Missing Link Found

Ummm, looks like some ordinary old fossils to me. Don't see the hype in it, though I could be wrong.

WiiMan21

Cool... but evolution has already been proven true, countless times.

foxhound_fox

Yeah, I don't understand all the hype. Not to mention it isn't even a relatively recent ancestor. I think everyone came in expecting another fossil linking humans and their genetic cousins.

I saw that earlier today. Very cool.

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

Ummm, looks like some ordinary old fossils to me. Don't see the hype in it, though I could be wrong.

BumFluff122

Yes. ****ing yes.

Yes. ****ing yes.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]What I don't understand is that why can't religion and science work together. I know God said he made Adam and Eve but it never said they were early primates or such.BlueBirdTS

I used to hold this view for many years. You're basically describing Stephen J. Gould's notion of "Magisteria" that are compatible. The problem with this is that religion makes existential claims, which are thus scientific claims, that are totally incompatible with scientific notions.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

Ummm, looks like some ordinary old fossils to me. Don't see the hype in it, though I could be wrong.

Theokhoth

Yes. ****ing yes.

I agree, something pretty close to that would be nice.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] Faith? The Theory of Evolution has far more...far more evidence to back it then religion/god. Jaks_Secret

The ability to be disproved is one of the requirements for a hypothesis. If evolution couldn't be disproved, it would never have become a theory. And it still has evidence, something ancient mythology didn't.

I wouldn't say that, especially seeing as how evolution could very well be disproved. Hell, we call some of the greatest ancient civilizations' religions "mythology" now; who's to say what is and isn't?Jaks_Secret

[QUOTE="Jaks_Secret"] I wouldn't say that, especially seeing as how evolution could very well be disproved. Hell, we call some of the greatest ancient civilizations' religions "mythology" now; who's to say what is and isn't?foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Jaks_Secret"] I wouldn't say that, especially seeing as how evolution could very well be disproved. Hell, we call some of the greatest ancient civilizations' religions "mythology" now; who's to say what is and isn't?foxhound_fox

What I don't understand is that why can't religion and science work together. I know God said he made Adam and Eve but it never said they were early primates or such.MgamerBD

I'm sure science and religion does work together, there are religious scientists and not all priests and ministers are zealots.

Now, people here on this board and the interwebs, they like to argue, so it'll always be "death to religion" or "science is immoral."

To me, evolution does not disprove the existance of God. Maybe it was a tool of God's.

"may we all agree that if god exists, he would understand that it would be foolhardy to punish us for not believing something with no evidence behind it, yet allow us to think on our own. if god exists, he created us. if he created us, one of two things have happened.

he has us tricked, and we really have no control of our decisions, he IS our subconcious, in which case he is ok with whatever we do, as we are just his puppets, or he gave us minds of our own, and since he knows everything, fully accepted the consequences and will not punish us for anything we do, for he knew it. so lets not let religion get in the way of science, because if what religion is based on is true, the practice of religion itself would be foolhardy." and i guarantee nobody knows who i just quoted.

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility.Silenthps

Stopped reading there.

Okay, I lied. But the Answers in Genesis link didn't help your case.

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

Only three days and AiG already has an article on this find? It must be big. :P

PS:

"The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). In no way does the fossil (see the picture, right) resemble a human skeleton."

Well that's good that it doesn't resemble a human skeleton, considering that it's presented as a link between lemurs and monkeys, not between something and humans.

"Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are 'similar to humans' and unlike those found on other modern mammals' (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as 'the same shape as in humans,' despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure."

Hahahahahaha, what? The big deal was opposable big toes, not opposable thumbs.

Seriously, this is the best they can do? AiG could at least take the time to learn what is significant about the fossil before attempting to argue against its significance. The article reads as if the author just skimmed the article in disgust for ten seconds and then went to Wikipedia trying to figure out why the fossil is actually just of a lemur... which is probably exactly what happened.

Evolution: >9000

Creationism: 0

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

Wow that's great! Why am I not so thrilled? :?

foxhound_fox

That's pretty old, hopefully they didn't carbon date that we all know how incredibly accurate that is.

That's pretty old, hopefully they didn't carbon date that we all know how incredibly accurate that is.

sensfanVone

Carbon dating is never used for fossils for precisely that reason, that it isn't accurate beyond a few ten thousand years.

A winrar is you, Science! :D

Man, I can't believe that thing just hung there on a wall for 20 years. Imagine how many pointless creationist arguments could've never happened if this guys just told the authorities sooner... :|

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

So a Christian website is a totally unbiased and credible scientific source now?

A winrar is you, Science! :D

Man, I can't believe that thing just hung there on a wall for 20 years. Imagine how many pointless creationist arguments could've never happened if this guys just told the authorities sooner... :|

PecansAreNuts

As this thread proves, it wouldn't have stopped any pointless creationist arguments. :P

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue *Silly link*AtomicBaconBits

Don't even bother arguing with very religious folk.

I think this gif illustrates what it turns into

Wonder what the Church has to say to this! CleanPlayer

If you're talking about the Catholic Church, it's accepted evolution as fact for quite a while now.

Sweet. Maybe evolution can now pass from being a SCIENTIFIC theory to a SCIENTIFIC law.HereticGamer911

While there is so much evidence for evolution, that you could more or less consider it to be fact. Some people seem to think that theories are not very well supported. On the contrary. I think that most people believe in the theory of gravity, but nonetheless it's just a theory.

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

Too awesome for words.

stopped reading at "47million-year-old" anyone who believes the earth has been around that long loses all credibility. Here's a better article on the issue http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-linkSilenthps

Sorry I think the field of sciences including astronomy, geology, enviromental studies and other related fields would find the earth to be many times older than that.. You know those "pesky" people with PHD's in a science community under intense scrutiny to see if it holds up to evidence and findings of others.. Do you realize that the faith based "psuedo science" organizations have yet to find any real evidence to back up their claims that held anything with in the science community.. Hell the universe alone has to be much older than that, due to the fact we see light from galaxies billions of lightyears away..

Very cool. I will show this to my AP Biology class. :)

[QUOTE="solid_mario"]So science is winning.Hungry_bunny

I don't see that as bad, as science should never stop searching and just be content.

I'm annoyed at how they refer to it as a "missing link". Yeah, it is a missing link...as are all other fossils ever found. Hell, modern humans are a missing link between past homonids and future ones.

The reasons this find is so important is because:

A) The fossil is stunningly well preserved. A fossil that is 30-40% complete is considered to be an amazing find in palentology since most of the time you only find a few fragments. 95% complete is freaking insane. To find hair on it is even more unbelivable. Add on the intact last meal inside the fossil and the $1 million the museum paid should be considered theft.

B) It's a new genus of primate

C) It's illustrates the bridge between prosimians such as lemurs and monkeys and apes.

[QUOTE="solid_mario"]So science is winning.LJS9502_basic

I find it funny that the first story on Yahoo Canada is "Mariah [Carey] letting herself go?", while this story is only on the science news page. I guess they need time to update their front page, but still I really need a better source for my news. Maybe I'll switch to Google.

It's a big discovery for evolutionary biology. It's not going to change much in the creationism vs. evolution arguement though. A very good skeleton of a much more recent common ancestor between apes and humans would make some bigger waves, even then some will go on in their ignorance.

i thought this was some joke, like "404-found" or something dumb like that.kakashi552

A very good skeleton of a much more recent common ancestor between apes and humans would make some bigger waves, even then some will go on in their ignorance. Holyknight_CJ

So science is winning.solid_mario

The super-smart monkeys are winning? :o

[QUOTE="solid_mario"]So science is winning.shoot-first

The super-smart monkeys are winning? :o

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

So science is winning.solid_mario

The super-smart monkeys are winning? :o