JapanForum.com  


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
(#91 (permalink))
Old
solemnclockwork's Avatar
solemnclockwork (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 194
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kentucky
05-26-2009, 10:30 AM

Taken from Official Evolution Topic

YES! I knew "Ida" would come up here. (Pulls out big guns and a sledgehammer to use on the "evolutionary coffin.") [BigGrin]

If Ida is indeed a "missing link" then what are these guys thinking? READ ON:

Jørn Hurum, at the University of Oslo, the scientist who assembled the international team of researchers to study Ida is relaxed about using the phrase [“missing link” to describe Ida]. “Why not? I think we could use that phrase for this kind of specimen,” he said. “[People] have a feeling that if something is important it is a missing link.”

[i]n the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil [the author] is more circumspect. “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past,” the authors wrote.

“[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here.”

The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.
One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. “That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published,” he said.

“Is Fossil Ida a Missing Link in Evolution?”
James Randerson, The Guardian, May 19, 2009


[D]espite 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.”
All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may.

“Seeking a Missing Link, and a Mass Audience”
Tim Arango, The New York Times, May 19, 2009


University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown remains skeptical. He pointed to a story in the Weekend Australian in which one of [coauthor Jørn] Hurum’s coauthors, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, said the team would have preferred to publish in a more rigorous journal such as Science or Nature.
Dr. Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal: “There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”

“That rings all sorts of warning bells,” Professor Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.
“It’s nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates . . . but they’ve cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they’ve been criticized (by other scientists) for doing that.”

“Scientists Divided on Ida as the Missing Link”
Leigh Dayton, The Australian, May 21, 2009


“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing.” . . .

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

Most experts agree that the find is significant, if only for its impressive degree of completeness, but some were put off by the bells and whistles that went along with the publicity campaign around Ida. . . .

“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” [Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris] Beard said.

“Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor"
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience, May 20, 2009


Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper.

“There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay . . . of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”

Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth,” the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. “It’s like going back to 1994,” says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. “They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.”

"‘Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists”
Ann Gibbons, ScienceNOW, May 19, 2009


Science is supposed to be methodical, and usually it is, sometimes to the point of being dull. But there are times when a little hoopla is called for. Major discoveries that rewrite the textbooks deserve big headlines and ubiquitous media coverage and lots of scientific slaps on the back and all that.

The discovery of the “Ida” fossil, announced this week as though the 47-million-year-old lemur-like female were a rock star, seemed at first like one to celebrate.

Today we know better. . . . [T]here are doubts about whether [humans are] really descended from Ida. Problem is, most of the coverage is done, and the public could be left with the impression that Ida is a rock-solid missing link in the human evolutionary chain. . . .
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. . . .

The debacle started to unfold when the finding, cloaked in secrecy while a media engine was being primed, leaked out in The Wall Street Journal, and then in London’s Daily Mail. Then The New York Times wrote about the media circus that was to ensue. All this was published before anyone but the research team (and its tightly controlled media team) knew the details of the finding. . . .

Ida’s unveiling was highly scripted (with some “Barnum and Bailey aspects,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University). More important, it can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won’t know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed.

“Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far”
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, May 20, 2009


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. . . .
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."

"Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil”
Christine McGourty, BBC News, May 19, 2009


Ok. I know I said I had "washed my hands of this topic" but I knew Ida would come up and I wanted to balance the playing field. I applaud all the scientists who are skeptical. Skepticism is what makes science what it is.

Be sure to look at the titles/authors of these pieces (in bold.) You can even look them up for yourself. These aren't whacko creationists. These are evolutionist scientists.

(Puts down sledgehammer, goes to get a backhoe. Evolution deserves to be six feet under.) Sorry. [Smile] Just a little of my bias shining through. He he he.

MMM,
Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Doesn't show the majority of Americans believe evolution to be true.

One of the problems with these "missing links" is that it never ends. To find "one" you have to find the one to go before it, and the one after it, and you have to repeat the process for those too.

AAAS - Evolution Resources

This articles has several read flags about it. One they say Theories are based on fact obtained thought observation and experiment. Question is when have they tested and observed evolution? Then they go on to say there is no evidence against the theory. Ok what then about the second law of Thermodynamics? Last they say they will not debate an "certain" group, which I would let you decide on what that spells.

Is Carbon Dating Reliable? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Yeah the site has an bias, but that shouldn't matter if what they present is true (people who testify in an court usually have an bias that doesn't stop there testimony from being accepted). It deals with the whole carbon dating issue.


1 Corinthians 10: 31-33
31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
(#92 (permalink))
Old
alanX's Avatar
alanX (Offline)
The Psychedelic Traveler
 
Posts: 1,114
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: An arrogant nation.
Send a message via Skype™ to alanX
05-26-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom View Post
It existed. Humans have never witnessed creation, only transformation.

The matter law explains it all: 'Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed'

The universe was always there, 'Bing Bang' might have been a transformation. Evolution is a transformation.

This is a theory too, but it works so far... nobody has ever created a new chemical element or an atom for that matter. They just mix atoms and such.
Exactly. You answered my question with my own question....
You said "the universe was always there"
But how do you believe it got there? Evolved from more rocks? Then how did those get there?

It had to start from somewhere... something had to literally make something. If you say... "well, the universe evolved from X" then X had to get here somehow. "well, X evolved from Y" then Y had to get here somehow. "well it evolved from....."

All religious talk aside, evolution and the BB theory are very half-baked theories in my eyes.


猿も木から落ちる

Last edited by alanX : 05-26-2009 at 02:55 PM.
(#93 (permalink))
Old
iPhantom's Avatar
iPhantom (Offline)
is a pretty cool guy
 
Posts: 1,206
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Send a message via AIM to iPhantom Send a message via MSN to iPhantom Send a message via Skype™ to iPhantom
05-26-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by alanX View Post
It had to start from somewhere... something had to literally make something. If you say... "well, the universe evolved from X" then X had to get here somehow.
If it had to start from somewhere it had a primary state... so I guess you're asking for the primary state of the universe, which I cannot answer.



Quote:
Since when is it immature to talk about pudding? Seriously, do you know the meaning of mature?
(#94 (permalink))
Old
MMM's Avatar
MMM (Offline)
JF Ossan
 
Posts: 12,200
Join Date: Jun 2007
05-26-2009, 06:05 PM

I think I have said all I can on this one. Just remember, think about the motives of the person who gives you information.

A scientist has no vested interest in having you believe in evolution. Is the same true of the person who tells you not to believe in evolution.
(#95 (permalink))
Old
solemnclockwork's Avatar
solemnclockwork (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 194
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kentucky
05-26-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM View Post
I think I have said all I can on this one. Just remember, think about the motives of the person who gives you information.

A scientist has no vested interest in having you believe in evolution. Is the same true of the person who tells you not to believe in evolution.
What?!

What type of statement is that? Scientists have motives for asking you to believe, same can be said for others. Even then if the information and evidence is there what good does it do to have an "motive"?

I do believe everyone does something for an reason, this I don't see what your trying to say here.

Like for me, I present the case against evolution because I clearly believe that the "theory" is not what the scientists would have you believe. My motive would be for people to ask and look at both sides.

I believe the main point here I'm trying to make regardless of bias, motive, whatnots etc. you look at the information provided then judge if it's worthy.


1 Corinthians 10: 31-33
31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
(#96 (permalink))
Old
Nyororin's Avatar
Nyororin (Offline)
Mod Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4,146
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: あま市
Send a message via MSN to Nyororin Send a message via Yahoo to Nyororin
05-26-2009, 11:34 PM

This is really nothing but a religious debate...
Come on. I`ve already given one warning. Remember the rule policy about religious threads? That applies here too. It doesn`t seem like there can be any truly civil discussions involving religion on here. *sigh*

If it can`t stop the thread WILL be closed.


Make the move!
The new Japan Forum Community -
(#97 (permalink))
Old
ivi0nk3y's Avatar
ivi0nk3y (Offline)
Calm Like A Bomb
 
Posts: 1,048
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
05-27-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom View Post
Science is based on evidence. Like I said before, if anyone makes studies regarding evolution they will come up with the same conclusion.

Faith on religion is blind because you don't have verifiable evidence. You can't examine it further.
On the contrary, faith in Evolution is blind.

I'm not gonna argue with you about religion simply because the thread will be closed. Wish I could though.
As for the Big Bang, there was evidence for it, thus I believe it. (It is also mentioned in the Quran.)


Truth Hurts

LIFE THREATENING
Lifestyles
A HITMAN, A NUN
Lovers

Last edited by ivi0nk3y : 05-27-2009 at 12:39 PM.
(#98 (permalink))
Old
iPhantom's Avatar
iPhantom (Offline)
is a pretty cool guy
 
Posts: 1,206
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Send a message via AIM to iPhantom Send a message via MSN to iPhantom Send a message via Skype™ to iPhantom
05-27-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y View Post
On the contrary, faith in Evolution is blind.

I'm not gonna argue with you about religion simply because the thread will be closed. Wish I could though.
As for the Big Bang, there was evidence for it, thus I believe it. (It is also mentioned in the Quran.)
You can give the reasons why 'faith' in evolution is blind? That is not against the rules, as long as you don't mention religion. I'm really interested in how you call it faith anyway... evolution has evidence so it is in no way faith.



Quote:
Since when is it immature to talk about pudding? Seriously, do you know the meaning of mature?
(#99 (permalink))
Old
solemnclockwork's Avatar
solemnclockwork (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 194
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kentucky
05-27-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyororin View Post
This is really nothing but a religious debate...
Come on. I`ve already given one warning. Remember the rule policy about religious threads? That applies here too. It doesn`t seem like there can be any truly civil discussions involving religion on here. *sigh*

If it can`t stop the thread WILL be closed.
Where the sites I used be considered adding to the religious part of this? I ask mainly because I was very much trying to stay focused in Ida and evolution. While the third site I gave is part of an religious site I wanted it only for the information it provided on that page. Would it have been better to post the info, then gave the credit?


1 Corinthians 10: 31-33
31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
(#100 (permalink))
Old
ivi0nk3y's Avatar
ivi0nk3y (Offline)
Calm Like A Bomb
 
Posts: 1,048
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, England
05-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire View Post
Haha... I'm no scientist.

But bacterial evolution shows change at a cellular level, and since we are all made up of cells... go figure.
Yea but all cells don't share this trait.
As for Bacteria, there are mutations in them but these have been shown not to be adaptive. For instance, the bacteria wasn't introduced to an anti-biotic for the mutation to occur. There were studies done that showed how mutations already existed in Bacteria for certain anti-biotics, 100 years before those bacteria were exposed to them.
There are a few processes other than Mutation, which Bacteria perform to get resistant to an anti-biotic.
There are things called 'Plasmids' inside bacteria. These carry codes for the bacterias survival. (Some of the enzymes in this assist in the breakdown of antibiotics and so you have at least one process by which bacteria grow immune to them.)
Any other process does not further the cause of "Macro Evolution" and so you can't use this mutation process to justify Evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire View Post
How so? If science is self correcting... then obviously the individual that "believes" in science is self correcting too.
Exactly, so you'd have to be at the end of a certain discovery to be entirely sure of something. We can never be sure of this with science.
For instance, Newton thought his theory on gravity was all that was, as did people who believed in it. Einstein came and gave us relativity and hence Curved space theory, giving us another theory to do with the gravitational pull. As we advance, so undoubtedly will these theories.
So if an individual is self correcting, that is fine. They however can not use science to be the infallible entity that so many people take it as.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom View Post
You can give the reasons why 'faith' in evolution is blind? That is not against the rules, as long as you don't mention religion. I'm really interested in how you call it faith anyway... evolution has evidence so it is in no way faith.
That is the thing, i've given these reasons already in the main Evolution thread and others.
Either way, it is hard not to mention religion when talking about Evolution, since it is the Crutch for most Atheists to use against most religions.
Lastly, it is faith in evolution because the so called evidence, is flawed.


Truth Hurts

LIFE THREATENING
Lifestyles
A HITMAN, A NUN
Lovers

Last edited by ivi0nk3y : 05-27-2009 at 04:29 PM.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




Copyright 2003-2006 Virtual Japan.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6