Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Necrosis]

I think Loco's point is simply this:

Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.

A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?

Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.

It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!

They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".

do you realize all of the evidence they have? the converging disciplines. Do you realize how important a finding of a unknown ancestor or new species or fossil would be to a scienctist? how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous, but i like how you point out a tenet of science, it is falsifiable and ever changing. If it is incorrect or something else based on proof they simple go with the evidence, they dont try to fit it in or lie, they dont have conclusions and then try to find evidence for them, this is a prime example, science finds truth and is changeble something that could not be said about religion.

[loco]

how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous

Exactly!  So why aren't atheists more suspicious of these scientists?  Why are atheists so quick to embrace these so called discoveries of the missing link, the "final proof that God doesn't exits"? 

BOOOM... hahaha...  "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.

Coach says it's a fake.

well there have been fakes before but I doubt this is.

I was being sarcastic; Coach is an idiot. Of course this is legit.

[Necrosis]

Exactly!  So why aren't atheists more suspicious of these scientists?  Why are atheists so quick to embrace these so called discoveries of the missing link, the "final proof that God doesn't exits"? 

im not sure what missing link they are looking for to be honest. There is really no need for more fossil evidence to prove the point, its just a matter of increasing our knowledge and filling the tree completely. Atheists are suspicious, we realize evolution is a fact, we also realize that there are many missing links if you will, or gaps. There is a clear obvious progression but we dont have ever fossil, it would be impossible and we might not even realize what fossils there could be. Shit if a totally new species was found tom, we would have to change according to the facts.

I havent looked at the specific fossil we are talking about, so i dont take anyones word in this thread. I also dont care to read biased christian slants on it, if you want to refute it use science and facts. Science disputes itself everyday, its how people make a living off it. I dont think that evolution could ever prove god doesnt exist, just that the creationist viewpoint is counter to reality. We can never prove god does not exist, nor  can we disprove a man on the moon. So if people actually think that they are being over zealous and excited.

[loco]

I also dont care to read biased christian slants on it

The BBC news article is a biased Christian slant?

[Necrosis]

The BBC news article is a biased Christian slant?

maybe, they did have a biased debate on there show a while ago after the christians got anhilated by hitchens and fry.

But the point is i didnt read the article for a while, nor do i know what we are specifically talking about at the moment. I havent looked at this thread in forever, i was making general arguments.

i have no problem with the fossil being a dud, doesnt change a thing.

[loco]

At the moment, we are specifically talking about Darwinius masillae, dubbed Ida.  Just a few months ago some scientists and also the media claimed this was finally the missing "direct" link between humans and all other mammals.

Now scientists are saying this isn't even linked to humans at all, it's not an ancestor, not even a close relative to humans.

Look it up when you get a chance.

[MCWAY]

do you realize all of the evidence they have? the converging disciplines. Do you realize how important a finding of a unknown ancestor or new species or fossil would be to a scienctist? how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous, but i like how you point out a tenet of science, it is falsifiable and ever changing. If it is incorrect or something else based on proof they simple go with the evidence, they dont try to fit it in or lie, they dont have conclusions and then try to find evidence for them,....

The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.

But, don't take my word for it:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).

[OzmO]

The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.

But, don't take my word for it:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).

1954?

I doubt most of those scientists are even still alive.

[Necrosis]

1954?

I doubt most of those scientists are even still alive.

i know, no one believes in spontaneous evolution, scientists makes mistakes, admit as such and move on. Thats the beauty of it.

[OzmO]

i know, no one believes in spontaneous evolution, scientists makes mistakes, admit as such and move on. Thats the beauty of it.

Yet, fundies, can't.  They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.

That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.

They are 2 different things. 

[Necrosis]

The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.

But, don't take my word for it:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).

this is also his opinion, why is there no thrid option? LMAO. Seriously so our only options are things pop into existence or god popped into existence being hypercomplex with the ability to create life. Seriously, is this guy an idiot? so he has not heard of any abiogenesis theories? its spontaneous generation or bust apparently, you dont start with a conclusion and then find evidence. You cant start with god created it and then have no evidence for it. Plus god obsfurcates the issue further, making it more complex and unlikely.

question how did god do it? when? where? how does he create life? out of nothing? or is there some life existing and he moulds it? so on and so on? who created him if life needs special creation? why is he exempt from your rules if he doesnt require creation? how do you know? what evidence do you have of this position? why did he wait billions of years? so on and so on.

[loco]

Yet, fundies, can't.  They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.

That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.

They are 2 different things. 

You mean scientist fundies who keep claiming they've found the missing "direct" link between humans and animals, as is the case in this thread?  You mean the atheist fundies who immediately embrace these claims and use them to mock creationists?  You mean the scientist fundies who try to use science to explain theology?

[Hugo Chavez]

The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.

But, don't take my word for it:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards".

[Hugo Chavez]

At the moment, we are specifically talking about Darwinius masillae, dubbed Ida.  Just a few months ago some scientists and also the media claimed this was finally the missing "direct" link between humans and all other mammals.

Now scientists are saying this isn't even linked to humans at all, it's not an ancestor, not even a close relative to humans.

Look it up when you get a chance.

Oh please... such is always the case.  There's always conflicting opinions.  You'll have to do better than "look it up"

[loco]

Oh please... such is always the case.  There's always conflicting opinions.  You'll have to do better than "look it up"

I already posted 3 links.  What else do you want?

[Hugo Chavez]

I already posted 3 links.  What else do you want?

well why the hell did you say to look it up when you've already posted what you're talking about   Brilliant.  We'll just have to wait to see how this plays out.  This isn't unusual at all.  Clearly there are differing opinions on IDA which I expected there would be, there usually is for these kind of finds.  At this point, we wait.  Not shocking.

[OzmO]

You mean scientist fundies who keep claiming they've found the missing "direct" link between humans and animals, as is the case in this thread?  You mean the atheist fundies who immediately embrace these claims and use them to mock creationists?  You mean the scientist fundies who try to use science to explain theology?

Yet, fundies, can't.  They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.

That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.

They are 2 different things. 

[loco]

well why the hell did you say to look it up when you've already posted what you're talking about   Brilliant.  We'll just have to wait to see how this plays out.  This isn't unusual at all.  Clearly there are differing opinions on IDA which I expected there would be, there usually is for these kind of finds.  At this point, we wait.  Not shocking.

Having problems reading today, Hugo?  I was talking to Necrosis, in response to his post.

I havent looked at the specific fossil we are talking about, so i dont take anyones word in this thread.

[Hugo Chavez]

Having problems reading today, Hugo?  I was talking to Necrosis, in response to his post.

I didn't have any problem reading it.

[loco]

I didn't have any problem reading it.

Then you do understand why I told Necrosis to look up his own articles if he doesn't trust any of the ones that I posted.

[Hugo Chavez]

Then you do understand why I told Necrosis to look up his own articles if he doesn't trust any of the ones that I posted.

there's more?

[loco]

there's more?

There's more what?

[Hugo Chavez]

There's more what?

more articles worth linking to from others in the field.  If not why issue a challenge to look it up beyond what you posted?

[loco]

more articles worth linking to from others in the field.  If not why issue a challenge to look it up beyond what you posted?

It wasn't a challenge.  Necrosis said he hadn't looked into this himself, and he said he won't trust what I posted.  So I encouraged him to go look into it himself.  He said he didn't even know which fossil we were talking about.  So I told him which one.

Satisfied, Hugo?

[Hugo Chavez]

nevermind.  I should have jumped your shit for quoting me long after the fact to make some lame point I would probably miss and not respond to.  what the hell is your point anyway?  That I take science as gospel?