Darwinists rejoice: Missing link found
posted at 12:52 pm on May 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Well, a missing link, not necessarily the missing link, although insofar as it seems to confirm Darwin’s speculation about transitional species, it’s a huge coup for fans of Uncle Charlie. I love the smell of fossilized monkeys in the morning. Smells like … victory. If anyone needs me, I’ll be at the bar drinking champagne with Charles Johnson.
Dude, what if Richard Dawkins planted it?
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs…
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn’t been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the “missing link” controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically “missing links” until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.
Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don’t believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Sky News has the best piece on the fossil’s significance and how it ended up in scientists’ hands — it hung on someone’s wall for more than 20 years — but you’re better off poking around the ultra-slick website that’s been designed for it, especially the section “Who is Ida?” and “The Implications.” Click the image to proceed.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »
Correct, Buddhists don’t care, which is why they generally have no problem accepting that the preponderance of evidence currently available supports evolution.
I believe you claimed otherwise orginally though.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Hypothetically, if evolution was proved (let’s say you time travel to witness it through the years), would any of you then stop believing in Jesus?
frankj on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Hypothetically, if bats flew out of your ass, would you then stop believing in the digestive tract?
nico on May 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
That’s some overly broad application of theology.
And yet, evolution STILL doesn’t invalidate Christian theology.
Evolution doesn’t think death is “good” – that is a value statement that doesn’t belong being used to an inanimate concept.
Evolution USES death to progress the adaptation of species.
In Christian theology death IS seen as the “punishment” of sin and Christ’s resurrection symbolizes a future and permanent “defeat” of death.
But, in scientific terms, that just means that eventually, like all thinks, evolution will devolve into chaos.
But differing “value judgments” upon something does not make two things incompatible.
Religious_Zealot on May 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
A waste of time, evolution could have been solved by two words:
JAMES CARVILLE.
The lefts goal is destroying Christianity at all costs, even at the cost of this countries existance. America IS a Christian nation and will be as long as Americans continue to look to God for His support of our nation.
This socialist president can say what he wants but the truth is with the founding fathers and all of their words, not some recently elected, wannabe dictator.
dthorny on May 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Proof of god denies you faith in god. It would invalidate the whole reason for existence. That would be a huge bummer.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Nope, I was talking about his or her comeback to only part of my post. Why not tell me how I was incorrect in the point – not the details.
Is carbon dating (or something like it) accurate for less than a thousand years? Honestly accurate or global warming accurate? Is there a true consensus on this or global warming consensus?
I’m sounding snarky, but I honestly want to know. I try very hard to be as factually accurate as I can be. It is what Christians do – we want the truth.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Those of you worshiping at the altar of Evolution…if this is what you need to keep you going, good for you! I’ll stay with my Creator! It makes a lot more sense than the “Tree of Life” which has been debunked for about 5 years now by any serious student of science. The Cambrian Explosion within the fossil record makes Darwin’s theory an impossibility and this discounts other discoveries by molecular and genetic studies of recent years.
But, those of you unwilling to learn and keep your head buried in Darwin’s theory of evolution along with Time, Newsweek and American Idol are welcome to believe whatever your wish. It is not possible to share with you on this board. You can research whatever and whenever you wish if you really want to know…
sabbott on May 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Actually, calling him the missing link is not at all the same as calling him a monkey. That’s your inference.
Some would call it an appreciation of a work of art.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Actually, there’s really no point debating you. You are convinced you are right, getalife..err, quikstrike98, and you feel the debate is over. As well it should be with the likes of you, because all RATIONAL people believe that everything is the result of mere coincidences with no guiding hand by an intelligent being of some sort. Funny how the natural world is put together in a mathematical sequence with perfect consistency, from the human body to the perfect tilt of the earth so that we don’t either burn up or freeze to death. Thank God, oops, I mean thank coincidence that it all worked out so perfectly for us!
change is for suckers on May 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Anybody have any comments on Behe’s book? His idea was that life is far more complicated on a biochemical level than on the level of anatomy. Even if you can imagine something like a fin turning into a leg, you can never imagine a gradual evolution of some of the complex biochemical systems inside our bodies and the bodies of many animals. Furthermore, since biochemical evidence is generally not available in the fossil record, you have no historical data to look at either. If I recall, he actually went so far as to say anatomical evidence was all but irrelevant.
kc8ukw on May 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Evolution can be proved by looking at only two specimens. Pelosi and Reid are clearly descended from rats.
marklmail on May 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Ahh thanks for the explanation.. but most of us have taken science applications at one time in our life. Duh comes to mind.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I’d question how frank spends his evenings. That’s for sure.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I still have no problem with an atheist/ape lineage.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
EXACTLY! Thank you!
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Hey, is that how it works? If we just say that the preponderance of evidence supports something, it just does?
Dogs being warm-blooded meets that criteria. Gravity meets it… Evolution is wildly short on evidence. This story is a great example!! Billions of fossils from every known strata… and they’re still looking for ONE transitional form.
They can’t recreate it, they don’t observe it… they just conclude that it is an unalterable fact of “science.” When “slow” doesn’t work, they switch to “puntuated”… that way… NO evidence IS the evidence!
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM
If God was smart he would’ve just made a lot of girls with boobies. What does he need man for?
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM
LOL @ Charles Johnson.
Hey Allah, make sure to never say he is ranting. Apparently that is an insult of biblical nature.
Yeah, LGF has gone down hill. Charles banned me for quoting his statement that “people are still ranting” in another topic on LGF, with the reply “yeah they are, you are still there. ;-)”
When I emailed him about either being a liar or a hypocrite for banning my account over nothing, or banning it for an “insult” he was using, he blocked the ip address I sent the email from. Charles Johnson = little nutty right now.
I am glad they are still looking and finding these kinds of fossils. Although it does not exclude a belief in God, or in that humans as were are now was an act of creation to believe in evolution. It does bother me that every other type of man-ape / cave-man died off, with still no connection to whom we are today. Hopefully that connection will be found though.
One day science will actually advance to the point that they will be able to observe spiritual matter. That will be a fun time as a “crisis of faith,” of sorts, sets in on the atheist side of things.
Voidseeker on May 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Rule number 1 for dating for sonofdy’s daughters.
All males are sexist pigs.
Rule 2
All males must disprove rule 1.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I’ve read his “Darwin’s Black Box” and understood some of it. (laugh) I did get the fact that the cell could not evolve – and be a cell. It all has to work at once or it simply won’t work at all.
I’m sure there are others who will tell us how Behe has it all wrong.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
I just realized I’m a lot better at talking about God than evolution. It has been a long time since I had a biology class. Holding two opposing ideas in our minds at once is supposed to be a sign of intelligence is it not?
I wonder if Ida believed in God. I bet she did.
Because the idea of God transcends time and space. And in the Old Testament animals praise God. Even rocks praise God. And Ida is pretty much a rock these days.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
The story of the Bible starts with the fact that we were created innocent. If we evolved, then we were not created innocent. Our sinful nature is simply a product of natural selection according to God’s design. Think about it. That has far-reaching consequences.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Yes, we share company with those most innovative and productive of all countries: Turkey and Latvia.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
UGH what a thread. I knew it was coming the moment I saw Drudge this morning. I am just wondering why you waited to post this for so long today, Allah.
*Deep Breath*
I’m not quite sure why skeptics & non-skeptics of the process of speciation can’t acknowledge weaknesses & strengths of new scientific finds.
I also can’t understand why scientists don’t fight the urge more often to mess in their pants when they find something like this.
It’s existence isn’t proof of anything, but it may add to the pot of evidence for speciation.
I can imagine all things are possibly related bcs they share a bone or the same pooper mechanism etc.
Why that’s a problem for some I don’t know. I can see the possibility of vestigial structures as evidence in support of speciation.
Then we get the RNA etc argument & the proteins things & some goings on about radioisotopic dating techniques & going on & it just gets so messy & nuts.
Remember what a hell of a time Bretz had convincing people of his catastrophic ice dam floods bcs everyone was so paranoid it’d give the creationists some ammo?
To he!! with what any biased camp thinks.
Maybe we can limit comments & contemplations to people with a minimum in a Bachelor of Science in SCIENCE & not social science?
I’m thinking that wouldn’t keep down the animosity, though.
LOL!
Next thing ya know they’ll say plate tectonics isn’t happening.
I will definitely be depressed then.
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
To be fair, there’s no “proof” we evolved either, just belief based on incomplete data (incomplete data that seems to very largely point to that exact fact yes, but incompletely nonetheless).
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
But what is the point of having them without others to enjoy them…
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
What he said…
bperiwinkle on May 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Very few scientific endeavors ever become law. There are very few natural laws. There are very good reasons for this. It takes incredible burdens of proof to reach the level of Theory, let alone upgrading to the top level as a Law.
But I do not understand why you felt compelled to make the clarification between Theory and Law. As strictnein was good to point out, there are a lot of theories in physics that work quite well and have very accurate predictive powers. Quantum Mechanics has a lot of theories that are incredibly accurate, yet do not rise to the level of a Law. Did you make that assertion to diminish the Theory of Evolution just because it’s not a Law? If so, that is a most unwise decision.
Weebork on May 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
But if trillions of things were dying before Adam’s sin, the punishment becomes meaningless… Christ’s lack of decay becomes a non-event… and the resurrection becomes an asterisk.
Why would Christ have to “defeat” the great and glorious mechanism God created to advance life (by having the strong survive over the weak)?
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
If you really believe that “made in the image of God” means that “God therefore looks like we do physically,” it’s small wonder that you’ve decided on atheism.
Even for a New Yorker, that’s an astonishingly naive argument.
warbaby on May 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Well you must admit that creation was not complete, nor pronounced good, until after Eve. There you go the superiority of the sexes… I’m sure you agree.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Factually, it would still be real hard to get around – “He is risen.” The thing is you have to prove that is wrong or false. However, since it is so, the rest follows.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Creationism:
what’s wrong with the GOPwhat’s right with the Declaration of Independence.mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxZMFSNOMwI
scalleywag on May 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I like that rule.
The specific Jesus as described in the Bible? To an extent, yes but not completely. Obviously God can exist even if we were evolved. Most of what was written in the Bible can still work even if God did not create us.
But much of it would be different, different enough to drastically change Christian theology.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Look, this find could quite easily be simply be a mutiant. The trouble with this missing link idea is that it hinges on this one find alone. Even from a scientific POV this has to be questioned.
Fact is I believe that darwinism simply explains creationism.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
We’d just become Catholics.
/sarc
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
It can never be tested in the way that other theories are, because paleontology is not a lab science. It is more akin to history, in many respects, than it is to microbiology.
And that is why multiple lines of evidence, and the cumulative weight of evidence are important. And that is also why no single fossil is in and of itself particularly important.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Ya’ll miss the most important point:
Can it still vote democrat?
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You know what it reminded me of when I first looked at it?
A human embryo with an elongated tailbone.
It’s good to be a little skeptical; curious to see the results of two years of scientific inquiry into it. If it truly is as advertised, this is a pretty exciting find.
linlithgow on May 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
IF you believe that the Genesis story was supposed to be taken as the historical literal truth – which it wasn’t.
You’re mixing theology and science, and while the two can live together peacefully, they each answer two different questions.
Science basically answers the “how” questions…
…while theology answers the “why” questions.
Science gets in trouble when it takes on the “why” (philosophical) questions…
…and theology gets in trouble when it takes on the “how” questions.
Religious_Zealot on May 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Death being spoken about in Genesis is the “separation from God because of sin” not the natural transference of organic matter from living to dead. Who says (the Bible does not, it is inferred) that there was no “decay”. We don’t care for things like moss and crap like that, but who says God does not think they are swell? Genesis is explaining our sin natures – not Nature.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
This is what comes from reading too much Hitchhiker’s Guide.
29Victor on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Not really. Scientific method works on conjecture and refutation, at least since Popper’s day. To test a theory, you propose hypotheses that could falsify your theory, and fail to do so. At the same time, it helps to falsify the alternative theories.
“Evolutionists” have never made a serious effort to disprove Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Every piece of evidence from the natural world is taken as “proof” of evolution. Both perfection of form (e.g. the eye) and imperfection (e.g. the appendix) are deemed to be proof of natural selection.
To strengthen the theory of natural selection, propose a hypothesis that says: If Darwin’s theory is correct, we’ll see X, otherwise, we’ll see Y. If anyone had done this in the past 150 years, I think the “evolutionists” would have printed it in the textbooks. So far, though, I’ve never heard of such a test.
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
That’s inspired, Badger40.
Seriously, how many of you who think evolution is a fraud and/or a myth think that plate tectonics are just another fraud?
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I was kinda hoping this would be about the Montouk monster. That fossil looks creepy, reminds me of the little monkey from the movie Outbreak (which was on AMC this weekend). I’m not too keen on little primates.
Anna on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
How many microevolutions would it take before you called it macro?
If you have a spider and 10 “micros” later is it still a spider? How about 100? 1000? 1,000,000?
When does micro become macro.
IE the micro/macro distinction is a distinction that only creationists use so they don’t have to concede the point immediately.
Accept it. Evolution happened.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I said elsewhere this morning that the proof is irrefutable. Looks just like Helen Thomas.
Sue on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
+1
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Since there seems to be only one. It is a minority so heck yeah! It’d just be called a RINO on our side anyway. Like the rest of us!
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
You’ve missed the point. A claim was made that Buddhists believe in creation. I disputed that and the party making the claim then deployed a thin smokescreen and ‘redeployed’.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
of course. but as we’re still coming up with properties for matter, all our physical datasets are incomplete. it doesn’t stop us from evaluating the data we have and coming to reasonable conclusions. like gravity…our lack of complete knowledge doesn’t prevent us from building skyscrapers…and our lack of complete knowledge of the origins of life doesnt prevent us from building a working anticipatory model of how life forms are related to one another.
ernesto on May 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I’d question how frank spends his evenings. That’s for sure.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Hey, me and Jesus are still staring out the time machine window watching the puddle of goo revue. And, kick, 2,3, and turn, 2, 3, and dip, and kick, and finish.
nico on May 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
This may be true, but there is a reason it is not a law. I think the only thing being pointed out there is that while this isn’t necessarily bad science, it isn’t completely settled either. It’s more like a trial. In the end, we’ve given our verdict, but in many cases we’ll never really know if it was the correct one.
So we allow for appeals and court appointed lawyers, all in the hopes that we will correct any mistake we’ve made, because we don’t trust the system, not completely.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
And Ida is quite as obsolete.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Enjoy them yourself?
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I like your argument; however, He was saying it was good all along. I admit after the creation of woman – it got better, but He said even the light was good.
There is not superiority of the sexes, but as I explain to my wife, she who has the boobies rules the world.
When she disagreed. I asked her if she gets all the sex she wants. She does. I asked if I get all the sex I want. She laughed and said no, there are not enough hours in the day. She’s right, and she got the point. (laugh)
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
And that’s a fine view to take. Francis Collins shares it. Francisco Ayala shares it. Heck, even our last two popes share it.
But unforutantley a lot of people reject this idea because a lot of Chistians believe that
1) If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no first sin, then the sacrifice of Jesus means nothing.
2) If evoluion is true, it means that Naturalism is possible.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
The only evidence for creation is a book that says it happened. Because the book said so.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Allah’s dream post:
A fossil Meghan McCain being discovered in a shale quarry with Australopithecus reading a newspaper article by the Fox Sexpert that is dated 4 million BC.
And, of course, a Pew push poll to prove his point, that Rush Limbaugh should shut up and take his 21 million voting listeners and just jump into Lake Agassiz to save Colin Powell from having to vote again for Barack Obama in 2012.
TexasJew on May 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
To the contrary, there’s abundant evidence, both from fossils and genetic research, that humans have indeed evolved and share a common ancestry with the great apes.
starfleet_dude on May 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
First, you’ve just contradicted your previous post. You agreed that death is the punishment for sin. How do we know that? Paul gets it from Genesis. The Lord also takes Genesis as “literal truth.”
If it is not “literal truth” than we are back to my argument that the cross, the lack of decay, and the resurrection are meaningless and built on a false premise.
The great doctrine of our future resurrection is built on a literal Adam and a literal “sin begat death”.
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Sure it can – it’s dead.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The only evidence for evolution is that some scientists wish it to be so… based on a book written by a man who didn’t understand genetics.
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
At some point man was given a conscience and free will by God. Many Christians see that process as consistent with evolution.
dedalus on May 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Ida’s own words?
“Thanks for all the fish.”
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Pfff. As if such a thing were possible.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I can’t play, since I don’t think it either are a fraud or myth. Evolution just gets misused and misapplied – a lot!
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Ugh. You want this can of worms?
I will be ROTFLMAO!
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Maybe I am missing something but living lemurs show all the same characteristics as the ones they suggest are “significant” here, toilet toe and nails instead of claws.
What suggests this fossil was a precursor to humans? Or even other primates?
Rocks on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM
And fossils. And observational evidence. And common sense. And genetics. And all these little creatures wandering around the planet that are a little different from each other, depending on where they live.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I agree it’s more like history (and metaphysics and philosophy). And the reasoning and conclusions of evolution are often just as bogus as what you hear in history and archaeology.
Think SNL’s future skit on a future excavation of the Tomb of Morton Kamen, where they find an Izod shirt and conclude that people worshiped alligators. I’m sure many of our stories about ancient Egypt are just as silly — and we’re not even talking about stories concocted from teeth that are supposedly millions of years old.
My point is that it shouldn’t masquerade as real science.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Women or breasts?
I’m married, and therefore get to enjoy her and them.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM
There’s a sucker born every minute. I knew he looked awfully familar.
Shy Guy on May 19, 2009 at 2:25 PM
ROFLMAO!!! An hour, and some minutes ago, this thread was at 24 posts, when I posted. Now it’s on page four! LMAO!!!
capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Why do you assume one leads to the other?
It happened in your imagination. You can imagine that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution. But that only tells us you have a good imagination. It doesn’t tell us anything about macroevolution.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM
But you can’t do that with macroevolution, except in the most general terms. Such as: if evolution happened, the nature and array of species will not have remained constant over the history of life because species are mutable.
The fossil evidence supports this. Many fossils are those of extinct species. But how do you ‘prove’ this to people who believe that the fossils themselves were created by G-d (I guess to test our faith)?
If evolution happened, new species will arise from old.
Comparative anatomy indicates that many animal species are more similar to each other than they are to others. For example, there are many species of monkeys, but they are more similar to each other than they are to any other grouping. Monkeys are a subset of primates, a grouping which also includes apes and humans. At that level of classification, all primates share characteristics in common.
The fossil record indicates that there are extinct species, some of which don’t fit neatly into the classifications for living ones. This is consistent with the notion that new species arise from old (or existing) ones, but is not the sort of definitive proof that creationists demand.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
You know, in some ways, I like Young Earth Creationists. Usually, if I’m arguing against Chrisianity, it means I have to get into the nitty gritty about arguments in favor of the existence of God, the alleged evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and other related biblical issues. It’s interesting, but a little exhausting.
If Christianity is one hundred percent relient on a YEC interpretation of Genesis, that makes things a lot easier. I just have to show that we can count tree rings going back 12000 years, and BAM, Christianity falsified.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Evolution: an explosion created the laws of physics and chemistry, etc., and eventually the space shuttle and Jessica Alba came about somehow. No really.
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Working with geologists I have heard it all. I still have text books that do not have the tectonic theory in them.
Do I believe in the total theory of tectonic plates? No I do not… there is more then then that. Like the weather, which can’t be explained entirely, I think that is more in line with the plates. I am not saying it doesn’t exists.. as it does. I am saying there is more to it then what the geological society may believe.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I’d like to see a few thousand missing links. You know….proof and stuff like that.
jjjen on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I’m not. You are.
If a species of spider changes a little one time, a little another time (on a micro level, of course – just to make you happy). How many times before you’d think that the new spider is not the same as the original one?
That’s evolution.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Shy, the Circle is Complete.
Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
When are dogs going to evolve into cats?
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
The Bible makes no claim as to the age of the earth. So BAM, certain interpreters questionable.
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I hope you know that isn’t true, but it isn’t my point anyway.
Not at all. Microevolution is something as simple as me getting a tan, gaining weight or going hormonal.
My ability to do that is not at all proof that I, or my decendents, can turn into a Dr. Manhattan one day.
If fact, we can’t even prove or speculate about what the next stage in evolution might be. With all of the data collected, we still know so very little about evolution.
Nor should it.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
There you go aqain shouting in the hurricane.
Please notice no one took me up on my challenge either.
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The punishment for Adam’s fall was “spiritual death” which is separation from God. No unclean thing can abide his presence. The Atonement of Jesus Christ offers redemption from spiritual death and the opportunity to regain the presence of the Father through repentance.
Physical death is overcome through the resurrection and applies to those who died before as well as after Christ. And is given as a free gift to all.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Yes, but some pieces of evidence are more important than others. Currently, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution has no evidence. None. All the supposed proof has been proven fraudulent over the years. A fossil that shows clear transition between two species, while not able to conclusively prove on it’s own, may give powerful testimony to the theory. My problem with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is that there is absolutely no evidence and requires as much if not more faith than the idea of design by an intelligent creator. Anything that requires faith rather than evidence is a religion not a science. [read, Atheism] So some shred of proof might move Darwinism closer to science. And anything that brings greater knowledge and truth is a good thing. Too bad this fossil is more than likely a fraud. Better luck next time.
chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Theories don’t grow up to be laws.
Pablo Honey on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
This is not so much science as a lot of guesswork and hopeful believing by people who are anxious to find support for macro-evolutionary theory.
Phil Byler on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
That would ROCK! Fluffy is a slobbering love muffin who can fend for themselves!
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” – Stephen J. Gould – “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
The top Evolutionist around admits to inference or the word I use is extrapolation.
seven on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I love this stuff! Christianity around for 2000 years and poof! Some guy heaves his flesh in front of a sparkly monitor and beats out ‘bam! Christianity falsified!’ with his paws.
Good stuff!
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I guess what bothers me about that statement is the same thing that bothers me about watching a nature program and the guy says “This has never before been seen in the wild.” To which he means that we have so totally captured the essence of the creature we know all about it.
Baloney. What we should truly say is – in our organizing the universe to assist in our understanding – we make crap fit because it is easier. When something does not “classify” it must be unusual or “has never been seen before in the wild”. 200 years of taxonomy and we are still not much better than Aristotle and his ideas of spontaneous creation of flies and eels.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM
A survey?..You mean a poll?
Is that science?
Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
There is a difference in christian theology between man and animal. Thus Adam and eve could have been the first REASONING humans. A dog is sinless in the spiritual sense. Even if that doesn’t excuse the wet spot on the carpet.
Only man can sin.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I prefer to think that god is a narcissist and made us in his image.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
The narcissist in me wants to agree with you but of course I am too cool to follow another.
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
hmmm…
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »