• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New species discovered: Possible missing link?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
I looked on the last three pages, and couldn't find a thread on this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm
The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US.

The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal.

The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.

But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.

And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida.

....

The team concluded that she was not simply another lemur, but a new species. They have called her Darwinius masillae, to celebrate her place of origin and the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Dr Jens Franzen, an expert on the Messel Pit and a member of the team, described Ida as "like the Eighth Wonder of the World", because of the extraordinary completeness of the skeleton.
Click to expand...
 
This is interesting, to be sure, but it's not terribly surprising. We know that such an animal must have existed, its discovery is yet another piece of evidence that supports evolution. However, if a person wasn't already convinced by the existing mountain of data, they are unlikely to be convinced by this.

Thanks for the link!
 
What is the creationist line on these fossils of creatures that look different from everything else alive today btw? Are they mutant offspring of a current species or something?
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
What is the creationist line on these fossils of creatures that look different from everything else alive today btw? Are they mutant offspring of a current species or something?
Click to expand...

That they were destroyed in the flood is a common belief. The idea is that Noah saved one animal of each kind, rather than each species. Kind, of course, is a term that is poorly defined, to be very very generous to creationists.
 
you have to be quick around here - I logged in to post the same story

I was going to ask, do people think the media has hyped this, or the find is that significant. The timing of the announcement is really interesting. And the leader of the research team was a marine reptile expert last time. Wouldn't you think an expert in mammals would be in charge?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
What is the creationist line on these fossils of creatures that look different from everything else alive today btw? Are they mutant offspring of a current species or something?
Click to expand...

There are a number of approaches. The one I find most amusing (though not very widely held these days) is the Omphalos Hypothesis. This approach (named for the Adam's navel) says that God put all these things that indicate an older history to the Earth at the time of Creation even though there was no time prior to that. (He created the stars with star light already en route to the Earth, for example. He created Adam with a navel even though Adam wasn't born and had no umbilical cord attached to him at any point, for another.)

Presumably God created fossils of animals that never actually lived!
 
Wowbagger said:
I didn't realize there were any links missing.
Click to expand...

I think "missing link" was a term that used to be used to talk about a link between humans and other apes. Here it seems to be used to refer to any intermediate or transitional form in our lineage.

The thing about that is that whenever you find one, you've just created two more "missing" transitional forms.
 
jasonpatterson said:
This is interesting, to be sure, but it's not terribly surprising. We know that such an animal must have existed, its discovery is yet another piece of evidence that supports evolution. However, if a person wasn't already convinced by the existing mountain of data, they are unlikely to be convinced by this.

Thanks for the link!
Click to expand...

I have just been listening to a spokesperson for "christian voice" on radio5 UK discussing this fossil.
he seems to believe he disproved evolution by saying "everything needs a creator". seemingly oblivious to the lack of logic in this statement.

He then went on, in an irritatingly, laugh and speak at the same time manner, to enforce his view, by questioning "why do Rabbits show a white patch under their tails when they run?
"It could only draw the attention of predators to the detriment of the Rabbit". He reasoned.

Another clincher- "Why do Mallards show colour in flight that you don't see at rest?" He offered no reason for,or answer to, that question. Science is baffled as to why as well, apparently

I believe him to be an uninformed idiot.

The interviewer fought hard to outdo his guests ignorance, coming a close second.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
I looked on the last three pages, and couldn't find a thread on this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm
Click to expand...

What I find amusing is this article, top from Google, today:

"Missing link"

In there they say things like:

"Feast your eyes on what a group of scientists call the Holy Grail of human evolution."

"A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes."

"Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. "

"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists"

Sure. Finally, the theory of evolution gets SOME evidence to support it. And it's a good thing, too. Scientists were about to give up on it. :rolleyes:

Never mind that there is no such thing as a "missing link", or that the ToE has been pretty much "proven" for some time, now. Especially by more recent fossils.

Serves to show that you shouldn't believe everything you find on Google, and that you should take media stories with a half-ton of salt.
 
I find the Indonesian "Hobbit" find far more interesting. That was a fine that astounded many sceptics.
 
learner said:
I have just been listening to a spokesperson for "christian voice" on radio5 UK discussing this fossil.
Click to expand...

I heard that as well. WTF were the BBC thinking about? This is a science story, why interview someone from a tiny, extremist religious organisation? Was everyone who has a biology degree in the UK busy?

The interviewer fought hard to outdo his guests ignorance, coming a close second.
Click to expand...

Particularly inspiring was his assertion that intelligent design was "not incompatible with evolution", managing in four words to demonstrate that he understood neither.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Particularly inspiring was his assertion that intelligent design was "not incompatible with evolution", managing in four words to demonstrate that he understood neither.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the host understands it, but I have to admit, it's not wrong. ID is NOT incompatible with evolution. It's not incompatible with anything else, either. "Goddidit" can apply to anything.

You have could a perfect explanation that described everything, and someone could still come along and say, well, the designer just made it look that way.
 
pgwenthold said:
I'm not saying the host understands it, but I have to admit, it's not wrong. ID is NOT incompatible with evolution. It's not incompatible with anything else, either. "Goddidit" can apply to anything.

You have could a perfect explanation that described everything, and someone could still come along and say, well, the designer just made it look that way.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design's main claim is that some structures are too complex to have evolved. It is therefore not compatible with evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom