogical. And here, by evolution I also mean evolutionary history on earth, i.e. that humans and other life forms evolved from simpler (e.g. single-celled) organisms over a span of billion+ years

[bjornolf]

My favorite discussion of this was on Friends when Pheobe pulled the fast one on Ross. I still crack up when I think about that one.

[Fish80]

So you're saying evolution doesn't refute some type of creationism, fine. On the other hand, creationists pretty much flat-out reject evolution, and that's just narrow-minded, ignorant, and absurdly illogical. And here, by evolution I also mean evolutionary history on earth, i.e. that humans and other life forms evolved from simpler (e.g. single-celled) organisms over a span of billion+ years

". . . narrow-minded, ignorant, and absurdly illogical . . ."

Those are pretty harsh words. Taken on face value, those words suggest the author lacks tolerance and understanding of belief systems. I don't think that's the case here.

Personally, I am a big fan of evolution. I believe the scientific evidence supports the theory. However, in my mind, there is room for "creationism" to co-exist with evolution.

For example, rather than a series of genetic mutations, a higher being could have intervened to "create" humans from apes.

Or perhaps, a higher being planted all of the evidence that supports evolution. There are numerous other theoretical possibilities.

[hc5duke]

Taken on face value, those words suggest the author lacks tolerance... of belief systems.
I'd say that describes me pretty well.


There are numerous other theoretical possibilities.

Hollow earth, heliocentricism, and the flying spaghetti monster are all theoretical possibilities, too, and just as valid as these theories that mix evolution and creationism or flat out deny evolution.

[hughgs]

Or perhaps, a higher being planted all of the evidence that supports evolution. There are numerous other theoretical possibilities.

I cannot count the number of times it has been said, but I'll repeat it: in fact, let me shout it this time.

A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

[Fish80]

. . . and the flying spaghetti monster . . .

I must google the flying spaghetti monster. :D



A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Agreed. I didn't say they were the same. Why are you shouting? :confused:

However, the mere existence of an alternative theoretical possibility refutes any supposed proof of the scientific theory.

[UVaAmbassador]

A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

But nor is a scientific theory a historical observation. My point again is that evidence such as this establishes that evolution is a possible explanation for the development of life on this planet. It is not evidence that it was the actual historical event. Belief in the second, which, lets be honest, is what is important when using evolution to "debunk" religion, requires a leap of faith on the part of the secularist every bit as significant as the theist. No one was there to witness it. There is no historical evidence.

[UVaAmbassador]

". . . narrow-minded, ignorant, and absurdly illogical . . ."

Those are pretty harsh words. Taken on face value, those words suggest the author lacks tolerance and understanding of belief systems. I don't think that's the case here.


I'd say that describes me pretty well.

Always nice to come across open minded people debating in good faith. I thought it was the religious folks who demeaned the worldviews of others.



There are numerous other theoretical possibilities.


Hollow earth, heliocentricism, and the flying spaghetti monster are all theoretical possibilities, too, and just as valid as these theories that mix evolution and creationism or flat out deny evolution.

This seems pretty silly. The first two can be scientifically invalidated. The very silly flying spaghetti monster example ignores my previous point that belief that evolution accounted for the development of life on this planet as historically accurate, as opposed to theoretically possible is every bit the act of faith as belief in the flying spaghetti monster.:eek:

[Fish80]

Sweet sausage! That's a spicy meatball! The flying spaghetti monster is hilarious. :D

[hughgs]

But nor is a scientific theory a historical observation. My point again is that evidence such as this establishes that evolution is a possible explanation for the development of life on this planet. It is not evidence that it was the actual historical event. Belief in the second, which, lets be honest, is what is important when using evolution to "debunk" religion, requires a leap of faith on the part of the secularist every bit as significant as the theist. No one was there to witness it. There is no historical evidence.

Maybe you're responding in general, but my statement doesn't say anything about the equivalency of scientific theory and historical events. Not, do I remember seeing where anyone in this thread tries to equate the two. If you could show me where someone made that statement, then I could either agree or disagree with your claim. But, as it stands your equivalence statement is a brand new wrinkle in this discussion.

I also don't see where anyone has talked about using evolution to "debunk" religion. Could you show that post? Thanks.

[hughgs]

I must google the flying spaghetti monster. :D



Agreed. I didn't say they were the same. Why are you shouting? :confused:

However, the mere existence of an alternative theoretical possibility refutes any supposed proof of the scientific theory.

If you read my entire post, you will see that I explained the reason I shouted and in fact warned that I was going to shout. Maybe you meant it as a quick joke in which case I think you need to use the smiley instead of the emoticon you used.

Anyway, back to the discussion. Here is what you wrote:

"... evidence that supports evolution. There are numerous other theoretical possibilities."

To me, the phrasing "other theoretical possibilities" implies an equivalence to scientific theories such as evolution. This board is constantly reminding people the differences between scientific theory and theory as used by the non-scientific community. Your phrasing doesn't really distinguish between the two.

[DukeUsul]

The very silly flying spaghetti monster example ignores my previous point that belief that evolution accounted for the development of life on this planet as historically accurate, as opposed to theoretically possible is every bit the act of faith as belief in the flying spaghetti monster.:eek:

emphasis mine

Who's using harsh words now, mister? ;)

You say there is no historical evidence for evolution... yet there is. We see evolution occurring every day. We see transitional fossil records. We see shared genetic histories. You may not like the evidence, but there is evidence. Certainly more evidence for this theory than there is for the belief that God once pointed his finger at the void and said "fiat."

I'm not using evolution and creation as two competing theories for the same thing here, but as two different examples of "belief."

I think you are making a false equivalence. The belief that scientists have and the belief that the religious have are far different (haven't we had this discussion recently?). A scientist believes in evolution insofar as there is more evidence to support it as the most likely method for our speciation. The religious believe in the supernatural not through a preponderance of evidence, but through the grace of God.

And the big difference is that when scientists are faced with evidence that contradicts their theories they'll throw them out and find a new one. Or at least improve on the old one. I'm not so sure that the religious do that. That to me makes these two types of belief very different. And it's demeaning to the faithful to compare their method of belief to that of a scientist.

I learned in my quantum mechanics class that anything is possible. A minute from now, every atom in my body could spontaneously jump and appear on the other side of the wall next to me. But it's just not that likely. I believe, based on a preponderance of the evidence that a minute from now, I'll be sitting right here where I am. That's not belief. That's just following evidence to the most likely conclusion.

[hughgs]

emphasis mine

Who's using harsh words now, mister? ;)

You say there is no historical evidence for evolution... yet there is. We see evolution occurring every day. We see transitional fossil records. We see shared genetic histories. You may not like the evidence, but there is evidence. Certainly more evidence for this theory than there is for the belief that God once pointed his finger at the void and said "fiat."

I'm not using evolution and creation as two competing theories for the same thing here, but as two different examples of "belief."

I think you are making a false equivalence. The belief that scientists have and the belief that the religious have are far different (haven't we had this discussion recently?). A scientist believes in evolution insofar as there is more evidence to support it as the most likely method for our speciation. The religious believe in the supernatural not through a preponderance of evidence, but through the grace of God.

And the big difference is that when scientists are faced with evidence that contradicts their theories they'll throw them out and find a new one. Or at least improve on the old one. I'm not so sure that the religious do that. That to me makes these two types of belief very different. And it's demeaning to the faithful to compare their method of belief to that of a scientist.

I learned in my quantum mechanics class that anything is possible. A minute from now, every atom in my body could spontaneously jump and appear on the other side of the wall next to me. But it's just not that likely. I believe, based on a preponderance of the evidence that a minute from now, I'll be sitting right here where I am. That's not belief. That's just following evidence to the most likely conclusion.

I think UVaAmbassador is distinguishing between the evidence of a historical event and the actual occurrence of the historical event. At least I hope so :).

I do agree with you that, in the scientific community there isn't real any difference. Science isn't trying to say that things actually occurred in some manner, merely that our best present explanation is such and such.

[Fish80]

If you read my entire post, you will see that I explained the reason I shouted and in fact warned that I was going to shout. Maybe you meant it as a quick joke in which case I think you need to use the smiley instead of the emoticon you used.

Anyway, back to the discussion. Here is what you wrote:

"... evidence that supports evolution. There are numerous other theoretical possibilities."

To me, the phrasing "other theoretical possibilities" implies an equivalence to scientific theories such as evolution. This board is constantly reminding people the differences between scientific theory and theory as used by the non-scientific community. Your phrasing doesn't really distinguish between the two.

I don't mind that you shouted. Feel free to shout. I just don't know why you shouted. But it's not a big deal. Shout it from the rooftops! ;) [Is that the wrong emoticon? :D]


. . . I learned in my quantum mechanics class that anything is possible. A minute from now, every atom in my body could spontaneously jump and appear on the other side of the wall next to me. But it's just not that likely. I believe, based on a preponderance of the evidence that a minute from now, I'll be sitting right here where I am. That's not belief. That's just following evidence to the most likely conclusion.

Or perhaps a minute from now you will still think you are sitting right where you were even though we can't prove you are there.

Further, a minute from then, you can post again. :D

[hughgs]

I don't mind that you shouted. Feel free to shout. I just don't know why you shouted. But it's not a big deal. Shout it from the rooftops! ;) [Is that the wrong emoticon? :D]


Here's what I said.

"I cannot count the number of times it has been said, ..."

I think it's clear that I'm shouting because we repeat the same mantra on this board numerous times and yet people ask or repeat the same things. I can't be more obvious than that.

[Fish80]

Here's what I said.

"I cannot count the number of times it has been said, ..."

I think it's clear that I'm shouting because we repeat the same mantra on this board numerous times and yet people ask or repeat the same things. I can't be more obvious than that.

No worries. I was just concerned that perhaps somehow I offended you. I certainly did not intend to be offensive.