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 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 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 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 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...tor/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/De...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/De...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/arch...p?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]

This guy reeks of scientific realism...