Human's "Missing Link" found

catocom said:
maybe just my perception then.

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

Blame the press. There are certain fact in that story...what those facts can lead us to is another story.
 
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...
 
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?
 
chcr said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
2minkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

depends on your definition of reasonable.:D

like science, and personally, as I've said before, I don't think the Facts
contradict, but yet compliment my religious beliefs.;)
 
chcr said:
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...
Click to expand...

+1

Things I wanted to say, but really couldn't be arsed. Why bother spoon-feeding idiots? :shrug:
 
BeardofPants said:
+1

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


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? :shrug:
 
Gato_Solo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Gato_Solo said:
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? :shrug:
Click to expand...
Here you go. You'll have to register but I highly recommend it.
 
chcr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
catocom said:
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.
Click to expand...

You go ahead and believe what you need to, cat. FTR though, monkeys and apes aren't in the same biological family.
 
Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?
 
Gonz said:
Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?
Click to expand...

oh for fuck's sake there's a million resources out there that explain this kind of stuff. go look it up.
 
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.
 
Gonz said:
Moneys & apes are closer, on the physical similarity scale, than humans & apes. Why are we on the ape branch instead of chmimpanzees?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Forgive me oh lord of the higher brain...

You two are such fun to have a discussion with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top