Evolutionary missing link found.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
Very interesting read, check it out. Especially those still ignorant enough to not believe evolution.

Brief extract - "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.

The researchers believe it comes from the time when the primate lineage, that diversified into monkeys, apes and ultimately humans, split from a separate group that went on to become lemurs and other less well known species.

Crucially though, Ida is not on the lemur line because she lacks two key characteristics shared by lemurs – a grooming claw on her second toe and a fused set of teeth called a tooth comb. Also, a bone in her ankle called the talus is shaped like members of our branch of the primates. So the researchers believe she may be on our evolutionary line dating from just after the split with the lemurs.

And the BEST part - The team can be sure Ida is a girl because she does not have a P e n i s bone.
LUL.... p e n i s bone.

 

I don't really have a comment on this except it's pretty nifty and the thread seemed lonely.

 

Thank yaw.

I was actually hoping the PENI.S bone would attract ijffire .

 

That's actually kind of weird, and it kinda ruins the validity of the article...

 

How does the lack of a ***** bone affect validitity?

:S.

 

Cause the p e nis is soft tissue?

 

Rofl, i'll try find you the proper name for it ...

The Baculum methinks.

 

I do believe God and micro evolution, but not macro evolution. it is an interesting read, although its kinda creepy that they said ***** bone, a wtf moment if i ever saw one.

personally, i find cloning more interesting. Clone army ftw.

 

Another "evolution missing link found" article huh. It seems every so often they always come out with one of these. Hopefully they will be able to make up their mind one of these days.

I like how your first line is so biased and basically states you must be ignorant if you don't believe in the theory of evolution .

I think you need to chill with the biased evolution threads dude. It's alright if you post information on it, but don't disrespect people that don't think like you in all of them. I find calling people ignorant because they don't believe in it disrespectful.

 

We were talking about this in Bio a couple days back. Interesting stuff.

@ Fenix and the ***** bones, other than that being the perfect name for your band, how on Earth does that invalidate anything? Believe it or don't, the human ***** isn't the blueprint or benchmark for all other animals' *****es. In fact, if anything, it'd be more of an anomaly. So, yes, they do exist. Scientists don't just make up crap to support what they've said, nor do things have to be made up just because they sound silly.

@ PancakeChef. Renatus, and the article, here are talking about evolution as in gradual-changes-from-generation-to-generation speciation, not evolution as in the-theory-that-opposes-Creationism abiogenesis. That said, I do find some degree of ignorance in simply believing that everything was 'created', especially with the knowledge of everything we have today. Quite frankly, with the hypothesised conditions of primitive Earth, the evolution of life seems to have been inevitable. That said, personally seeing other views as being ignorant doesn't mean I have no respect for people who hold them.

 

I'm not familiar with early primate reproductive systems - I figured since we're decended from them, they'd be fairly similar
I defer to the expert

 

They're not actually primitive at all. A lot of modern animals have them, including dogs, all rodents, and almost all primates as well, the humans being the only primates who don't have them.

 

yay, i feel special now



but really? i always thought the reproductive organs of man-apes(i dont know if its the correct term in english, its supposed to describe apes closest to mankind) was fairly similair to that of humans

 

It doesn't matter what the specific topic is, its the fact in his first statement he classifies people that don't entirely believe in evolution as ignorant. Personally, being called ignorant is disrespectful to me. He could have easily presented the information without that statement or bias view. There is also the fact this isn't his only thread about evolution and it seems like he keeps trying to get a chance to show how ignorant non beiievers are and how much more intelligent and educated he is. That is the feeling I get from all these different topics about evolution.

Why do you assume I believe in creationism? Although I do to an extent it is more accurate that I believe in a mix of evolution and creationism. I also don't feel it opposes creationism. Evolution basically to me is a theory of how living things grow and development over time, not how the universe or life came to be in the beginning. I'm still open to ideas about that concept to be honest because there is too little we know about the universe to say either or, so to speak.

Knowledge is not simply information but is a understanding, compherison and state of mind.

 

@ jiff. From what I know, the ***** bone of primates is exceptionally small, to the point of practically being vestigial. Otherwise, they're pretty similar, I think. Apart from size.

@ PancakeChef. I do recognise what you're saying, and Renatus' arrogance, but, I hope, it doesn't actually apply to anyone on this forum. To give an example we'll all understand, this arrogance is of the same level as saying that people who think Zerglings are a counter to Firebats are stupid, because in this case he isn't talking about evolution in regards to the origin of life, as in abiogenesis, he's talking about evolution in regards to the origin of species, as in speciation.

To put it simply, there's no 'victim' to this arrogance, as not believing in this type of evolution, being the change from one generation to the next, is comparable to not believing in gravity. In short, it's a fact. The theory of evolution revolves around abiogenesis, which is the origin of life through evolution, and although a lot his other threads may have been talking about abiogenesis, this thread is about something completely different. To add to that, such a level of arrogance in regards to abiogenesis, or creationism, would most likely result in some sort of official warning.

And I assume you believe in Creationism because of what you've said in the other religious/science threads. Also, I find it humorous for you to point out that I'm assuming you believe in Creationism when you actually do, haha. No offence though, only an observation.

And, as I thought I actually made quite clear, I never said that evolution opposes Creationism. Evolution, as in the change from generation to generation, does not oppose it, but abiogenesis, as in the origin of life through evolutionary means, does. To put it simply, you can't believe that life was both created by a deity and evolved of its own accord. That's like believing that gravity both exists and does not exist. To to sum up, this thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

"To put it simply, there's no 'victim' to this arrogance, as not believing in this type of evolution, being the change from one generation to the next, is comparable to not believing in gravity. In short, it's a fact. "

Indeed - i had hoped you would have picked that up Pancake chef.
Again; its very basic biology. You simply are ignorant if you deny this element of evolution. As Hex says, its like denying gravity in this respect, its just stupid.

Also - i liked how i was down 'repped' for this thread, tell me, was it you again not understanding evolution like you just displayed here. Or was it just a personal vendetta against anyone who points out anything which you interpret as contradicting what your god says?

On a side note - http://www.google.co.uk/

I love the smell of creationists being owned all over the globe. No longer will they be able to throw that old argument as evolution being invalid. Google is now my favorite website .

 

For those who just want the pic

 

Actually, Reantus it wasn't me who gave you negative reputation. It was Kurai, and she wanted me to tell you that she was the one that did it.

@Itzahexgor, I said I believe in Creationism to an extent, not full blown as I said I am open to other interpretations and ideas. As I said before i believe in sort of a mix of science and creationism.

 

Belief in Creationism to an extent is still a belief in Creationism.

Regardless, I'd like to hear more about your views. Personally, I'm finding it hard to envision a set of beliefs which incorporates both Creationism and abiogenesis.

 

Yes it is, but not like how Reantus described it as having a God that says a set of laws or moral code or whatever. Abiogenesis however has nothing to do with evolution as they are different. This topic isn't about abiogenesis, it is about evolution which is a theory on how living things grow and develop, not an origin of life like abiogenesis.

I never said anything about beleiving in abiogenesis, I said a mix of science. I beleive in some kind of consicious or intelligenece that is a subtle force if you will behind life, it could be a collective, it could be one being it could something we can't even comprehend. The science part comes in with the mechanics of this existence like how things work, not why they work like they do or why physics acts like it does or where it came from etc. I don't beleive science explains that part.

I also think it is quite arrogant to beleive that we as a human species know even a fraction of this existence despite knowing some mechanics about our preceived reality.

I just find it hard to beleive that the cells and chemicals inside a fish just somehow randomly know to start developing a certain adaptation that just happens to protect it from a predators adaptation without any kind of intellgenice behind it at all.

I also have to state my beleifs are never set in stone they are changing and developing as i gain new knowledge and think of different ideas, just like science is in a sense so I really don't have a solid belief.