Darwinius masillae

So, two new gaps in the fossil record then?

But seriously, I wonder how long before the moron brigade starts touting the "It's not the Missing Link" line.

NGL said: So, two new gaps in the fossil record then? But seriously, I wonder how long before the moron brigade starts touting the "It's not the Missing Link" line.

. It's 47 million years old. That's interestingly old…it puts us deep into the primate family tree

@ Toidel: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

@PZ: I disagree about how excited we should be. I have never seen a fossil in the primate lineage that is as beautiful, as dramatic, as heartbreaking as this. It simultaneously is an important piece of a broad story, *and* a stunning reveal of one individual's extraordinary story. But it is a bit creepy to use a picture of a dead girl as your computer desktop...

I am also troubled by a lot of the extravagant claims about this fossil that I have read in the media. Especially annoying are claims such as "Darwinian evolution finally proved," as if the theory of evolution had no proof until today. It's amazing to me how many times the theory has "finally been proved" in the last 150 years.

The whole idea of a "missing link" bothers me too. One fossil can never be a missing link. It's simply a single snapshot of a single instance of a species as it existed in one moment of time. Technically, there will always be "missing links" because we do not have, and never will have, access to the fossilized remains of every single animal that has ever existed.

"The whole "missing link" category is a bit of journalistic trumpery: almost every fossil could be called a link, and it feeds the simplistic notion that there could be a single definitive bridge between ancient and modern species. There isn't: there is the slow shift of whole populations which can branch and diverge."

How do you know "there is the slow shift of whole populations which can branch and diverge"? The fossil record is one of sudden fully formed appearance and Stasis is it not?

NGL said: So, two new gaps in the fossil record then? But seriously, I wonder how long before the moron brigade starts touting the "It's not the Missing Link" line.

Troy said: How do you know "there is the slow shift of whole populations which can branch and diverge"? The fossil record is one of sudden fully formed appearance and Stasis is it not?

KP said: I'm waiting for the more insidious tactics of 1) claiming that the stomach contents prove that it can't be that old

Phatty said: I am also troubled by a lot of the extravagant claims about this fossil that I have read in the media.

The scientists who go along with the sensationalist actions of the media believe that they are benefitting science by appealing to a broad public audience, so they are willing to sacrifice accuracy for "the greater good."

However, I think this approach ultimately harms the scientific community. Lay people eventually will become desensitized to these discoveries, or worse, develop a distrust for scientists in general. When most people think of the term "missing link" they are pre-conditioned to believe it refers to some hypothetical creature that has a mix of human and ape features. So, when they see a giant headline on a news site about the discovery of "the missing link" they click on the story and see a picture that isn't anything like what they expected. "That's no ape-man, that's just a skeleton of a spider monkey! F'n scientists are full of sh--."

Phatty said:

KP said: I'm waiting for the more insidious tactics of 1) claiming that the stomach contents prove that it can't be that old

How else do you explain the CHEEZ-ITs found in Ida's stomach?

Toidel, I hope for your sake that you're a particularly bad troll, because I find it hard to believe that just one person can be that monumentally stupid.

Speaking of stupidity, anyone happen to hop over to UD and read O'Leary's latest ramblings about Ida? The logic she uses to disprove evolutionary theory is especially amusing.

Phatty said:

KP said: I'm waiting for the more insidious tactics of 1) claiming that the stomach contents prove that it can't be that old

How else do you explain the CHEEZ-ITs found in Ida's stomach?

I find the media slash over the monkey pretty interesting. It sounds like we are at the start of it too – looking like it may be a two year media blitz showing that after all these years, Darwin's theory is finally been demonstrated as true.

You ever look into who owns the National Geographic Channel? That would be Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News and published topless girls in his newspaper in England daily. He is also the same guy that made big news recently in publishing his little Darwinian themed comic with the cops shooting a monkey dead wherein everyone is to equate the monkey with the less fit Negro, the president of the United States. The cartoon when around on the kids cell phones and you know most of them got it right away – monkey, nigger ha ha ha.

Now Murdoch is going to give lots of coverage to the idea that Darwin was correct via the National Geographic channel, you know, to help science eduction in his own way I suppose. Didn't he help support the book “the Bell Curve” which elevates the idea that racism is a real biological thing – the black folk being closer to having monkey brains and all – a book funded by a political group who wanted to justify blaming the welfare mom for everything. One would almost think that there could be a political reason for elevating Darwin's theory and Murdoch is running with it – I think maybe he wants to get the baboon out of office – gee, I wonder if they will show some old images of drawing relating the black man to being closer to the monkey while they do this media blitz – I bet yes.

Troy said: I find the media slash over the monkey pretty interesting. It sounds like we are at the start of it too – looking like it may be a two year media blitz showing that after all these years, Darwin's theory is finally been demonstrated as true. You ever look into who owns the National Geographic Channel? That would be Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News and published topless girls in his newspaper in England daily. He is also the same guy that made big news recently in publishing his little Darwinian themed comic with the cops shooting a monkey dead wherein everyone is to equate the monkey with the less fit Negro, the president of the United States. The cartoon when around on the kids cell phones and you know most of them got it right away – monkey, nigger ha ha ha. Now Murdoch is going to give lots of coverage to the idea that Darwin was correct via the National Geographic channel, you know, to help science eduction in his own way I suppose. Didn't he help support the book “the Bell Curve” which elevates the idea that racism is a real biological thing – the black folk being closer to having monkey brains and all – a book funded by a political group who wanted to justify blaming the welfare mom for everything. One would almost think that there could be a political reason for elevating Darwin's theory and Murdoch is running with it – I think maybe he wants to get the baboon out of office – gee, I wonder if they will show some old images of drawing relating the black man to being closer to the monkey while they do this media blitz – I bet yes.

Troy said: I find the media slash over the monkey pretty interesting. It sounds like we are at the start of it too – looking like it may be a two year media blitz showing that after all these years, Darwin's theory is finally been demonstrated as true. You ever look into who owns the National Geographic Channel? That would be Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News and published topless girls in his newspaper in England daily. He is also the same guy that made big news recently in publishing his little Darwinian themed comic with the cops shooting a monkey dead wherein everyone is to equate the monkey with the less fit Negro, the president of the United States. The cartoon when around on the kids cell phones and you know most of them got it right away – monkey, nigger ha ha ha. Now Murdoch is going to give lots of coverage to the idea that Darwin was correct via the National Geographic channel, you know, to help science eduction in his own way I suppose. Didn't he help support the book “the Bell Curve” which elevates the idea that racism is a real biological thing – the black folk being closer to having monkey brains and all – a book funded by a political group who wanted to justify blaming the welfare mom for everything. One would almost think that there could be a political reason for elevating Darwin's theory and Murdoch is running with it – I think maybe he wants to get the baboon out of office – gee, I wonder if they will show some old images of drawing relating the black man to being closer to the monkey while they do this media blitz – I bet yes.

Dave C said: So you're saying that this fossil is getting over-hyped because. . .Rupert Murdoch hates black people? Do you even listen to yourself?

But, getting back on topic: given as how Ida was a haplorhine, would she have looked more like a marmoset, a howler monkey or a spider monkey when she was alive?

Troy just wrote the most racist, most disgusting post I have seen yet on PT. But I find his candor refreshing. That is what religious fundamentalism is all about, bigotry and ignorance. Troy has wonderfully summed up what Creationism is all about.

Stanton: Do you think the admins spends every moment of their time monitoring comments? I'm going to guess they just haven't seen that one yet and it will likely take a trip to the bathroom wall soon.

I for one think comparing Ida to the Mona Lisa is quite appropriate in that both are beautiful treasures. The number of fossils of any kind with such preservation is tiny.

All the other hyperbole and "missing link" nonsense is so unbelievably frustrating. This fossil is so amazing to begin with you don't need to make things up!

The National Geographic Society, NBC, and Fox Entertainment Group (Fox) announced today plans to expand globally the National Geographic Channel. Fox today becomes a 50 percent owner of the Channel’s operations worldwide except for territories covered by National Geographic U.K., in which British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) is a partner. NBC and National Geographic Television (NGT) will each retain 25 percent interest and the three partners intend to expand the Channel worldwide from its current base of 54 countries and nearly 40 million households. NGT, NBC, and Fox intend to grow the existing territories and to expand into new ones, including the U.S.

Toidel Mahoney said: 47 million years old--my arse!

Lost in all this noise is just how interesting this find is, in terms of how much we learn that's really new, that we didn't know before. I'm reading a lot more surprise at the quality of the fossil than I am at its features. It's not like we didn't already know that these branches split sometime back, and pretty much when it happened (within a few million years, given that branchings of slower-breeding organisms probably happen more slowly).

So what's new? What's exciting? What's unexpected?

Flint said:I'm reading a lot more surprise at the quality of the fossil than I am at its features.

Well damn, I guess I ought to go ahead and link the Ida pictures from that site, too, since in addition to being super-awesome, they also have some Messel context photos in the collection:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-fossils-missing-link?picture=347579933

jfx said: Well damn, I guess I ought to go ahead and link the Ida pictures from that site, too, since in addition to being super-awesome, they also have some Messel context photos in the collection: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-fossils-missing-link?picture=347579933

Can we please ignore the wankers this time around? That would be nice. I will try.

http://www.nbajs.com NBA Jerseys

And, for that matter, the spam.

Toidel Mahoney babbled: BLAB, BLAB, BLAB ...so, please send me to school so I can some kind of rudimentary education!

Troy babbled: BLAB, BLAB, BLAB ...and

More BLAB, BLAB, BLAB ...so please, admins, send me to the BW where I belong. I would be grateful, as I add nothing constructive to the discussions.

RDK said: Speaking of stupidity, anyone happen to hop over to UD and read O'Leary's latest ramblings about Ida? The logic she uses to disprove evolutionary theory is especially amusing.

Great post! This stuff is just fascinating. Evidently, a replica of this fossil will go on display at the American Museum of Natural History's "Extreme Mammals" special exhibition. I was planning to go the AMNH this coming Saturday anyway, so now I'll get to see the replica of Ida!

btw, the main reason for my trip to the AMNH will be to show some Spanish interns around. One of them said that she'd never been to a science museum before! (They are all college grads in their early 20's.)

“So you’re saying that this fossil is getting over-hyped because…Rupert Murdoch hates black people? Do you even listen to yourself?”

That's not what I say – I have no way of knowing if Murdoch hates black people – I do know that he has no problems equating them to monkeys, but that may not be because he hates them – there can be other motives – but to be sure you would have to ask him.

“Your reasoning is retarded for several reasons, chief of them being that anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch would support the theory of evolution is highly deluded.
We’re talking about the same Rupert Murdoch, right? The very same one that owns Fox News? The channel that is openly anti-progress, anti-science, and anti-evolution? The channel where people like Pawn Hannity and Bill O’RLY constantly make sarcastic remarks about the evils of evolution, and about how atheists are destroying the world?”

That's right, the same Murdoch that made a big deal, via Fox News, for years, over Clinton getting a Lewinski – the same Murdoch who at the same time featured topless “page three girls”, every day, in England's number one selling newspaper, which he owns – and he still runs them each day. The same one who owns a sizable share of the TV dishes on the homes.

Now your an educated person I will assume – why ever would anyone run two completely opposite sides of the coin while seeking more and more power and control?? The first thing that comes to my mind is a very old book - THE PRINCE by Machiavelli What would that have to do with Darwin's theory in our modern times – the first thing that comes to mind for me are the words of Max Weber and Carl Jung. I think its driven by political motive, after all, in terms of Darwin and "evolution", finding some monkey bones does very little as has been correctly pointed out by others.

Ida is truly a fabulous fossil, the Messel Pit will probably be getting a lot more attention after this discovery. There are a lot of bodies of water around the world that have anoxic conditions deep down, like the Black Sea and various crater lakes and lagoons. The Nyos Lake in Africa even has deadly conditions periodically. But Messel Pit had the right conditions at the right time. Maybe God (er..the designer) did it to show man his handiwork.

The hype was a little overdone.

The missing link? This might be the missing link between the two great branches of primates, lemurs and monkeys but is a long way down the human line at 47 million years.

Proves Darwin right? We knew that a century ago.

They paid a lot for that fossil, somewhere around a million USD. I suspect they are trying to get that money back with a TV special and so on.

It is still an important find. IANAP, but as explained to me, finding primate remains from that period is hard. They were forest tree dwellers and they don't leave many fossils. If a prefossil lives near water it can be rapidly buried and fossilized. A forest dweller falls out of tree, gets scavenged and what bones that remain get destroyed by acid forest soils.

We split off from the chimpanzees circa 5 million years ago. There are virtually no protochimpanzee fossils but a fair number of protohuman ones. Chimps are forest dwellers. We are thought to be descended from savana generalists.

I'd like to see what the artist's reconstructions look like.

I was struck by their accessment of the preservation being volcanic - sort of reminiscent (47 my earlier, of course) of what happened at Pompeii.

Looking at the skull, it seems far more prognathous than a modern monkey. The shoulder girdle/scapula looks less developed, but I can't see how full was the potential shoulder rotation. The body is proportionally longer than any monkey I know. Any data on whether that long tail was prehensile? The opposed digits are clear, but interestingly, on the forelimb I see two opposed digits. Is this merely an effect of ligital contraction during decomposition?

The teeth would be a revelation. The frontal positioning of the eyes for stereoscopic vision is interesting, too. I wonder if that would be a very early adaptation to arboreal habitat? In fact, the eyes look rather large. Nocturnal habit? Are earlier specimens known, with these traits less developed?

Keelyn,
the Messel deposits are sedimentary, like other shales.

How do they know it's 47 mya? You have to believe on faith, I s'pose.

If you read the article, you will find that the fossil was dated by the radiographic Argon isotope method from a closely associated piece of volcanic basalt, and that this date was consistent with other dates from the same strata.

To novparl: going to PLoS1, where the paper is now available online, I check and see that the geological formation is dated to the Middle Eocene, with two references given, of which the primary is this:

Mertz DF, Renne PR (2005) A numerical age for the Messel fossil deposit (UNESCO World Heritage Site) derived from 40Ar/39Ar dating on a basaltic rock fragment. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 255: 67–75.

We know its age because of a physical dating method, and we know you're an idiot because you chose to babble about faith instead of checking for evidence.

Re. the volcanic discussion: also from the paper,

"Messel is a maar lake deposit. The basin in which the deposit accumulated formed during a volcanic explosion. It filled with water, which seemingly, one way or another, accumulated gases that poisoned animals individually, episodically, or periodically [6]–[8]. The result is a diverse fauna of exceptionally preserved insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals [9]–[12]."

It's not uncommon for lakes in volcanic basins to accumulate CO2 which, being dense, pools and periodically forms a lethal blanket killing off a lot of wildlife. There've been some cases in Africa of villages being swamped by CO2 spillage from lakes with much loss of life. It's thus likely that our specimen died in this manner and was preserved in the mud without suffering the attentions of predators or scavengers.

The hype was a little overdone. The missing link? This might be the missing link between the two great branches of primates, lemurs and monkeys but is a long way down the human line at 47 million years.

— raven

"A cladistic analysis of the fossil revealed another interesting point. There are two broad groups of primates: the strepsirrhines, which includes the lemurs and lorises, and the haplorhines, which includes monkeys and apes…and us, of course. Ida's anatomy places her in the haplorhines with us, but at the same time she's primitive. This is an animal caught shortly after a major branch point in primate evolutionary history."

How was this proven? The fossil looks exactly like a lemur to me?
What exactly are the surprising and amazing parts about it? How is it "the missing link"?
The article does not discuss this.

Oh for pity's sake read the actual publication:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

Even Google has jumped on the bandwagon. See their new doodle: http://www.google.com

Et tu Wikipedia (sensationalizing headlines)?: "...humanity's transitional fossil...” (emphasis mine).

Possum said: "A cladistic analysis of the fossil revealed another interesting point. There are two broad groups of primates: the strepsirrhines, which includes the lemurs and lorises, and the haplorhines, which includes monkeys and apes…and us, of course. Ida's anatomy places her in the haplorhines with us, but at the same time she's primitive. This is an animal caught shortly after a major branch point in primate evolutionary history." How was this proven?

Possum said: How is it "the missing link"? The article does not discuss this.

The PLoS article begins: "The best European locality for complete Eocene mammal skeletons is Grube Messel, near Darmstadt, Germany." I am not terribly familiar with PLoS, but does anyone else find this a bit casual for a scientific paper? Is PLoS meant more for public consumption?

On a separate note, I learned - to my dismay - that Ben Stein has twice been sighted in my neighborhood (58th and 7th in NYC).

On a related note, I second the motion made by fnxtr to "ignore the wankers."

ticle never claims it was “proven”. Indeed, the concept of proof resides largely in math and theology, not in the natural sciences.

— Dan

Possum said:

A cladistic analysis of the fossil revealed another interesting point. There are two broad groups of primates: the strepsirrhines, which includes the lemurs and lorises, and the haplorhines, which includes monkeys and apes…and us, of course. Ida's anatomy places her in the haplorhines with us, but at the same time she's primitive. This is an animal caught shortly after a major branch point in primate evolutionary history.

How was this proven? The fossil looks exactly like a lemur to me?

What exactly are the surprising and amazing parts about it? How is it "the missing link"? The article does not discuss this.

Exploring the Guardian site, you can find some unintentionally funny text labels for further links:

"Extraordinary fossil is 'missing link' between humans and mammals"

Really? I had no idea our status as mammals was so controversial.

"Ida: the fossil that links us to the animal kingdom"

I have always suspected we belong in the Kindom Animalia. Nice to have that suspicion validated.

I wonder how long before the moron brigade starts touting the “It’s not the Missing Link” line.

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.

So it’s clear what Ida is not. As for our conclusion on what Ida is, we wrote in News to Note: Because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week

Stanton said: Ida is not a "missing link," if you actually read the article, or even PZ's original blogpost, you'd know that she is a primitive haplorhine, suggesting, if not demonstrating that the New World monkeys diverged from the Old World monkeys (including, eventually, us, humans and other apes) 47 to 50 million years ago.

Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the "Nature of Limbs." On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that Ida is a missing found link between modern New World monkeys and the ancestral primates.

— Stanton

Really? I had no idea our status as mammals was so controversial.

— Dave Wisker

"And in Dembski’s “matheology” where “proof” means never having to connect dots."

Perhaps that's true over in ID land, but this sit is well above ID land is it not? Over here “science” is suppose to be the name of the game (if we can get past the high percent of childish hate post). In science we have lots of dots called fossils – we then connect the dots.

Now any creationist hater with his salt knows perfectly well that a creationist is often likely to look at the fossil record, how mainly fossils show up fully formed and stay that way regardless of how long they are in the record, and with this information combined with “inference” decide the dots are connected via a creator.

On the other hand anyone into biology and its relationship to theoretically giving descriptions to the way in which life forms change, has of course read Gould and understands perfectly well that when it comes to drawing “trees” to connect the dots, it is done by “inference”.

Anyone reading the post here would come to the idea that this monkey is not some missing link that proves Darwin's theory correct, besides, Darwin's theory was demonstrated true long long ago. From that we can then correctly “infer” that either claims of Darwin's theory being demonstrated true are wrong, or else Gould is wrong, unless science demonstrated Darwin's theory as correct in the last thirty years or so.

Of course anyone reading this could quickly see it points to all sorts of “inference” going on and not much in the way of science separating out one inference from another. Now when the media claims this monkey finally proves Darwin's theory, that implies his theory has never been actually demonstrated ...... I'll beat on the that side and the Gould side, that its all the same stuff so many creationist use,“inference”, not demonstration, when it comes to drawing trees. It would be easy to show me incorrect, just show the scientific demonstration – of which, of course, this monkey is not.

Troy said: Now any creationist hater with his salt knows perfectly well that a creationist is often likely to look at the fossil record, how mainly fossils show up fully formed and stay that way regardless of how long they are in the record, and with this information combined with “inference” decide the dots are connected via a creator. On the other hand anyone into biology and its relationship to theoretically giving descriptions to the way in which life forms change, has of course read Gould and understands perfectly well that when it comes to drawing “trees” to connect the dots, it is done by “inference”.

But then Steve Gould said: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by [cdesign proponentsists like Troy] -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

Possum Asked: How was this proven? The fossil looks exactly like a lemur to me?

Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

Troy said: Of course anyone reading this could quickly see it points to all sorts of “inference” going on and not much in the way of science separating out one inference from another.

“But then Steve Gould said: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by [cdesign proponentsists like Troy] – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. “

But then anyone with half a brain can see that I never argued there are NO transitional forms, in fact that makes no part of my argument at all – perhaps through design or stupidity you missed that. That people take what I say way out of context, rather like what the above poster did, I do not find as “infuriating”. Instead I find it to be a natural by-product common among those who elevate Darwin's theory – in fact I think we can scientifically demonstrate a correlation between “hate mongering and intolerance” and “advocates of Darwin's theory” far better than giving scientific demonstration that “random mutation and natural selection” caused the origin of species.

The question is focused upon scientific demonstration of Darwin's theory instead of resting it on something so dubious as inference (to be fair about it, Darwin's theory is out of line with the fossil record directly where it should not be – at the species level). The media treats the matter as though this find, as cool as it is in many ways, is demonstration that Darwin's theory no longer hangs on something so questionable as inference, but now has become all grown up in enjoying real scientific demonstration – I side with a number of people here in saying the media is wrong, it is no such scientific demonstration at all. I disagree with those who say his theory was scientifically demonstrated long ago, but instead side with Gould – the tree (Darwin's theory) is based on inference, even today.

“Franzen et al. went out and actually dug the fossil up. They analyzed the rock around it. They make meticulous measurements of everything about it, down to the remains of bacteria surrounding it. They published their work so that everyone could see and understand what they’ve done, and in that publication they used their evidence to arrive at some tentative conclusions. That, my dear fellow, is science.
If you want an example of ‘not much in the way of science,’ simply look at the publication record of the Discovery Institute’s fellows.”

I in no way question that the find has scientific value, not do I question the fact that they acted as scientist in their field work. Instead I look at the media claim that this find at long last shows Darwin's theory is correct – I disagree with such a claim– it demonstrates no such thing at all. I also disagree with the claims on this web site that Darwin's theory was demonstrated correct long ago by science – such is not the case – Darwinist infer it to be correct but they are rather glaringly short in actually scientifically demonstrating their inference. I further say, went it comes to that exact point, I need not have to go to the Discovery Institute to find 'not much in the way of science,' - I can just come here.

And then Troy’s wedge broke and he had to go back to Phillip Johnson’s moldy sock drawer and dig around for another one.

"Over here “science” is suppose to be the name of the game. In science we have lots of dots called fossils – we then connect the dots." "...a creationist is often likely to look at the fossil record, ... and ... decide the dots are connected via a creator." "Anyone reading the post here would come to the idea that this monkey is not some missing link that proves Darwin’s theory correct, besides, Darwin’s theory was demonstrated true long long ago."

"how mainly fossils show up fully formed and stay that way regardless of how long they are in the record"

Troy said: The media treats the matter as though this find, as cool as it is in many ways, is demonstration that Darwin's theory no longer hangs on something so questionable as inference, but now has become all grown up in enjoying real scientific demonstration – I side with a number of people here in saying the media is wrong, it is no such scientific demonstration at all. I disagree with those who say his theory was scientifically demonstrated long ago, but instead side with Gould – the tree (Darwin's theory) is based on inference, even today.

Mr. Gould again speaks: Darwin did two very separate things: he convinced the scientific world that evolution had occurred and he proposed the theory of natural selection as its mechanism. I am quite willing to admit that the common equation of evolution with progress made Darwin's first claim more palatable to his contemporaries. But Darwin failed in the second quest during his own lifetime. The theory of natural selection did not triumph until the 1940s. It's Victorian unpopularity, in my view, lay primarily in its denial of general progress as inherent in the workings of evolution. Natural selection is a theory of local adaptation to changing environments. It proposes no perfecting principles, no guarantee of general improvement; in short, no reason for general approbation in a political climate favoring inmate progress in nature. Darwin's independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, "improved design," but not "improved" in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, improved meant only "better designed for immediate, local environment." Local environments change consistently: they get colder or hotter, wetter or drier, more grassy or more forested. Evolution by natural selection is no more than a tracking of these changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better designed to live in them: hair on a mammoth is not progressive in any cosmic sense. Natural selection can produce a trend that tempts us to think of more general progress—increase in brain size does not characterize the evolution of group after group of mammals. But big brains have their uses in local environments; they do not marked intrinsic trends to higher states. And Darwin delighted in showing that local adaptation opted produces "degeneration" in design—anatomical simplification in parasites, for example. If natural selection is not a doctrine of progress, then its popularity cannot reflect the politics that Bethell invokes. If the theory of natural selection contains an independent criterion of fitness, then it is not tautological. I maintain, perhaps naïvely, that its current, unabated popularity must have something to do with its success in explaining the admittedly imperfect information we now possess about evolution. I rather suspect that we'll have Charles Darwin to kick around for some time. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html

Troy more classically trolls.... The media treats the matter as though this find, as cool as it is in many ways, is demonstration that Darwin’s theory no longer hangs on something so questionable as inference.

"But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are skeptical of the claim.” This from their own camp.

Even they don't believe this drivel. Just looking at the fossil it is glaringly apparent we have a lizard or four legged mammal type creature plain and simple. As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I. It is nothing more than wishful thinking, unsubstantiated guess work, and the usual desperation by a pseudo-science who's religion gets hammered every day due to it’s total lack of “real” data. These fantastic numbers and assertions are derived from their fantasies not from scientific fact. They would have the lay public swallow this swill they conger up as real science, because most will not take the time to research the facts. Also to destroy the reputation of any that would stand against them, by such acts of tyranny only rivaled by the inquisition of the Dark Ages. This so-called scientific field grasps at straws to try and shore up its crumbling reputation among more and more credible scientist who realize what a sham it is. There is zero credible evidence to back all of their claims and as more and more scientific research becomes available it repeatedly shoots this field of alchemy down from its precarious perch. A recent debacle on their part illustrates this religions desperation to jump on anything to keep the public in the dark. Junk DNA.

It has been uncovered in research that only three percent of DNA, approximately, is actually responsible for “direct” formation of structural protein, of which you and I are made. The rest was labeled “Junk DNA” by these pseudo-scientist in attempts to save their dwindling followers. The spin was that this non-structural DNA must be useless remnants of evolutionary DNA and “selfish” DNA as if it had a personality. (Pasteur is turning over in his grave.) This has been plastered all over in the lay press as proof of evolution. Well folks, they messed up again, as does anyone who attempts to twist data to fit their nebulous theories; they try to make a square peg fit an octagon shaped hole.
As it turns out this so-called “Junk DNA” is anything but “Junk”, proven by thousands upon thousands of experiments by biologists in labs all over the world. In fact without “Junk DNA’s” incredible precise mechanism to turn structural DNA on and off, to coordinate myriads of structural processes in “structural DNA” and myriads of other ultra-complex reactions that science has barely begun to unravel, we would not be here reading this sensationalist journalism written by the Tribune. (cut and pasted I should say) In other words without this so-called “non-structural” DNA”, protein building DNA would not function, let alone exist. So in reality it is structural DNA by orchestrating and allowing three percent of DNA to do it’s incredible job. Interestingly more and more scientist are coming forward to say they realize DNA is to fantastic to have arisen on its own. The church fathers of evolution then counter by attempting to conger up more fantastic theories and resurrect new spins on old ones, like the most recent attempts to make RNA magically produce life. It can’t and hasn’t come close in laboratory experiments but amazingly is reality in their imaginations. Even with highly skilled scientist tweaking and twisting their experiments in their labs it doesn’t happen. It begs the question. Where has the news been about this new evidence that undermines this religion even more.

Interestingly non-existent in the lay-press but pervasive in scientific papers is this scientific evidence uncovered by credible scientist all over the world, that proves without doubt the antithesis of the claims the religious zealots of evolution attempt to build their fantasies on. How does this happen? By a mechanism as old as religion itself. Aggressive action to silence all detractors. The inquisitors of the alchemist religion called evolution will punish those who print otherwise, which has come more and more to light in the last decade. Exactly like the religion of the Dark Ages, that was based on credulity at best, attempted to silence their critics with tyranny, banishment and death, so does this religion brought into existence in the last 150 years. The evolutionary hierarchy in its attempts to protect its pseudo-science, will commit defamation, banishment from establishments of higher learning and career assassination of highly credible and skilled scientist and science writers who print otherwise, in order to stop the real facts from rising to the fore. Just try to get into the Masters or Doctorate programs if you disagree with the demigods of evolution. They also have used the fragile egos of the lay public by creating an atmosphere that if you agree with this sham you’re intelligent, if you don’t you’re a stupid, uneducated buffoon. In fact, it has been stated most recently, by a lay person educated in journalism not science, that teaching your children anything but evolution is tantamount to child abuse. That should scare the DNA out of you. Very scary people to say the very least. Why would they do this? Salary, tenure at universities, grant money, a career that they have lived in proving to be pure fantasy thus blasting their egos and losing face among friends and the scientific community to name a few reasons.

Finally and certainly not all inclusive. I love astronomy, physics, quantum physic, sub-atomic research because of their enlightenment of the wonders of our universe, so this is not an attack on science but on pseudo-science posing as a credible scientific endeavor.

Take this article as it really is. The fantasies of children in the backyard who have found a bone and create a fantasy story to impress their siblings and friends. Unfortunately, the creators behind this fantasy have tremendous power over the press in the news and education of our world and want us to remain in the scientific Dark Ages for their selfish gain. Wake up and do the research.

Troy said: But then anyone with half a brain can see that I never argued there are NO transitional forms, in fact that makes no part of my argument at all – perhaps through design or stupidity you missed that.

Nice content-free screed there, Bill. Sorry the facts don't back up your fairy tales. (shrug) That's life.

Troy said: Instead I look at the media claim that this find at long last shows Darwin's theory is correct – I disagree with such a claim...

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

Bill said: Just looking at the fossil it is glaringly apparent we have a lizard or four legged mammal type creature plain and simple.

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

The rest was labeled “Junk DNA” by these pseudo-scientist in attempts to save their dwindling followers.

JFX asks Bill... Are you saying it may be a mammal-like reptile?

Early skeleton sheds light on primate evolution NEW YORK — A 47 million-year-old primate fossil — so complete scientists can tell what its last meal was — could shed new light on the earliest stages of evolution of the lineage that eventually led to humans, researchers said Tuesday. The fossil of a lemurlike creature that probably weighed no more than 2 pounds when it was fully grown is remarkable because it is the most complete primate specimen ever obtained from so long ago, experts say. For the most part, the story of primate evolution has been pieced together from fossilized skulls, jawbones and the occasional foot — leaving large gaps in anatomy for researchers to fill in with informed speculation. {snip} "It is a representative of an ancestral group giving rise of all kinds of higher primates," Hurum said. "We are not dealing with our great-great-great-grandmother, but perhaps our great-great-great-aunt." Some scientists, however, say it isn't that closely related. "It's more like our third cousin twice removed," said paleontologist Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History at Johns Hopkins University. "It's part of the primate family tree that is about as far away from humans as you can get and still be a primate."

fnxtr said: Nice content-free screed there, Bill. Sorry the facts don't back up your fairy tales. (shrug) That's life.

Bill said: ... As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I. It is nothing more than wishful thinking, unsubstantiated guess work, and the usual desperation by a pseudo-science who's religion gets hammered every day due to it’s total lack of “real” data. These fantastic numbers and assertions are derived from their fantasies not from scientific fact. They would have the lay public swallow this swill they conger up as real science, because most will not take the time to research the facts. ...

eric said:

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

Here's a hint: N = N(0) * e EXP(-lambda * t). It keeps your house safe from fires, powers that GPS signal you use, AND dates rocks.

Bill said: ... I love astronomy, physics, quantum physic, sub-atomic research because of their enlightenment of the wonders of our universe, so this is not an attack on science but on pseudo-science posing as a credible scientific endeavor.

eric said:

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

Here's a hint: N = N(0) * e EXP(-lambda * t). It keeps your house safe from fires, powers that GPS signal you use, AND dates rocks.

Google is using this fossil as the "oo" in Google on there homepage today.

Doh, it's "on their homepage"

Not to spam the thread, but why after replying to eric, do all my posts state that I am replying to eric? I see no place to turn that off.

Gould: “ The theory of natural selection did not triumph until the 1940s.”

If one actually pays attention to what Gould states in the posted quote, one finds the above claim followed by the idea that natural selection can alter life forms. Of course it was well understood that natural selection can alter life forms, anyone selectively breading understands that, as do people who can view the wide variety of dogs we have today and understand it comes via selective breading. That is not the question, nor has it ever been so far as I know (although I suppose one could look into the matter making sure no gene drift or anything like that is taking place).

The real question is this – does it have the power to turn dogs into something that no one in their right mind would even remotely think of as being a dog? That, has not been demonstrated – nor does Gould here demonstrate such a thing. Until it is demonstrated, the tree is inference.

Of course all this would be easy to stop by simply giving the demonstration of controlled experiments wherein nothing is operative but random mutation and natural selection with the result, say, of a dog turning into something so different no one would call it a dog – or turning a bacteria into, say, a self sustaining multi-celled creature. But of course, it will be far more fun just to call names and hope that works, after all – you have no such demonstrtion.

“Then how come you brought up Adnan Oktar’s “Atlas of Creation,” and made a big song and dance about how there were no transitional forms?”

This web site brought up Oktars Atlas of creation – and not by some article posted by me. Nor did I make a song and dance about there being no transitional forms – what I did do, among other things, was point out that his atlas reflects the property of Stasis, which it does.

“Then you are disagreeing with two straw men of your own creation. Strawman one: you constantly conflate the theory evolution with gradualism. The TOE does not require gradualism, and when you contrast “Darwin’s theory” with “Gould” you are setting up a straw man.”

With all due respect I do not talk about “the theory of evolution” (whatever that maybe), but confine to “Darwin's theory” sometimes expanded to include “random mutation”. Darwin's theory clearly elevates gradualism – and quite frankly, given the increase in statistical improbability of large numbers of random mutations working when we constrict time, so does Darwin's theory supplemented with only random mutation. If you want to equate that with being “the theory of evolution”, that is your business, but its not my claim. So, joe straw man, if you going to take down a straw man, you first need to actually have one your pointing at, which “isn't” of your own creation.

“Strawman two: you imply that someone (the media, scientists, whomever) are trying to “prove” evolution occurs.”

No, I have been very clear about it – the media is trying to claim that at long last “Darwin's theory” has been shown to be true via finding a fossil. I don't make the argument that “evolution” does not take place or happen etc., nor do I argue that the media is trying to prove evolution takes place – my focus is on this one fossil find and the media claim that it Darwin's theory is now scientifically demonstrated as correct. If you want to say Darwin's theory = evolution theory (which is often the game being played), go right ahead – just be sure about this – I don't do that. So, once again, if you going to take down a straw man, you first need to actually have one your pointing at, which “isn't” of your own creation.

“No amount of “inference” is going to disqualify a theory”

Perhaps not – but in fields of science where a crusade is NOT taking place, empirical evidence can and does work to disqualify theory's when the theory claims the empirical evidence to have very defined properties which it simply does not have. Of course where there IS a crusade taking place one would expect to find “trade secrets” that amount to sweeping the empirical evidence under the carpet with one hand while the other thunders out lofty pontifications against the heretic non-believer who dares to question the theory being claimed as true. I am all in favor of kicking the crusaders out of biology – what about you?

“that life evolves is observationally true (how remains an interesting question).”

“How” does not remain much of a question IF Darwin's theory is well supported scientifically – so what is it, that “how” is still under serious question, or that Darwin's theory is strongly supported by science as opposed to inference? (answer is, we still question, very seriously, “how”)

MememicBottleneck said:

eric said:

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

Here's a hint: N = N(0) * e EXP(-lambda * t). It keeps your house safe from fires, powers that GPS signal you use, AND dates rocks.

Eric, I'm going to have to plagerize your statement from time to time. It's just too perfect for too many situations. I'll need to look up the equation first though. I understand the exponential decay, but how does it keep my house safe from fires?

“How” does not remain much of a question IF Darwin’s theory is well supported scientifically – so what is it, that “how” is still under serious question, or that Darwin’s theory is strongly supported by science as opposed to inference?

Troy said: If one actually pays attention to what Gould states in the posted quote, one finds the above claim followed by the idea that natural selection can alter life forms. Of course it was well understood that natural selection can alter life forms, anyone selectively breading understands that, as do people who can view the wide variety of dogs we have today and understand it comes via selective breading. That is not the question, nor has it ever been so far as I know (although I suppose one could look into the matter making sure no gene drift or anything like that is taking place).

Bill said: It has been uncovered in research that only three percent of DNA, approximately, is actually responsible for “direct” formation of structural protein, of which you and I are made. The rest was labeled “Junk DNA” by these pseudo-scientist in attempts to save their dwindling followers.

Troy said: Nor did I make a song and dance about there being no transitional forms – what I did do, among other things, was point out that his atlas reflects the property of Stasis, which it does.

With all due respect I do not talk about “the theory of evolution” (whatever that maybe), but confine to “Darwin's theory” sometimes expanded to include “random mutation”... ...No, I have been very clear about it – the media is trying to claim that at long last “Darwin's theory” has been shown to be true via finding a fossil... ...my focus is on this one fossil find and the media claim that it Darwin's theory is now scientifically demonstrated as correct.

“How” does not remain much of a question IF Darwin's theory is well supported scientifically – so what is it, that “how” is still under serious question, or that Darwin's theory is strongly supported by science as opposed to inference? (answer is, we still question, very seriously, “how”)

Since this seems like a "teachable moment", I want to take the opportunity to point out what "selective breading" looks like, as practiced by experts in the field:

Selective Breading

jfx said: Since this seems like a "teachable moment", I want to take the opportunity to point out what "selective breading" looks like, as practiced by experts in the field: Selective Breading

Ida.

As in "Ida found it sooner if I'd had better funding."

B-bump tssh!

fnxtr said: Nice content-free screed there, Bill. Sorry the facts don't back up your fairy tales. (shrug) That's life.

Bill said a bunch of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo that sounded like the rantings of a lunatic.

eric said:

MememicBottleneck said:

eric said:

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I.

Here's a hint: N = N(0) * e EXP(-lambda * t). It keeps your house safe from fires, powers that GPS signal you use, AND dates rocks.

Eric, I'm going to have to plagerize your statement from time to time. It's just too perfect for too many situations. I'll need to look up the equation first though. I understand the exponential decay, but how does it keep my house safe from fires?

Most (but not all) smoke detectors use the decay of Am-241. I goofed on the GPS thing. I thought the satellites were powered by thermoelectric, but they're solar (I guess that means its just a less direct use of the same formula...).

phantomreader42 said: Actually, I think you were right about the GPS thing, just not in the way you thought you were. GPS requires extremely accurate timepieces, given that it's working with speed-of-light signals and distances of under a light-second. As I recall, GPS satellites use clocks based on atomic decay (cesium, perhaps?) to determine the timestamp for the signal, and thus calculate the distance.

Troy trolls on, and on, and on.... With all due respect I do not talk about “the theory of evolution” (whatever that maybe), but confine to “Darwin’s theory” sometimes expanded to include “random mutation”…

Way OT, but LOOK! Ken Ham in the published peer-reviewed literature!

Ham, K.D., and Pearsons, T.D. 2000. Can reduced salmonid abundance be detected in time to limit management impacts? Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 17–24.

Found this on a lit. search I was doing. I had to check it out even though I knew it couldn't have been the AiG Ken Ham. And yes, K.D. Ham is Kenneth D. Ham. Further intrigued by the coincidence, I had to look up AiG's Ken Ham to confirm that he is Kenneth A. Ham.

Sorry it was an amusing aside that I had to share -- made more amusing because the coauthor, Todd Pearsons, is a semi-colleague of mine...

JFX: I want to take the opportunity to point out what “selective breading” looks like, as practiced by experts in the field:

stevaroni said: Dang! I can never get breading to stick to onion rings like that!

jfx said: Since this seems like a "teachable moment", I want to take the opportunity to point out what "selective breading" looks like, as practiced by experts in the field: Selective Breading

Are you using good neo-darwinian technique? Maybe something like this:

Geez guys, thanks. I suddenly have the urge to go home and watch Monty Python while eating fried chicken.

“Maybe Troy’s error lies in his inability to distinguish between incomplete and incorrect. What we know passes every test of being correct, as far as it goes. Most of what Darwin speculated turns out, after 150 years of research, to have been quite correct as far as it went. It wasn’t wrong, only incomplete. And many of Darwin’s ideas have turned out to be wrong.”

As I understand Darwin's theory, updated to a degree, is that life's diversity is caused by natural selection and random mutation – and to that much I say they have not scientifically demonstrated diddly squat in terms of showing it as the source of diversity. There is only one reason its still being talked about as though they demonstrated it years and years ago – because of the philosophical properties that go along with the theory, and that's it. You want to stand up and piss all over anyone who believes in God, Relativity will not do, nor will the Gas Laws or flight theory, but Darwin's work, that's where you can be right at home.

I suspect Darwin is correct to the extent that mechanical properties driving life diversification in terms of “origin of species” can be found – but that's not his theory – heck many believed that long before Darwin came around – his is a theory of “how” and this monkey does not demonstrate the validity of that “how” - nor do claims that it has been verified when they forget to point directly to the science doing the verification for that exact “how” in the origin of species on earth.

“What these three statements make very clear to me is that you have a truncated and historically outmoded definition of “Darwin’s theory.” And that you think the media is adhering to your definition, when it isn’t.

You are arguing whether some new bit of data supports Version 1.0 when everyone around you - PTers, the media, heck even Behe and Dembski - are talking about Version 150.0”

Looks like you starting to get it – glad to hear it! Version 1.0 (Darwin's theory) is very deeply married to a very peculiar philosophical doctrine. One of the biggest problems with that theory is that marriage – that was OK maybe in 1860, but it sure is not OK from around 1900 on!

Now if I was one who wanted to push my philosophy in science class, then I might not be to interested in really killing the root of the problem, after all, killing the root would get rid of the philosophy against me, but kill my own ability to push my game along with it. I would be better to not address the root, but instead to simply attack the enemy philosophy.

Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root, because unlike so many others, I really don't think science is the place to be pumping ones philosophy, regardless of what philosophy that may be. When I look at Version 150.0 I see lots of exactly that root – and when I see the media, I see the same thing – they don't say “a polypoidial series of events could have played a real role in this little monkey's nature – indeed not, they say “Darwin's theory” and make correlations to it.

eric said: Franzen et al. went out and actually dug the fossil up.

Troy said: Looks like you starting to get it – glad to hear it! Version 1.0 (Darwin's theory) is very deeply married to a very peculiar philosophical doctrine. One of the biggest problems with that theory is that marriage – that was OK maybe in 1860, but it sure is not OK from around 1900 on! Now if I was one who wanted to push my philosophy in science class, then I might not be to interested in really killing the root of the problem, after all, killing the root would get rid of the philosophy against me, but kill my own ability to push my game along with it. I would be better to not address the root, but instead to simply attack the enemy philosophy.

I do agree that "the missing link" is a tired media ploy that has nothing to do with the issue here, at one point when you look at all the history of the fossil record and the VAST quantity of life that has come and gone, all the while seeming to specialize and increase the total diversity on the planet.I think while fossils aren't PROOF of anything, taken as a whole the clusters of animal groups that more often than not increase in diversity are as good a support as any that doesn't come from genetics.

As for Troy and his rant on how natural selection and mutation can't produce the diversity we see. I can't vouch that it has, NO SHOCK, really, science doesn't work like that, we can see the background radiation of the universe and the expansion of space, FACTS, and we extrapolate Cosmic Inflationary theory that puts the universe at 13 billion years. I can vouch, however, for the fact that you give far to little credit to the subject you blame most for Evolution's shortcomings. The fact is that we do see mutation do some very amazing things, and that speciation does produce new species, and specialization of the environment are all observed facts of just 150 years. Plants that have adapted to copper poisoning around natural copper deposits, they didn't exist like that forever, it was evolution. To a skeptic it is unimpressive I know, other examples include the evolution of new enzymes in bacteria that can metabolize the human product nylon, search nylonase. Another in E. Coli has allowed it to metabolize citrate, something E. Coli is identified by it's inability to do is now a survival advantage. As soon as basic metabolization of a new substance occurred it wasn't very efficient, but over subsequent generations the genes actually did evolve to produce a higher efficiency protein. In multicellular organisms (this one I can't be sure the genetic basis of but is almost certainly the case) is a population of laboratory lizards abandoned on an island after a war broke out nearby, after 50 years, they had completely replaced the native lizards, switched from insectivore to herbivore diets, and had new cecal muscles in their stomachs to keep the cellulose in their digestive tracts longer.

Well I think evolution is pretty amazing, but I have my problems with our limitations on verifying its course like everybody with a brain.

Troy said: Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root...

On the other hand anyone into biology and its relationship to theoretically giving descriptions to the way in which life forms change, has of course read Gould and understands perfectly well that when it comes to drawing “trees” to connect the dots, it is done by “inference”.

He died in 1882, [...] the periodic table was about 20 elements lighter [...] .

Troy said: Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root…

stevaroni said: You're saying I'd be better off with the ancient map, Troy?

I am not taking any position regarding this "find" until I hear from a real expert like Casey Luskin.

I don't need an expert to look at the photo and say, "Wow, that is really cool." Poor little thing. I bet it was really cute when it was alive.

Troy said: There is only one reason its still being talked about as though they demonstrated it years and years ago – because of the philosophical properties that go along with the theory, and that's it. You want to stand up and piss all over anyone who believes in God, Relativity will not do, nor will the Gas Laws or flight theory, but Darwin's work, that's where you can be right at home.

John Vaughn said: ... Evolutionary biology doesn't have any logical consequences for the existence of God.

"Evolution doesn't have any consequences for the existence of God." Tell that to Dicky Dawkins and all the other red-face atheists.

It also claims that there is no such thing as love, only sexual selection, and that survival of the fittest is the only law, not, as Dante put it "l'amore che muove il solé e le altre stelle."

Heil Darwin

Perhaps in your haste for rhetorical snark novaparl you haven't noticed a substantial number of PT posters actually telling PZ, Dawkins, and others exactly that.

Troy said: There is only one reason its still being talked about as though they demonstrated it years and years ago – because of the philosophical properties that go along with the theory, and that's it. You want to stand up and piss all over anyone who believes in God, Relativity will not do, nor will the Gas Laws or flight theory, but Darwin's work, that's where you can be right at home.

novparl said: "Evolution doesn't have any consequences for the existence of God." Tell that to Dicky Dawkins and all the other red-face atheists.

John Vaughn said:

Troy said: There is only one reason its still being talked about as though they demonstrated it years and years ago – because of the philosophical properties that go along with the theory, and that's it. You want to stand up and piss all over anyone who believes in God, Relativity will not do, nor will the Gas Laws or flight theory, but Darwin's work, that's where you can be right at home.

This is a common assertion made by intelligent design creationists, but it is patently false. Evolutionary biology doesn't have any logical consequences for the existence of God.

novparl said: "Evolution doesn't have any consequences for the existence of God." Tell that to Dicky Dawkins and all the other red-face atheists.

It also claims that there is no such thing as love, only sexual selection, and that survival of the fittest is the only law, not, as Dante put it "l'amore che muove il solé e le altre stelle."

eric said: There is another reason Troy's argument fails...

novparl said: Heil Darwin

Bill said: ... A recent debacle on their part illustrates this religions desperation to jump on anything to keep the public in the dark. Junk DNA. It has been uncovered in research that only three percent of DNA, approximately, is actually responsible for “direct” formation of structural protein, of which you and I are made. The rest was labeled “Junk DNA” by these pseudo-scientist in attempts to save their dwindling followers. The spin was that this non-structural DNA must be useless remnants of evolutionary DNA and “selfish” DNA as if it had a personality. (Pasteur is turning over in his grave.) This has been plastered all over in the lay press as proof of evolution. Well folks, they messed up again, as does anyone who attempts to twist data to fit their nebulous theories; they try to make a square peg fit an octagon shaped hole. As it turns out this so-called “Junk DNA” is anything but “Junk”, proven by thousands upon thousands of experiments by biologists in labs all over the world. In fact without “Junk DNA’s” incredible precise mechanism to turn structural DNA on and off, to coordinate myriads of structural processes in “structural DNA” and myriads of other ultra-complex reactions that science has barely begun to unravel, we would not be here reading this sensationalist journalism written by the Tribune. (cut and pasted I should say) In other words without this so-called “non-structural” DNA”, protein building DNA would not function, let alone exist. So in reality it is structural DNA by orchestrating and allowing three percent of DNA to do it’s incredible job. Interestingly more and more scientist are coming forward to say they realize DNA is to fantastic to have arisen on its own. The church fathers of evolution then counter by attempting to conger up more fantastic theories and resurrect new spins on old ones, like the most recent attempts to make RNA magically produce life. It can’t and hasn’t come close in laboratory experiments but amazingly is reality in their imaginations. Even with highly skilled scientist tweaking and twisting their experiments in their labs it doesn’t happen. It begs the question. Where has the news been about this new evidence that undermines this religion even more. Interestingly non-existent in the lay-press but pervasive in scientific papers is this scientific evidence uncovered by credible scientist all over the world, that proves without doubt the antithesis of the claims the religious zealots of evolution attempt to build their fantasies on. How does this happen? By a mechanism as old as religion itself. Aggressive action to silence all detractors. The inquisitors of the alchemist religion called evolution will punish those who print otherwise, which has come more and more to light in the last decade. Exactly like the religion of the Dark Ages, that was based on credulity at best, attempted to silence their critics with tyranny, banishment and death, so does this religion brought into existence in the last 150 years. The evolutionary hierarchy in its attempts to protect its pseudo-science, will commit defamation, banishment from establishments of higher learning and career assassination of highly credible and skilled scientist and science writers who print otherwise, in order to stop the real facts from rising to the fore. Just try to get into the Masters or Doctorate programs if you disagree with the demigods of evolution. They also have used the fragile egos of the lay public by creating an atmosphere that if you agree with this sham you’re intelligent, if you don’t you’re a stupid, uneducated buffoon. In fact, it has been stated most recently, by a lay person educated in journalism not science, that teaching your children anything but evolution is tantamount to child abuse. That should scare the DNA out of you. Very scary people to say the very least. Why would they do this? Salary, tenure at universities, grant money, a career that they have lived in proving to be pure fantasy thus blasting their egos and losing face among friends and the scientific community to name a few reasons. ... Wake up and do the research.

Troy the delusional spamming troll said: Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root,

Troy the delusional spamming lying troll said: because unlike so many others, I really don't think science is the place to be pumping ones philosophy

Well, what do you expect? After all, Troy recently claimed that there were no transitional forms. Now here is yet another example that proves he is absolutely wrong. What to do? Well he certainly can't attack the bones based on technical merit, after all, he is completely ignorant of all of palentology. I know, why not claim the bones are somehow being used to promote racism? Yea that's it, everyone will fall for that! The fact that it isn't a scientist who is supposedly doing it is Ok, surely no one will notice. The fact that modern evolutionary theory provides absolutely no scientific basic for racism, well surely no one will know that either. Yea, just keep piling it higher and deeper, that will convince anyone who chooses to be convinced.

Perhaps Troy would like give his explanation for this fossil, which is completely consistent with Darwin's theory and all of modern evolutionary biology. Perhaps not. Perhaps Troy should peddle his racist side show elsewhere.

phantomreader42 said:

Troy the delusional spamming troll said: Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root,

So, let's see if I have Troy's "argument" right: 1) Take a distorted strawman of Darwin's original work from over a century ago. 2) Pretend no time has passed since then. 3) Accuse the strawman version of Darwin of all evils that have ever occurred through all space and time. 4) Conclude that, because Darwin is solely and completely responsible for everything bad that has ever happened, and because his original writings are taught as holy scripture, all science must be abolished and replaced by indoctrination into Troy's death cult. 5) Totally ignore all refutations of the above lies, no matter how clear or how many times the dishonesty is pointed out. 6) Totally ignore all evidence of evolution. 7) Totally ignore all atrocities committed for religious reasons, especially those from Troy's death cult, unless they can be falsely blamed on Darwin. 8) Continuously spam the same pack of lies onto every single PT thread no matter how many times they are exposed as lies. 9) ??? 10) PROPHET!

Troy the delusional spamming lying troll said: because unlike so many others, I really don't think science is the place to be pumping ones philosophy

Troy, this is a fucking lie, and we all know it. You have every intention of sweeping real science under the rug and using whatever dishonest tactics you can to push your sick death cult on others. Go fuck yourself, Liar For Jesus™.

MememicBottleneck said:

phantomreader42 said:

Troy the delusional spamming troll said: Perhaps everyone is using Version 150.0 these days – but me, I am looking at the root,

So, let's see if I have Troy's "argument" right: 1) Take a distorted strawman of Darwin's original work from over a century ago. 2) Pretend no time has passed since then. 3) Accuse the strawman version of Darwin of all evils that have ever occurred through all space and time. 4) Conclude that, because Darwin is solely and completely responsible for everything bad that has ever happened, and because his original writings are taught as holy scripture, all science must be abolished and replaced by indoctrination into Troy's death cult. 5) Totally ignore all refutations of the above lies, no matter how clear or how many times the dishonesty is pointed out. 6) Totally ignore all evidence of evolution. 7) Totally ignore all atrocities committed for religious reasons, especially those from Troy's death cult, unless they can be falsely blamed on Darwin. 8) Continuously spam the same pack of lies onto every single PT thread no matter how many times they are exposed as lies. 9) ??? 10) PROPHET!

Troy the delusional spamming lying troll said: because unlike so many others, I really don't think science is the place to be pumping ones philosophy

Troy, this is a fucking lie, and we all know it. You have every intention of sweeping real science under the rug and using whatever dishonest tactics you can to push your sick death cult on others. Go fuck yourself, Liar For Jesus™.

When referring to the fellows at the DI, I think #10 should properly be spelled "profit"

phantomreader42 said: Troy srikes me as more the kind of nutcase who sees himself as a prophet on a mission from the invisible sky tyrant. Whatever he says is the infallible word of almighty god, facts mean nothing.

The funny thing is that Troy's beef with evolutionary biology is not even well thought-out. You can't refute the methods used by scientists in one area and then have no problem with methods used by scientists in other areas.

If animals like Ida actually lived up until a few thousand years ago then radiometric dating is wrong. If radiometric dating is wrong then what we know of radioactive decay is wrong. If radioactive decay is wrong, then much of atomic theory is wrong. If atomic theory is wrong, then much of physics is wrong.

And it's not just dating that's in trouble to--try geology! If Ida lived up until a few thousand years ago then much of what we know about sedimentology is wrong. If sedimentology is wrong then much of what we know about how the earth formed is wrong, which means we're also wrong about sea floor striping, and magnetic reversals, and plate tectonics, and ancient asteroid strikes.

[cue INTELLIGENT FALLING advocates]

RDK said: If animals like Ida actually lived up until a few thousand years ago then radiometric dating is wrong. If radiometric dating is wrong then what we know of radioactive decay is wrong. If radioactive decay is wrong, then much of atomic theory is wrong. If atomic theory is wrong, then much of physics is wrong.

SWT says... As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s clear to me that “Troy” is trolling, and is persisting in behaviors that push your/our buttons because, well, he’s trolling. His only purpose here is to disrupt the discussion...

Phatty said:

KP said: I'm waiting for the more insidious tactics of 1) claiming that the stomach contents prove that it can't be that old

How else do you explain the CHEEZ-ITs found in Ida's stomach?

If Ida's species ate Cheez-its, no wonder her species is extinct. No wonder she fell insensient into the lake.

Cheez-its are forever. I have a bag in the cupboard that's at least 47 million years old. Like those little Hallowe'en candies in the brown and orange wrapper. I'm sure that company went out of business in the 1960's and the candies are just shipped out of the big warehouse every September (as soon as the back-to-school sales are over).

RDK said: The funny thing is that Troy's beef with evolutionary biology is not even well thought-out. You can't refute the methods used by scientists in one area and then have no problem with methods used by scientists in other areas. If animals like Ida actually lived up until a few thousand years ago then radiometric dating is wrong. If radiometric dating is wrong then what we know of radioactive decay is wrong. If radioactive decay is wrong, then much of atomic theory is wrong. If atomic theory is wrong, then much of physics is wrong. And it's not just dating that's in trouble to--try geology! If Ida lived up until a few thousand years ago then much of what we know about sedimentology is wrong. If sedimentology is wrong then much of what we know about how the earth formed is wrong, which means we're also wrong about sea floor striping, and magnetic reversals, and plate tectonics, and ancient asteroid strikes. [cue INTELLIGENT FALLING advocates]

Well, folks, here's the definitive answer as to why evolution is wrong in this essay by J. Wells on the Dishonesty Institute's web site. All the answers to your quetions can be found here. (Note the quotes).

"Why Darwinism is False" - Jonathan Wells
http://www.discovery.org/a/10661

DavidK said: Well, folks, here's the definitive answer as to why evolution is wrong in this essay by J. Wells on the Dishonesty Institute's web site. All the answers to your quetions can be found here. (Note the quotes).

Ida was the lead story on tonight's Colbert Report.

It wasn't an especially memorable segment, but the "monkey-see, monkey-doofuses" line was funny.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: By the way, I look at Troy as a zombie: dead but still animated.

I'm sure we will soon have a thread entitled something like:

"Why Wells is Wrong: The Duplicity of Creationist Quote Mining"

or possibly:

"If the Fossils Don't fit Wells is full of ..."

Well you get the idea.

Well, folks, here’s the definitive answer as to why evolution is wrong in this essay by J. Wells on the Dishonesty Institute’s web site...

Stevaroni - if you think Darwin is dead, would you be so good as to tell Dicky Dawkins? Gently? Also all the people who've been celebrating Darwin's year, including Google & the BBC?

Stanton - re the word l*v* - The Descent of Man has no reference to it - it has 18 refs to sexual selection, incl an entire chapter (VIII). This follows the notorious Ch. VII, the Races of Man. This library doesn't have "The Social Welfare Gene", but I may come across it at other libraries soon.

Heil Darwin! Blut und Boden!

jfx said: Since this seems like a "teachable moment", I want to take the opportunity to point out what "selective breading" looks like, as practiced by experts in the field: Selective Breading

novparl said: Stevaroni - if you think Darwin is dead, would you be so good as to tell Dicky Dawkins?

Stanton - re the word l*v* - The Descent of Man has no reference to it

novparl,

Thanks for keeping your comments fairly short. If only Troy would follow your example.

Oh and by the way, the words 'love' or 'beloved' appear 133 times in the text of Descent of Man.

It took me a whole 2 minutes to find that out, so you need to drastically improve your literature research skills before opining on such subjects.

Stanton - re the word l*v* - The Descent of Man has no reference to it

stevaroni said:

Stanton - re the word l*v* - The Descent of Man has no reference to it

Does "Principia Mathematica" make a reference to love? If not, was Newton wrong? Does "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"? If not, was Galileo wrong? E= MC^2 makes no such reference. Is Einstein wrong? The National Electrical Code (ANSI/NFPA 70) seems to make no reference. Now that I realize this, will my power outlets suddenly stop working at any moment?

eric said: Oh and by the way, the words 'love' or 'beloved' appear 133 times in the text of Descent of Man. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find that out, so you need to drastically improve your literature research skills before opining on such subjects.

Dave Thomas said:

Phatty said:

KP said: I'm waiting for the more insidious tactics of 1) claiming that the stomach contents prove that it can't be that old

How else do you explain the CHEEZ-ITs found in Ida's stomach?

Are you sure you weren't thinking of Cheetoh's? Especially Jesus Cheetohs? Dave

I didn't see the mega churches closing down this week did anyone?

Dave
That was Cheesus!

Yea, the Gouda our fathers, from the Garden of Edam. If You Brie lost, Yet now ye art Fondue!

- K.

Danny Partridge said: I didn't see the mega churches closing down this week did anyone?

eric - so why aren't "l#v#" and beloved in the index, while "sexual selection" is? Must be a creationist conspiracy. How did it take you only 2 minutes to find words absent from the index? Wow - Darwinist magic!

As for all the silly nonsense about why isn't love in Princ Math. etc. - these books don't profess to reveal the Meaning of Life (Survival of the Meanest).

Heil Darwin! Darwin ist unser Fuehrer! Religion muss ausgerottet sein!

As for all the silly nonsense about why isn’t love in Princ Math. etc. - these books don’t profess to reveal the Meaning of Life (Survival of the Meanest).

... and yes I know that's not an XOR function.

novparl wanked: eric - so why aren't "l#v#" and beloved in the index, while "sexual selection" is? Must be a creationist conspiracy. How did it take you only 2 minutes to find words absent from the index? Wow - Darwinist magic!

As for all the silly nonsense about why isn't love in Princ Math. etc. - these books don't profess to reveal the Meaning of Life

(Survival of the Meanest).

Heil Darwin! Darwin ist unser Fuehrer! Religion muss ausgerottet sein!

There are people who are concerned about the media event that was used to reveal this scientific discovery. This is something that is needed, since creationist want the general public to believe that nothing has happened in the past 150 years.

Reading science news regularly include references to the validity of evolution.

I got to see a cast of Ida at the American Museum of Natural History Saturday. Note that you don't see "missing link" in the description.

novparl said: Stanton - re the word l*v* - The Descent of Man has no reference to it - it has 18 refs to sexual selection, incl an entire chapter (VIII). This follows the notorious Ch. VII, the Races of Man. This library doesn't have "The Social Welfare Gene", but I may come across it at other libraries soon. Heil Darwin! Blut und Boden!

The Descent of Man Page 58
Our cries of pain, fear, surprise, anger, together with their appropriate actions, and the murmur of a mother to her beloved child are more expressive than any words.

Karen S. said: I got to see a cast of Ida at the American Museum of Natural History Saturday. Note that you don't see "missing link" in the description.

Dave Thomas said: Zzzzing!

So? I got to see the cast of Aïda, but no one’s bragging about that.

fnxtr - your usual obsession with the behind. Why don't you visit Satanton (accidental!) in Boys Town?

Stanton et al. - using f5 I've managed to find a couple of uses of l*v* in die Abstammung des Menschen -
1 - a man's love for his dog (atheists will do anything...)
2 - a love of singing.

Your opinion that I'm regularly outwitted by a choc drop covered with sprinkles (whatever they are) is an opinion, not a fact. Evolutionists don't know the difference.

Btw, I believe some time ago that I referred to the 10 billion cells in the body. I know find that a better # is 100 trillion. One a second? More magic!

Darwin befiehl, wir folgen Dir!

Nonpareilnovparl wanked: Stanton et al. - using f5 I've managed to find a couple of uses of l*v* in die Abstammung des Menschen - 1 - a man's love for his dog (atheists will do anything...) 2 - a love of singing.

Your opinion that I'm regularly outwitted by a choc drop covered with sprinkles (whatever they are) is an opinion, not a fact.

Evolutionists don't know the difference.

Btw, I believe some time ago that I referred to the 10 billion cells in the body. I know find that a better # is 100 trillion. One a second? More magic!

Greetings PT'ers. I have been lurking for a few weeks, both here and at T.O., learning as much as I can along the way. First off, I appreciate the wealth of good information here and at Talk Origins. I also applaud all who fight the good fight, of unmasking the blatant
disinformation and outright lies of those who oppose science in favor of dogma.

That said, I saw the airing of "The Link" last night and was hoping to see the consensus of those here, and your thoughts on the program. I know pre show, there are many who would play down the sensationalism, but I walked away generally with a good feeling that science and evolution were represented very well. (My biggest complaint is the History Channels continous rehashing of material after every commercial) Id like to know in particular your thoughts on the fossils lack of the grooming claw, lack of the tooth comb, and the presence of an ankle bone that (presumably) placed the fossil on our evolutionary path. I thought these rather significant traits, and perhaps worthy of the sensationalism surrounding this fossil. Especially in light of the oppositons ridiculous cries of "why are there no transitional fossils?" This would appear to me to be a great example of one. If this fossil isnt another nail in the coffin of the creation myth's that abound, Id like to know why...

Brain dead fundies need not respond.

I haven't seen the documentary, but I have read the companion book (which I lament doesn't nearly have enough pictures).

The lack of the comb-nail/grooming claw is very important, in that all lemurs, fossil and living, have it, without it, there's no way you could shoehorn Ida into the lemurs (aside from being a dogmatic creationist, that is).

back to the (original) topic of the thread: Ida,

I watched "The Link" on the History Channel last night. It wasn't bad. I didn't care for some of the creative choices the makers of the program made- the overall tone was overly dramatic is playing up 'most important find ever', and it being 'the earliest human ancestor' and beating to death - that Ida may be related to ALL humans. It is obviously not the earliest human ancestor, there are fossils far older that 47 million years old that are ancestral to our line- earlier mammals, earlier tetrapods etc.
I also didn't like that the producers of the program emphasized that the team describing the fossil worked 'in secret' but not WHY. The scientists didn't work 'in secret' in the sense that the CIA does, or because they had something to hide. The team worked out of the public eye - until they had a good idea of WHAT Ida was - and because Ida is a unique find and important scientifically - there is a whole bunch of prestige (and money) riding on the proper description of the specimen. What Ida turned out to be, is very important indeed, an example of a species that is ancestral BOTH to the prosimian and simian lines of primates - or a transitional fossil between anthropoid primates and earlier primates, or the earliest anthropoid fossil depending on how you want to do classification. Ida is a remarkable specimen because of its age and completeness/ articulation - I just wish that the History Channel's presentation was less tabloidesque

Stanton said: I haven't seen the documentary, but I have read the companion book (which I lament doesn't nearly have enough pictures). The lack of the comb-nail/grooming claw is very important, in that all lemurs, fossil and living, have it, without it, there's no way you could shoehorn Ida into the lemurs (aside from being a dogmatic creationist, that is).

We got creo logic. It's fairly straightforward, in fact.

To creos, repeated assertion is the same thing as truth. By repeated assertion, there are no transitional fossils. Since there are no transitional fossils, this isn't one. Therefore, it must be either a monkey, or a tarsier, or a lemur, just like the ones we have today, and the only differences are explained by microevolution. QED.

It's easy, if you've got your Bible glasses on.

Nice dodge, there, np. Have you considered a career in politics?

Again, for the lurkers, (because newspeak is incapable of absorbing information), The Descent of Man is not a "how to live" manual, it's just a "this is probably how we got here" book.

However, there are inDUHviduals (whose names shall remain novparl) who are too dense, or dishonest, or both, to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive. It's as if everything they read has to be treated like... Scripture. Hmmm.

(10 to 1 says the creobot's response will be something about "the religion of 'Darwinism'". Oh, and some crappy German, too, as if that means something. This inDUHvidual truly is clueless. And predictable. About everything.)

novparl said: eric - so why aren't "l#v#" and beloved in the index, while "sexual selection" is? Must be a creationist conspiracy.

How did it take you only 2 minutes to find words absent from the index? Wow - Darwinist magic!

jasonmitchell said: I don't get why the creationist camp cares if Ida is a lemur or not? - (why not a lemur but a tasir or a monkey?) -- I get that they not want to acknowledge a transitional form, or a fossil that is demonstrably ancestral to something else - but why do they seem to have a united front that this is nothing more than a lemur fossil? I guess I just can't wrap my brain around their 'logic'

eric said: Think carefully before you answer, because if you claim I can't do it, and I then describe how I did this extremely easy task, you're going to look like a complete idiot.

eric said:

jasonmitchell said: I don't get why the creationist camp cares if Ida is a lemur or not? - (why not a lemur but a tasir or a monkey?) -- I get that they not want to acknowledge a transitional form, or a fossil that is demonstrably ancestral to something else - but why do they seem to have a united front that this is nothing more than a lemur fossil? I guess I just can't wrap my brain around their 'logic'

Only a guess here, but my guess is that some DI authority came out early in the media frenzy and said it was a lemur, and now no IDer wants to suggest that one of their authorities might have gotten that wrong. So they're stuck with 'lemur' forevermore. Its a mindset that values tribal loyalty (over truth) and authority (over tentative knowledge).

phantomreader42 said:

eric said: Think carefully before you answer, because if you claim I can't do it, and I then describe how I did this extremely easy task, you're going to look like a complete idiot.

Has there ever been a time novparl didn't look like a complete idiot?

jasonmitchell said: back to the (original) topic of the thread: Ida, I watched "The Link" on the History Channel last night. It wasn't bad. I didn't care for some of the creative choices the makers of the program made- the overall tone was overly dramatic is playing up 'most important find ever', and it being 'the earliest human ancestor' and beating to death - that Ida may be related to ALL humans. It is obviously not the earliest human ancestor, there are fossils far older that 47 million years old that are ancestral to our line- earlier mammals, earlier tetrapods etc. I also didn't like that the producers of the program emphasized that the team describing the fossil worked 'in secret' but not WHY. The scientists didn't work 'in secret' in the sense that the CIA does, or because they had something to hide. The team worked out of the public eye - until they had a good idea of WHAT Ida was - and because Ida is a unique find and important scientifically - there is a whole bunch of prestige (and money) riding on the proper description of the specimen. What Ida turned out to be, is very important indeed, an example of a species that is ancestral BOTH to the prosimian and simian lines of primates - or a transitional fossil between anthropoid primates and earlier primates, or the earliest anthropoid fossil depending on how you want to do classification. Ida is a remarkable specimen because of its age and completeness/ articulation - I just wish that the History Channel's presentation was less tabloidesque

Stanton said: I haven't seen the documentary, but I have read the companion book (which I lament doesn't nearly have enough pictures). The lack of the comb-nail/grooming claw is very important, in that all lemurs, fossil and living, have it, without it, there's no way you could shoehorn Ida into the lemurs (aside from being a dogmatic creationist, that is).

The Link was shown in the UK last night (Tuesday 26th May) with David Attenborough as the narrator. I understand why it was 'jazzed' up a bit for presentation reasons and also the main people involved (from Norway) were no exactly charismatic either ! Still I think it was a good introduction for any casual viewer interested in the story of Ida and the importance of the fossil. My own guess is that the creo mob will focus on why this fossil was discovered so long ago (in the early 1980s) and why it has taken so long to come to light - and will suggest it is another 'Piltdown Man'.

Stanton et al. Trying to belittle people by pretending that they're wrong doesn't make you right.

I see that your bleeding-heart LA Times is about to go bust. Ah well, it's survival of the fittest, I spose. Or in the case of most of you, I suspect, the fattest.

Well, unfortunately I have other interests, unlike you monomaniacs, so I must leave you to your mutual wanking society. I'll prob be back tmorrer.

Sincerely, in the name of Jebus Price - Heil Darwin.

Romartus - saw some of the show - what I focused on was the continual repetition of 47 m. years with no attempt to explain why they chose this figure.

God save the queens.

Novparl said: Romartus - saw some of the show - what I focused on was the continual repetition of 47 m. years with no attempt to explain why they chose this figure.

Nonpareil Novparl wanked: I see that your bleeding-heart LA Times is about to go bust. Ah well, it's survival of the fittest, I spose. Or in the case of most of you, I suspect, the fattest.

Well, unfortunately I have other interests, unlike you monomaniacs,

so I must leave you to your mutual wanking society. I'll prob be back tmorrer.

Sincerely, in the name of Jebus Price - Heil Darwin.

Romartus - saw some of the show - what I focused on was the continual repetition of 47 m. years with no attempt to explain why they chose this figure.

eric said:

Novparl said: Romartus - saw some of the show - what I focused on was the continual repetition of 47 m. years with no attempt to explain why they chose this figure.

I keep telling you. A = A(0)*eEXP(-lambda*t). It keeps your house from burning down around your ears, provides our country with 25% of its electricity, lets Cassini and Huygens explore Saturn, AND dates rocks.

The earth is flat and you have the right to say so. Freedom of speech. Never mind the truth.
If Darwinius masillae is not a missing link, then prove it. Because we don't have to prove
to you that you're wrong. You have to prove to us that you're right. The earth is round
and there're thousands of pictures from outer space to prove it. But you may still
cling to the flat-earth-theory. It's your right. Never mind the truth.

The earth is indeed round, my dear Ptolemaeus.

But you have to prove that this little fossil-feller is the missing link. Like it had to be proved that the earth is round, that radio waves exist (Marconi), etc.

That is the scientific method. And it includes challenges to receive ideas.

Heil Darwin!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Bill said: As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I. It is nothing more than wishful thinking, unsubstantiated guess work, and the usual desperation by a pseudo-science who's religion gets hammered every day due to it’s total lack of “real” data. ..... I love astronomy, physics, quantum physic, sub-atomic research because of their enlightenment of the wonders of our universe, so this is not an attack on science but on pseudo-science posing as a credible scientific endeavor.

novparl said: But you have to prove that this little fossil-feller is the missing link. Like it had to be proved that the earth is round, that radio waves exist (Marconi), etc. That is the scientific method. And it includes challenges to receive ideas.

novparl wrote:

"...saw some of the show - what I focused on was the continual repetition of 47 m. years with no attempt to explain why they chose this figure."

If you had bothered to read the paper linked above you would know how they arrived at the date. The reference is provided in the article. Do you have a better estimate for the date?

As for proving that this is a "missing link" the only requirement is that it be shown to possess characteristics intermediate between the two major primate lineages. How do you explain this particular combination of characteristics appearing in one individual?

Novpari proves once again that "I don't want to believe it" is not an argument.

Bill wrote:

"As for the age, 47 million years, they have absolutely no idea of what the real age is, nor do I. It is nothing more than wishful thinking, unsubstantiated guess work, and the usual desperation by a pseudo-science who’s religion gets hammered every day due to it’s total lack of “real” data. ….."

Actually Bill, if you had bothered to read the article you would have discovered that the desposits were dated four years before the specimen was described using standard dating techniques, nothing "unsubstantiated" or "desperate" about it.