First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Ida: Missing Link in Human Evolution?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/21/09 , edited 5/21/09

shinto-male wrote:

and creationists where is the evidence that man was created from mud/soil/dirt?


Look at my post on the first page. I talk about it there.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/21/09 , edited 5/21/09

digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.


Digs you have a odd way of always using ID threads to prove your point. Yet I have yet to see a thread that you posted that was any good, every time its been from some person with no backing for his opinion, and a lacking of education to boot. There not Scietest, there not real Doctors. So what the hell gives you the idea they even have a clue on what there talking about? (just because you agree with them?)

To think I did not need those 8 years of college. As long as I picked up the bible I know everything! ( I so wasted my life learning about this evil Science stuff.)


What is Evolution?

Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.

4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 5/23/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.


Digs you have a odd way of always using ID threads to prove your point. Yet I have yet to see a thread that you posted that was any good, every time its been from some person with no backing for his opinion, and a lacking of education to boot. There not Scietest, there not real Doctors. So what the hell gives you the idea they even have a clue on what there talking about? (just because you agree with them?)

To think I did not need those 8 years of college. As long as I picked up the bible I know everything! ( I so wasted my life learning about this evil Science stuff.)


What is Evolution?

Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.


very...educational...as usual. so tell me about this so called "missing link" found recently. I cant find any real scientific articles or peer reviewed scholorly journals on it. All i hear is a bunch of hype and mis used and mis interpreted terms in the media. What is really going on with this "Ida"? and why was it hidden for 20 years? can a missing link really exists? some scientists are still speckticle on this finding. and some claim a missing link can never exists, what r your thoughts on this finding? peace over war

Posted 5/23/09
When I first heard it on the news I thought they meant the link between humans and primates, you know, big foot etc.
Anyway, I get it now after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link).

Anyway, I'd be happy to believe it, at first I was skeptical (we all know the media liked to hype things) but I think at this point I would believe the fossil to be true and considered evidence. At the same time I wouldn't be too surprised if people challenged it's authenticity.

About it being kept secret for so long, I think that was a very wise decision. Releasing info on it before being certain would have been risky, in the past find that have been hyped before properly examined have 'gone missing', so it was a safe and good decision. Doubt it will disprove religion like the news claimed it could though.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/25/09

cerisey wrote:

When I first heard it on the news I thought they meant the link between humans and primates, you know, big foot etc.
Anyway, I get it now after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link).

Anyway, I'd be happy to believe it, at first I was skeptical (we all know the media liked to hype things) but I think at this point I would believe the fossil to be true and considered evidence. At the same time I wouldn't be too surprised if people challenged it's authenticity.

About it being kept secret for so long, I think that was a very wise decision. Releasing info on it before being certain would have been risky, in the past find that have been hyped before properly examined have 'gone missing', so it was a safe and good decision. Doubt it will disprove religion like the news claimed it could though.


Technical note, Humans are primates. We're also Great Apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.


The Ida fossil connects humans and later primates to earlier primates of the Eocene epoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_fossil
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/24/09

Allhailodin wrote:


cerisey wrote:

When I first heard it on the news I thought they meant the link between humans and primates, you know, big foot etc.
Anyway, I get it now after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link).

Anyway, I'd be happy to believe it, at first I was skeptical (we all know the media liked to hype things) but I think at this point I would believe the fossil to be true and considered evidence. At the same time I wouldn't be too surprised if people challenged it's authenticity.

About it being kept secret for so long, I think that was a very wise decision. Releasing info on it before being certain would have been risky, in the past find that have been hyped before properly examined have 'gone missing', so it was a safe and good decision. Doubt it will disprove religion like the news claimed it could though.


Technical note, Humans are primates. We're also Great Apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.


The Ida fossil connects humans and later primates to earlier primates of the Eocene epoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_fossil


We really do not have any missing links..

Do you know who Arti is??? She is what us Humans look like 4.4 million years ago.

She is the oldest real known ancestor to us humans. (she oddly does look a lot like an ape, even if she did walk and stand like a us modern humans.)
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/25/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


cerisey wrote:

When I first heard it on the news I thought they meant the link between humans and primates, you know, big foot etc.
Anyway, I get it now after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link).

Anyway, I'd be happy to believe it, at first I was skeptical (we all know the media liked to hype things) but I think at this point I would believe the fossil to be true and considered evidence. At the same time I wouldn't be too surprised if people challenged it's authenticity.

About it being kept secret for so long, I think that was a very wise decision. Releasing info on it before being certain would have been risky, in the past find that have been hyped before properly examined have 'gone missing', so it was a safe and good decision. Doubt it will disprove religion like the news claimed it could though.


Technical note, Humans are primates. We're also Great Apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.


The Ida fossil connects humans and later primates to earlier primates of the Eocene epoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_fossil


We really do not have any missing links..

Do you know who Arti is??? She is what us Humans look like 4.4 million years ago.

She is the oldest real known ancestor to us humans. (she oddly does look a lot like an ape, even if she did walk and stand like a us modern humans.)


The oldest ancestor to humans would be the very first protocell, the ancestor to all life on earth today technically.

But ida was the link between prosimians ( basic primates) and simians (monkeys / great apes). It looked like a lemur but had opposable thumbs like we do, existed about 45 million years ago.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/25/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


cerisey wrote:

When I first heard it on the news I thought they meant the link between humans and primates, you know, big foot etc.
Anyway, I get it now after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link).

Anyway, I'd be happy to believe it, at first I was skeptical (we all know the media liked to hype things) but I think at this point I would believe the fossil to be true and considered evidence. At the same time I wouldn't be too surprised if people challenged it's authenticity.

About it being kept secret for so long, I think that was a very wise decision. Releasing info on it before being certain would have been risky, in the past find that have been hyped before properly examined have 'gone missing', so it was a safe and good decision. Doubt it will disprove religion like the news claimed it could though.


Technical note, Humans are primates. We're also Great Apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.


The Ida fossil connects humans and later primates to earlier primates of the Eocene epoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_fossil


We really do not have any missing links..

Do you know who Arti is??? She is what us Humans look like 4.4 million years ago.

She is the oldest real known ancestor to us humans. (she oddly does look a lot like an ape, even if she did walk and stand like a us modern humans.)


The oldest ancestor to humans would be the very first protocell, the ancestor to all life on earth today technically.

But ida was the link between prosimians ( basic primates) and simians (monkeys / great apes). It looked like a lemur but had opposable thumbs like we do, existed about 45 million years ago.


I know That.. You forget this is my second best subject. I was talking about are direct ancestor as in what we looked like 4.4 million years. Not are link to monkeys, apes, and lemurs.
Just examining are direct ancestors can lead to see are resemblance to are branch relatives, give more observable evidence to go with the fact that are link species is indeed a fact. (that is without the use off DNA that has already verified the fact.)
93 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Ohigho
Offline
Posted 10/26/09 , edited 10/26/09

digs wrote:

I will take anthropology, but so far I have taken cell and genetics and those things defeat evolution. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I personally believe in Biblical Creationism. There is science to back intelligent design both biologically and astronomically. And Lucy doesn't prove a missing link. Just because something looks similar to an ape or human doesn't mean that was the missing link, they can't prove it. Only through speculation can they claim that. We haven't found missing links to many animals, and in my mind if life has been around for millions of years, we should be finding millions and billions of fossilized missing links.


[bold added]

Seriously? No... you cannot be serious.

For one thing, there is not, and cannot be any science behind creationism, no matter they try to relabel is "ID"... its utter and complete whishful thinking... conjecture, pure and simple! The idea of Gods is not even a hypothesis, much less a theory... and there is no place in it in science!

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A quick reminder that the reason that Evolution is a "theory" is not its weakness, but its only one away from a law!

ID is less than a hypothesis, as ANY "evidence" of it always requires a huge leap to "god" at the end... sure sure, it may sound like a logical progression... but the "step" before you get to god at the end is always a huge leap, completely off into left field.

I'm not an atheist at all mind you, but keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate, and any religion out of science class!

The fact that you require 1st hand observation means that Evolution will only ever be a theory, AND THAT IS TO THE CREDIT OF SCIENCE!!! Rather than just jump out and call it a law, scientists adhere to the tenets of scientific method and continue to call it "theory" as well they should! You do not see religious nutbars using such restraint!

Also, of course there are lots of missing links, not EVERY DAMN THING on the planet gets fossilized! we are lucky to have what we do!

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.