Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Missing Link: FOUND



Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.
"This is the one that connects us directly with them.
"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."


"When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species," said Prof Hurum
"...and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy to live today when we publish Ida.
"This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.
"It's part of our evolution that's been hidden so far, it's been hidden because all the other specimens are so incomplete.
"They are so broken there's almost nothing to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it's really a dream come true."


You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Does the article really say how the fossil is proof?
-Can a fossil that looks to have " human-like nails" and "opposable big toes" really fill the gap(s) that is/are in the fossil record- from species to species?
-Does this affect your beliefs?
-Is macro-evolution compatible with Christianity? (I have discussed this previously- just do a search up top with the keyword "evolution")
-What say you?

13 comments:

j razz said...

Doubts are already surfacing and motives are being exposed. j razz

Josh said...

It just shows how "educated beyond their intellegence" really is! If this were true then why doesn't all primate mammals eventually through the life process "evolve" into human life. All I can say is what a bunch of morons!

Nate Crew said...

One single fossil proving millions of years of development from ape to human? Strange....

Arouses my curiosity, yes, but doesn't shake my Christian faith.

ExPatMatt said...

Hey J Razz, I found my way over here via AJ's new blog.


Josh,

"If this were true then why doesn't all primate mammals eventually through the life process "evolve" into human life".

If it's true that Americans originally came over from Europe; why are there still Australians?

When you understand why this question works as an analogy of evolution, you'll understand why your question is so ridiculous.

I think the general consensus among the scientific community is that this find has been over-hyped to the detriment of science in general. (Imagine someone claiming to have the Holy Grail, but it turned out to be a cup that Paul's auntie once used).

This find is important in that it filled a hitherto unfilled gap in primate evolution - but it is by no means closely related to modern humans.

Regards,

Josh said...

This goes out to ExPatMatt maybe you should re-watch the video and the re-read the text before commenting. The title of the video is "Missing Link" and indeed it does say that we are a derivative of this species, hint....hint "missing link"

Last time I checked Australia was not a part of Europe, you might want to go back and check up on your geography. With having said that if you are a Bible reading individual, it gives clear, profound clarity on the existance of man and how he was created....along with all the primates. It also gives clarity as to why there are different languages,cultures,nationalities,etc. I encourage you to read the first two books of the Bible-God's word: Genesis and Exodus. This is where I look to my answers for life's Q&A's. I hope these comments cause you to look at things from another perspective other than scientific reasoning. Have a good day ExPatMatt!

ExPatMatt said...

Josh,

Maybe you should re-watch the video and notice that it is a news story from Sky News. Do you trust everything you read in the news?

Try reading the actual paper that the scientists who have done the research put out, it makes much more sense.

Or, better yet, read the critical reviews of the paper by other scientists who are disappointed by all the fanfare when there is good science to be done. This is the peer review process in action - this is how mistakes are weeded out and better understanding is reached.

This species fills a gap in our (hominid) pre-history, but there is no real way of knowing if we are directly descended from this species. We could be descended for the 'next species over' or a mix of the two - 47 million years is a lot of generations.


"Last time I checked Australia was not a part of Europe, you might want to go back and check up on your geography".

Wow. You clearly didn't have a clue what I was talking about, did you? Perhaps I wasn't very clear.

I'm not sure how simply I should put this so that you'll understand, without being patronizing...here goes;

You asked;

"...why doesn't all primate mammals eventually through the life process "evolve" into human life".

This question makes a fundamental assumption that all primate life is climbing some kind of linear, evolutionary ladder that eventually results in mankind.

This is wrong. Evolution does not imply this at all.

This is akin to asking; if Americans came from Europe, how come there are still Europeans?

Obviously not all Europeans become Americans, though some do. Likewise, not all primates became human, though some did.

In my analogy (actually, it's a friend's analogy!), I introduced Australia because, like America, it was colonized by Europeans - making America and Australia cousins with a common ancestor (that would be Europe).

This is what evolution does imply. That we should find species that have common ancestors. The twin nested hierarchy of life is strong evidence that common ancestry is correct.

I appreciate your effort, Josh, but my friends and I are already engaged in a Bible Study of our own (in fact, it's my turn to present Gen:C48, I think). I've found that most atheists have read the Bible - in many cases it is what caused them to fall away.

You're more than welcome to come and add your views, you can find us at wearesmrt.com in the 'BS' (Bible Study) forum.

Cheers,

PS. yes SMRT is a Simpsons reference!

ExPatMatt said...

Did that make sense?

Hello?


Echo!

Josh said...

Perfectly clear!

My bottom line point is this and it's purely my opinion:

My argument is not against the term evolution itself, I DO believe that however old the earth is, that over time things do evolve. For example, dogs, throughout history people have cross-bread dogs in order to get a certain look for the animal along with certain personality traits that are desirable for the task that is to be performed. I'm sure that Labs didn't look the same 150 years ago as compared to today's standard.

As far as evolution of man the same would apply at the beginning of time whenever that occurred I'm sure man didn't look anything like they do today through cross breading of different nationalities. You made reference in earlier posts to Gensis C48, but if we look back in earlier chapters we can clearly see evidence that people were involved in relationships with other cultures and they spread throughout parts of the world. With having said that my belief is such that if animals were the only creation and we somehow miraculously evolved from them, then at what point did humans play into the picture? Bottom line again there is no distinction between man and animal!

If it were even remotely possible that this could occur there is not a scientific formula that could explain how you get a walking, talking, cognitive human from two animals! That's all I have to say!

ExPatMatt said...

Josh,

Are you sure you understand where I'm coming from with my Europeans to Americans/Australians thing? I get the feeling that I ramble in my posts somewhat and I like to try and clarify wherever necessary, so let me know if anything sounded a bit off.

"If it were even remotely possible that this [humans evolving from 'animals'] could occur there is not a scientific formula that could explain how you get a walking, talking, cognitive human from two animals! That's all I have to say!".

I'll use your terminology that there are 'animals' and 'humans' as a distinct aspects of nature - even though, biologically, we are clearly animals (primate, mammal, vertebrates too).

If the above is all you have to say then we have no problem. No scientists think that you can get a human from two animals either. Glad we're all in agreement.

Unless you're assuming that evolution predicts that two 'animals' gave birth to something that wasn't an animal of the same species but was, in fact, a human; that's not what evolution is at all!

Evolution also has very little to do with 'cross-breeding nationalities' so I'm not sure what your point is there.

I don't want to sound condescending, but from what you've written, in this thread at least, it sounds like you don't really understand what the theory of evolution actually is. I'm no expert either, but I know enough to recognize when people have it wrong.

Anyway, I'm rambling again!


Regards,

j razz said...

Hi Matt,

I don't believe I know AJ but glad you found your way here. I don't post as frequently as I used to but I do post!

In regards to the topic at hand, the issue of macro evolution is a hard theory to accept if one accepts the creation account as literal. It would seem that one would have to bend one belief to fit the other and this leads to compiled problems that just aren't there if you hold just to one or the other (some of these can be seen in previous posts on theistic evolution).

If you (general reader) did a search on my blog for evolution, you would find that theistic evolution has been a topic of discussion as well as old earth/young earth positions. By no means have they been exhausted topics here as that is neither my intent nor within my scope of priorities. However, I have come to this conclusion on the matter: one cannot hold both views as true without diluting one or both to force a compromise.

This is why there are debates. One holds to evolution. One holds to creation. There is no reconciliation between the two without forcing evolutionary theory to become something it is not or creationism to be littered with eisegestical dilution.

There can be no marriage of these two views that neither science can arrange nor religion dictate.

j razz

ExPatMatt said...

j razz,

You are exactly right. I have never seen it spelled out so clearly before, thank you.

The repercussions of this dichotomy are often;

Those who accept evolution get progressively more and more frustrated with Christians for not accepting what they see as cold, hard science.

The Creationists get progressively more and more annoyed with the evolution crowd for being so materialistic and demanding empirical evidence for everything.

But, then again, if there truly is no middle ground then the discussion is pointless!

Regards,

Timm said...

Matt,

"But, then again, if there truly is no middle ground then the discussion is pointless!"

You truly do understand my position. Your statement is exactly why I spend so little time and energy on "scientific evidences." You find me a scientist who will refute creationism and champion evolution and I will find you one that does the opposite. In the meantime, I will be in my corner preaching the gospel.

It would seem you understand exactly why I choose that course of action.

ExPatMatt said...

I do know what you mean Timm, but I really enjoy the chat!

I've got no problem talking about the Bible either so if you want to talk about that, cool.

But you can't expect people to just sit back and let you preach at them without their being able to raise valid questions about what you're saying.

We all must find our place, I guess!