Human's "Missing Link" found

[MrBishop]

maybe just my perception then.

I just have a slight peeve, periodically, about anything
seemingly presented as fact, when it's not 100%.

Blame the press. There are certain fact in that story...what those facts can lead us to is another story.

 

[MrBishop]

Here's another 'link' - actually a video serial about a 47million year old, complete fossil of a mammal nicknamed "Ida"

Link's link

 

[chcr]

1. The article in question was clearly "sensationalized" to make it sound more flashy.
2. The find proves evolution even more conclusively than it already was and the evidence was already quite conclusive.
3. What this discovery really shows once again is that the scientific method works. The fossil itself was not unexpected, evolutionary biology expects to find many, many intermediate species and here's another one. What was unexpected was the finding of it. A new fossil is always "unexpected." I'm sorry that some of you failed to understand.

If you don't understand science, don't simply denigrate it because it's beyond you. Virtually every single thing that makes your life better than a caveman's is a direct result of the scientific method. If you can't see that then...

 

[Gato_Solo]

Virtually every single thing that makes your life better than a caveman's is a direct result of the scientific method. If you can't see that then...

So many jokes, so little time...

 

[2minkey]

well, thanks to prof for the epistemological lesson, to chcr for reminding us that the science-tiffic method has brought us almost everything we know and love today, and to cato for pointing out that jesus didn't come from no monkey man.

now if y'all are done going marching, would anyone like to have a reasonable discussion?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

If you don't understand science, don't simply denigrate it because it's beyond you. Virtually every single thing that makes your life better than a caveman's is a direct result of the scientific method. If you can't see that then...

If by 'scientific method' you mean, the scientific method of pestering the male species by the female species, then I agree. Men were quite happy in their caves as long as they had cool rocks and spears n'stuff.

wimmin' folks enslaving men since the dawn of time.

 

[catocom]

well, thanks to prof for the epistemological lesson, to chcr for reminding us that the science-tiffic method has brought us almost everything we know and love today, and to cato for pointing out that jesus didn't come from no monkey man.

now if y'all are done going marching, would anyone like to have a reasonable discussion?

depends on your definition of reasonable.

like science, and personally, as I've said before, I don't think the Facts
contradict, but yet compliment my religious beliefs.

 

[BeardofPants]

1. The article in question was clearly "sensationalized" to make it sound more flashy.
2. The find proves evolution even more conclusively than it already was and the evidence was already quite conclusive.
3. What this discovery really shows once again is that the scientific method works. The fossil itself was not unexpected, evolutionary biology expects to find many, many intermediate species and here's another one. What was unexpected was the finding of it. A new fossil is always "unexpected." I'm sorry that some of you failed to understand.

If you don't understand science, don't simply denigrate it because it's beyond you. Virtually every single thing that makes your life better than a caveman's is a direct result of the scientific method. If you can't see that then...

+1

Things I wanted to say, but really couldn't be arsed. Why bother spoon-feeding idiots?

 

[Gato_Solo]

+1

Things I wanted to say, but really couldn't be arsed. Why bother spoon-feeding idiots?

Okay...how about a couple of good questions.

1. How do they know that this is not a species of extinct ape unrelated to modern humans?
2. Since this is clearly sensationalized, why didn't you link to the original paper instead of the media site?

Then again...why bother gathering facts from the ineffectual?

 

[chcr]

Okay...how about a couple of good questions.

1. How do they know that this is not a species of extinct ape unrelated to modern humans?

Umm... All apes are related to "modern humans." In fact, we're not just related to apes. "Modern humans" (Homo sapiens) are in fact a species of the great ape family.

2. Since this is clearly sensationalized, why didn't you link to the original paper instead of the media site?

Then again...why bother gathering facts from the ineffectual?

Here you go. You'll have to register but I highly recommend it.

 

[catocom]

Umm... All apes are related to "modern humans." In fact, we're not just related to apes. "Modern humans" (Homo sapiens) are in fact a species of the great ape family.

depended on your definition of related.
It hasn't been that long since they just finish the basic genetic chain.

Still too many unknowns in the science to make a definitive claim, for me.

There are many similarities between chimps and humans.
Don't mean squat in evolution to me.

 

[catocom]

FTR, I believe Cain's descendants evolved, or devolved, ever how one perceives it,
back into moneys, apes...
Man of any ethnicity was created by God.

I've been labeled racist for some comments by overreaction on the part of some,
so I just wanted to make that part known.

 

[chcr]

FTR, I believe Cain's descendants evolved, or devolved, ever how one perceives it,
back into moneys, apes...
Man of any ethnicity was created by God.

I've been labeled racist for some comments by overreaction on the part of some,
so I just wanted to make that part known.

You go ahead and believe what you need to, cat. FTR though, monkeys and apes aren't in the same biological family.

 

[catocom]

FTR though, monkeys and apes aren't in the same biological family.

that's kinda my point aboit evolution.
I'm always open to facts.

 

[Gonz]

Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?

 

[2minkey]

Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?

oh for fuck's sake there's a million resources out there that explain this kind of stuff. go look it up.

 

[Gonz]

So, once again, dissed by the intelligensia.

I don't want to wade through hundreds of pages of agendized biology classes. I thought one of you smart guys could break it down into simple words for the rest of us.

 

[chcr]

Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?

We and chimps are apes, monkeys are not. You might bother to find out what you're talking about, mightn't you?

Oh yeah, never mind.

 

[Gonz]

Forgive me oh lord of the higher brain...

You two are such fun to have a discussion with.

 

[BeardofPants]

The simple answer, gonz, is genetics. We are genetically closer to our ape brethren than our monkey brethren.