What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
518 Comments
- korbink, on 05/19/2009, -96/+580Suck it creationists.
- mtdna, on 05/20/2009, -13/+391Did anybody notice this is on the Google front page!?!
Google FTW!! - Dimensio, on 05/19/2009, -9/+156"OK - lets reason this out - IF evolution is true then the fossil record would demonstrate it amply."
The fossil record cannot "demonstrate" evolution. Rather, the fossil recond can either corroborate predictions derived from evolution or falsify them. Thus far, it has corroborated such predictions. - rikwakefield, on 05/19/2009, -31/+178God just put it there to test our faith. Duuur.
Missing link or not, it's a good argument for evolution. - mtdna, on 05/20/2009, -29/+153Did anybody notice this is the Google icon of the day?!?!
Google FTW!! - JROXZ, on 05/20/2009, -15/+127Slow down...
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the need for thought."
- Henri Poincaré (Science and Hypothesis) - Dimensio, on 05/20/2009, -6/+91"Sorry, I dont see this."
Your personal ignorance demonstrates only a lack of research, not an actual lack of evidence from the fossil record.
"Sources?"
A sampling of such fossil finds is listed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ... - Solsies, on 05/20/2009, -0/+83not only did I notice once, I noticed twice thanks to your comments!
Google FTW!! - walgman, on 05/20/2009, -23/+104Even if we invented a time machine and went back in time to unequivocally prove evolution. Creationists would still have some sort of half baked argument against it. It's called blind faith. There is so much beauty in what is real and these pricks have to spoil it by making up false gods.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/19/2009, -6/+73There hasn't been a missing link for a long time. We have fossil evidence to show that about 13 million years ago, Homininae speciated out from the ancestors of the orangutan. About 10 million years ago, Hominini speciated out from the ancestors of the gorillas. About 7 million years ago, Hominina seperated from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the latest common ancestor, with the earliest known human ancestor post-dating the separation of the human and the chimpanzee lines being Orrorin tugenensis. Further along those lines, we have such groups as ***** erectus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Neanderthals, and more.
The ancestral lines of hominid evolution are well documented - branches and branches of them. - ban1d0, on 05/20/2009, -22/+86So Raptor Jesus IS the missing link.
He went extinct for our sins. - greenleaflink, on 05/20/2009, -16/+75>>>>>>>>>>>The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.
AWW! That made my day..and week. - latrosicarius, on 05/20/2009, -10/+66It's a link between lemurs and primates. Traditionally, the "missing link" we are looking for has always been the link between ape and man.
- kozie, on 05/20/2009, -4/+54All y'all that aren't scientists. Here's what some of them say. Don't "trust" the media to give you all the facts please! Haven't we been abused enough?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/19/ ... - Dainjah, on 05/20/2009, -2/+46First, answers in genesis? That is laughable.
Second, that article was mind-numbingly bad. The creationist interpretation "If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms." - You mean like Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, and the hundreds of other mentioned in Dimensio link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ...
Oh right, the creationist idea of a transitional fossil is some childish chimera like the crocoduck. It would be more interesting if creationist had at least an eight grade level of scientific understanding.
"The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. " -Thus flood right? I mean this ***** is just pathetic. How can any serious thinking person buy this garbage? Five min of research about the characteristics of the pit reveal why there are so many preserved fossils.
Finally, the good old micro vs macro evolution argument. Tell me, at what point do small changes stop adding up to larger change when views in retrospect? What is the logical and physical barrier that separates micro and macro evolution? Evolution is evolution. - Dimensio, on 05/20/2009, -3/+46Your tactic of "quote mining" is inherently dishonest, and demonstrates only that you lack an understanding of the subject of evolution -- as several of the out-of-context quotes that you have presented address the matter of abiogenesis, and not evolution -- and that you lack intellectual integrity.
- immatellyouwhat, on 05/20/2009, -1/+41::Jurassic Park Theme::
- Timetheos, on 05/20/2009, -15/+55I don't believe it: where are the remnants of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage?
- realeiger, on 05/20/2009, -0/+35You're obviously right, but the problem arises from the bad digg description above. Rather this appears to be the fossil of the creature that could be considered the oldest primate and hence a "link" in the conceptual tree of life. In other words, it might be the last shared ancestor between primates and the rest of mammalia and hence give insight into primate evolution.
- mickstephenson, on 05/20/2009, -9/+43Missing link fossils are not needed to prove evolution, if you believe that people are searching for these fossils so they can prove anything to people who presently doubt evolution you are mistaken, if you can't accept the evidence then frankly you're opinion is not valid and no one should care what you think.
There is enough fossil evidence and DNA evidence to interpolate between the fossils we have, missing link fossils are not necessary, they are just paleontological luxuries. - inactive, on 05/20/2009, -5/+36Germany didn't exist when this animal died. In fact that continent didn't even exist.
- ocean17, on 05/19/2009, -4/+35sduncan000, if evolution was false why is there so much antecedent species' DNA in our DNA? Evolution doesn't need the fossil record - it simply provides more info.
The "IF" question is over and "IF" you don't believe me, feel free to ignore any potential medical advice based on DNA analysis because you're not sure "IF" your DNA is real. - banderwocky, on 05/20/2009, -3/+32No. It's 'A' link.
This fossil is older than humans (47 million years old) and is more of a 'link' of the branching primates which eventually leads to humans down the line. You should listen to the audio as the a researcher explains all this. - Vektuz, on 05/20/2009, -1/+30Great, now we have TWO gaps
- Moralogic, on 05/20/2009, -4/+32Owned, congrats Dimensio. Nice to see people who are actually willing to educate these people about the truth. Too bad our government and education system doesn't force them to learn it right the first time.
- Moralogic, on 05/20/2009, -0/+27They heavily support the scientific community.
- BoneheadFarker, on 05/20/2009, -0/+25Well he does have a lot going for him. He's a scientist, He's intelligent, and he actually existed. Seems more worthy of praise that some vengeful, destructive, imaginary being...
- absurdist, on 05/20/2009, -4/+29collegekidd? So I take it that college is Bob Jones U.?
- SpinningHead, on 05/20/2009, -1/+26Not only that, but reviving the idea of a singular missing link only further confuses creationists that we are trying to explain science to.
- SpinningHead, on 05/20/2009, -5/+29As a former anthro major, it does annoy me that they are hyping this as a "missing link". We rejected the concept of a single missing link decades ago. It also muddies the water when trying to explain to creationists why they are retarded.
- Solsies, on 05/20/2009, -5/+27ITS ALL A TEST DUNCAN, DONT LOSE YOUR FAITH IN DA JESUS
- Dainjah, on 05/20/2009, -4/+26Quote mining and out of context quotes = the sign of a scientifically illiterate and dishonest creationist. Hell, the second quote is a complete lie and is still spread by creationists. Not that anyone expects creationists to let the truth get in the way of their fantasy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1- ...
I wont even bother with the Darwin quote; that one has been addressed so many time you should be embarrassed to even use it.
Instead of your pathetic quote mining and argument from ignorance, why don't you provide some evidence that supports the magic-man-did-it hypothesis. Lets see some published research and predictions. - DonCarcharo, on 05/20/2009, -17/+39I really see no reason why evolutionism and creationism can't get along. As someone who believes in creationism I also clearly accept that evolution is a real thing. And I certainly don't belive these fossil records were put here to test our faith (at least not directly). As best we can tell they do show a linear progression of life.
Additionally, while I firmly belive that God clearly created mankind I don't claim to fully understand the process by which we were created. And that means I simply can't rule out that some degree of evolution was involved. - ehogan, on 05/20/2009, -4/+25Dang, I wish I had a grooming claw.
- SpinningHead, on 05/20/2009, -1/+22The old "god is testing us" can be applied to everything.
"Ahhhhhhhhhhh! My pants are on fire! I need a hose!"
" No they're not. God is just testing you."
I highly recommend The Bible According to Mark Twain. He was taking creationist down to funky town quite brilliantly 100yrs ago. - styx31989, on 05/20/2009, -6/+27oh yea... ya like it, dont ya bitch?
- SpinningHead, on 05/20/2009, -1/+22Believing that god set nature in motion (ie. evolution) is the 18th century enlightenment view. It is not the definition of creationism. Creationism is an absolute and literal interpretation of the old testament....by the same people who think "Jesus drank wine" is a typo.
- falconear, on 05/20/2009, -3/+24I think the point is it's A missing link, not THE missing link. As I understand it, the fossil may be the common ancestor to all species of primates. Thus, new fossil = great apes (and eventually us on one chain) and then lemurs and such on another. And yes, humans did emigrate out of Africa. Pre-human mammals are found all over the world however.
Don't get angry because it's true. And self-evident. - reuscel, on 05/20/2009, -2/+20Your lack of understanding is not a basis for argument. I know evolution is relatively hard to understand (compared with the idea that an invisible being in the sky built humans out of mud 6000 years ago), but just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it untrue.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2009, -0/+18No, this is objective evidence, as with all other findings in the fossil record, genetics, etc. This means that you can confirm its significance regardless of what you believe.
- alpharaptor, on 05/20/2009, -2/+18P.S. DON'T REPRODUCE
- askantik, on 05/20/2009, -0/+16English please.
- covertbadger, on 05/20/2009, -0/+15"theres a difference between macro evolution and micro evolution..."
Only in the minds of ill-educated creationists. The distinction was thrown out almost a century ago by real scientists as it did not match up with the ever-increasing evidence. - MrSaundercook, on 05/20/2009, -0/+15how can you hear that sentence in your own mind and think it makes sense?
- crackedlogic, on 05/20/2009, -3/+18now I understand the google main page for today.
- DharmaTurtle, on 05/20/2009, -3/+16http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/1 ...
Sighs. The creationists are already trying to refute this.
1. Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.
2. A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
3. Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
4. The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood.4 Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”5
5. If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.
6. Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
=========== Answers, if you really want them.=========
1. It's supposed to be a missing link between early primitive primates and later prosimian and simian lineages. Humans didn't appear for another 40 million years - its not supposed to look humanesque yet. You said it looks like a lemur - well, its supposed to.
2. I show you a sequence of numbers. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, ???, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, ???, 32, 34, 36, ???, ???, 42... If you have passed elementary school, you know what the ??? are. It's like saying, after seeing a photograph of the moon, that the moon isn't a sphere because this is a 2d picture, even seeing a picture taken from another angle. We have so much evidence, we can fill in the gaps. And sometimes, we don't even need to do that; they fill in themselves.
3. Yes, similarities don't necessarily show evolution. There's convergent evolution, where two things form a similar structure completely independently. Think birds and bat wings, dog and lion fangs. However, this doesn't occur too often, and when it does, the structures are fundamentally different. Consider the difference between horse hooves and camel hooves. Though both are similar, they evolved differently and are very different in shape, though serve the same purpose. Also, I'd like to see these "major differences" that are ignored in transitional forms. That's because there aren't any.
4. Wait, what? You're arguing FOR Ida in this case. It's well preserved, so its... really really good evidence? Surrounded by other really really well preserved evidence? Thus proving its validity? Question mark???
5. This isn't even a point against Ida. In fact, most of these aren't. But I'll answer anyway. You just said in point four that fossils are hard to find because they require immediate burial. So choose between that point or this one. There are a lack of transitional forms because there's a lack of fossils, period. The forms are "strikingly familiar" because... oh wait. They're not. Dinosaurs.
6. No, anthropologists agree that there are holes in the fossil record. They'd be idiots to say otherwise. This is why every fossil found is precious. I'd like to see a source to a "real" anthropologist who says there are no missing fossil links, so I can go yell at him for providing fuel for creationists.
No, Ida is not the link between monkeys and humans. We already found that one. It's called Sahelanthropus tchadensis. - pbol01, on 05/20/2009, -11/+24HAHAHAHAHA :)
You just made my day! The funniest post ever!
God doesn't exist, get over it :D - Moralogic, on 05/20/2009, -1/+14It is nice to see that the overall Digg community is as well educated as it is. Thumbing up and down what is true, and not what is irrational.
With the "IF evolution is true, then why are so many in doubt even among the scientific community?", there was a very disgraceful creationist group that emailed a bunch of scientist if they thought natural selection was the ONLY method through which evolution worked. Then they turned around and said that all of them that said no they do not think that that is the only way evolution works, and the creationist group turned around and said that they said that they dont think evolution is true.
All in all, these groups lie, and they lie a LOT. The judge in the Dover case even called them out when giving the verdict, that the lies and tactics of the creationist side was disgraceful.
I too would like to know where the barrier of micro and macro evolution is like Dainjah is saying. I have yet to have a creationist point it out. - Hraes, on 05/20/2009, -0/+13Say what?
- deathcapt, on 05/20/2009, -0/+13Did anybody notice you posted this twice?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 533 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is