Darwin validated: Missing link found(blog.ted.com)
blog.ted.com
Darwin validated: Missing link found
http://blog.ted.com/2009/05/darwin_validate.php
11 comments
I understand you were joking but there's a grain of truth in what you're saying. People who don't believe in Evolution are looking for holes in the theory and those holes will always exist. Because no matter how many fossils we do find they can always claim there were ones we didn't find that co-existed with humans. So the anti-evolution crowd will always have all the grounds they need to not believe.
Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it wrong (though I'd argue that's largely because it's based on no real facts in the first place)
Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it wrong (though I'd argue that's largely because it's based on no real facts in the first place)
Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it wrong
It's not that you could never prove Creationism wrong, it's that faith is not required to be proven. That's why it is called faith. People who believe in God are going to believe in God, even if you could irrefutably prove beyond any doubt that (a) evolutionary theory is correct and (b) God doesn't exist.
You'd still have failed to prove it in their "heart", or wherever pure, unadulterated illogicality happens to live.
It's not that you could never prove Creationism wrong, it's that faith is not required to be proven. That's why it is called faith. People who believe in God are going to believe in God, even if you could irrefutably prove beyond any doubt that (a) evolutionary theory is correct and (b) God doesn't exist.
You'd still have failed to prove it in their "heart", or wherever pure, unadulterated illogicality happens to live.
Absoluely right. The rubric of "faith" admits of every illogicality because its premise is the very admission of unprovables
Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time?
Depends on who you're talking to
I think a lot of people do.
[deleted]
Depends on which god you're talking about.
There are those who have split the theory in two: micro vs. macro evolution.
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm
Some people who have normally shunned the entire concept of the evolution theory in the past have now integrated micro-evolution into their belief systems yet vehemently oppose macro-evolution.
No matter which path you take (creationism vs evolution), I guess it's just turtles all the way down. ;)
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm
Some people who have normally shunned the entire concept of the evolution theory in the past have now integrated micro-evolution into their belief systems yet vehemently oppose macro-evolution.
No matter which path you take (creationism vs evolution), I guess it's just turtles all the way down. ;)
No matter which path you take (creationism vs evolution), I guess it's just turtles all the way down.
This is incorrect. With creationism/ID, it is expected that you do not question the nature of the creator/designer beyond what information is provided in texts or by religious/ideological leaders. With evolution, the principles are based on math and chemistry, which is in turn based on physics, which is currently being probed down to the smallest scales possible. (Contrary to what you might have been told, there is a lower limit to physics.)
This is incorrect. With creationism/ID, it is expected that you do not question the nature of the creator/designer beyond what information is provided in texts or by religious/ideological leaders. With evolution, the principles are based on math and chemistry, which is in turn based on physics, which is currently being probed down to the smallest scales possible. (Contrary to what you might have been told, there is a lower limit to physics.)
Contrary to what you might have been told, there is a lower limit to physics.
I agree. But...
There is no limit to the determination of people defending their beliefs against any theory for which science provides evidence.
I agree. But...
There is no limit to the determination of people defending their beliefs against any theory for which science provides evidence.
Creationista Lisp v1.0
CL-BELIEVER> (= evidence truth)
nilYeehaa. And their beliefs reside in yesterday's rubbish - and always will until the new order comes.
It's quarks all the way down.
The hype about this being "the" missing link strengthens the case that the exception proves the rule--it is almost an admission that the evidence for evolution was lacking.
Incidentally, creationists are also able to use this fossil to bolster their argument for a biblical creation and worldwide flood: http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-...
Incidentally, creationists are also able to use this fossil to bolster their argument for a biblical creation and worldwide flood: http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-...
Darwin doesn't need any validation. There is no evolution vs creationism argument. The media purports this like the scientific community is evenly split down the middle on the issue. The reality is actually quite different. The scientific community is overwhelmingly behind evolution/Darwin. The number of 'scientists' that do not accept the huge body of evidence behind Darwinian evolution is a statistically insignificant number that can be safely ignored. It doesn't much matter what the non scientific community choose to believe...
Yes, but unfortunately there is a significant number of people, and thus politicians, that think they know better. Therefore, we should grab any opportunity to show them that they are wrong.
Besides, it is really a marvelous discovery in biology that learns us a great deal about how mammals transitioned into homo sapiens (just saying "natural selection" doesn't cut it).
Besides, it is really a marvelous discovery in biology that learns us a great deal about how mammals transitioned into homo sapiens (just saying "natural selection" doesn't cut it).
> Therefore, we should grab any opportunity to show them that they are wrong.
Why? Do you think you can change someone's faith through science? Good luck with that.
Personally I don't understand the conflict ... how is evolution a threat to God's existence? I mean, there's no mention in the bible that He created the world in seven earth days, or how He did it.
Why? Do you think you can change someone's faith through science? Good luck with that.
Personally I don't understand the conflict ... how is evolution a threat to God's existence? I mean, there's no mention in the bible that He created the world in seven earth days, or how He did it.
You are correct but you are ignoring the fact that you have a large and vocal community of people who vehemently declare otherwise. They claim that there is a 'missing link'. This is the answer to their doubts not the scientific community.
The paper, published under CC attribution: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna....
Blog discussing their decision to publish at PLoS One: http://everyone.plos.org/2009/05/19/plos-one-introduces-darw....
Short overview and collection of links: http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/05/introducing_ida_-_the_....
They hired a marketing company to make that flash website because they have investors that paid one million dollars for the fossil, probably because the investors saw money to be made. I would blame the investors for the hype rather than question the motives of the scientists.
The paper is published in PLoS One under CC Attribution which cancels out most of the badness of having an all-flash marketing site in my opinion.
Blog discussing their decision to publish at PLoS One: http://everyone.plos.org/2009/05/19/plos-one-introduces-darw....
Short overview and collection of links: http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/05/introducing_ida_-_the_....
They hired a marketing company to make that flash website because they have investors that paid one million dollars for the fossil, probably because the investors saw money to be made. I would blame the investors for the hype rather than question the motives of the scientists.
The paper is published in PLoS One under CC Attribution which cancels out most of the badness of having an all-flash marketing site in my opinion.
Good thing, too. I was really starting to doubt the other eight million pieces of evidence.
I'm a little surprised by the media frenzy surrounding this announcement. Raising public awareness of science is a Good Thing(TM) but the significance of this find seem to be overblown to the point of sensationalism.
"But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan 'This changes everything' and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a 'stem group' that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, 'but we are not advocating this.'"
- NYT on the media build up: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19fossil.ht...
"But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan 'This changes everything' and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a 'stem group' that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, 'but we are not advocating this.'"
- NYT on the media build up: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19fossil.ht...
It's an interesting example of money and PR agencies corrupting science. Probably inevitable when you have a topic so PR friendly as this one.
The headline makes it sound as if this is the first such thing ever found. I'd like to point to arch-Darwinist P.Z. Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masilla...
"The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimportant, but because it detracts from the larger body of the fossil record"
"The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimportant, but because it detracts from the larger body of the fossil record"
The ignorant will ignore the fossil record regardless of Ida. The only thing they don't ignore is sound-bites.
this form of argument would imply that all holes need to be filled before you can "prove" the other side wrong.
Not at all.
The real difference between science and creationism is that science makes predictions. Darwin's theory predicts that there were creatures that formed bridges, as it were. That's a strong prediction, and the apparent absence has been used by creationists to claim that Darwinism has a problem.
Creationism makes no predictions.
The fact that a fossil has been found that fits Darwin's predictions is strong evidence that Darwin's theory is right.
The real difference between science and creationism is that science makes predictions. Darwin's theory predicts that there were creatures that formed bridges, as it were. That's a strong prediction, and the apparent absence has been used by creationists to claim that Darwinism has a problem.
Creationism makes no predictions.
The fact that a fossil has been found that fits Darwin's predictions is strong evidence that Darwin's theory is right.
I understand your basic point, though I don't think it is strictly true that Creationism makes no predictions.
Creationism doesn't, in my opinion, make any predictions. You have to go to Intelligent Design proponents like biochemist Michael Behe before you get predictions. He has the "irreducibly complex" theory, and a few examples of biochemical reactions (human blood clotting is one) that he believes are irreducibly complex.
Other scientists have tried to prove his examples weren't irreducibly complex (e.g., dolphins and puffer fish have steps removed from their blood clotting reaction compared to humans), but yeah. AFAIK, (biblical) creationism's whole point is "the Bible is right, QED."
Other scientists have tried to prove his examples weren't irreducibly complex (e.g., dolphins and puffer fish have steps removed from their blood clotting reaction compared to humans), but yeah. AFAIK, (biblical) creationism's whole point is "the Bible is right, QED."
Creationists do make predictions regarding the Flood and other biblical events, and regarding the ages of everything else. During the 80s, when I was growing up Baptist, they liked to talk about intertwined human and dino fossils, and dino tracks crossing human tracks that were clearly older, and such. Dunno about now.
Ah, ok. I do agree with that point. I was lumping "Intelligent Design" in with Creationism in my previous post.
Creationism makes no predictions.
Quoted from the parent post of your post to agree with what you say. I think creationists do make one prediction, but it's a prediction that has been proven wrong, so it is not often brought up by creationists. I'm referring to the Biblical account(s) that humankind was specially created as a separate act of creation (and, by implication, through a special process) different from the creation of other animal living things. The prediction is that human beings are radically different in some discernible way from chimpanzees and other living things. But in fact genes and even junk DNA can be traced by common descent not only throughout the primate line but all the way back to the last common ancestor of human beings and fruit flies. The science of molecular genetics has completely blown to smithereens any hope for a "creation science" that is credible to open-minded people. I write this as someone who grew up with very close associations to scientifically educated people who were willing at least to entertain the possibility of young-earth creationism as related in the Biblical texts.
Quoted from the parent post of your post to agree with what you say. I think creationists do make one prediction, but it's a prediction that has been proven wrong, so it is not often brought up by creationists. I'm referring to the Biblical account(s) that humankind was specially created as a separate act of creation (and, by implication, through a special process) different from the creation of other animal living things. The prediction is that human beings are radically different in some discernible way from chimpanzees and other living things. But in fact genes and even junk DNA can be traced by common descent not only throughout the primate line but all the way back to the last common ancestor of human beings and fruit flies. The science of molecular genetics has completely blown to smithereens any hope for a "creation science" that is credible to open-minded people. I write this as someone who grew up with very close associations to scientifically educated people who were willing at least to entertain the possibility of young-earth creationism as related in the Biblical texts.
addendum: one of the main advantages of science is that it admits that there are holes.
also: I don't think the debate over falsificationism is quite over.
also: I don't think the debate over falsificationism is quite over.
There has been no apparent absence. Ever heard of an australopithecine? Homo habilis? Homo erectus? These hardly scratch the surface of the variety of the man-apes we've found, yet Creationists still somehow cry for a missing link. They've got several. It's just a problem of willful ignorance.
Hm. The article seems to be referring to some other link. My points still stand!
Hm. The article seems to be referring to some other link. My points still stand!
[deleted]
You mean "some Creationists".
Not so much an argument as running up the score on the evidence. The phrasing of the headline is poor, though.
I think the BBC has a better article on the discovery:
Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.
He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature was not all that it was hyped up to be.
Dr Beard has not yet seen scientific details of the find but said that it would be very nice to have a beautiful new fossil from the Eocene and that Ida would be "a welcome new addition" to the world of early primates.
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8057465.stm
Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.
He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature was not all that it was hyped up to be.
Dr Beard has not yet seen scientific details of the find but said that it would be very nice to have a beautiful new fossil from the Eocene and that Ida would be "a welcome new addition" to the world of early primates.
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8057465.stm
Regardless of the shameless PR, if it gets more people to think rationally about their religious position I am all for it. I just hope it doesn't backfire somehow.
Creationist preliminary comment on Ida.
Does Ida Deserve the Attention? A Preliminary Comment http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-miss...
Does Ida Deserve the Attention? A Preliminary Comment http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-miss...
Before, there was only one hole (between the early lemurs and primates). Now there are two holes: the hole between the early lemurs and Ida, and another between Ida and the primates. ;)