EVE Search - So, apparently, a "missing link" fossil WAS found...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

So, apparently, a "missing link" fossil WAS found...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2009.05.21 14:36:00 - [31] I'm missing the link. What is it? This is just some group of doctors of this or that desperate for a grant. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Tyllie Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.05.21 14:42:00 - [32] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 21/05/2009 05:48:34 THE MISSING LINK (heh) Quote: Today, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, a revolutionary discovery -- one that will stand as a milestone for paleontologists and evolutionists everywhere -- was announced. Scientists based at the University of Oslo have discovered ôIda,ö also known as Darwinius masillae, a 47-million-year-old fossil that has been proclaimed the ômissing linkö in connecting human skeletal structure to early mammals. Scientists found Ida in Messel Pit, Germany and soon found out that she is about twenty times older than most fossils related to human evolution. What makes Ida so special is that despite her classification as an early prosimian (lemurs), she has certain undeniable human characteristics such as forward facing eyes and even an opposable thumb. So... yeah P.S. More in-depth info... They already wrote a book about.
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.21 15:27:00 - [33] Originally by: Danton Marcellus I'm missing the link. What is it? This is just some group of doctors of this or that desperate for a grant. These guys don't need a grant. These guys are set for life with this discovery. Assuming this this is everything they say it is it's the kind of discovery bone diggers dream about.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance Vort3x.	Posted - 2009.05.21 15:49:00 - [34] Interesting. I am curious now why this isn't all over the other news websites. And looking up, I am glad I am one of the religious people who believes in evolution lol.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Psychotic Tendencies.	Posted - 2009.05.21 16:13:00 - [35] Originally by: TimMc Interesting. I am curious now why this isn't all over the other news websites. And looking up, I am glad I am one of the religious people who believes in evolution lol. I dont know about the websites but I have heard about this nonstop from several different news companies, not complaining though because if this is true then damn this was a nice find... Also what I find funny is this story gets hot just a couple of weeks after darwin's 200th birthday.
THE L0CK	Posted - 2009.05.21 16:46:00 - [36]
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.21 18:00:00 - [37] Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/05/2009 18:01:04 Originally by: goodby4u Also what I find funny is this story gets hot just a couple of weeks after darwin's 200th birthday. Darwin's 200 and still alive?! Talk about survival of the fittest! ::rimshot::
WhiteSavage Gallente Altruism.	Posted - 2009.05.21 18:07:00 - [38] Thank you Mr Reeth for speaking reality among a bunch of wierdo's. Science used to be about doubting the other guys finding, argueing with him about his theory's and triple-checking his work. Now its been turned into a showbusiness. Yay History Channel.
Xen Gin Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.21 21:08:00 - [39] Edited by: Xen Gin on 21/05/2009 21:08:20 Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/05/2009 18:01:04 Originally by: goodby4u Also what I find funny is this story gets hot just a couple of weeks after darwin's 200th birthday. Darwin's 200 and still alive?! Talk about survival of the fittest! ::rimshot:: If you believe my sign at a local Church, the "Millennium it Christ's 2000th Birthday", then yes.
Kibbler Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.05.21 21:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Reven Cordelle It's far from discovering the root of all existance is it. +1.

Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.21 22:28:00 - [41] Originally by: WhiteSavage Thank you Mr Reeth for speaking reality among a bunch of wierdo's. Science used to be about doubting the other guys finding, argueing with him about his theory's and triple-checking his work. Now its been turned into a showbusiness. Yay History Channel. Evolutionary biologists will be happy to argue over an alternate theory as soon as one is found Pomp FTW!!!
Scrym Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.05.21 22:41:00 - [42] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: WhiteSavage Thank you Mr Reeth for speaking reality among a bunch of wierdo's. Science used to be about doubting the other guys finding, argueing with him about his theory's and triple-checking his work. Now its been turned into a showbusiness. Yay History Channel. Evolutionary biologists will be happy to argue over an alternate theory as soon as one is found Um, magic right?
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 07:27:00 - [43] Originally by: WhiteSavage Thank you Mr Reeth for speaking reality among a bunch of wierdo's. Science used to be about doubting the other guys finding, argueing with him about his theory's and triple-checking his work. Now its been turned into a showbusiness. Yay History Channel. Thanks, I appreciate it. And yes, science used to be cool until all these nuts turned it into a religion. The strangest thing about it all is that real scientists use a lot of conditional clauses in their work. They say thing like "seems to indicate" "maybe" "if our data is correct" because any intelligent person knows that any scientific theory or even law can be completely dismantled by the addition of a single bit of data. But once the information gets out to the stupid people these conditional phrases seem to evaporate and the nuts proclaim it as absolute fact and attack any who doubt what the scientist has said... even if he didn't say it. All they can do is mock and insult because they have no facts. Real scientists don't deal in absolutes. They deal in the much more abstract... "this is the best we could come up with with the data we have."
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.05.22 07:48:00 - [44] Problem is "might be", "indicates that it's possible" and "we have good reason to think" doesn't SELL to the general public (unless you're talking about wars or lower-scale scandals). The general public is, as a whole, unable to comprehend conditional clauses and will only gobble up "indisputable facts". And has the attention span of about 5 to 7 words. Therefore, most "journalism" isn't, being instead "souped-up sensationalism". Still, it doesn't take much effort to automatically translate in your head "missing link in human evolution found" as "something that looks like a good candidate for being one of the many missing links in human evolution (or at least evolution in general) has been finally officially announced". If you want to debate the finer points, yeah, there's tons of materials to go through and things are never black and white. EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:03:00 - [45] Originally by: Intense Thinker Evolutionary biologists will be happy to argue over an alternate theory as soon as one is found Okay here's 12. Neo-Darwinists - classical Darwin theory of natural selection based on genes most advantageous to the survival of the individual. Progressive Darwinists - similar to Darwin's theory but recognising that genes may spontaneously mutate or be switched on/off by environmental conditions. This moves away from the completely random nature of the Neo-Darwinists. Collectivists - a further modification of Darwin's theories, saying evolution is also driven by symbiogenesis, cooperation and altruism between organisms. For example protozoans formed a symbiotic relationship with plant cells are formed multicelled organisms (the protozoans becoming the mitochondria in modern cells). Complexity Theorists - evolution occurs through the capacity of complex dynamic systems to spontaneously produce higher organisms. Directionalists - evolution is progressing towards broader or deeper cooperation and complexity, and may be shaped by some sort of design or underlying law. Transhumanists - human beings control their own evolution through bioengineering, cybernetics, nanorobots, etc. Process Philosophers - God is not a static creator outside time and space but the dynamic, creative dimension of the evolutionary process in time and space. Integralists - Evolution is a holistic process that includes both objective and subjective dimensions of reality as it moves toward greater exterior complexity of form and greater interior depth of consciousness. Conscious Evolutionists - We live in an unfinished cosmos, and its further development depends on us and our willingness to actively participate in the evolution of consciousness. Esoteric Evolutionists - evolution is proceeding according to hidden esoteric blueprints acting through consciousness and matter. Madame Blavatsky (the founder of the Theosophical society) promoted these ideas. Theistic Evolutionists - argue that science and religion are complimentary and that both are operating. They recognise that there is evidence for Darwin's natural selection and gene mutation, but an intelligent designer (God) is also controlling the outcome. Intelligent Designers - evolution is under the control by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, ie God. There are more if you care to look them up... but I'm sure your faith requires ignorance. And even within these 12 there are a number of different models and sub theories of evolution. These models come and go as more data is collected and the models undergo fine tuning. For example, the neanderthal was long though to be one of humanities ancestors. Many theories and models included neanderthals in direct human ancestry until it was proven via DNA evidence that the neanderthal was, at best, a distant cousin and has no direct relationship with humanity. There is never a lack of debate on the issue of evolution or anything else. The fact is that there is NO scientific theory or model has universal acceptance in the scientific community. There are always people who have their own idea of what things mean and how things work. I bet you think that all scientists believe in the big bang and that the only two options are big bang or God. Try opening your mind for a change. Don't worry, it doesn't hurt.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:14:00 - [46] So where's an alternative theory? These are all based on the theory of evolution with the exception of ID which is total conjecture based on bronze age tribesman sitting in their tents guessing the planet is only a few generations old Pomp FTW!!!
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:31:00 - [47] Edited by: Mr Reeth on 22/05/2009 08:37:08 Originally by: Akita T Problem is "might be", "indicates that it's possible" and "we have good reason to think" doesn't SELL to the general public (unless you're talking about wars or lower-scale scandals). The general public is, as a whole, unable to comprehend conditional clauses and will only gobble up "indisputable facts". And has the attention span of about 5 to 7 words. Therefore, most "journalism" isn't, being instead "souped-up sensationalism". Agreed. The shame of it is that it creates a population of undereducated zealous believers in science and the scientists who themselves are usually reasonable and open minded. And when people believe in science as a religion they donÆt bother with facts but at the same time believe they have them. So when challenged to back up their beliefs all they can do is come up with insulting one liners or nonsensical rants on their blogs. Far from helping in the scientific pursuit of truth, they hamper it. Originally by: Akita T Still, it doesn't take much effort to automatically translate in your head "missing link in human evolution found" as "something that looks like a good candidate for being one of the many missing links in human evolution (or at least evolution in general) has been finally officially announced". It doesnÆt take much effort in my head, but for many people it seems an impossible task. Originally by: Akita T If you want to debate the finer points, yeah, there's tons of materials to go through and things are never black and white. Debating the finer points is the BEST part of science!!! ThatÆs where the fun is!!! And it is, in my opinion, one of the great joys of being human. You have ten people looking at the same thing and each one of them sees something completely different. And then a debate takes place. The debate can be a few minutes or thousands of years. Each side uses their finest reasoning skills and searches endlessly for evidence to support their ideas. But it all gets ruined when people begin to lie, cheat and name-call. As IÆve said people change their theories and models entirely when new evidence is obtained. And when this evidence is falsified the debate continues pointlessly as the arguments are based on lies. This is a twisted perversion of one of the best things we have as humans.
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:36:00 - [48] Originally by: Intense Thinker So where's an alternative theory? These are all based on the theory of evolution with the exception of ID which is total conjecture based on bronze age tribesman sitting in their tents guessing the planet is only a few generations old I've explained the best way I can. I can't go into your head and make you understand... yet.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.22 08:57:00 - [49] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 22/05/2009 09:08:58 Originally by: Mr Reeth Neo-Darwinists - classical Darwin theory of natural selection based on genes most advantageous to the survival of the individual. Does not exist. Nobody supports Darwin's original un-modified theory anymore, especially since Darwin's understanding of genetics has since been shown to be completely wrong. Quote: Progressive Darwinists - similar to Darwin's theory but recognising that genes may spontaneously mutate or be switched on/off by environmental conditions. This moves away from the completely random nature of the Neo-Darwinists. Err, how is this different? I fail to see how spontaneous gene changes are supposed to be a departure from randomness. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "spontaneous"? Quote: Collectivists - a further modification of Darwin's theories, saying evolution is also driven by symbiogenesis, cooperation and altruism between organisms. For example protozoans formed a symbiotic relationship with plant cells are formed multicelled organisms (the protozoans becoming the mitochondria in modern cells). Not a different theory, mainstream evolutionary biology incorporates all of these concepts. Quote: Complexity Theorists - evolution occurs through the capacity of complex dynamic systems to spontaneously produce higher organisms. Vague nonsense, not a developed theory. Quote: Directionalists - evolution is progressing towards broader or deeper cooperation and complexity, and may be shaped by some sort of design or underlying law. Vague speculation at best, and in direct contradiction to the evidence at worst. There is more than enough evidence of poor "design" in evolution to cast serious doubts on any proposed ultimate goal. Essentially this is no more than an obsolete (and long discredited) arrogant assumption that there is a linear scale of "highly evolved", obviously with humans at the top. Quote: Transhumanists - human beings control their own evolution through bioengineering, cybernetics, nanorobots, etc. Not at all controversial, at least in relation to biology. Mainstream evolutionary biology already accepts that human civilization is no longer governed only by genetics, and transhumanism has absolutely nothing to do with the PAST evolution. Calling this an alternative to evolution is like saying that English literature is an alternative to quantum physics, it's just an absurd comparison. Quote: Process Philosophers - God is not a static creator outside time and space but the dynamic, creative dimension of the evolutionary process in time and space. Not a scientific theory. God is an untestable hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence, making this vague speculation at best. Quote: Integralists - Evolution is a holistic process that includes both objective and subjective dimensions of reality as it moves toward greater exterior complexity of form and greater interior depth of consciousness. See above, evolution is not progressive, and simply restating "directionalists" with more fancy words does not make it a different theory. Quote: Conscious Evolutionists - We live in an unfinished cosmos, and its further development depends on us and our willingness to actively participate in the evolution of consciousness. Vague speculation at best, and utterly fails at explaining the origins and development of life. Calling this an "alternative" to evolution is just laughable. -----------
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.22 09:05:00 - [50] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 22/05/2009 09:06:58 Quote: Esoteric Evolutionists - evolution is proceeding according to hidden esoteric blueprints acting through consciousness and matter. Madame Blavatsky (the founder of the Theosophical society) promoted these ideas. Not a scientific theory. In fact, since it explicitly states that the blueprints are hidden, it is not even capable of becoming a scientific theory, as it can never be tested. Quote: Theistic Evolutionists - argue that science and religion are complimentary and that both are operating. They recognise that there is evidence for Darwin's natural selection and gene mutation, but an intelligent designer (God) is also controlling the outcome. Depending on the person, this is either: 1) Complete bull**, and nothing more than an attempt to evade separation of church and state laws and get Jesus back in the classroom. 2) Vague "can't we all just get along" nonsense, that has much more to do with politics than science. 3) Eviscerated quite nicely by Occam's razor, leaving nothing more than evolution. Quote: Intelligent Designers - evolution is under the control by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, ie God. Complete bull with zero support among the experts. Intelligent design is a political movement, and nothing more than an attempt to evade separation of church and state laws and get Jesus back in science classes (a fact that the leaders openly admit). So, to sum up your "12 alternatives", we have some political movements, some theories that are tangential to evolution at best and do not contradict the theory, and some vague speculation that isn't even remotely close to being a scientific theory. Sorry, but all of them fail utterly at being alternatives to evolution. Quote: And even within these 12 there are a number of different models and sub theories of evolution. These models come and go as more data is collected and the models undergo fine tuning. For example, the neanderthal was long though to be one of humanities ancestors. Many theories and models included neanderthals in direct human ancestry until it was proven via DNA evidence that the neanderthal was, at best, a distant cousin and has no direct relationship with humanity. There is never a lack of debate on the issue of evolution or anything else. This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. While there is debate on the small details of evolution, there is absolutely no debate that evolution is the correct explanation for life as it exists now. Quote:** The fact is that there is NO scientific theory or model has universal acceptance in the scientific community. There are always people who have their own idea of what things mean and how things work. I bet you think that all scientists believe in the big bang and that the only two options are big bang or God. And your point is? There are people who believe that the earth is flat, are you going to honestly tell me that you think this means that there is legitimate debate about the shape of the earth? Evolution is no different. The agreement is virtually unanimous, and "debate" is limited to a few fringe nutcases that nobody takes seriously. -----------

Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.22 09:19:00 - [51] As for the "missing link" issue: was it over-hyped? Possibly. Does it matter? Absolutely not. The entire concept of a "missing link" was nothing more than hype in the first place. Like it or not, the fact that humans and apes share a common ape-like ancestor is not in any serious doubt. The fossil record is pretty clear on the subject, and the DNA evidence is pretty much incontrovertible at this point. There simply isn't some giant gaping hole in the theory that needs to be filled in by the "missing link", all that's left is filling in the details. While I'm sure everyone appreciates new evidence, and there are probably still new and interesting things to learn about those precise details, the general question of our origin has already been answered. So: the only purpose of claiming to have found the "missing link" is to get attention for your research. Sadly in modern society you pretty much have to do that, a science story isn't going to get more than a minor footnote on the 15th page of the newspaper unless you do something* to hype it up. But I wouldn't pay too much attention to all of that nonsense. *The other use of "missing link" is by dishonest creationist frauds who deliberately misrepresent the evidence and the theory of evolution in general in order to generate a false "controversy" about human origins. As Richard Dawkins (IIRC) said, the creationist response to finding a missing link between A and B is that there are now TWO missing links (between A-C and C-B). But I'm going to be generous and assume that nobody here is stupid enough to actually believe in creationist nonsense. -----------
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.05.22 09:41:00 - [52] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Evolution is no different. The agreement is virtually unanimous, and "debate" is limited to a few fringe nutcases that nobody takes seriously. The origin of life however, there it's still a bit fuzzy But yeah, evolution itself, the general idea, there's no serious debate to speak of... it's the specific tiny details that are not quite well-defined (what matters most, how fast it can go, etc). EVE issues\|Mining revamp\|Build stuff\|Make ISK
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 14:29:00 - [53] Edited by: Mr Reeth on 22/05/2009 14:32:37 Ms Ryskin, I make it a point to carefully listen to everything a person has to say and respond to each point they have made. I believe this is the best way to have a rational discussion. When I saw the amount you had written I prepared myself to read it thoroughly and take as much time as needed to rebut or acquiesce depending on the argument despite the massive GF agro I was getting. Apparently she thinks it is a waste of time to argue the minutia of evolution in a forum for internet spaceships. But when I came upon your second pointà Originally by: Merin Ryskin Err, how is this different? I fail to see how spontaneous gene changes are supposed to be a departure from randomness. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "spontaneous"? àI stopped. The fact that you think that spontaneous and random are the same thing in the context of evolutionary theory and then proceed to mock me, leads me to believe that nothing you have subsequently written is worth reading. If you would like to take some time to center yourself, clear your mind of distractions and nonproductive thoughts and rewrite your post I would be happy to give it a read.
Mr Reeth	Posted - 2009.05.22 14:51:00 - [54] Originally by: Akita T The origin of life however, there it's still a bit fuzzy But yeah, evolution itself, the general idea, there's no serious debate to speak of... it's the specific tiny details that are not quite well-defined (what matters most, how fast it can go, etc). The idea that life started with a little protein molecule capable of self replication and then somehow over time became the abundance of life we have now is not debated in scientific circles at all. Though some of the fringe elements have pretty interesting notions. (please note the use of the word notion instead of theory) What interests me most and is a major point of debate is how it works. How do we get from a dinosaur to a bird... if that's what happened? Is it random gene changes? Or is our very DNA capable of reacting to environmental changes?
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2009.05.22 16:02:00 - [55] Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 22/05/2009 14:32:37 Ms Ryskin, I make it a point to carefully listen to everything a person has to say and respond to each point they have made. I believe this is the best way to have a rational discussion. When I saw the amount you had written I prepared myself to read it thoroughly and take as much time as needed to rebut or acquiesce depending on the argument despite the massive GF agro I was getting. Apparently she thinks it is a waste of time to argue the minutia of evolution in a forum for internet spaceships. But when I came upon your second pointà Originally by: Merin Ryskin Err, how is this different? I fail to see how spontaneous gene changes are supposed to be a departure from randomness. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "spontaneous"? àI stopped. The fact that you think that spontaneous and random are the same thing in the context of evolutionary theory and then proceed to mock me, leads me to believe that nothing you have subsequently written is worth reading. If you would like to take some time to center yourself, clear your mind of distractions and nonproductive thoughts and rewrite your post I would be happy to give it a read. Aren't random genetic mutations spontaneous in the physical/chemical world we live in? great way to argue/discuss thing, blah blah i don't like your post, so i won't read them
Trustworthy Joe	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:30:00 - [56] Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 22/05/2009 14:32:37 Ms Ryskin, I make it a point to carefully listen to everything a person has to say and respond to each point they have made. I believe this is the best way to have a rational discussion. When I saw the amount you had written I prepared myself to read it thoroughly and take as much time as needed to rebut or acquiesce depending on the argument despite the massive GF agro I was getting. Apparently she thinks it is a waste of time to argue the minutia of evolution in a forum for internet spaceships. But when I came upon your second pointà Originally by: Merin Ryskin Err, how is this different? I fail to see how spontaneous gene changes are supposed to be a departure from randomness. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "spontaneous"? àI stopped. The fact that you think that spontaneous and random are the same thing in the context of evolutionary theory and then proceed to mock me, leads me to believe that nothing you have subsequently written is worth reading. If you would like to take some time to center yourself, clear your mind of distractions and nonproductive thoughts and rewrite your post I would be happy to give it a read. Mr Reeth, you have said what all of us could not have ever said before: "STFU merin, your not always right!" (also, i like my AB AF's) _______________________ with a name as trustworthy as mine, i cant POSSIBLY be an alt Originally by: CCP Navigator I locked this thread BECAUSE OF FALCON
Evthron Macyntire	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:48:00 - [57] God put it there. You can't prove that he didn't. ------------------------------ Sigs like this.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.05.22 23:19:00 - [58] Originally by: Evthron Macyntire God put it there. You can't prove that he didn't. And you cant prove that he did. O,..,O ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Xen Gin Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.23 01:18:00 - [59] Edited by: Xen Gin on 23/05/2009 01:17:53 I knew an Archaeologist and Anthropologist who was a Christian, he would not believe anything he found was older than 7000 years old.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.