Fossil Ida: extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution

Dixie said:
Excuse me, but what is so extraordinary about never-before-seen ankles on a never-before-found species of primate? I would think there are probably a number of things about this fossil, which we've not seen before. This doesn't mean something is proven, or speculations are supported.

If we were watching an illusionist make himself disappear, and then reappear in separate glass enclosures.... does the fact that there was lots of smoke, mean that he really made that happen?
Click to expand...
The only one that appears to be jumping to that conclusion is you and some garden variety journalist.
 
Mottleydude said:
Oh you couldn't possibly be serious. Dixie is the most uniformed person on science I've ever had a discussion with. He has this rather completely imagined idea of what science is that is totally divorced from reality.
Click to expand...

No, I am the most well-informed person you've ever tried to bullshit with your mediocre scientific knowledge, let's be clear about that, and stop lying to people. You believe Science to be the tool by which you can support your religion of Atheism, and that is all you use it for. Like an alQaeda terrorist perverts Islam, you pervert Science.

Mottleydude said:
The only one that appears to be jumping to that conclusion is you and some garden variety journalist.
Click to expand...

I did not jump to any conclusion, I read the fucking words typed, you idiot! What the fuck? It's now MY fault that the journalist fucked up? The journalist MISLED with the implication of something that is NOT THE CASE! The poster of the thread, repeated the implication when they posted the thread with the same false and misleading implication. Those things are not my fault, I just read them and pointed it out.
 
Mottleydude said:
Oh you couldn't possibly be serious. Dixie is the most uniformed person on science I've ever had a discussion with. He has this rather completely imagined idea of what science is that is totally divorced from reality.
Click to expand...
His point that it is merely 'a nicely preserved monkey fossil' is spot on, wouldn't you agree?
 
tinfoil said:
huh? did you read the thread title, you moron?

what an asshole you are
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read my post or the link to the UK Gaurdian? Did I not say that the journalist who used the term "Missing Link" didn't know what they were talking about? Try to keep up here dude.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes a monkey is a primate. But it can look like a primate and not like a monkey. Lemurs and chimpanzees are both primates. Do they look the same?
Click to expand...
It is common to refer to something that looks kind of like a monkey to call it a monkey. Some human children can look like, as well as behave like monkeys.
 
Southern Man said:
It is common to refer to something that looks kind of like a monkey to call it a monkey. Some human children can look like, as well as behave like monkeys.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your level of education in biology.
 
Southern Man said:
Monkeys are a small primate.
Click to expand...
Some are not so small. Ever see a Howler Monkey close up? This appears to be more like a lemur than a monkey. It will be interesting to see the scientific publications on the studies of this fossil. Then we can have a clearer understanding of this creatures anatomy, how it developed (homology) and where it fits into the zooligical tree of life (phylogeny). Until that data is published we cant' really have an informed discussion about any evolutionary implications that this fossil discovery may have. So at this stage for some journalist to call this fossil a "missing link" is inappropriate as that has not been determined yet. This creature could very well have been some sort of evolutionary dead end.

My point here is, let's wait and see the data about this fossil, when it is published, before we jump to conclusions as the journalist who published this article in the Guardian did.
 
Mottleydude said:
Some are not so small. Ever see a Howler Monkey close up? This appears to be more like a lemur than a monkey. It will be interesting to see the scientific publications on the studies of this fossil. Then we can have a clearer understanding of this creatures anatomy, how it developed (homology) and where it fits into the zooligical tree of life (phylogeny). Until that data is published we cant' really have an informed discussion about any evolutionary implications that this fossil discovery may have. So at this stage for some journalist to call this fossil a "missing link" is inappropriate as that has not been determined yet. This creature could very well have been some sort of evolutionary dead end.

My point here is, let's wait and see the data about this fossil, when it is published, before we jump to conclusions as the journalist who published this article in the Guardian did.
Click to expand...
That is a reasonable point. Of course, biologists can map phylogeny from primordial soup all the way up the chain to Jane Seymour and it still isn't proof that God didn't design the whole thing that way. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
That is a reasonable point. Of course, biologists can map phylogeny from primordial soup all the way up the chain to Jane Seymour and it still isn't proof that God didn't design the whole thing that way. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Whoever said it was? Certainly not biologist. The ultimate origin of life on this planet is something biologist have nothing to say on. It's not a question that concerns science.
 
Mottleydude said:
Whoever said it was? Certainly not biologist. The ultimate origin of life on this planet is something biologist have nothing to say on. It's not a question that concerns science.
Click to expand...
NASA's Planetary Biology Program

The Planetary Biology Program is chartered to investigate the origin and evolution of life. This research combines the talents of biologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, and astronomers into a multidisciplinary program which utilizes NASA's unique capabilities for technology, space flight, and exploration.
Click to expand...
http://cmex.ihmc.us/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm
 
Southern Man said:
http://cmex.ihmc.us/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm
Click to expand...

Retard, he's talking about the same thing you are. The "ultimate" source of something orchestrating the laws of biology without leaving any evidence of it isn't a question for biologists. That's what he's saying, and you'd have read that correctly if you weren't a retard.

Whether or not there is or is not an "ultimate source" (read "god") behind evolution or the origins of life isn't a scientific question. It's designed that way so it cannot be proven or disproven, so tools like you continue to have an excuse to believe it and try to force it on the rest of us.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Retard, he's talking about the same thing you are. The "ultimate" source of something orchestrating the laws of biology without leaving any evidence of it isn't a question for biologists. That's what he's saying, and you'd have read that correctly if you weren't a retard.

Whether or not there is or is not an "ultimate source" (read "god") behind evolution or the origins of life isn't a scientific question. It's designed that way so it cannot be proven or disproven, so tools like you continue to have an excuse to believe it and try to force it on the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Douchebag, he claimed that biologists weren't concerned about the origin of life, so I posted a link about biologists working to find the origin of life. :readit:
 
Southern Man said:
Douchebag, he claimed that biologists weren't concerned about the origin of life, so I posted a link about biologists working to find the origin of life. :readit:
Click to expand...

jesus you're retarded

He did not say that the origins of life on this planet weren't a question for science. That's what you think you read, because you're retarded. Quote him word for word, and don't leave any out. go ahead.
 
ib1yysguy said:
jesus you're retarded

He did not say that the origins of life on this planet weren't a question for science. That's what you think you read, because you're retarded. Quote him word for word, and don't leave any out. go ahead.
Click to expand...

Mottleydude said:
Whoever said it was? Certainly not biologist. The ultimate origin of life on this planet is something biologist have nothing to say on. It's not a question that concerns science.
Click to expand...

And Douchebag, why the fuck would I want to 'force my religion on you'? When I'm in heaven you're the last person I'd want to see.
 
Southern Man said:
It is common to refer to something that looks kind of like a monkey to call it a monkey. Some human children can look like, as well as behave like monkeys.
Click to expand...
That is true but from a strictly phylogenetic point of view, it's not a monkey. The question is, is it a transitional species from more primative "lemur like" primates to more complex primates, such as, monkeys and apes? Not enough data has been presented to really have an informed discussion on that topic. There are definately anatomical and homological differences between this organism and lemurs but that does not necessarily qualify this organism as a transitional species. We'll have to wait till more information is published before we can discuss this intelligently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top