Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Decrevi

Newly Discovered Fossil Link (merged)

How does Ida affect your beliefs?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Does Ida's discovery push you one way or another in your beliefs about evolution?

    • Yes - It makes me believe more in evolution
      19
    • No - It makes me believe less in evolution
      0
    • It doesn't affect my beliefs/ Undecided
      22


114 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Decrevi

I'm curious; how does the discovery of a new transitional fossil affect the credibility of the Christian belief of creationism? Regardless of Ida's importance as a supposed "missing link" to the human species (the fossil is so old that it's not a direct link to humans but a split between the primates that evolved into lemurs and the primates that evolved into us), how does this discovery affect people's beliefs about creationism's credibility?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may...il-missing-link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may...ida-at-a-glance

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci...story?track=rss

http://www.mahalo.com/Ida_Fossil

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=7622711

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serpentine

Overall it means that given time a great many good quality fossils are still to be found and some of them may even be species undergoing a major change. The science of understanding the link between environment and changes and the response of species to those changes over short and long terms is still very much in its infancy.

For humans maybe, the ability to maintain flexibilty of our concepts and ideas of the world around us may be the next critical step in our own evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder
Overall it means that given time a great many good quality fossils are still to be found and some of them may even be species undergoing a major change. The science of understanding the link between environment and changes and the response of species to those changes over short and long terms is still very much in its infancy.

For humans maybe, the ability to maintain flexibilty of our concepts and ideas of the world around us may be the next critical step in our own evolution.

i dont think id say that.

seeing as we already know how this works, and what happens though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

The small, monkey fossil means nothing. The fact that it was found by an amateur and kept in his basement should be cause for the find to be rejected by science outright; that is if they stay true to form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

I don't think it will change many beliefs.

Hard core fundamentalist of ANY religion tend to state the science is wrong.

Most mainstream religious folk already intergrate science with their religion. This discovery will fit in just fine.

HN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I think an amateur found a monkey fossil and kept it hidden in his basement for twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

just another "link"

check out what google did for today: http://www.google.ca/

I think an amateur found a monkey fossil and kept it hidden in his basement for twenty years.

cool.

so, what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anakha6
I know there is already a poll on this board, but no one seems to be responding aside from voting. What does everyone think about this discovery?

"MISSING LINK" FOUND article

Don't be silly, that's just the body of an animal that died when God flooded the earth to kill all his naughty children...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Papagiorgio

I read the article, and perhaps I'm confused. I thought the "Missing Link" was supposed to be a step up from lower ape(gorillas,chimps, etc), and a step down from higher ape(Man). It would show how our lower ape ancestor began evolving into early man. That doesn't appear to be what this is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalartist
Don't be silly, that's just the body of an animal that died when God flooded the earth to kill all his naughty children...

hmmm except there's enough substance using logic and common sense to disprove the worldwide global flood myth of the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DooDahMan

I feel it was a mistake to label it "missing link" as that term is dead and just creates controversy. Perhaps something along the lines of "potential transitional fossil" would be appropriate as we apprently don't know enough at this time to properly characterize or catagorize it. This sensationalization is not good for science in the long run. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

Ahh jeez, here we go, they're already coming out of the woodwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anakha6
hmmm except there's enough substance using logic and common sense to disprove the worldwide global flood myth of the bible.

Seriously, you couldn't see the sarcasm in that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
The small, monkey fossil means nothing. The fact that it was found by an amateur and kept in his basement should be cause for the find to be rejected by science outright; that is if they stay true to form.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anakha6
The small, monkey fossil means nothing. The fact that it was found by an amateur and kept in his basement should be cause for the find to be rejected by science outright; that is if they stay true to form.

I don't see your reasoning here, if the find stands up to scientific scrutiny, short of formalities, the finder is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs
I feel it was a mistake to label it "missing link" as that term is dead and just creates controversy. Perhaps something along the lines of "potential transitional fossil" would be appropriate as we apprently don't know enough at this time to properly characterize or catagorize it. This sensationalization is not good for science in the long run. IMO.

I agree, missing link is a term that has become laughable.

Question - isn't every fossil transitional? I know that there isn't the "OMG - look! We found the fossil of the monkey turning into a man!!11!". That's just silly but I have run into many a fundie that expects science to produce exactly that.

But overall, wouldn't every fossil be transitional to one degree or another?

I'm not sure I understand all the hoopla regarding this one. May have to go ask one of the "ists" that are on the board.

HN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

yeah, there has Always been a Missing link. we just keep finding More of them over time. its not like theres been Always Just one.

its a pathetic term that seems to be used. especially by people making feeble attempts to disprove evolution.

Edited by Agent. Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MirrorImage

I was going over the different articles on this and the headline here cracked me up

Missing Link Found - Score: Evolution 1,831,669, Creationists still 0

By the way am I the only one whos irritated at the commercialization of this thing? It seems to me that they are as much out to make a buck off of this as they are to make the discovery.

Edited by MirrorImage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
I read the article, and perhaps I'm confused. I thought the "Missing Link" was supposed to be a step up from lower ape(gorillas,chimps, etc), and a step down from higher ape(Man). It would show how our lower ape ancestor began evolving into early man. That doesn't appear to be what this is though.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding evolution here.

There is no step down or step up.

We did not evolve from chimps (which by the way are closer to us than they are to gorilla and Homo and Pan form a monophyletic group to the exclusion of gorilla) and the great apes includes us, they are not lower apes, that thinking a is major and common misconception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magicjax

I never read anyone say that we where once "Apes". Just that we where once "Similar to apes". As in had more hair, less intelligence, didn't always walk upright and so forth.

I wonder what happened to this species. If it died out or what it might have evolved to look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
I was going over the different articles on this and the headline here cracked me up

Missing Link Found - Score: Evolution 1,831,669, Creationists still 0

By the way am I the only one whos irritated at the commercialization of this thing? It seems to me that they are as much out to make a buck off of this as they are to make the discovery.

I think if they can make a buck off of it let them... considering what they paid for it and that people don't tend to flock in droves to museums which need funding to be able to pay for finds such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MirrorImage
I never read anyone say that we where once "Apes". Just that we where once "Similar to apes". As in had more hair, less intelligence, didn't always walk upright and so forth.

I wonder what happened to this species. If it died out or what it might have evolved to look like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Have a nice read ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish
The small, monkey fossil means nothing. The fact that it was found by an amateur and kept in his basement should be cause for the find to be rejected by science outright; that is if they stay true to form.

They should have kept it in the freezer like the Big Foot fellas :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MirrorImage
I think if they can make a buck off of it let them... considering what they paid for it and that people don't tend to flock in droves to museums which need funding to be able to pay for finds such as this.

Dont get me wrong, Im all for them supporting their work, and getting funding. I guess I phrased it wrong...whats bothering me is the amount of holywood type hype that was built around it. It just seems to me that all the hype, the commercials on tv about it ect, are taking away from the true value of the find.

I mean its a terrific find, truely amazing, but I dont want to see it cheapened and turned in to one of those cheesey touristy type things. I see that alot here where I live, we've got the Mammoth Site, Sue the T rex ect, and theyve commercialized them to the point it seems people are more interested in the souvenirs than learning about the science.

Id hate to see this be turned in to something like that. It seems to me like they tried to hard to get it the attention it deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
I never read anyone say that we where once "Apes". Just that we where once "Similar to apes". As in had more hair, less intelligence, didn't always walk upright and so forth.

I wonder what happened to this species. If it died out or what it might have evolved to look like.

We are definitely apes.

linked-image

That is the phylogeny of Hominidae as you can see if we are not apes nor are chimps and bonobo because they are closer to us than they are to gorilla.

Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results.

Gorilla is a sister group to the Homo-Pan clade and Pongo is a sister group to all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.