JapanForum.com

JapanForum.com (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/)
-   General Discussion (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)
-   -   Missing link revealed. (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/25280-missing-link-revealed.html)

Ronin4hire 05-20-2009 02:07 PM

Missing link revealed.
 
I'll be interested in the evolution deniers response when more is revealed about it.

Fossil Ida: extraordinary find is 'missing link' human evolution | Science | guardian.co.uk

Anyway.. It seems the scientific community is really excited about this.

Quote:

Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida – has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution.

The top-level international research team, who have studied her in secret for the past two years, believe she is the most complete and best preserved primate fossil ever uncovered. The skeleton is 95% complete and thanks to the unique location where she died, it is possible to see individual hairs covering her body and even the make-up of her final meal – a last vegetarian snack.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters," said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. "The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo."

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.

SHAD0W 05-20-2009 02:40 PM

LOL awesome timing for a missing link discovery eh?

Interesting stuff!

Jaydelart 05-21-2009 01:55 AM

You know I don't believe in Evolution, but that's a pretty cool find, nevertheless.
It's a beautiful specimen.

Still waiting for the cavemen, though...

KikiBunny23 05-21-2009 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720205)
Still waiting for the cavemen, though...

look at humanity now XD some people could be considered cavemen they stay holed up so much.

thats pretty cool, evolution still confuses me though XD

ozkai 05-21-2009 02:17 AM

Ahhh, going back all those years ago, imagine, no more expensive shaving cream and Gilette razor blades to buy, the expense of clothes didn't exist as we grew them naturally, shopping was healthy exercise, and copulation was a matter of fact, never a case of with whom, but rather when, imagine, life must have been so much easier.

I wonder what happened and why it all suddenly dissapeared?

Was it a Tornadoe, a Tsuanami, a Meteor, a sudden change in one day of the climate, I wonder if the theory will ever unfold.

SaintKat 05-21-2009 03:25 AM

That's amazing. Always wondered what it would look like.
:eek:

Ronin4hire 05-21-2009 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720205)
You know I don't believe in Evolution, but that's a pretty cool find, nevertheless.
It's a beautiful specimen.

Still waiting for the cavemen, though...

I suppose you don't believe in modern medicine and anti-biotics too

kMal 05-21-2009 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozkai (Post 720229)
Ahhh, going back all those years ago, imagine, no more expensive shaving cream and Gilette razor blades to buy, the expense of clothes didn't exist as we grew them naturally, shopping was healthy exercise, and copulation was a matter of fact, never a case of with whom, but rather when, imagine, life must have been so much easier.

I wonder what happened and why it all suddenly dissapeared?

Was it a Tornadoe, a Tsuanami, a Meteor, a sudden change in one day of the climate, I wonder if the theory will ever unfold.

It was America. HAHA!

Jaydelart 05-21-2009 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 720339)
I suppose you don't believe in modern medicine and anti-biotics too

No, frankly, I just don't believe all life originated from a primordial soup.

Ronin4hire 05-21-2009 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720447)
No, frankly, I just don't believe all life originated from a primordial soup.

Based on what reasoning?

Jaydelart 05-21-2009 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 720471)
Based on what reasoning?

Based on the reasoning that the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

ozkai 05-21-2009 05:24 PM

I think the reasons are because people need PROOF.

FeyOberon 05-21-2009 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720520)
the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

A fact overlooked by many, many people.

The find is incredible, though.

zorminus 05-21-2009 05:58 PM

I have always belived that God didn't create the humans and earth.
Its more like the Earth created Humans that created God.
( I belive we aren't meant to exist ,it's just temprature, oxygen and many other factors that created us)

Earth > Humans > God

MMM 05-21-2009 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720520)
Based on the reasoning that the Theory of Evolution is a theory.

So if something is a theory, you don't believe in it?

Jaydelart 05-21-2009 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720548)
So if something is a theory, you don't believe in it?

Not automatically. Theories are refutable.

MMM 05-21-2009 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720555)
Not automatically. Theories are refutable.

Then refute evolution.

One thing people often don't realize is that the layperson definition of "theory" and the scientific definition of "theory" have two different meanings. Creationists and Intelligent Design believers have capitalized on this to confuse the masses. I won't go any further into that, but let's just say that scientists do NOT see evolution as refutable.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iPhantom 05-21-2009 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720555)
Not automatically. Theories are refutable.

Theories are not refutable because your mind thinks so. give some clues as to why we should refuse it.

FeyOberon 05-21-2009 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720572)
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

MMM, I respect you as one of the most intelligent and well spoken minds on this forum. However, it would be untrue to claim that evolution has ever been "confirmed through experiment," let alone "repeatedly."

Also, I thought religion was a taboo subject here? No one can say we aren't discussing religion -- evolution and religion are two sides of the same debate.

MMM 05-21-2009 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720596)
MMM, I respect you as one of the most intelligent and well spoken minds on this forum. However, it would be untrue to claim that evolution has ever been "confirmed through experiment," let alone "repeatedly."

Also, I thought religion was a taboo subject here? No one can say we aren't discussing religion -- evolution and religion are two sides of the same debate.

The fact that evolution exists has been confirmed through observation experiment. Things like the swine flu is just one of thousands of examples. Why is it that flu inoculations become ineffective after as little as a year? Because the flu becomes resistant to the inoculations. That is evolution.

We don't need to talk about religion to talk about evolution.

iPhantom 05-21-2009 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720599)
We don't need to talk about religion to talk about evolution.

True. Religious people think religion is on par with a scientific theory! :mtongue: How sad.

zorminus 05-21-2009 08:40 PM

Jaydelart? can you tell me how you belive the human race began?

FeyOberon 05-21-2009 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720599)
The fact that evolution exists has been confirmed through observation experiment. Things like the swine flu is just one of thousands of examples. Why is it that flu inoculations become ineffective after as little as a year? Because the flu becomes resistant to the inoculations. That is evolution.

There are countless different strains of influenza virus. Because it would be impossible to vaccinate against every strain, every year doctors and scientists attempt to predict which strains will be predominant in the upcoming flu season and prepare the vaccine accordingly. The foremost reason that last year's vaccination will be ineffective next year is that different strains will predominate.

That being said, I am not denying that virus strains can adapt to treatments that target them. These are normal genetic variations that the virus possessed the capability of in the first place. While an influenza virus may develop a vaccine resistance and be named something new to differentiate it from a non-resistant strain, it is still an influenza virus -- it will never turn into gastroenteritis, HIV, or any other type of virus, let alone something other than a virus altogether.

That is not evolution, it is variation.

And @ iPhantom: You don't really think a discussion about the origin of life and the universe can take place without involving religion (i.e. various belief systems), do you?

MMM 05-21-2009 09:25 PM

1) All living things come from other living things. All living things have a "parent"

2) Animals are not as "different" as those who don't believe in evolution like to think. You can say monkeys are different from dogs that are different from whales. But these creatures do share similar traits. They all have spines, for example. In fact the animal world is divided into 2: vertebrates and invertebrates. With or without a spine.

3) Simple plants and animals existed long before complex ones. The fossil record shows this.

iPhantom 05-21-2009 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720637)
And @ iPhantom: You don't really think a discussion about the origin of life and the universe can take place without involving religion (i.e. various belief systems), do you?

People who use their own beliefs to prove something can't be helped.

FeyOberon 05-21-2009 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720671)
1) All living things come from other living things. All living things have a "parent"

2) Animals are not as "different" as those who don't believe in evolution like to think. You can say monkeys are different from dogs that are different from whales. But these creatures do share similar traits. They all have spines, for example. In fact the animal world is divided into 2: vertebrates and invertebrates. With or without a spine.

3) Simple plants and animals existed long before complex ones. The fossil record shows this.

1) I'm not entirely sure how this point relates to anything that has been said recently. Of course all things living on the earth are the offspring of their predecessors -- that really goes without saying, I would hope. If you are alluding to the absolute origin of life, however, then the first "parents" had to have come from somewhere. You will not find a person anywhere who claims to be a scientist and believes that life on earth has always existed.

2) Yes, monkeys and dogs and whales all have spines and hair, are mammals, are bilaterally symmetric, and share numerous other traits. And, yes, the animal world is categorized by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species based on similar trates among different species. But your point is overly simplistic in that there are irreconcilable differences between different species on a cellular and DNA level. I took biology also, so please don't patronize me.

My point with the viruses was not that two different strains of virus (or viruses compared with bacteria or anything else not viral) are so different from one another. Rather, my point was that, no matter how small the difference between two different organizims, one will never change into the other. My point was that your example of viral "evolution" is not evolution at all.

3) The age of fossils, and, by extension, the plants and animals you refer to, is determined by radiocarbon dating -- an imperfect dating method that cannot provide an accurate age without knowledge of unknowable variables from the past. Also, even today, simple plants and animals are much more likely to encounter circumstances that would lead to fossilization than are complex life forms.

And @ iPhantom: This is what I meant -- Even scientists don't have a theory as to where matter originated from. The Big Bang theory requires a dense mass to be in existence before the big bang occurred. Because "science" has not provided an explanation, theorizing about the source of matter boils down to "I think *fill in the blank* is the answer." Each individual decides for himself what he thinks the answer is. That is his belief.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow). :vsign:

iPhantom 05-21-2009 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720714)
And @ iPhantom: This is what I meant -- Even scientists don't have a theory as to where matter originated from. The Big Bang theory requires a dense mass to be in existence before the big bang occurred. Because "science" has not provided an explanation, theorizing about the source of matter boils down to "I think *fill in the blank* is the answer." Each individual decides for himself what he thinks the answer is. That is his belief.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow). :vsign:

Science says universe always existed. Big Bang just made it what it is today.

People often say there was nothingness before. That is downright wrong, something cannot magically form from nothingness. That would mean 'to create from nothing'... which has never happened in human history.

MMM 05-21-2009 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720714)

1) I'm not entirely sure how this point relates to anything that has been said recently. Of course all things living on the earth are the offspring of their predecessors -- that really goes without saying, I would hope. If you are alluding to the absolute origin of life, however, then the first "parents" had to have come from somewhere. You will not find a person anywhere who claims to be a scientist and believes that life on earth has always existed.

I am not referring to the origin of life but the fact that all life come from life. Me from my parents, my parents from their parents, etc. Each generation different from the last. There is no evidence to suggest that every individual species existing on the planet today came straight through history each on an individual straight line, untouched by other creatures. They must have COME from somewhere. And that somewhere is a simple organism. You have to squeeze your eyes shut pretty tight not to see the connections.

Also the fact that man did not exist when the dinosaurs did means that man had to come from somewhere AFTER the dinosaurs went extinct. Since you agree all life comes from life, where did man come from then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720714)
2) Yes, monkeys and dogs and whales all have spines and hair, are mammals, are bilaterally symmetric, and share numerous other traits. And, yes, the animal world is categorized by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species based on similar trates among different species. But your point is overly simplistic in that there are irreconcilable differences between different species on a cellular and DNA level. I took biology also, so please don't patronize me.

Was I patronizing you? If you took biology then you already know how different animals are connected to each other.

I am surprised you chose to bring up DNA because DNA supports evolution more than debunks it, though certain folks think they have found evidence that it does...

Looking at DNA the human it is almost identical to a gorilla's, but even closer to the DNA of prehistoric human beings...our ancestors. As a biology student you are surely familiar with homology. This is the similarity between different creatures due to shared ancestry. Homology explains things like why certain modern whales have hip bones when they don't have any purpose for a creature that doesn't walk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720714)
My point with the viruses was not that two different strains of virus (or viruses compared with bacteria or anything else not viral) are so different from one another. Rather, my point was that, no matter how small the difference between two different organizims, one will never change into the other. My point was that your example of viral "evolution" is not evolution at all.

My example of viral evolution absolutely is an example of evolution on a small scale.

And no, creature do not change into other creatures, it's a much slower process than that. So slow it's impossible to visualize without seeming fantastic. The reason modern whales have hipbones is because their ancestor was a creature called Pakicetus who had more developed rear legs, and probably was a land-dweller. Why can't whales breathe underwater when other fish can? That's the line of ancestry that they came from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyOberon (Post 720714)
3) The age of fossils, and, by extension, the plants and animals you refer to, is determined by radiocarbon dating -- an imperfect dating method that cannot provide an accurate age without knowledge of unknowable variables from the past. Also, even today, simple plants and animals are much more likely to encounter circumstances that would lead to fossilization than are complex life forms.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow). :vsign:

Radiocarbon dating is only one way of determining a fossil's age, and indeed it is not perfect, but not nearly as inaccurate as certain factions would like you to believe.

The theory of evolution will never be proven as absolute fact. This is true of most things in science. But it also hasn't been disproved, despite legitimate and continuing efforts. And the longer evolution cannot be disproved, the more likely it is that it is true.

Jaydelart 05-22-2009 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom (Post 720584)
Theories are not refutable because your mind thinks so. give some clues as to why we should refuse it.

If theories were not refutable, would they still only be theories?

Regardless of how logical or complex, theories are still essentially based on speculation.
Hopefully, you don't deem the clue of common-sense invalid.


I'm not implying at all that Evolution is illogical, nor am I claiming that it is absolutely untrue. Evolutionists are intelligent people who have good reasons behind their beliefs. I just disagree with them.

I can elaborate on the fine details, but we've gone through this debate 5(?) times already, and I'm pretty sure it will end badly.


More on topic... How is this missing link significant?
I'm no scientist, so I'd opt for a (civilized) basic explanation.

RegPaq 05-22-2009 01:39 AM

I remember learning that charles darwin himself converted to religious beliefs before he died. Also that there are scientists who have studied evolution but ended up converting to a religion after they studied the subject. Is this true?... just asking.

One thing that has never left my mind on evolution and something thats keeping me from believing it. Evolution from Ape to man didn't happen over night. So why do we find so few of these "missing links" when we can find an enormous amount of dinosaur bones that apparently lived long before these missing links? And if everything is created from the same original thing, how come humans are so far more intelligent than other animals?

SephirothVVC 05-22-2009 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom (Post 720717)
Science says universe always existed. Big Bang just made it what it is today.

People often say there was nothingness before. That is downright wrong, something cannot magically form from nothingness. That would mean 'to create from nothing'... which has never happened in human history.

we havent been here that long. we have barely seen anything in comparison of how long we have been here and how long everything else has been. i just dont think we can rule anything out on the basis that we have never witnessed it

MMM 05-22-2009 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SephirothVVC (Post 720760)
we havent been here that long. we have barely seen anything in comparison of how long we have been here and how long everything else has been. i just dont think we can rule anything out on the basis that we have never witnessed it

That is scientific thinking, and is why there is little we say we know for sure in science. In general things are proven false, not true, and until something is proven false it is basically considered to be true.

SephirothVVC 05-22-2009 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720763)
and until something is proven false it is basically considered to be true.

i wouldnt say considered, more like a possibility. it just doesnt seem right that way

MMM 05-22-2009 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720755)
If theories were not refutable, would they still only be theories?

So far the theory of evolution has not been proven false. See above where I explain the difference in the layperson's definition of "theory" and the scientific definition.

There is still a lot about the theory of gravity that hasn't been proven true (and probably never will be) but few would say they don't believe the theory of gravity not just because we can see it first-hand every day, but because it doesn't contradict certain religious creation myths.

KikiBunny23 05-22-2009 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720774)
So far the theory of evolution has not been proven false. See above where I explain the difference in the layperson's definition of "theory" and the scientific definition.

There is still a lot about the theory of gravity that hasn't been proven true (and probably never will be) but few would say they don't believe the theory of gravity not just because we can see it first-hand every day, but because it doesn't contradict certain religious creation myths.

i didn't know there was a theory of gravity...i thought it was just 'there' XD but then again...im not really into theories

MMM 05-22-2009 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SephirothVVC (Post 720768)
i wouldnt say considered, more like a possibility. it just doesnt seem right that way

Again, see the definition of theory. As non-scientists how we use it and how scientists use it is different.

Scientists don't consider gravity as "a possibility" but consider it as a truth that hasn't been proven false. This also is true of evolution.

MMM 05-22-2009 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KikiBunny23 (Post 720776)
i didn't know there was a theory of gravity...i thought it was just 'there' XD but then again...im not really into theories

Yes, it is a theory. Then there are some that take advantage of the fact to say gravity is a divine gift, not a scientific fact.

KikiBunny23 05-22-2009 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720780)
Yes, it is a theory. Then there are some that take advantage of the fact to say gravity is a divine gift, not a scientific fact.

weird...lol. goes to show how much i pay attention. ill jsut stick with saying "gravity is gravity, it hurts" XD

Jaydelart 05-22-2009 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegPaq (Post 720758)
I remember learning that charles darwin himself converted to religious beliefs before he died. Also that there are scientists who have studied evolution but ended up converting to a religion after they studied the subject. Is this true?... just asking.

I'm not sure about Charles Darwin, but the conversion from evolutionist-to-creationist does happen. Similarly, some people develope issues with religion and convert to atheism -- and vice versa. Both sides usually claim enlightenment is the cause for the change.

I personally used to be more inclined to evolutionism.
However, these days, I sway more to the argument of creationism than evolutionism.

MMM 05-22-2009 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaydelart (Post 720786)
I'm not sure about Charles Darwin, but the conversion from evolutionist-to-creationist does happen. Similarly, some people develope issues with religion and convert to atheism -- and vice versa. Both sides usually claim enlightenment is the cause for the change.

I personally used to be more inclined to evolutionism.
However, these days, I sway more to the argument of creationism than evolutionism.

Many scientists who consider evolution as real as the day is long are Christian. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Being a Christian does not mean you can't be a scientist, and vice-versa.

This idea that you must be one or the other is a fairly new thing.

In school I studied both and it never occurred to me (or whoever made the curriculum) that they contradicted each other. One was a creation myth...a myth all cultures have, creation by a divine power, and the other was a scientific theory that was yet to be disproven.

I have always been a big fan of the Japanese creation myth that involves the creation of the sun, the moon, the weather and the emperor. Due to this myth many in Japan thought the emperor was born from the god Amatarasu. It wasn't until the end of WWII that the emperor was forced to tell his people that he wasn't a divine being.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6