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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 4 5 6 7 8

As an Agnostic I have to say that I sought out these articles with initial excitement but got to the end of every article with the same reaction. “What the hell does this prove?”

It proves nothing except that apparently the media will always give unchecked credibility to a couple of nut ball scientists when it suits their agenda. Very disappointing.

watson007 on May 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM

I bet God planted it in the rock there as a test of faith. Probably why he used 96% of Adam’s DNA to make chimpanzees too. He’s a sneaky one, always trying to trick us that guy.

Woody on May 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM

If so however, it is the only metaphorical use of the Hebrew “yom” (day) in the Bible, other than reference to “Abraham’s day”which is still a relatively brief timeframe.

Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Technically that is how it was defined: light and darkness = one day. Unless you live in Iceland (or whatever the place is with several days without a sunset), that’s how you still define a day.

So far no other species has been able to formulate an argument as to why I shouldn’t discriminate against its members on the basis of their rights, though if one were to emerge I’ll freely admit I probably wouldn’t eat it.

Blacklake on May 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Some humans can’t do that either, and yet that’s not how we made our laws. We didn’t just base them on sentient beings who can communicate why you shouldn’t eat them.

I like how you put “probably” there though.

After he gets thrashed, he has a strange habit of accusing his opponent of being the chld of Satan and always makes the claim that you think that you are “a legend in your own mind.”

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Which is really half the fun anyway, cause it takes so little to get in his cross hairs that way.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM

An incredible fossil, absolutely world class.

Dr. Manhattan on May 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM

If you experience a homo erectus lasting more than four hours this could be indicative of a dangerous medical condition.

Please see your doctor.

Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM

I’m thinking you probably stepped into the wrong bar.

44Magnum on May 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM

It looks like Nancy Pelosi “gesturing” awkwardly the way she does!

The only “missing link” here is the “missing link” of rational, truly scientific thinking — same genuius’ who found a Martian bacteria in the Antarctic found this!

It’s a fossil of some weird “jack russell terrier — chimpanze” mix!

rebuzz on May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Either creationists or evolutionist have spend a lot of time and energy promoting complete and utter nonsense, but do you think either side could ever man up and admit that?

frankj on May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

A survey?..You mean a poll?

Is that science?

Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Yes. It utlizies statistics and sociology.

If you want an idea of how accurate polling can be, just take a look a the lead up to our last election. I thik the pollsters were off by under %0.5

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Aw yes, but polls are also used to drive public opinion.

Therefore what can we learn from the comparison of evolution and opinion polling?

Driving public opinion much? Political motives? The same is true for creationism I assume. (I don’t know what creationism is exactly… not too interested either.)

petunia on May 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Oh, don’t mind right4life. He always posts the same handful of links whenever evolution comes up. He probably didn’t even read your initial post. I wouldn’t reccomened gettin into a discussion with him though. After he gets thrashed, he has a strange habit of accusing his opponent of being the chld of Satan and always makes the claim that you think that you are “a legend in your own mind.”

It’s actually pretty predictable and tiring.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM

yeah and you think you ‘refute’ them..too funny…

thrashed?? again laughable…your idea of ‘thrashing’ is saying ‘uh it evolved because evolution is true’ duhhhhhhh and yes you do think you’re a legend in your own mind..

and no I never accused you, or anyone of being a ‘child of satan’ he wouldn’t want you..he only wanted skilled, intelligent accomplished people.

but keep lying, its all ya got…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM

An incredible fossil, absolutely world class.

Dr. Manhattan on May 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Indeed it is. If you’re just joining the thread, the only important unresolved question at this point is whether it looks more like Nancy Pelosi or a T. Rex hatchling.

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

The same is true for creationism I assume. (I don’t know what creationism is exactly… not too interested either.)

petunia on May 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM

It’s really just what it sounds like, that the world, and everything in it, was created by the Creator.

The rest is theology.

but do you think either side could ever man up and admit that?

frankj on May 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Never. Only one is steeped in religion, but the other would just be too much for an educated person to admit. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen eventually, just likely not in our lifetime.

Even then, more definitive proof would be needed, for either side.

Truth is though, this argument seems to have few consequences. It has long made me wonder why people care so much. You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, and it’s unlikely that Christians will prove he does. I’m not saying science shouldn’t go there but just that it’s rarely worth the passionate arguments you see here.

Normally sweet posters throwing out insults… and for what?

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM

LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM

You know, I am no geneticist. My interest is geology in general-structural & mineralogy.
But I have taken a huge interest in chromosomal research since becoming an amateur genealogist.
Honestly, this point you make could be plausible.
But pattern in nature in the macro & micro worlds are so often parallel that I tend to think in this direction for the most part in all scientific reasonings I ponder.
The very fact that so many genes work in other organisms to me is a powerful piece of evidence pointing toward all living things being related eventually.
All mutations can be harmful & few are beneficial.
But some mutations that may seem harmful at 1st may eventually be found to be beneficial to a species’ survival.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/12/1441.full
There is so much we don’t know about genetics.
But my understandings of general patterns & observations of the natural world I’ve gleaned so far is that the macro often, if not most all of the time, mirrors the micro.
I expect someday the odds are in favor of us being able to provides mounds of evidence for this in the realm of human/animal genetics.

Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

But there are examples of transitional groupings at higher orders – e.g. the hominids I mentioned above. Humans are the only living hominid species

really….

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
An example of another living hominid is ….?

ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM

sigh…if you would have read what I posted you would know that I was referring to the But there are examples of transitional groupings at higher orders

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

If you’re just joining the thread, the only important unresolved question at this point is whether it looks more like Nancy Pelosi or a T. Rex hatchling.

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

I think we’re running into a problem. Few can tell the difference.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

So? Didn’t they say the same thing about Java man and Piltdown man?

Ryan Gandy on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

‘uh it evolved because evolution is true’

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Why exactly do you use the same phrases over an over again? Do you have Asperger’s or something?

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM

That looks more like confirmation that the lizard people exist to me.

Darth Executor on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Why exactly do you use the same phrases over an over again? Do you have Asperger’s or something?

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM

because you darwiniacs have no answer for them…you post some just-so story, like about the evolution of the eye, or jsut dismiss it because you don’t know the answer…so you say its not important..you take evolution on faith.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM

wow 3 whole times!!! I use phrases like ‘hello’ ‘how are you’ much more than that!!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Get a clue Allah. This fossil doesn’t fill in a missing link. It only adds to the debate of whether humans evolved from Lemurs or Adapida.

To quote from Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley, “Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed. The debate will persist.”

All of the flag waving about how this is a missing link that proves Darwinism simply show how utterly dishonest the reporting on evolution is in the media. Kinda like global warming only worse.

dKap on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

because you darwiniacs have no answer for them…you post some just-so story, like about the evolution of the eye, or jsut dismiss it because you don’t know the answer…so you say its not important..you take evolution on faith.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Right4life, don’t ever change. :-)

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Well since it is an ancestor of the Lemur it would have to be closely related to Princess Peloski! Lemurs are a female dominant society just like the Hyenas. So the missing link was a cross bred lemur with a hyena and waa laa….Princess Peloski! It really makes senses, thanks Darwin and Attenborough!

sargentj on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

lemurs…

The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs…

Great Allah now when ever I think of you, I am going to be picturing THIS.

Dr Evil on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Right4life, don’t ever change. :-)

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

you mean I won’t evolve???

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

oh just out of curiousity were you going to apologize for lying about me??? you know that whole ‘child of satan’ bs??

or go try google again!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:03 PM

I believe in the eyeball test. If you plant a pear tree it yields pears, not pineapples. If you plant rice seeds grains of rice eventually appear not potatoes. And if two monkeys have sex, a baby monkey becomes the result of their union. In documented history has there been one instance where some living thing over time has been transformed into something completely different? I know I am a simpleton, but I can’t think of one.

technopeasant on May 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM

you mean I won’t evolve???

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM

You? No! And since you’re not a transitional type you’ll also be excluded from the fossil record ;)

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Look again at the picture, folks; that is clearly a fossil of a baby ‘predator’ a la the 1987 Schwarzenegger movie of the same name. Which means, if the fossil could vote, it would register as a Republican, but then vote and act like a stupid Democrat every chance it could…

CaptFlood on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

And if two monkeys have sex, a baby monkey becomes the result of their union.

technopeasant on May 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Furthermore, when we have made new animals, like the mule, though it has many evolutionary advantages over a donkey or a horse, it cannot reproduce.

I’ve long wondered about that.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

oh just out of curiousity were you going to apologize for lying about me??? you know that whole ‘child of satan’ bs??

Here you go. A comment from just last week.

yep you are of your father, the devil.

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I believe in the eyeball test. If you plant a pear tree it yields pears, not pineapples. If you plant rice seeds grains of rice eventually appear not potatoes. And if two monkeys have sex, a baby monkey becomes the result of their union. In documented history has there been one instance where some living thing over time has been transformed into something completely different? I know I am a simpleton, but I can’t think of one.

Look up the history of the sweet banana.

Pablo Honey on May 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM

technopeasant on May 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Does the last part of your handle really belie your scientific education?
No offense-but gadzooks that was kind of some ignorant diatribe.
But don’t worry-my rancher husband is always arguing the same thing with me:
If you can’t touch or see it-then it ain’t happening.
His circular logic, which for the most part is mostly in jest, really gets up my dander sometimes! LOL!

Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

You? No! And since you’re not a transitional type you’ll also be excluded from the fossil record ;)

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I sure hope I’ll be excluded from the fossil record (rapture) ;-)

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

@ right4life on May 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I explained the evolution of the eye to you. Its probably one of the most easily traceable evolutionary things.

thphilli on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

44Magnum on May 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Good one, still laughing

aceinstall on May 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

that guy…definately…he was spooky….I thought you were referring to my calling you that…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM

I explained the evolution of the eye to you. Its probably one of the most easily traceable evolutionary things.

thphilli on May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

do you mean the whole ‘light sensitive cells became eyes’ story???

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

and if you are fine with cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains, yes you are a child of satan.

pure evil

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

you do seem VERY interesting in what I say…why is that??

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM

interesting

interested…sorry..

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM

I tell you, the stuff here is what politics are made of.
I am signing off.
TexasJew-you are so quiet, being probably one of the reigning experts in this opinion!
I love it!

Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM

and for what?

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Not a bleeping thing.
Which is why I think the Republican party suffers so much.
This $hit is not worth worrying about, politically.
We need to just get the basic stuff in common:
LIMITED GOVT.
OK-NOW I’m gone!

Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM

and if you are fine with cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains, yes you are a child of satan.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Fine, then it doesnt really make sense for you to accuse me of lying when I point out tht you call people satan’s chilren.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Fine, then it doesnt really make sense for you to accuse me of lying when I point out tht you call people satan’s chilren.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM

as I said I thought you were referring to my calling you that…so yes I thought you were lying…do you support that form of abortion??

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Would it? That abortion clip I posted yesterday began with the pastor saying that man, alone among all creatures in the universe, was created in God’s image. If evolution is a fact — and if it’s still continuing — how do we know what God’s image is? I read a story last year about how humans, in a few thousands years’ time, will look very different than they do. Do we look like God now or will we look like God then?

Allahpundit on May 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM

When dogs, pigs or chimps start reasoning and practicing free will the way man does, than I’ll start wondering what is so special about being made in Gods “image”.

Daemonocracy on May 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

If you’re just joining the thread, the only important unresolved question at this point is whether it looks more like Nancy Pelosi or a T. Rex hatchling.

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I think we’re running into a problem. Few can tell the difference.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM

I think that is a good sign for Republicans gaining seats in 2010… now it depends on if you are in the lemur camp or the chimp camp whether that is a good thing…

petunia on May 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Allahpundit on May 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM

By the time that question is valid all living today will have all those questions answered. We will know the face of God for ourselves. Trust me I know these things…

petunia on May 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Oh, and genetic testing has proven that classifying species based on similarities in bone structure is horribly archaic, foolish, and inaccurate. The hippopotamus is the perfect example.

chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM

lets look at this again…

After he gets thrashed, he has a strange habit of accusing his opponent of being the chld of Satan and always makes the claim that you think that you are “a legend in your own mind.”

It’s actually pretty predictable and tiring.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM

first your ‘thrashed’ is delusional..but you imply that I say that about anyone who disagrees with me…so yes you are a liar. no surprise there..

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM

so again, have you evolved enough manners to apologize for such an obvious lie?

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Why did God plant this 6000 years ago? Why is he trying to fool us into believing evolution? Mysterious ways indeed.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM

so again, have you evolved enough manners to apologize for such an obvious lie?

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM

No, I said, you have a “habit” of doing it, which means you have done it more than once. Do you want to claim that this is the ONLY time you have ever accused anyone of being a child of Satan (which I can demonstrate is false) or do you want to retract your accusation?

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM

This fossil only adds to the argument that primates evolved from lemurs instead of tarsiers. But it doesn’t settle the issue. And it doesn’t make evolution itself any more or less likely.

Anybody that touts this discovery as some kind of victory for Darwinism clearly doesn’t understand evolution.

dKap on May 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM

As an Agnostic I have to say that I sought out these articles with initial excitement but got to the end of every article with the same reaction. “What the hell does this prove?”

It proves nothing except that apparently the media will always give unchecked credibility to a couple of nut ball scientists when it suits their agenda. Very disappointing.

Thank you for your honesty–it’s refreshing.
AP, where are the millions of other missing links?

jgapinoy on May 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Why did God plant this 6000 years ago? Why is he trying to fool us into believing evolution? Mysterious ways indeed.

Clearly not with this fossil since it doesn’t demonstrate evidence of evolution in any way.

dKap on May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM

dKap on May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM

.
Except that that is the entire gist of the article and what what makes the discovery so important but hey just go to your prayer closet, place your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and rock back and forth saying “No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no”

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM

No, I said, you have a “habit” of doing it, which means you have done it more than once. Do you want to claim that this is the ONLY time you have ever accused anyone of being a child of Satan (which I can demonstrate is false) or do you want to retract your accusation?

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM

have I ever accused YOU of being a child of satan?? no…so I don’t have a ‘habit’…go ahead post what you have…do you keep an archive of my sayings? do you dream about me at night? you’re still a liar, in addition to being creepy and weird…

you sound like some kind of cyberstalker…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Clearly not with this fossil since it doesn’t demonstrate evidence of evolution in any way.

dKap on May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM

This brick hitting me on the head doesn’t demonstrate evidence of General Realativity in any way. God threw it.

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

It is just another failed extinct life form that wasn’t able to adapt to climate change. Why liberals are so afraid of global warming, they are not able to adapt to changing environments. They’re afraid of global cooling too.

Hummmm, Liberals must have evolved from chickens, Chicken Little to be more accurate. The sky is always falling.

PrettyD_Vicious on May 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM

This is simply untrue. There are numerous species of early hominids or ‘proto-hominids’, some of which were identified more than half a century ago and which no one thinks are ‘fraudulent’. Australopithecines are a good example. ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM

And what exactly is Australopithecines proof of exactly… That there was a species we call Australopithecines? These proto-hominids look like us so they must have been an ancestor to our species right? And thus the monkeys created us in their image, yea so spaketh Darwin. Linking ancient apes to man is a leap that requires evidence, not ancient apes. Otherwise it is a leap of faith.

And such a fossil is almost certainly never going to be found, because species are internally variable and because the process of speciation – the formation of new species – is usually very slow.

Or not real. You state there is no evidence of your belief, never will be, but then demand we all bow down before the almighty science of Darwinistic Evolution? Do you realize how unscientific that is? Scientific theories, while unprovable because they require conditions we cannot create, still require evidence to support them. People claim Bigfoot exists. There isn’t any evidence, just believe us. We don;t need actual, verifiable evidence on our side. Concensus reached, science settled. Oh wait, we found a bigfoot print! Now its proven. Consensus reached, science settled. How terribly close-minded.

But there are examples of transitional groupings at higher orders – e.g. the hominids I mentioned above. Humans are the only living hominid species, but hominids are a subset of primates. The earlier hominids as a group are considered to be transitional, if you will, between ancestral apes and the earliest humans. But that is not the same thing as saying that all (or even any of those currently known) are thought to be our direct ancestors.

So you claim man descended from apes and then point to the apes as proof? Not sure what logic you’re following here. Again, all of this by your own admission is completely unprovable because of the time involved and the complete lack of evidence. So to believe this one must take a leap of faith. As I posted above, fools digging up bones and deciding things must be related and evolved from one another by skeletons is flat out wrong and dangerous. It’s shoddy guesswork. The hippo is a perfect example. Everyone thought it was related to this or that. The bones look like these bones. Oh wait, DNA shows it’s closest relation is the camel.

And this whole conversation skips over the problem of irreducible complexity. How do you get where we are through random changes if those building blocks would not only be meaningless but hindrances which would have killed off those species. And anything even remotely resembling humans popping out of an ape would have been killed by the stronger, faster and vastly superior in the given environment apes. Man and his mythical ancestors would have been bludgeoned to death and eaten by any chimp that birthed it.

So no proof and illogical. Yet the belief remains… Hardly a science.

chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM

In other words you can’t trust what you see with your own eyes and thus trust your own rationality but you can be supremely confident that something is manifesting itself over time that nobody can prove with certainly but conjecture it must be true or accurate because some academic or elitist says it is.

Isn’t this type of reasoning the main reason America finds itself burdened with the Presidency of Obama and losing its freedoms and its traditional way of life under free markets and capitalism.

technopeasant on May 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

.
Heretic!

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Notice that evolutionist never, ever, ever if THINK that maybe, just maybe, such and such a “discovery” is actually deformed animal? What, back then nothing was born with a deformity? Also, um, could had just been another species? Why is it that something MUST HAVE come from something else?

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM

chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Really “Irreducible Complexity” has been addressed long ago. It is a myth.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM

So no proof and illogical. Yet the belief remains… Hardly a science.

chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM

For your edification: the philosophy of modern science.

hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM

.
We’d love to see your evidence that this is a “Deformed Animal” and not a juvenile of the species.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Kinda looks like my youngest, but I’m still not buying it.

jimmy2shoes on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

have I ever accused YOU of being a child of satan?? no…so I don’t have a ‘habit’

You know, I’m not sure, but since I’m not sure I DIDN’T ACCUSE YOU OF CALLING ME a CHILD of SATAN. Go ahead, post where I said that, YOU LIAR. I only claimed that you accused your “opponents” of doing this, which is one hundred percent true.

You lose. AGAIN.

Jesus, it’s getting a little boring smacking you around. I’m done with you.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

We’d love to see your evidence that this is a “Deformed Animal” and not a juvenile of the species.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Where’s your evidence that is most deffinantly evolved from something else? If you found more then one fossil of the same creature then you may have found something. Until then…

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

.
Occam’s Razor.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:01 PM

I think I saw ole Egaster at the coffee shop this morning.

What I want to know is, how many million years ago did the first woman stomp her heel on the ground, put her hands on her hips and glare, at a man.

And, its really not true that the only reason man ever stood upright was to reach beer on the top shelf, its really not.

Speakup on May 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Which is why I think the Republican party suffers so much.

Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Very likely.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

.
The evidence is 150 years of discovery that all support Evolution and the predictions that have been fulfilled by them as well as the Natural Sciences that have sprung from it such as Modern Biology and Genetics. Evolution has survived 150 years of falsification attempts. What do you have?

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Occam’s Razor.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Occam’s Razor would lead to the assumption that it’s just what it is – a fossil of an animal. There’s no reason to add to that information the assumption that it is the product of evolution or led to another product of evolution.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Evolution has survived 150 years of falsification attempts. What do you have?

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Creation has survived at least 6,000 years of falsification attempts.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM

You lose.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM

And that’s just one…

Get thee behind me Satan…

right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM

On September 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm, right4life said:

I recall a Biblical passage about a plank in one’s eye…

I recall a bible passage where Satan quotes scripture…..

instead of a symbol, a MARK is needed to identify the obaMahdi’s supporters…

right4life on August 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM

again you prove yourself to be a liar. your ‘father’ would be proud…

right4life on December 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM

–That one was directed at me and certainly wasn’t the only time he reference my “father”.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

right4life on November 2, 2008 at 9:14 AM

–the latest…

and if you are fine with cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains, yes you are a child of satan.

pure evil

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 4:15 PM

And those certainly are not all. More often than not, he uses the your ‘father’ references, or just resorts to calling other posters, like Madison, pure evil.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Hardly call that survial

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Creation has survived at least 6,000 years of falsification attempts.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Which creation?

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM

or falsification attempts

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM

unless you can show me peer reviewed articles in accepted journals even discussing new earth creationism. That is the Scientific standard. Anything else is faith. Which is fine but not science.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Which creation?

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM

I was referring to Biblical creation.

Which evolution? Punctuated equilibria (punk eek)? Phyletic gradualism? Lamarckism?

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM

For your edification: the philosophy of modern science.

hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I’ll take Duhem and Quine.

daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM

I was referring to Biblical creation.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Of course. Because physical evidence makes it so much more persuasive than the other thousands of variants.

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM

So that’s one more point for “stretch” evidence for evolution vs. a countless many evidences against.

Grafted on May 19, 2009 at 5:41 PM

resorts to calling other posters, like Madison, pure evil.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM

wow…you really are obsessed with me…wacko…

keep dreaming honey…I like em under 300 lbs..

and if you put those in context, I have no doubt the accusation was justified…

just like calling you a sick obsessed wacko is OBVIOUSLY justified…

get a life you sick wacko…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM

and yes, anyone who has no problem with that form of partial birth abortion is EVIL AS HELL…

let me guess…you’re one of those…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 5:50 PM

You know, I’m not sure, but since I’m not sure I DIDN’T ACCUSE YOU OF CALLING ME a CHILD of SATAN. Go ahead, post where I said that, YOU LIAR. I only claimed that you accused your “opponents” of doing this, which is one hundred percent true.

You lose. AGAIN.

Jesus, it’s getting a little boring smacking you around. I’m done with you.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM

so in other words you’r a liar…no surprise…and the people that I have accused of that RICHLY DESERVE IT.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Yee Gads! Its a portrait of Barabra Boxer! AHHHHHHHHH!

jbh45 on May 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM

And those certainly are not all. More often than not, he uses the your ‘father’ references, or just resorts to calling other posters, like Madison, pure evil.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM

oh and moron…the following had nothing to do with calling anyone a child of satan…

instead of a symbol, a MARK is needed to identify the obaMahdi’s supporters…

right4life on August 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM

duhhhhhhhhh you are a stupid piece of trash…try reading in context sometimes…idiot.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM

oh and I do find it interesting that some people make these threads ALL ABOUT ME…

creepy…

thank God for concealed carry….

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM

oh and this one…

I recall a Biblical passage about a plank in one’s eye…
I recall a bible passage where Satan quotes scripture…..

was not calling him a ‘son of satan’ it was dismissing what he said about me….

again esthier..reading is fundamental dearie…duhhhhhhh

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM

like Madison, pure evil.

Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM

oh and yeah he is. he got over me…why don’t you?

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM

So that’s one more point for “stretch” evidence for evolution vs. a countless many evidences against.

Grafted on May 19, 2009 at 5:41 PM

.
Name one

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Jesus Christ

DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Occam’s Razor would lead to the assumption that it’s just what it is – a fossil of an animal. There’s no reason to add to that information the assumption that it is the product of evolution or led to another product of evolution.

Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Sure, if all you see is “a fossil of an animal”, but that’s not the case. What we see here is a fossil of an animal with many distinct genetic traits shared by modern humans.

Woody on May 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM

From the story:

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution…

We’ve heard this before. *cough* Orthoraptor. *cough* Piltdown man. Excuse me…

No scientist worth a crap made the above statement. “Confirm” is a very high level of demanding proof, and at best this fossil provides “supporting evidence”.

Yet, I cite two problems: 1) Lineage is assumed, which is a big assumption. Could be a deformity. 2) Even if lineage is assume, this does not get past Darwin’s claim that a so-called random process could have a relatively distinct starting and ending time.

ynot4tony2 on May 19, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Woody on May 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM

.
Not to mention the context within the fossil record.

ronsfi on May 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM

This is huge! Now we finally have proof that Bill Maher’s god is an old dead dude with a long white beard.

RandyChandler on May 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM

What we see here is a fossil of an animal with many distinct genetic traits shared by modern humans.

Woody on May 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM

This is what I see as well.

But to some, a literal interpretation of the Bible is a central part of their faith. As near as I can tell, this frequently requires the denial of scientific facts, logic and reason. Yet, why do we have such functions if we are not to use them?

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 6:17 PM

iurockhead on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I really hope Cal King doesn’t lurk here!

Al in St. Lou on May 19, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8