Skepticism About the New "Missing Link" Fossil(blogs.discovermagazine.com)
blogs.discovermagazine.com
Skepticism About the New "Missing Link" Fossil
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/19/darwinius-it-delivers-a-pizza-and-it-lengthens-and-it-strengthens-and-it-finds-that-slipper-thats-been-at-large-under-the-chaise-lounge-for-several-weeks/
5 comments
All the evidence in the world isn't going to prove it to the people who disbelieve all the evidence as a matter of principal.
The Simpson's did a funny joke illustrating this. Homer becomes a genius and comes up with undeniable proof that god doesn't exist, he hands it to Flanders to prove it who looks it over and says something to the effect of "Oh my, he's right" there's a pause while he looks it over again "Well we can't let anyone else see you!" and he tears it up.
The Simpson's did a funny joke illustrating this. Homer becomes a genius and comes up with undeniable proof that god doesn't exist, he hands it to Flanders to prove it who looks it over and says something to the effect of "Oh my, he's right" there's a pause while he looks it over again "Well we can't let anyone else see you!" and he tears it up.
I wonder how this or any other discovery concerning Darwin's theory of evolution might affect current religions who don't accept it.
What if this, or any other, is presented by major media as undeniable proof of the theory?
On the other hand, some religions reject fossils, so you can never underestimate the power of dogmatism..
Well the papacy has acknowledged it for a long while now, I just don't get why all those creationist nuts can't get that the leader of their own religion, quite literally God's man in charge (of the catholic religion, where many of the nut's seem to be coming from) is telling them that evolution is real and doesn't contradict the bibles teachings in any way. I believe the layman's translation goes as this: "The book's not literal morons, get a life."
I don't care that much about such fossils. DNA evidence for evolution is already overwhelming.
Very true, DNA evidence alone conclusively demonstrates the truth of evolution. However, DNA alone cannot tell you the path through which humans arose.
This path is called the phylogenetic tree. Fossils help fill in the gaps in the tree, and clarify any ambiguities from genetic comparisons.
This path is called the phylogenetic tree. Fossils help fill in the gaps in the tree, and clarify any ambiguities from genetic comparisons.
I'm not sure I understand you perfectly.
A phylogenetic tree (which is essentially a family tree, but for multiple species or even all of life) can certainly be constructed on the basis of DNA alone.
But I guess you mean it won't tell us (for example) what our ancestor 100 million years ago looked like, which is true enough.
A phylogenetic tree (which is essentially a family tree, but for multiple species or even all of life) can certainly be constructed on the basis of DNA alone.
But I guess you mean it won't tell us (for example) what our ancestor 100 million years ago looked like, which is true enough.
You're quite right. I apologize for my vagueness. Excellent clarification :)
The publicity craze over this fossil is really disproportionate to the relevance of the find. Does anyone, except the occasional primatologist, really care whether anthropoids are more related to adapiforms or tarsiers? It's just not that exciting.
Goes to show that the media isn't anti-science or pro-science, because the hype goes both ways. The media is just dumb.
Goes to show that the media isn't anti-science or pro-science, because the hype goes both ways. The media is just dumb.
Perhaps it is all in the name? Naming a fossil Darwinius makes it really easy for everyone to get all wound up.
But... how can I say this?... although it is an exquisitely formed fossil, and an important contribution to the evolutionary relationship between prosimians (lemurs) and anthropoids (monkeys, apes, and us), it's no Google killer.