Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on May 20, 2009 by Allahpundit

RUSH: Drudge had as a lead item up there this morning on his page a story from the UK, Sky News: “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution.” It’s all about how Darwin would be thrilled to be alive today. “Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” It’s a one-foot, nine-inch-tall monkey, and it’s a lemur monkey described as the eighth wonder of the world. “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was presented to the world today –” So I guess this is settled science. We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.

***
“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.”

The Ida team points to the fact that some of the fossil’s teeth, toe and ankle bones resemble anthropoids more than modern lemurs. But other researchers point out that primitive lemurs, as opposed to modern lemurs, also share many of these features.

“They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. “And they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This whole missing link thing has come up before and was proven to be a fraud.

boomer on May 21, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Oh by the way that site has some other articles reguarding “Lucy”. Just do a search for “Lucy”.

boomer on May 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM

It is possible though I always thought that reason Atheists so hated Church was due to all the unpleasant business during preceding era.

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Hint… it’s not the church they hate.

If there is a God, then his Word matters and there are Laws with consequences… everyone will be judged… no longer can they put themselves and their desires first… so they rebel against Him, his Word, his Laws… and refuse to believe, or even to look for his existence.

Like the Bugblatter Beast of Traal (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), they believe that if they can’t see him then he doesn’t exist. So if they cover their eyes…

dominigan on May 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Why is everyone complaining? This is the greatest discovery since the Piltdown Man!

rihar on May 21, 2009 at 8:32 AM

It is possible though I always thought that reason Atheists so hated Church was due to all the unpleasant business during preceding era.

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM

LOL!

Why of course! At least that’s how they tell their “stories” when they are trying to rally people to their various destructive causes.
.
Let’s take on one of their biggest bugaboos, the Spanish Inquisition.
.
Modern historical research finds at around 125,000 people were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition. Around 1% to 2% percent of those were condemned and subsequently executed by the Spanish State. You can do the math but keep in mind that the Spanish Inquisition operated over three and a half centuries on five continents. This is an extraordinarily low capital punishment rate for the time, and for a serious crime that was the equivalent of treason. The Spanish Inquisition rarely used torture when torture was a routine criminal investigative tool in Europe. Comparative conditions in Spanish Inquisition jails so so good that prisoners in secular prisons sought transfer to Inquisition jurisdiction. Defendants before the Spanish Inquisition were granted the most liberal legal protections in any court in Europe at the time. The Spanish Inquisition shut down the witch hunting “Burning Times” in Spain with the innovative Edict of Silence. Local secular courts elsewhere in Europe burned and otherwise executed around 97% of those accused of witch craft …
.
Compare this to the death toll and human rights horrors at the emergence of the rationalist French Enlightenment secular state … known as the Reign of Terror …
.

As this short illustration shows militant atheists can be rather … errrr … selective and … errrr… imaginative … about what constituted “unpleasant business during preceding era”. ;-)

Mike OMalley on May 21, 2009 at 8:32 AM

dominigan on May 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Well, since I am condemned for hell anyway I will be the last one to chastise Atheists for that :-)

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 8:34 AM

“Settled science” is only settled until better evidence and technology comes along, that being said if you are going to push settled science aside you better have damn good evidence.

petertheslow

Settled by whom? Getting scientists (flawed humans with their own agendas) to agree is like herding cats. Highly questionable science, like AGW, are touted as “settled” by morons with a financial stake in the argument (sound like anybody you know, Al?).
Every advancement in science only deepens my reverence for the creator of all things. Remember, the architect of the universe did not build a stairway leading nowhere. (Can’t recall whose quote that is, sorry)

SKYFOX on May 21, 2009 at 8:34 AM

I’m not surprised that modern Darwinist science is basically propaganda.

I mean, why waste time on peer-review and evidence if you can just skip to the part where it becomes accepted as merely fact?

bluelightbrigade on May 21, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Mike OMalley on May 21, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Well I think is plenty of blame to go all around. Though I am a heathen, sometimes I do find the idea of fallen man an appropriate metaphor philosophically.

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 8:41 AM

trailboss on May 21, 2009 at 3:43 AM

Holy cow, am I mistaken or have you been absent for a while? I haven’t read them all but interesting posts.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Hat tip to AllahP for even creating this thread
An evoultionist and Atheist who can at least post up a little critque of said theory.
Some Ha commenters in the other thread on this subject are basically cult members. Any criticism of evoultion is heresy.People should remember you can still be an atheist and question evoultion.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Mormon Doc on May 21, 2009 at 3:55 AM
Good one Doc, thanks for starting my day with a laugh.
If god is a computer it’s a mac, (a brilliant piece of work not everyone can connect to) And for the record the fossil looks like a squirrel to me.

aceinstall on May 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM

“And they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.”

Because matters of blind faith need not cite anything.

mankai on May 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM

People should remember you can still be an atheist and question evoultion.
kangjie

Really? Care to elaborate? How does an atheist who does not believe in evolution explain the existence of life? Not a criticism just wanted to know.

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM

The belief that man evolved from monkeys is the exercise of the psychologically damaged mind.

csdeven on May 21, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Really? Care to elaborate? How does an atheist who does not believe in evolution explain the existence of life? Not a criticism just wanted to know.

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Richard Dawkins(in Ben Steins film) entertained the idea that there is a higher life form on another planet that could have ‘seeded’ life on this planet many years ago.
The UFO theory I guess.
He is talking about the very very beginiing i.e the first living thing

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 9:19 AM

The problem here is that people will hear it and believe it and never look back then the history books will push it and in 5-10 years it is the truth and that is it.

Tremmy on May 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM

“He is talking about the very very beginiing i.e the first living thing”
Kangjie

I see…

I guess the next obvious question is how did the life get on the other planet from which the life came? Did it evolve?

BTW – how do you get the indents for quoting other posters? Cannot figure out how to do it?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM

dominigan on May 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM

This is indeed the true crux of the matter. With the exception of the supremely deluded “true science!!!” crowd (of which there are some), the ultimate issue is rejection of a higher standard. Get rid of God, and you get rid of those pesky little things like the 10 Commandments, keeping one’s pants zipped until marriage, convenience abortion on demand…

Dark-Star on May 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM

[T]he fossil was hailed as humanity’s missing evolutionary link before the technical details of the find were published. This strategy effectively prevented the scientific community from evaluating the data and possibly calling a halt to the campaign on account of the fact that Ida has no transitional features and is therefore irrelevant to the evolutionary hypothesis of human development. Paleontologists are speaking out, but their voices are thus far being drowned out by the hype. Richard Kay from Duke University told Science that “the data is cherry-picked.”

Ida, though an amazingly well-preserved fossil, will prove to be another Lucy, Java Man, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Pakicetus, and Eosimias. It will undoubtedly join the growing collection of fossils that were once thought to be missing links, but that upon further study turned out to be extinct creatures with no transitional features.

mankai on May 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM

BTW – how do you get the indents for quoting other posters? Cannot figure out how to do it?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Hit the “quote” button, then pate the quote, then hit the “quote” button again.

bluelightbrigade on May 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM

*pate = paste

bluelightbrigade on May 21, 2009 at 9:53 AM

The missing link that is important, is the one link between objective scientists, and subjective scientists.
Somehow that “missing link” has some abhorrent social DNA in it, and has infected many scientists who feel their “findings” have to include some sociological impact…rather then just plain simple scientific proof.

right2bright on May 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Hit the “quote” button, then pate the quote, then hit the “quote” button again.

bluelightbrigade on May 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Or, paste, then “highlight” and hit the quote button. Whatever is highlighted will be “blockquote”.

right2bright on May 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Does anyone know how to empahsize or bold? Cannot figure out how to do it?

Geochelone on May 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Does anyone know how to empahsize or bold? Cannot figure out how to do it?

If that was a sarcastic remark the reason I could not do the quotes is because my computer at work filters out the pics so I cannot see the buttons that you need to do the quotes.

Does any know how to spell empahsize or use the built in spell checker?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

I see…

I guess the next obvious question is how did the life get on the other planet from which the life came? Did it evolve?

BTW – how do you get the indents for quoting other posters? Cannot figure out how to do it?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Good question and it is almost the chicken or egg arguement.
If we ever get a chance to talk to these higher lifer forms we could ask them.
I am not an atheist btw I was just speculating that there could be atheist who at least can question there (religion) of macro-evo and still be in the faith so to speak.
Maybe I’m wrong
When I have questioned the existence of god in the past I would lean more toward the existence of life on another planet as making more sense than macro-evo.
Following macr-evo to its conclusion means modern man could evolve into four legged horse looking creature with wings in millions years. Sounds way more out there than the UFO theory.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

You know this is the most straight forward I have heard evolutionist be in public.

I hope this means that the debates can actually be about science and not religion.

Because I remember actually thinking those were interesting classes on evolution. I don’t remember a thing from them really, and I’m sure it’s all changed by now, but I don’t like science and religion to be at war.

petunia on May 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM

I agree with your post 100 percent. It is time for atheist to take there own advice and let science be science without corrupting it for bigoted reasons.
Some of these guys simply use evoultion as a club to beat people with.Any questioning of it is heresy. You see that same sort of elitism right here by some HA commenters.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Does anyone know how to empahsize or bold? Cannot figure out how to do it?

If that was a sarcastic remark the reason I could not do the quotes is because my computer at work filters out the pics so I cannot see the buttons that you need to do the quotes.

Does any know how to spell empahsize or use the built in spell checker?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Here on HA, to quote someone by typing the needed entry, you would copy the person’s post and in the reply box, start out with the symbol. Paste the post you wish quoted, and then once again, the symbol.

Like this only without the periods. Pasted post of who you whsh to quote here

Give that a try, and remember to take out the “.” periods.

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Holy cow, am I mistaken or have you been absent for a while? I haven’t read them all but interesting posts.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2009 at 8:43 AM

AWOL as charged. Thanks for remembering.

trailboss on May 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM

DAMn, the less than and greaqter than symbols didn’t come out. The less than and greater than keys are the (Shift) “,” and (Shift) “.” keys. use the slash just prior to the second “blockquote” term you put in the lessthan/greater than brackets.

Using brackets instead of the lessthan/greater than.

[blockquote] Paste quote here [/blockquote]

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Same way using Emphasis and Bolding.

[em] word you want emphasised [/em]

[strong] word you want bolded [/strong]

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 12:04 PM

this is a test of typing the symbols instead of using the radio buttons

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Yep, that worked.

44Magnum on May 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM

i cant for the life of me understand why it was billed as such.

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Really? Look, I’m not even going to argue the merits, but evolution is often treated the same way as Global Warming, with people turning it into a political issue rather than a scientific one, and I’m not just talking about those who oppose it.

The supporters often trumpet any small success but ignore the failures and scandals. In doing so, making it about religion (or rather the lack thereof) and not about simple, hard science.

Creationists may be 100% wrong, but it’s not as though they get a bad feeling about evolution from nowhere. What happened in this case is what’s been happening with the theory for quite some time.

Esthier on May 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

trailboss on May 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Welcome back. Good to “see” you.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM

[blockquote]How is this 44Magnum?[/blockquote]

Thanks for the help!

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM

hope this works

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Really? Look, I’m not even going to argue the merits, but evolution is often treated the same way as Global Warming, with people turning it into a political issue rather than a scientific one, and I’m not just talking about those who oppose it.

This is certainly fair. Any theory that has to deal with origins has to be politically charged. You can point to atheists (like PZ Myers and Dawkins) who insist that evolution rules out the existence of any kind of God with the same ferver of any young Earth Creationist.

The supporters often trumpet any small success but ignore the failures and scandals.

You can’t really fault people for using “successes” to argue for their viewpoint. If by failures, you mean incorrect assumptions about the history of life (like the early 20th century belief that Homo Sapeins were descended from neanderthals), well, that’s just part of science.

And the “Scandals” you reference are usually no such thing. Things like “nebraska man” or “Archeoraptor” were never published in any peer reviewed journal nor accepted by the scientific community. They were instead hyped by the media. (And before you start, it’s not really fair to compare the current hype to thoe situations, because this fossil finding WAS published in a peer reviewed journal.)

Creationists may be 100% wrong, but it’s not as though they get a bad feeling about evolution from nowhere.

If by bad feeling you mean that evoltion is “hard to believe” or “defies common sense” I agree. But much of science defies common sense. When my six grade physics teacher told me that matter cannot be destroyed, I thought he was talking nonsense. You light a newspaper on fire, it burns up, that matter is obviously destroyed from existence, right?

Evolution isn’t obvious, and that’s the reason it is a science in the first place.

justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM

If by failures, you mean incorrect assumptions about the history of life (like the early 20th century belief that Homo Sapeins were descended from neanderthals), well, that’s just part of science.
justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I have to take issue with this.
The homo-sapeins were descended from neandertahal lie was taught as fact in the same way evoultionist argue in these countless threads. Any questioning or doubt of it was hersey or just considered stupid.
It is the moral certainty of the supporters of the theory of evooultion that is the problem. Not necessarily the scientist working on it full time. It is the way atheist have took this sceintific theory and used it to attack belief in God by mocking ridicule and elitist snobbery.
That is not a part of science supposedly. The problems is with the people who have politzed the issue and that is not creationist.
The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

High school students have to learn the scientific theories of the time. Some of those theories may later be disproved or altered.

Scientist who advance theories should and do have those theories challenged by peers.

dedalus on May 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM

The homo-sapeins were descended from neandertahal lie was taught as fact in the same way evoultionist argue in these countless threads. Any questioning or doubt of it was hersey or just considered stupid.

Well, perhaps denying common descent altogether was considered stupid. Netwonian mechanics had the mechanics of gravity on some levels wrong for about three hundred years before relativity found the problem. That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist. You don’t hear anyone saying “People were called STUPID for denying classical mechanics until Einstein refined and overtuned it. So how can we know this ‘inertia’ thing is real at all?”

It is the way atheist have took this sceintific theory and used it to attack belief in God by mocking ridicule and elitist snobbery.

That’s fair in some circumstances and not fair in others. There is a difference between being condescending to creationism and being condescending to religion. I’m sorry, but creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history or Jesus mythicism in the field of New Testament scholarship. Whether or not evolution is true or whether not God exists are two, seperate, non-overlapping questions.

The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

The debate on common descent IS over. Even Michael Behe, the guy who coined “Irreducable Complexity,” accepts common descent. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t unanswered questions, however. One of the most fascinating debates within evolution to me is the origin of flight. The two prevailing theories are “trees down” or “ground up.” They both have their supporters and detractors and eviendece taken from modern bird psychology and fossils, and it will probably be a while before the matter reaches a consensus. But of course, that is why science exists in the first place: to answer mysteries about the natural world.

justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I’m sorry, but creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history

Oh, really?!? Can you site that evidence please? The field of biology has NEVER determined the origin of life. It claims to know how that life was first formed but they haven’t been able to re-produce it. You tell me one single instance where biology has proof against creationism or proof for spontaneous life. You know good and well that any discussion on the origins of life are nothing but theory and have a high probability that they will never be known – at least for you.

slug on May 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Oh, really?!? Can you site that evidence please? The field of biology has NEVER determined the origin of life.

I never claimed it had. When I say “creationism” I’m merely referring to the theory of biological complexity and diverity, i.e. that humans, birds, dogs, etc. were created whole in their present form, rather than evolving from a common ancestor.

You tell me one single instance where biology has proof against creationism or proof for spontaneous life.

Spontaneous generation is the belief that complex life “poofs” out of nothing (which is basically what creationists believe.) This is distinct from abiogenesis, which states that life had simple self replicating RNA precursors.

And abiogensis is a study within biochemistry, not evolution. So I’m sorry to say attacking abiogensis doesn’t affect the theory of evolution in the slightest.

I’m afraid my original point still stands.

Creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history

In fact, you would probably have an easier time finding holocaust deniers in history departments than findng a creationist in a biology department.

justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

It is possible though I always thought that reason Atheists so hated Church was due to all the unpleasant business during preceding era.

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Atheists always seem to forget about:

— The Salvation Army, founded in the 1800s to help the poorest people with food, shelter and support for their families.

— Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury, who led English efforts to establish child-labor laws in Britain, thereby protecting children from abuse by employers.

— Bartolome de Las Casas, who spent more than 50 years in the 1500s fighting for the rights of natives in Hispaniola.

— Basil the Great, 4th century, who set up centers to distribute food to orphans and the needy, and founded the Basileus as a hotel-hospital for poor visitors from other lands.

— William Wilberforce, the Christian abolitionist who campaigned tirelessly to abolish slavery in Britain, ultimately setting free some 700,000 slaves.

Inconvenient people all, I suppose.

KyMouse on May 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM