Missing link what do you think

[wsonar]

http://www.google.com/#q=missing+link+found&ct=missinglink&oi=ddle&fp=dwgrkbI8CUU


Discuss

[Chilli Bob]

...meh... will sell some books I guess. Nothing particularly compelling about it that I can see. Only time will tell I guess. Piltdown man anyone?

[Seishuku]

Missing link between what?
I wasn't aware there were any links missing.

[Methuselah]

Does anyone else find it funny that this backbone of our supposed origin has come to be defined by its non-existence?

'Missing' Link is right!
I'm guessing it'll remain that way.

My solid opnion is that the observable evidence does not point to what we're usually told about the world.
Rather things seem to appear suddenly (eg. Pre-Cambrian explosion) and remain essentially the same for unimaginable amounts of time (eg. crocodiles, cockroaches).

[hanzomon4]

Try the wayback machine

[Giant Speck]

I don't think evolution is an appropriate discussion for the Community Cafe because it may spark a debate about religion.

[Seishuku]

Try the wayback machine

LOL


Does anyone else find it funny that this backbone of our supposed origin has come to be defined by its non-existence?

'Missing' Link is right!
I'm guessing it'll remain that way.

My solid opnion is that the observable evidence does not point to what we're usually told about the world.
Rather things seem to appear suddenly (eg. Pre-Cambrian explosion) and remain essentially the same for unimaginable amounts of time (eg. crocodiles, cockroaches).

Utter misinformation.

[dragos240]

can anyone tell me which link to click? It'd be better to post the REAL link rather than a google search.

[wsonar]

can anyone tell me which link to click? It'd be better to post the REAL link rather than a google search.



I found out by clicking the google Icon in google search so there was no one particular link

[Seishuku]

Speaking of "missing" links, that reminds me of this awesome article I read on National Geographic a while back...they managed to get partial protein sequences from a remarkably preserved specimen's soft tissues (I think it was a dinosaur of the duck-billed variety, if I recall correctly), and the protein sequences were remarkably similar to modern chickens! It's pretty amazing.

A dinosaur book I have illustrates velociraptors with decorative feathers. It's kinda funny to imagine them that way.

To think modern birds are dinosaurs' direct descendants. :o

[wsonar]

I don't think evolution is an appropriate discussion for the Community Cafe because it may spark a debate about religion.


Guess it's on the border but still interesting to see peoples opinions as long as it's not taken too far

[Seishuku]

I read the first article with the lemurs. I think they're over-hyping it. It's the fork between monkeys and apes 40-million years ago...and it's so remotely related to humans I think they just linked them so prominently in order to get more reads.

If it was up to me, I would have put humans in that article as a small side note.

It is pretty cool to find such a complete fossil during a time period that, like they said, didn't favor fossilization very much.

[Giant Speck]

Guess it's on the border but still interesting to see peoples opinions as long as it's not taken too far

Well, I'm not saying it isn't interesting. It certainly is. But I think the thread should be watched closely. Hopefully, everyone can be civil about it.

[sisco311]

Well, I'm not saying it isn't interesting. It certainly is. But I think the thread should be watched closely. Hopefully, everyone can be civil about it.

hopefully the mods will miss the link to this page.

[bapoumba]

hopefully the mods will miss the link to this page.
Nah.

[billgoldberg]

I don't think evolution is an appropriate discussion for the Community Cafe because it may spark a debate about religion.

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion.

If people want to include religion, their post should be deleted instead of the thread being locked.

[zekopeko]

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion.

If people want to include religion, their post should be deleted instead of the thread being locked.

Agreed. Religion has nothing to do with this.

[Mateo]

great find! but i agree that it's not that important because DNA is a better way to trace evolution than is bones. but this is just nice to have some fossils of extinct species.

[Giant Speck]

Agreed. Religion has nothing to do with this.

I didn't say it did, but there are people out there who would disagree with you and me.

[WinterMadness]

I dont see how evolution by natural selection dosent have anything to do with religion.

It goes against it(Judeo-Christian/Islam), for many reason.

[NCLI]

I dont see how evolution by natural selection dosent have anything to do with religion.

It goes against it(Judeo-Christian/Islam), for many reason.

+1

If evolution is true, these religions, or at least part of them, cannot be.

[gn2]

I dont see how evolution by natural selection dosent have anything to do with religion.

It goes against it(Judeo-Christian/Islam), for many reason.

Many religious people of many faiths happily accept that evolution exists.
Evolution is merely a process.
What is interesting to ask is what set the process of evolution in motion....?

[Bölvaður]

It is very strange that anyone thought up those words and put them together, "missing link" what does that really mean?

We already found Homo Sapience (that is not our specie) which are our direct ancestors which would be the last "stage" of our ancestry.. if you can call it stage... it's like saying my last stage of growth was at 20 even though it was many years ago and a lot of gradual changes have emerged... like now I have beard and bigger nose... smaller glasses :D
Which reminds me... I was looking at family photos and noticed that there is a missing link from me being 21 to 24... suddenly I was different like if I just hopped into being.


BAck on topic....
There are many "missing links" that has been found depending on how you define them, like the one you speak of, the ancestor to the apes we found.

In reality everyone is a special specie that has branched off, and you are your children's missing link.

[DrHackenbush]

I don't think evolution is an appropriate discussion for the Community Cafe because it may spark a debate about religion.

Evolution is a religion.

[gn2]

Evolution is a religion.

As is science.

[forrestcupp]

This "missing link" hype is misleading. At first glance, it appears that they are claiming to have found the famous "missing link" in human evolution. But this thing they found is more like a lemur than a human.

It's a cool find, but it's not really a world changing event.

[itreius]

Evolution is a religion.
Please elaborate.

[NCLI]

please elaborate.

+1


This "missing link" hype is misleading. At first glance, it appears that they are claiming to have found the famous "missing link" in human evolution. But this thing they found is more like a lemur than a human.

It's a cool find, but it's not really a world changing event.

We're very unlikely to ever find the infamous "missing link." If you think about the incredible number of creatures that have lived on this planet, and then compare that to the number of fossils found, you should realize that fossils are actually incredibly rare, and that we are lucky to have so many.

[Changturkey]

Just because one person states his opinion "Evolution is a religion", does not make evolution, nor science for that matter, a religion.

[koenn]

Evolution is a religion.

As is science.
some people may think so, but they're wrong.

[terabyte1]

Hm! I thought that Bill Gates was the missing Link - though to what I wouldn't like to say...:D

[lisati]

Two observations:


Fanatacism for a particulur viewpoint (this includes science and enthusiasm for a particular OS) can take religious overtones. There are other threads that touch on this that might be better suited to such a discussion.
The so-called missing link is just one piece of the puzzle - its meaning is open to speculation. Without the benefit of Doctor Who's Tardis or some other such machine, it will be difficult to collect corroborative evidence which will help settle the matter.

[Bodsda]

Can we steer back on topic, this has nothing what ever to do with religion, so stop mentioning it or the thread will disappear.


As a scientific find I think this is quite interesting, but what it tells us about our ancestry is quite minimal if anything. I think that article just shows that we still havent got a damn clue about whats gone on all those years ago but were easily excited.

Personally I think there Is a much greater possibility that we split form our primate ancestors due to breeding from non-native species, i.e aliens. That explains the missing links, and also explains UFO sightings, their checking up on their offspring-species.

But until scientists can provide rock solid DNA proof of step-by-step evolution from the microbe to the homo sapien sapien then this sort of debate will always continue.

[koenn]

Personally I think there Is a much greater possibility that we split form our primate ancestors due to breeding from non-native species, i.e aliens. That explains the missing links, and also explains UFO sightings, their checking up on their offspring-species.

But until scientists can provide rock solid DNA proof of step-by-step evolution from the microbe to the homo sapien sapien then this sort of debate will always continue.
Maybe you should then also put your assumption about the origin of the human specias on hold until scientists can provide rock solid DNA proof of the involvement of extra-terrestrials in said origin ?

[Bodsda]

Maybe you should then also put your assumption about the origin of the human specias on hold until scientists can provide rock solid DNA proof of the involvement of extra-terrestrials in said origin ?

Just because an explanation cannot be proved/disproved does not mean we should refrain form discussing it.

Hmm, maybe my views are radically different to other peoples but I cannot comprehend how anyone can actually believe that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

And, we had to start from somewhere, a breeding program is a much more logical explanation then a microbe from a huge explosion of nothingness managed to survive the immense blast and over millennium evolved into humans. << That just sounds rediculous

[koenn]

Just because an explanation cannot be proved/disproved does not mean we should refrain form discussing it.

Just wanted to point out how you apparently dismiss one explanation because it isn't 100% proven, but don't see a problem in replacing it with an explanation thats even less proven.
OK, so you didn't get that. I doubt that any additional argumentation on my part can fix that.




And, we had to start from somewhere, a breeding program is a much more logical explanation then a microbe from a huge explosion of nothingness managed to survive the immense blast and over millennium evolved into humans. << That just sounds rediculous

You are reading this text on a computer.
Basically, your computer is just a heap of minerals and metal. To many people, it may sound ridiculous that a pile of copper and silicon would be capable of doing calculations, reproduce text, or transmit information over a distance of thousands of miles quasi instantaneously.

I know precisely just how flawed this analogy is, no need to point that out. I'm just offering it to indicate how complex systems are composed of less complex, or even plain simple components.
Add to that the effect of emergent behaviour, or emergence, which shows that complex systems, structures, patterns, ... can arise out of a relatively simple interactions between relatively simple components.

Makes evolution sound pretty plausable to me.


Also, you leave me wondering : if we "had to start somewhere", and a breeding progam by aliens is the most plausible explanation, wouldn't the same be true for those aliens as well ?

[DrHackenbush]

Please elaborate.

Sure.

In fairness, it's probably more accurate to say that evolution is a necessary component of the religion of humanism. In any event, belief in evolution requires at least as much faith as any conventional religion out there.

Seriously, when Einstein gave us his theory of relativity he also provided a number of tests whereby that theory could be disproved. Darwin gave us (this is a paraphrase) this: if you can find one life form that can't possibly be explained by natural selection, then the theory is disproved. In the place of natural selection, you could plug in God, random chance or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

For evolution to be viable you have to buy the notion that at one point there was nothing but suddenly all this nothing coalesced into a big something that exploded and whamo - a universe. After that, these lifeless chunks of something developed - over bazillions of years - water, atmosphere, single-celled organisms and CNN.

I'm not arguing that all of that is impossible, just that it takes a degree of faith to believe in it (just like it takes faith to believe that God created the heavens and the earth).

[clhsharky]

It reminds me of my X - small, skiny, and no action -

[etnlIcarus]

Missing link between what?
I wasn't aware there were any links missing.

Seishuku, meet the modern media's scientific and medical illiteracy; modern media's scientific and medical illiteracy, meet Seishuku. Is everyone acquainted?


Personally I think there Is a much greater possibility that we split form our primate ancestors due to breeding from non-native species, i.e aliens. That explains the missing links, and also explains UFO sightings, their checking up on their offspring-species.Aliens = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress Assuming their existence (and involvement) to solve a perceived problem just creates a bigger problem.


a much more logical explanation then a microbe from a huge explosion of nothingness managed to survive the immense blast and over millennium evolved into humans. << That just sounds rediculousThat sounds ridiculous exactly because no one has ever suggested the big bang created the first microbes. Among many other problems with this suggestion, the only conventional matter to emerge from the big bang was hydrogen, which explicitly precludes your assertion, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

These two events are separated by approx 11-12 billion years.


For evolution to be viable you have to buy the notion that at one point there was nothing but suddenly all this nothing coalesced into a big something that exploded and whamo - a universe.See my response immediately preceding this one: evolution =/= big bang cosmology. Not only could the two theories not be further apart (excuse double negative) but there is absolutely no requirement for a believer of one to believe the other.

[hanzomon4]

Personally I think there Is a much greater possibility that we split form our primate ancestors due to breeding from non-native species, i.e aliens. That explains the missing links, and also explains UFO sightings, their checking up on their offspring-species.

But until scientists can provide rock solid DNA proof of step-by-step evolution from the microbe to the homo sapien sapien then this sort of debate will always continue.

I'm sure bestiality is illegal on the Alien's home world... So hopefully we are not the descendent's of intergalactic convicts

[etnlIcarus]

I'm sure bestiality is illegal on the Alien's home world... So hopefully we are not the descendent's of intergalactic convicts

Way to spoil the conclusion of Battlestar, dude. :p

[DrHackenbush]

Seishuku, meet the modern media's scientific and medical illiteracy; modern media's scientific and medical illiteracy, meet Seishuku. Is everyone acquainted?

Aliens = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress Assuming their existence (and involvement) to solve a perceived problem just creates a bigger problem.

That sounds ridiculous exactly because no one has ever suggested the big bang created the first microbes. Among many other problems with this suggestion, the only conventional matter to emerge from the big bang was hydrogen, which explicitly precludes your assertion, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

These two events are separated by approx 11-12 billion years.

See my response immediately preceding this one: evolution =/= big bang cosmology. Not only could the two theories not be further apart (excuse double negative) but there is absolutely no requirement for a believer of one to believe the other.

Ok fine, but then you get locked in the infinite loop of 'all right but where did that come from'. Also, that doesn't refute the notion that evolution requires faith.

I'm not belittling anyone's faith in evolution, just identifying it.

[NCLI]

Sure.

In fairness, it's probably more accurate to say that evolution is a necessary component of the religion of humanism. In any event, belief in evolution requires at least as much faith as any conventional religion out there.

Seriously, when Einstein gave us his theory of relativity he also provided a number of tests whereby that theory could be disproved. Darwin gave us (this is a paraphrase) this: if you can find one life form that can't possibly be explained by natural selection, then the theory is disproved. In the place of natural selection, you could plug in God, random chance or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

For evolution to be viable you have to buy the notion that at one point there was nothing but suddenly all this nothing coalesced into a big something that exploded and whamo - a universe. After that, these lifeless chunks of something developed - over bazillions of years - water, atmosphere, single-celled organisms and CNN.

I'm not arguing that all of that is impossible, just that it takes a degree of faith to believe in it (just like it takes faith to believe that God created the heavens and the earth).

What you're missing here is that all scientific theories are built uipon observable evidence, while religion is built upon some old books and the belief that they are the word of some almighty being.

[hanzomon4]

Predicts shutdown in 5.... 4.... 3.... 2....

[gn2]

What you're missing here is that all scientific theories are built uipon observable evidence,

While science can study evidence, it cannot explain the reason for the existence of the evidence.

[DrHackenbush]

What you're missing here is that all scientific theories are built uipon observable evidence, while religion is built upon some old books and the belief that they are the word of some almighty being.

You and I are in 98% agreement right there. There are other conventional religions that don't depend on a belief in an almighty being but they do all require faith - just like the theory of evolution. If there were good, observable evidence for evolution, it seems as though we ought to have stumbled across it by now. We've been looking *really* hard for it ever since Darwin did his thing.

Look at the fossil mentioned in the OP. Is that some missing link between species A and species B? If so, it would be the first one we've discovered in the fossil record so far. If there were observable evidence of evolution in our fossil record, then it would be littered with the remains of things between A and B. Survival of the fittest seems to postulate that on average, the better examples of thing A will survive en route to becoming thing B, whereas the less fit examples of thing A would die off and never make it to thing B.

Where are all of those less fit specimens? Shouldn't the failed attempts outnumber the successful ones by a fair number? Shouldn't they also be preserved in the fossil record? They should but they just don't seem to be there. Using the eye of faith, though, we can certainly imagine them. :-)

As to the thread being closed - surely a theory as widely accepted as the theory of evolution - can tolerate a little harmless navel gazing on my part. After all, this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. :-D

[etnlIcarus]

Ok fine, but then you get locked in the infinite loop of 'all right but where did that come from'.No, you don't. Not unless you're < 10 and you're trying to antagonise your parents. A scientific theory has defined boundaries. Evolutionary biology is cosmological theory-agnostic: it says absolutely nothing about the truth of big-bang cosmology, never sought to and hypothetically, if the two theories every successfully linked, that would probably stand as one hell of a vindication of both theories.

If you're talking in the broader context of the sciences (you mentioned evolution specifically as being a matter of 'faith'), that's a different matter. The philosophy of science has never claimed that science is a complete knowledge; only a process through which to qualify and accumulate a body of knowledge. As such, when a scientist approaches a field of research, he needn't make assumptions about every other field of research. Really, it's that ability to say, quite humbly, "I don't know", that makes a scientist's work a faith-free (faith in the most common connotation, which I'll get to in a minute) process.


Also, that doesn't refute the notion that evolution requires faith.I don't really care to as you haven't actually made much of an argument for that assertion to begin with, let alone quantified just what, exactly you mean by, "faith". To use example-by-dictionary:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

"Faith"s definition varies quite a bit and with this in-mind, you'd be hard-pressed to honestly apply the same definition to both a creationist priest and an evolutionary biologist. 1, 3 and 6 could apply to the evolutionary biologist but 2, 4 and 5 would most certainly not. On the other hand, any and all of those definitions could be applied to our hypothetical creationist priest.

To further elaborate upon these subtleties: when applying 1 to our priest, it would almost certainly necessitate 2. When applying 1 to our biologist, it would almost certainly preclude 2. That confidence in a, "person, idea, or thing", for the biologist, would exist exactly because those persons, ideas and things carry with them the proofs and evidence excluded by 2. The same cannot be said for our priest.

[etnlIcarus]

While science can study evidence, it cannot explain the reason for the existence of the evidence.

We've already gone through this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html).


If there were good, observable evidence for evolution, it seems as though we ought to have stumbled across it by now.I'm curious. An average of 128 unique allele pairs emerge every time human meiosis occurs. We've got beautifully complete fossil transitions for a number of species, equally complete records for the emergence of organs such as the ear and enough of a general fossil record to chart the evolutionary history of just about every complex lifeform back to the Cambrian explosion (obligatory disclaimer: not a literal explosion).

What, in your mind, is missing? What part of the above isn't observable?

[koenn]

While science can study evidence, it cannot explain the reason for the existence of the evidence.
Yes, sure.
You're back to the "science can explain what and how, not why" argument.

Does that invalidate science in any way ?

[gn2]

Your link is irrelevant.

Why do bodies of mass attract over large distances?

You'll say because of gravity.

I then ask can you please explain how does gravity actually work, what property of mass is it that causes two objects to be drawn together?

You're stumped.

Ends.

Unless you're not stumped and can provide a full explanation of why atoms attract, in which case you could be up for a Nobel Prize.

But you still won't know why the atoms exist in the first place.....

[koenn]

We've already gone through this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html).


more than once.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6968493&postcount=36

[gn2]

Yes, sure.
You're back to the "science can explain what and how, not why" argument.

Does that invalidate science in any way ?

Absolutely not.

But ask yourself who appreciates a rose more, the woman who receives one from a man she loves or the scientist who dissects one in a lab.

Science just doesn't float my boat.

[koenn]

Absolutely not.

But ask yourself who appreciates a rose more, the woman who receives one from a man she loves or the scientist who dissects one in a lab.

Science just doesn't float my boat.

I happen to know quite a bit about computers, programs, and datacommunication networks.
Do you honestly believe this makes me enjoy surfing the internet any less than if I knew nothing about it ?

quite the contrary : my knowledge allows me to see the intrinsic beauty of how the components of this entire distributed system fit together and complement each other ...

[etnlIcarus]

Your link is irrelevant."the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly)". That's a perfectly apt description of the fallacy you keep repeating. It's a shame you seemingly can't comprehend it.


Why do bodies of mass attract over large distances?
Literally, this question is identical to:

How do bodies of mass attract over large distances?
This is not the same, "why", you suggested with:

While science can study evidence, it cannot explain the reason for the existence of the evidence.
Or the same why you blatantly stated with:

That's the problem with science, it can only describe the what, it cannot explain why.
You're not even arguing your own point anymore. You'd just hoped I wouldn't notice that not even you think your argument is tenable.

[gn2]

I happen to know quite a bit about computers, programs, and datacommunication networks.
Do you honestly believe this makes me enjoy surfing the internet any less than if I knew nothing about it ?

Less isn't more.
Does your knowledge of the technology enhance your enjoyment of the material that the technology presents to you?
When you look at a picture on your monitor do you enjoy it more than if it is printed on paper?

[gn2]

You'd just hoped I wouldn't notice that not even you think your argument is tenable.

You have made a false assumption.
And I observe that you still cannot answer my questions.
No Nobel Prize for you.

[koenn]

Less isn't more.
Does your knowledge of the technology enhance your enjoyment of the material that the technology presents to you?
When you look at a picture on your monitor do you enjoy it more than if it is printed on paper?

I'll repeat:

I happen to know quite a bit about computers, programs, and datacommunication networks.
Do you honestly believe this makes me enjoy surfing the internet any less than if I knew nothing about it ?

quite the contrary : my knowledge allows me to see the intrinsic beauty of how the components of this entire distributed system fit together and complement each other ...

Try to read the entire post, the final paragraph contains your answer.
(I'm not planning to upload a video to youtube)

[etnlIcarus]

You have made a false assumption.
And I observe that you still cannot answer my questions.
No Nobel Prize for you.

Okay, I'll play your game: I do not know why gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the universe.

Now answer my question: how does that admission, in any way, support the assumption that gravity has a purpose?

[DrHackenbush]

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I'd say all but perhaps 4 applies to evolution but I imagine this is one of those areas where you and I will just need to be ok with disagreeing.

No offense though - I'm not trying to convert you away from your faith.



I'm curious. An average of 128 unique allele pairs emerge every time human meiosis occurs. We've got beautifully complete fossil transitions for a number of species, equally complete records for the emergence of organs such as the ear and enough of a general fossil record to chart the evolutionary history of just about every complex lifeform back to the Cambrian explosion (obligatory disclaimer: not a literal explosion).

What, in your mind, is missing? What part of the above isn't observable?

You see the beautifully complete fossil record and conclude evolution is the reason, I see the same record and come to another conclusion (that I'm studiously trying to avoid mentioning). I think the fossil record shows a number of different species - some with no ears and some with big ears, etc. It doesn't seem to show earless species A morphing into big-eared species B.

[gn2]

~ the assumption that gravity has a purpose?

Whose assumption is this?
It's not one I have made.

[etnlIcarus]

I'd say all but perhaps 4 applies to evolution but I imagine this is one of those areas where you and I will just need to be ok with disagreeing.

No offense though - I'm not trying to convert you away from your faith.

Well no offence but you've just demonstrated that you cannot parse the meanings of the word you've chosen to use. That or your conceptual understanding of philosophical principle is so weak that you cannot see the forest from the proverbial trees.



Anyway, I'm going to bed. koenn, I'm leaving the keys to the thread to you until I return. You have my permission and solemn endorsement to do whatever the hell you like. :p

(Seriously, feel free to finish my debate for me).

[etnlIcarus]

Whose assumption is this?
It's not one I have made.

why

reason
Possible synonyms: purpose, how.

However, purpose is exclusively deliberate in connotation:


That's the problem with science, it can only describe the what, it cannot explain whyAssumption of a deliberate purpose.

While science can study evidence, it cannot explain the reason for the existence of the evidenceAgain, assumption of a deliberate purpose.

If you continue to insist that you haven't made this assumption and, "why", and, "reason", are simply synonyms for how, all your statements become the following:


science can explain how, it just can't explain how!

Either you have assumed purpose (in which case, re: begging the question) or you haven't (in which case, you've been arguing against yourself).

Make up your mind and figure out what you're saying. Hopefully by the time I wake up, you'll have emerged from your self-inflicted confusion and we can pick this back up. Good night.

[DrHackenbush]

Well no offence but you've just demonstrated that you cannot parse the meanings of the word you've chosen to use. That or your conceptual understanding of philosophical principle is so weak that you cannot see the forest from the proverbial trees.



Anyway, I'm going to bed. koenn, I'm leaving the keys to the thread to you until I return. You have my permission and solemn endorsement to do whatever the hell you like. :p

(Seriously, feel free to finish my debate for me).

Sure I can. You seem to be typing in anger - it's just a discussion. I hope you have a great night!

More importantly (though completely unrelated), where is your avatar pic from? That reminds me of a character from The Tick but I certainly wouldn't swear to it.

[gn2]

Possible synonyms: purpose, how.

However, purpose is exclusively deliberate in connotation:

Assumption of a deliberate purpose.
Again, assumption of a deliberate purpose.

If you continue to insist that you haven't made this assumption and, "why", and, "reason", are simply synonyms for how, all your statements become the following:



Either you have assumed purpose (in which case, re: begging the question) or you haven't (in which case, you've been arguing against yourself).

Make up your mind and figure out what you're saying. Hopefully by the time I wake up, you'll have emerged from your self-inflicted confusion and we can pick this back up. Good night.

If you can't understand me, that's your problem not mine.
Nitey-nite, sweet dreams.

[hanzomon4]

I'm going to go read some Plato

[cl333r]

The biggest problem is that one can't tear apart lies from facts, unless judging (only) upon very hard work done by itself. Those who (heavily) rely on authorities are asking (under the hood) to be slaves and propaganda puppets - and they never realize this and will laugh you in the face when told so.
Because of that, now, like in the past, the sarcastic saying still holds true: facts are facts until proven otherwise.
As long as people don't discover/admit they live in a 'matrix' they stand no chances to be really free.
Thus "the missing link" is another "timely fact" to further push the idea/propaganda of the pre-approved mozaic/worldview. Like some psychologists say (i.e. who work for the defence), "normal" people stand no chance to understand what's going on, ironically for many reasons.

[Maheriano]

Guys, they dug this thing out 25 years ago and they're just showing us now to sell some books and a documentary that go with it. It's hardly news.

[Ascenti0n]

The theory of evolution is impossible mathematically, and even by use of reason, you would have to conclude the same.

The fossil remains, which is noteworthy for it's completeness if nothing else, is SPECULATED by some, to be a missing link, along with the other billions of missing links that are still missing.

[haemulon]

Guys, they dug this thing out 25 years ago and they're just showing us now to sell some books and a documentary that go with it. It's hardly news.


It does seem a little unusual. And then there's this that the producer of the documentary said;




In this time of economic hardship, it is nice to turn to another time, 47 million years ago, to the story of a little girl, who possibly connects to us,
Anthony Geffen of Atlantic Productions, which produced the documentary.



The promotional web site looks really slick and polished




This discovery represents both great minds and a great find,
said Ellen Futter, president of the museum.



I guess they needed some $$$$, and to pat themselves on the back.



Our great minds brought out that there missing link after 25 long years, in this time of economic hardship, what a great find.

yeah right.

[koenn]

The theory of evolution is impossible mathematically, and even by use of reason, you would have to conclude the same.

You seem to see a contradiction between "mathematically" and "by use of reason" while they are practically synonyms, but I'll let that pass for now.

"The theory of evolution is impossible mathematically" - havent' heard that before. Care to explain ?

[Ascenti0n]

You seem to see a contradiction between "mathematically" and "by use of reason" while they are practically synonyms, but I'll let that pass for now.

To clarify: "by use of reason" I mean employing the use of reason WITHOUT the use of mathematics.


"The theory of evolution is impossible mathematically" - havent' heard that before. Care to explain ?

Anything that has a chance probability of less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50, is accepted as to be so small as to be considered impossible. There are many scientific studies within various disciplines that demonstrate values much smaller than this, in the fields of physics, biology, astrophysics etc

[etnlIcarus]

Sure I can. You seem to be typing in anger - it's just a discussion. I hope you have a great night!

More importantly (though completely unrelated), where is your avatar pic from? That reminds me of a character from The Tick but I certainly wouldn't swear to it.I assure you that was not typed in anger. I quite sincerely mean it when I say you're misapplying definitions and/or if you can't appreciate the very fundamental differences between our two hypothetical fellows, then your philosophical education has failed you.

And the av is Teela from the 2002 remake of He-Man. Critically underrated cartoon.


If you can't understand me, that's your problem not mine.
Nitey-nite, sweet dreams.

You're right: your inability to express yourself is my problem. I suppose your reverting to a childish and obnoxious state when backed into a corner is also my problem.


Anything that has a chance probability of less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50, is accepted as to be so small as to be considered impossible. Odd, I did quite a bit of pure maths and never encountered this assertion. Even more curiously, a quick google turns up ...nothing but this statement used in this exact context (various precious individuals claiming 'math kills evolutionz').


There are many scientific studies within various disciplines that demonstrate values much smaller than this, in the fields of physics, biology, astrophysics etcYou still haven't provided an example, nor have you provided any context (eg. "event X, occurring at time Y, in location Z, has a 1 in 34^60 chance", is too vivid and useless in determining if X can, in fact, occur).

[0per4t0r]

Hmmm..... I'm a Christian, so I don't really care. I just enjoy watching monkey's antics, not finding connections between them and us.

[CK05]

I don't think evolution is an appropriate discussion for the Community Cafe because it may spark a debate about religion.

Such an untouchable subject.

Yet it's okay to have Mac Vs Linux Vs Windows? Not much different imo. :D

[etnlIcarus]

Just whack it in Recurring, if they're so worried about anyone reading these arguments.

[thisllub]

great find! but i agree that it's not that important because DNA is a better way to trace evolution than is bones. but this is just nice to have some fossils of extinct species.

DNA can't predict what transitional forms looked like at any particular time.
Fossils give us a picture of how creatures were at that time.

[thisllub]

To clarify: "by use of reason" I mean employing the use of reason WITHOUT the use of mathematics.



Anything that has a chance probability of less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50, is accepted as to be so small as to be considered impossible. There are many scientific studies within various disciplines that demonstrate values much smaller than this, in the fields of physics, biology, astrophysics etc

Evolution by natural selection is an exponential process. The probability of a particular individual is a function of the exponent of the number of generations between two points.

Between us and the fossil "Ida" there are more than a million generations hence the probability of any individual descendent arising from its genes is much less than 1 in 10^1000000 a number which is so great it is almost beyond comprehension. Especially considering that there are less than 10^100 particles in the known universe.
Yet we are here proving that such a circumstance is real.

[lisati]

Hmmm..... I'm a Christian, so I don't really care. I just enjoy watching monkey's antics, not finding connections between them and us.

This thought jogged a memory of something I heard on a Christian radio show (I forget which): the possibility was raised that observed similarities between could just as easily be explained by them having a common software designer as it could be by some form of evolution.

But I digress from the original topic and risk being flamed......

My belief is that the recently revealed fossil is just one piece of the puzzle of "why and how are we here?" - as such it's open to interpretation and speculation.

[etnlIcarus]

I ask myself why I'm here almost daily... >.>

[edm1]

Mmmm this "discussion" is getting funny. I'm not here to argue about religion because it's been done so many times before and it's boring, i won't proselytise if you dont. It's people using pseudo-science to create scepticism and doubt over the subject that really annoys me. It's only in the past few years whiles studying an undergraduates in genetics that i've really realised what science is and how careful you have to be about where you get your facts from because the media and other untrustworthy publications can ruin sciences reputation with misinformation.



The theory of evolution is impossible mathematically, and even by use of reason, you would have to conclude the same.
...
Anything that has a chance probability of less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50, is accepted as to be so small as to be considered impossible. There are many scientific studies within various disciplines that demonstrate values much smaller than this, in the fields of physics, biology, astrophysics etc

Firstly, evolution is not a theory, natural selection is. Populations of organisms DO change over time and can be seen in a lab, for example a common test for mutagenicity (how much an agent increases the frequency of mutations) is to use a strain of salmonella that is dependant on histidine for grow, apply the mutagen, then grow them on a plate that doesnt contain histidine. The number of colonies growing can be used to calculate the rate of mutation. If each of these colonies is now able to synthesis the histidine they require to grow and the environment has selected out the bacteria that were unable to grow.

Also, what do you mean it is mathematically impossible? You say anything with a chance of <1x10^-50 is insignificant but what are you relating that to biologically. The only thing i can think of is the natural rate of mutations in genomic and mitochondrial DNA but they are way higher. It obviously varies greatly between organisms but the average rate is between 10^-4 and 10^-6 mutations per base pair per generation in eukaryotes and about 10^-8 in prokaryotes (and about double that in mitochondrial DNA). These slight changes in our DNA are what ultimately lead to the diversity between both organisms of the same species and different species, this is where you can look up natural selection...in fact no read the wikipedia article on evolution, it covers many of the basics behind evolution but is by no means complete. Really the field of evolutionary biology is well beyond the need to prove that common descent with modification explains the diversity of life.

[koenn]

To clarify: "by use of reason" I mean employing the use of reason WITHOUT the use of mathematics.
mathematics is very useful as a language to express reasoning, so your distinction kinda confused me.



Anything that has a chance probability of less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50, is accepted as to be so small as to be considered impossible. There are many scientific studies within various disciplines that demonstrate values much smaller than this, in the fields of physics, biology, astrophysics etc
I think I finally see what you're getting at with this. You probably mean (or: the person you heard this from, meant ... ) that, with the minute changes over thousands or millions of generations, the probability that, say, Australopithecines would eventually produce current humans like you and me, is relatively small.

The flaw in this reasoning is that it presumes that the current outcome was intentional, i.e. that said Australopithecines (or whatever) was meant to evolve into today's human.
The point is that there is no intended goal in evolution. The outcome just is what it is.

[etnlIcarus]

*bump*

Good ol' Ars:


It's probably worth spending some time clarifying what Darwinius isn't. Some of the sponsors of its unveiling, including the BBC and History Channel, would have you believe that the fossil, nicknamed Ida, is a key missing link—one that (in words that have been since been edited out of a phenomenally stupid post on the TED blog) "validates Darwin." Darwin's proposal that organisms are related by common descent was considered validated over a century ago—at best, Ida could have told us something was wrong with Darwin's idea if it had, to borrow Haldane's phrase, shown up in the Cambrian. Instead, it dates from the Eocene, right where we'd expect an early primate to appear.

The "missing link" language is pretty misleading as well. The phrase, in popular understanding, is typically reserved for something that had a mixture of characteristics of human and non-human primates, and was ancestral to modern humans. We've already got a lot of these fossils, and it's not clear that anything is "missing" there. Those fossils, as well as other evidence, suggests that humans diverged from the rest of the primates about 6 million years ago; Ida dates to 50 million years old, so it's not the missing link as most of the public probably knows it.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/05/missing-links-and-media-circuses.ars

The moral of the story? Stop watching the nightly news. Well, that's probably a bad idea; watch the nightly news, just don't assume that qualifies you to say anything of substance on scientific, medical, political, hmm... on any subject, really.