Uncategorized

"Missing link" found

Posted by: Tedstaff

fossil_plate_full.jpg

Today, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, a revolutionary discovery — one that will stand as a milestone for paleontologists and evolutionists everywhere — was announced. Scientists based at the University of Oslo have discovered “Ida,” also known as Darwinius masillae, a 47-million-year-old fossil that has been proclaimed the “missing link” in connecting human skeletal structure to early mammals.

Scientists found Ida in Messel Pit, Germany and soon found out that she is about twenty times older than most fossils related to human evolution. What makes Ida so special is that despite her classification as an early prosimian (lemurs), she has certain undeniable human characteristics such as forward facing eyes and even an opposable thumb.

This is an exciting and validating day for scientists everywhere. Broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough has said: “This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals.”

Head on over to The Link for pictures, video and more information about Ida and the team of researchers behind her. Also don’t miss what’s up at the open source journal PLoS One to read about the scientists’ findings.

In the mean time, please enjoy these TEDTalks relating to fossils and evolution (be sure to comment and relate them to this recent news!):

Zeresenay Alemseged

Louise Leakey

Jane Goodall

Susan Savage-Rumbaugh

Comments (283)

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 1 2009

    For all you Christians in here who reject evolution because of your religious beliefs, do us all a favor and actually learn something about your religion. You owe it to yourself to watch this:
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D397006836098752165&ei=1wskStuHH9G_tweJo9TQBg&usg=AFQjCNG5ARNTDa_UrisqMVEtftRc3DJVfA&sig2=_NHCAc39A8ErA-7SwSoiuA

  • Christopher Perry commented on May 28 2009

    Folks, take some time to look through the comments here and reflect on their contents. Notice that EVERY person who rejects evolution on this forum does so, not on the basis of it’s scientific merit, but for purely RELIGIOUS reasons. Notice their constant reference to the Bible, and Jesus, then tell me, who’s the side with the agenda here?

  • Christopher Perry commented on May 28 2009

    Part 2 to “Christians, Consider:”
    Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur’an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn’t it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.

  • Christopher Perry commented on May 28 2009

    Christians, Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian. And yet, you know exactly what it is like not to find these reasons compelling. On virtually every page, the Qur’an declares that it is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible’s account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the Muslim point of view, proves his unique status as the Prophet of God. While Muhammad did not claim to be divine, he claimed to offer the most perfect revelation of God’s will. He also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Qur’an 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believed otherwise would spend eternity in hell. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.

    • James Prince commented on May 29 2009

      Hi Christopher, The problem with your point of view on the the Qu’ran is that it does not contain any devine validation of the text contained within it as does the Christian Bible. My beliefs in the Christian faith has got a lot to do with scientific analysis of the text within the Bible, how it was put together, accurate information it contains about events that happened after it was written and codes contained within the text about events that are occurring today etc – it is is not based on blind faith, any myths or blurry notions made to me by other people. If you believe in something you need to be 100% convinced that what you believe is actually true and why it is true otherwise you are walking into the unkown, blind-folded.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 1 2009

        James, talk to a Muslim, then come and tell me their text has no “divine validation”. I get the feeling you don’t know what you are talking about. Many of the so called “events that happened after it was written” are nothing of the sort. Some prophecies were accurate because, quite simply, they were written after the event it purports to have foreseen. The Book of Daniel is a good example of this. It pretends to have been written during the time of the exile, that is around the sixth century BCE. Today, it is has been shown that Daniel was actually written around the second century BCE

      • Bert Bril commented on Jun 3 2009

        James,

        Not true. There is a HUGE amount of evidence stacked up against the Bible (just like the the Qu’ran for that matter). See:

        http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net

    • Murry Mellville commented on May 29 2009

      I have spoken with Muslims and they admit the religion provides for men marrying little girls. For me that eliminates the religion as a possible candidate for serious consideration. End of that story. As far as evolution goes there is no PROOF. There’s people making things look the way they want but no proof. Evolutionists are to close to this thing as a result their vision is blurred. The evolutionists are trying to shove this down everyone’s throat without proof. Do you accept the parable of the fig tree as proof. You have to, it’s reality. Where would the human team be without Christians through time. The medical field alone would be backwards if not for Christian hospitals throughout America. Certainly not advanced like it is now. But the scientists are the ones who have created nuclear weapons which are probably about to be used in Korea. I figured out how Ida can best be used. Reporter “Mr. Evolutionists what is the proof?” – “IDA know” R- can you prove it “IDA know how” etc…..

      • Dano Foley commented on May 29 2009

        James and Murry, good and valid points. Darwinism is babyfood for newby atheists, that’s all. Atheism is a choice, a belief with no more evidence than any other faith or belief system in terms of what can be physically seen. Evolutionists eventually need to move to the philosophic platform and embrace relativism in order to hold on to their faith. From a biblical point of view, mans free will to choose is still intact Perfectly.

        • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 1 2009

          Atheism is a belief in the same way that “bald” is a hair color.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 1 2009

        Murry, you are making a judgment call here. Not very logical. IF Islam is true, then marrying little girls would be “good” by the standards of “God”. Who are you to tell God he is wrong?

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 1 2009

          Wow! The fact that your even making the argument that what I said is a judgment call makes me question your ability to think. Some truths are universal. One is that marrying an eight year old girl is WRONG. Got it. I doubt you do. That link you provided above is all the same old stuff. Remember I am using the present to prove the Bible. Biblical prophecy unfolding. The parable of the fig tree – Israel becoming a state against IMPOSSIBLE ODDS. 666 S & P 500 low and subsequent Antichrist rally/bull market? This world will be ended by fire, a FACT is that we’re entering a nuclear arms race. Loose nukes will be everywhere. The Iranian leader thinks he will usher in this nuke fire storm. Please don’t tell me you think the stock market rallying off the number of the beast is a coincidence. The bad guy is gaining full power of the markets and world economy. The Chinese will force a one world currency. Jesus is going to gather His people up and we will sit this one out.

      • Chris Cecil commented on Jun 4 2009

        Evolution is substantiated and has been for some time. It%u2019s only being %u201Cshoved down%u201D people%u2019s throats in the manner that the %u201Cround earth theory%u201D is being forced down people%u2019s throats. It%u2019s a fact. My website explains this fact.

        http://www.roiscience.com
        If the marrying of 8 year old girls invalidates Islam, than the idea of killing non-believers invalidates the Bible.

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

          Where does the Bible say kill non believers? What verse? And if Evolution is substantiated, why the need to declare ” missing link found” by the some leading people in the field? Because there’s a missing link, come on think about it.

  • Jim Johnston commented on May 26 2009

    The top of this page says “‘Missing Link’ found’”

    Does this strike anyone else as humorous? Missing link to what? A missing chain? Where is the chain so we can now place this missing link in it rightful place?

    This is like solving a 20,000,000 piece puzzle with ONLY one piece? And here the Darwinists are saying this is what the rest of the puzzle should look like.

    NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

      Evolution isn’t a chain, it’s a tree. Your argument is invalid.

      • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

        Well then you are a tree with no branches or roots – it is a rotting stump at best.

        And my argument is valid – it is only invalid to you because have to hold onto your creation myth.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Your little trojan horse was uncovered at the Dover trial. Nobody told you?

  • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

    I have another question for the Bible thumpers. According to the Bible, the Earth/Universe are around 6,000 years old. How do you cope with this given that we KNOW the Earth alone is around 4.5 BILLION years old, and the singularity which we refer to as the Big Bang happened about 14.7 BILLION years ago.

    • Jim Johnston commented on May 26 2009

      If this is true, then why is Gentry’s work on pleochroic halos never been refuted? We KNOW that Granite does not have its origin in the lies told by Darwinists. And these rings cannot be explain except that they were created instantaneously sealing these halos within all granite. And where are in the decay rings are the parent elements of polonium 228? Is this another missing link for Darwinists to explain?

      Another problem for you is when you heat up Granite into a molten state it turns into Basalt and you loose these halos. Or can you offer some experiment to contradict reality?

      So the whole creation myth of the Darwinist that the earth was this molten planet is a lie – unless you can refute Gentry’s challenge. And if granite is beyond the natural processes in its origins then everything in Darwinism needs to be challenged.

      So go on now – run and convert your granite into something other than basalt then ask your question again.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

        Jim, quit with the propaganda. Palonium Halos are refuted all over the interwebs. A simple google search will do:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

        • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

          I suggest anyone going right to the source http://www.halos.com. There are many who say they have refuted this issue but that is just more Darwinian bunk. Reference a scientific journal where Gentry’s work has been refuted – lets see this evidence that can replicate the photograph of this amazing ring in granite.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

        Argument from authority eh Jim? How many more logical fallacies you gonna throw into play to spread your lies? There’s plenty of references for you to check out from various scientific AUTHORITIES (lol) in the article I referenced.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

    • Jim Johnston commented on May 26 2009

      This throws the 47 million years into question for dating Ida too.

  • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

    I have a question for all the evolution deniers in here, who believe that the Bible’s contents are more valid than the findings of professional scientists. Can long hair make you strong? You know, like Samson in the Bible?

    • Jim Johnston commented on May 26 2009

      Judging from the strength of your arguments for Darwinism – you must be bald. First there is the science of evolution that is observable and even endorsed in Genesis – this is repeatable. What is not in the realm of the repeatable sciences is Darwinism – that species have evolved from each other. But you keep conning yourself with those lies – at least have the guts to admit it is a religious assumption on your part and having to fabricate the evidence to make yourself theory look scientific is pathetic.

      Now as to your question above. His strength was based on his obedience to the Nazarite codes he was under – and if you do not know these laws the life of Sampson will not be understood – as you have shown perfectly. There were other Nazarites with long hair but Sampson was raised as a judge to begin a rescue for Israel.

      Since you are a Darwinist – can you or one of your “professional scientist” lactate for us since you have nipples? Naturally speaking of course.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

        Jim, stop making excuses. The Bible clearly says his strength came from his hair. So do you believe it, or not?

        • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

          Excuses? I have answer your tactical diversion. I understand you don’t want people to focus their attention on the religion of Darwinism that hides like a parasite on the back of legitimate science.

          It is hard for you to admit that Darwinism is much like a cult. One is punished for questioning their doctrines, it skews reality with half truths, and then isolates, indoctrinates, and intimidates others into submission of this false science that says matter is an eternal entity.

          So where does the matter come from? Have you made it your god? It has never had a beginning – it just is and then it organized itself into an explosion that created design, then this matter you now postulate as your god created by random collisions on itself, then presto – all this information to regulate living systems just came by all these natural process that have their origin in the god of matter.

          So either Mind created matter or matter created mind. There are no other options to consider.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

        Notice how Jim avoids answering my question as to whether one can become stronger from having long hair, as the Bible suggests. Why won’t he answer? Hmmm… interesting.

        • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

          It has been answer. The problem is you do not have the ability to inference the answer. Hmmmm….even more interesting.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

        Jim, you keep insisting you have “answered”. Perhaps you are confused of my usage of the term “answer”. An answer, in my usage here, means not just that you provide an “answer” but that it makes sense and that it is true. Your “answer” meets neither of these criteria, and therefore is not an “answer”.

  • Ralph Jones commented on May 25 2009

    Sensationalist tripe.

    I simply CANNOT believe that TED would post such nonsense without researching what was ACTUALLY written. The topic of this find being a ‘missing link’ is a TED creation:

    “Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.”

    Sensationalism at it’s finest.

    Kudos TED. (eyes rolling)

    imho the author of this article should be taken behind the barn for a few whacks. ;)

  • Janine Aoun commented on May 25 2009

    Ok Jase, then who created God? and since God wasn’t observed before humans invented it did it exist beforehand? AAAH it’s too Schrodinger-esque for me.

    • Superk Onna commented on May 26 2009

      I’ll answer that when you answer me when time started.

    • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

      You are assuming there is something there that does the creating of God. So you are admitting that your god is matter and are assuming that matter is eternal without it ever being created.

      If God created matter then there is nothing to create Him and so your question becomes a non sequitur to an exhaustive expression.

      • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

        “That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” ~Christopher Hitchens

  • Donald Buckley commented on May 24 2009

    For the past 35 years I have heard one “amazing proof” for evolution after another. I have seen every one fall as frauds, deceptions and outright lies. It seems to me that scientists are more closely akin to scheming businessmen than a brotherhood of truth tellers.

    This link will fail like all the rest and I, for one, am preparing myself for hilarious laughter when the real story finally comes out with, what I am certain will be, a far less raucous announcement. Evolution is, after all, a faith based menagerie of knotted strings and discordant tones that begin in absurdity and end in no particularly discernable place, created for one reason only – to assuage guilty consciences. As Aldous Huxley said, “I suppose the reason we scientists were so quick to jump on the evolutionary bandwagon was because we found the concept of God to be incompatible with our sexual mores.”

    In advance fellas – thanks for the good memories to come.

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

      .
      ^
      Denies reality.

      • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

        Reality is – Sex is not the friend of Darwinism. If sex evolved – where is the transitional tree showing this complex system to keep the species constant. So in some massive explosion the male and female just instantly evolved their interdependence?

        If Christopher must believe in punctuated equilibrium do to the absence of transitional forms – then if we are to believe, as he does, that a cold-blooded reptile could lay an egg and give birth to a warm-blooded avian – with what does this adventurous former reptile mate?

        You cannot just say things evolved from binary fission to the phenomenon where some of the sexual reproduction systems are then mutating these codes to the male and some to the female. It would require Intelligence outside the system itself to program these features and to keep the species constant so it can breed to the next generation.

        Sex is an amazing communication system that screams Intelligent Design.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Reality is – intelligent design is self refuting. If complex systems require an outside intelligence for their existence, this logic must be applied to any complex system. Surely this “designer” is even more complex than the system(s) it “creates” and therefore, by ID logic MUST require a designer.

          What is it Jim, designers all the way down, kind of like the whole tortoises all the way down thing? lmfao!

      • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

        Sorry Christopher but to argue for non-intelligent design is self refuting. And you believe matter has all the creative power and innovation to naturally come together on its own. Codes are to neutralize chance – and you are the one reasoning that chance created these non-chance engines that can replicated themselves.

        Here you have a simple amoeba that splits itself basically every few days – and over the “millions of years” they copied themselves – they show no mutational changes that lead them into a metazoan utopia. With all this binary fission where are the two-celled systems that supports your theory?

        An Intelligent Designer would see the need to code its creation with embedded variations to give it the ability to adapt itself to changes in its environment. If you think mutations are so beneficial – then let’s bombard you with radioactive particles and admire your evolutionary improvements. Why fear it – embrace change if you believe this self refuting theory you are conned by.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Sorry Jim, but your whole philosophy on the way life itself operates just doesn’t make any sense. If you read up on Alan Watts’ condemnation of the two models of the universe you will see that matter is not something that is dead and requires life to be “breathed into it”. Matter is life itself. What you are looking for is what is looking. This is why you can’t get at what you are looking for. You are looking at the whole thing wrong.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          “If you think mutations are so beneficial”

          Nice straw man. This sentence alone shows you know nothing about evolution.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Part 1:

          Take the simple attribute, that God is all wise or intelligent. In other words, when theologians claim that God is intelligent, is this assertion compatible with the attributes that he supposedly has? Let us first define the term “intelligent”. When we say today that someone is intelligent, what do we mean by that assertion? We mean that he or she is perceptive and is able to reason (i.e. with logic and mathematics). And very often we would include memory in a person’s intelligence; since that would help him memorize axioms, logical and mathematical rules. When we say that God is intelligent we must mean, in one way or another, that he has perceptive, reasoning and memorizing capabilities.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Part 2:

          Perception is one of the basic foundation of intelligence; but can God perceive? The act of perceiving means that one is in the process of obtaining a new idea. But the theologians say that God is omniscient; i.e. he has unlimited knowledge. Now you cannot add to infinite knowledge, otherwise it would not be called infinite. If God perceives he is in the process of obtaining a new idea, but that would mean that his state before the actual perception is not omniscient; for he knew less before he was perceiving then after it. He would thus be less than perfect, and not God. So God cannot have perception, if his attributes are what the theologians say they are. Yet without perception, where is intelligence?

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Part 3:

          The basic process of intelligence is reasoning. Reasoning involve the use of logical or mathematical rules to derive the conclusion that we do not know before. Yet God is suppose to be omniscient. All solutions to all puzzles are already known to him. His position is akin to a multiplication table with all the answers printed next to the actual multiplication. Similarly, a computer that simply stores solutions to puzzles without having any program for decision making would not in the least be considered intelligent. Yet this is how God is, being omniscient all the answers are already “printed out” next to the puzzles. God cannot reason, but without reason where is intelligence?

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Sorry Jim, you just can’t win. Your position is untenable. Give up. Join the winning team… we have cookies. ;)

      • Murry Mellville commented on May 28 2009

        Chris, this whole thing is about cash. The Link books are everywhere I saw them in BJ’s yesterday. Just like many preachers have turned their churches into businesses, so to have many scientists become money hungry. Many in both “teams” are just money making hypocrites. The big sell. They’re just trying to knock each other out so they can win more business. Do not be naive. But the parable of the fig tree proves the Bible. Present day Facts are the S&P 500 low 666, points to the Antichrist approaching. The answer today is Jesus. We are in a spiritual war, and it is time to pick a team. You are on the wrong one. We should really focus on the hypocrisy of many churches today. It’s outrageous what they have become. And there is the key. This is Biblical prophecy. When preachers are flying around in lire jets instead of giving that money to the poor then you know Jesus is coming. Look beyond a faith based religion of Evolution, focus on present day facts. Parable of the fig tree is fact.

    • Bert Bril commented on May 27 2009

      Donald – give me an alternative that WORKS. That is science. There is no scientific alternative that explains and predicts, so we keep using it.

      You’d accept the above for any other field, but hey, we’re touching your weak spot: religion.

    • Chris Cecil commented on Jun 4 2009

      I am familiar with anti-evolution straw man argument. I have created a website to refute them here:

      http://www.roiscience.com

  • Phoebe Jarrell commented on May 23 2009

    Whether or not this is the missing link will always be subject to opinion and personal belief. I think one thing most of us can agree on is what this shows us as human beings. For being as intelligent and advanced as we are, or believe we are, there is so much we do not know. Even when it comes to the planet we live on and the life on it, there is so much unexplored territory and undiscovered past and present species, it boggles the mind. It is hard to think about how much we do not know because of the fact that we do not know, but it is comforting that there is something to learn everyday. It is comforting to know there are mysteries still on our own planet. It almost brings you back to being a child, when the backyard was an unexplored jungle and danger lurked around every bush and rock.

  • Murry Mellville commented on May 23 2009

    Amazing how some are stating as a fact “missing link found”. What a joke. That things head is like a lizard. The Bible said there were demons that bread with humans, this was probably one of them. The parable of the fig tree is fact. Israel became a state against all impossible odds. Check out the S&P 500 52 week low. That number look familiar? Biblical revelation is underway. Ida is a diversion .

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

      So do you believe that snakes and donkeys talk? The Bible says they can, so it must be true right? Pfft! Where are all these crazy people coming from?

      • Jim Johnston commented on May 26 2009

        Hey Murry – Did you catch the special on Ida? I could not keep up with how many times they needed to say “47 millions years” – tell a lie long enough and people with believe it is true. It was funny to see them admit that apes like Lucy are “easier to believe” because they look more like us than Ida.

        Ida will end up being more of a missing link for Nebraskan man. That too changed history for about 40 years till that lie was exposed. I bet Christopher would of been arguing this too was a fact of evolution. He is that just that gullible.

        But don’t let Christopher win his little game here – every Darwinist that KNOWS there is no evidence for their side will always become some Bible scholar – so they can appear to have argued their case for the nonsense that amoebas would eventually speak Greek and Latin.

        When are Darwinist ever going to have the guts to say maybe there are no links – that is why that are MISSING LINKS. Talk about believing a lie that is right in front of their face!

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 26 2009

          So Jim, tell us then. Do you accept the Bible’s estimate that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old?

      • Murry Mellville commented on May 27 2009

        ” nonsense that amoebas would eventually speak Greek and Latin.” I like that Jim, great response. Anyone who states ” Missing link found” has lost all credibility. Science is about irrefutable proof followed by verification. During WWII many said it was the end. But preachers in the south said it can’t be because Israel had not become a state and the parable of the fig tree had not yet fulfilled. People said they were crazy. The Jews were being wiped out on Earth on their way to extinction. Even the US was turning away boat loads of Jews. Sure enough the war ended and in 1948 the parable became FACT. Let’s deal in facts here. Unlike today’s scientists. When the market was crashing I said to my co workers at a financial institution the market was either going to implode and we weren’t in Biblical revelation or the market would have an Anti Christ rally and we were in Biblical revelation. They laughed. The S & P 500 (the market) hit the number of the beast 666 and has skyrocketed. FACT

        • Jim Johnston commented on May 27 2009

          Thanks for standing up against this nonsense – we need more like you. I do think it funny when they say this is a missing link. You never hear them talking about the missing chains – so to say we have a missing link is just nonsense as well. As I mentioned in an earlier post – it is like they claim they found the missing piece of the puzzle when no puzzle exists. Oh they have fabricated a pretty box cover – but the box is empty which is why they are so excited that finally they have something to hang their hopes on.

          It would be like me saying I found a part to my missing engine. Why this is going to change history!!!

          And this is deemed worthy of intellectual praise?

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

          Actually, it’s a really ignorant response. People are not amoebas, so again Jim employs a false analogy in order to peddle his Bible b.s.

  • Mark Esler commented on May 22 2009

    The researchers of Ida have a two hour show premiering on Memorial Day!

    (show times)

    “History
    The world premiere of The Link, a two-hour event special, airs on Memorial Day %u2013 Monday May 25th, 2009 at 9pm ET/PT. It is being screened by History across the US.

    BBC
    The UK premiere of Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link will be shown on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 26th May. The version of the film made for the BBC is written and narrated by Sir David Attenborough.

    ZDF
    Viewers in Germany can watch The Link on Sunday 31st May on ZDF.

    BBC Worldwide
    The Link is being distributed to broadcasters around the worldwide by BBC Worldwide on behalf of Atlantic Productions. Please refer to http://www.bbcworldwide.com/ for details.

    NRK
    Viewers in Norway can watch The Link on Tuesday 26th May on NRK.”

    Copied from http://www.revealingthelink.com/more-about-ida/the-film

    (Dont let this break down into an evolution vs creationist battle. There are better places to do that!)

  • aaron j commented on May 22 2009

    Evolution is a lie because Jesus says so in a book that he never wrote. He says so in a book that has been changed several times to fit in to the agenda of the leaders of that time. The book says, that some guy said, that Jesus said, that God said that evolution is not real.
    Research the history of the bible and you will see that mans dirty fingers are all over it… there are several books that were left out by the church just because it didn’t fit their agenda. The thing was just a tool to control people… and 2000 years later it is still working like a charm.

  • James Drake commented on May 22 2009

    One last comment: I really do enjoy hearing everyone’s opinion on this topic, because I am still searching, and love to hear varying viewpoints. But please, please, please know that my main reason for posting hear at all was my general dismay at how shoddy the reporting and dissemination of information was regarding this discovery. Especially when contrasted with how organized the marketing effort was surrounding it. That is the reason, that is it.

    So please quit asking me if I am trying to prove a “better” theory, or assume that I hate evolutionary theory, creation theory, scientists, priests, Christians, or any idea. Because it just is not true. The fact is, I am still trying to make up my mind, and NOBODY has been able to convince me yet.

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 22 2009

      James,

      if this site doesn’t sway you, I don’t know what will:

      http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/index.html

      Enjoy.

    • Dano Foley commented on May 22 2009

      Another good post James, you seem to be an honest person. The subject of this blog (in my opinion) reveals a small piece of a persons perspective of reality.
      One other thing, your Dot to Dot diagram for (some professors evangelist) to see the obvious, was kind and well constructed. I admit i don’t have the patience for all his dramatics, seems elementary and weak. Good luck on the journey.

  • James Drake commented on May 21 2009

    Thank you to Mitch and Zen for at least trying to put together a reasonable discussion on this topic. As a person that fully supports neither the evolutionist (as the theory is currently constructed) nor the creationist point of view, I must say that at least getting some information is comforting.
    Here is my problem with some of the posters on here…they believe (whatever their opinion is) that their opinion is infallible, and that in the absence of evidence, their opinion is the “obvious” answer.
    We have so much more to learn folks. Anyone saying that their opinion is THE WAY it happened, is close minded and obviously is slanted toward their belief, regardless of whether it is science or religion.

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 21 2009

      LOL, since the theory of evolution doesn’t work for you, let’s hear your “better constructed” theory that explains all the evidence we have to date.

      *gets popcorn

      • James Drake commented on May 22 2009

        That is EXACTLY what I am talking about Chris. How incredibly pompus about their ideas some people in BOTH camps are.

        I NEVER claimed to have a theory, I never claimed that either one is right or wrong. I just have not been convinced by either group that either one is as they claim it to be, mutually exclusive, or inclusive or each other.

        Bottom line is for me, I will keep an open mind and hear everything, and since it really does little to impact my life on a daily basis, I will just go on with my life as if it does not matter. However, when they begin feeding me with this type of blatant bad reporting and obviously sensationalizing on something like this…it really makes me wonder how much is science, and how much is just marketing and making me see what they WANT me to see. Religion has been the masters at this for years…they just have a different product to sell.

        • Christopher Perry commented on May 22 2009

          James,

          answer this question: is Intelligent Design science?

        • Bert Bril commented on Jun 8 2009

          James,

          Nice try. Give an alternative that WORKS. We need a theory! That is science. There is no alternative. No, creationism and ID do not WORK. You cannot use them in any area of biology to do real explanations and predictions.

          When you have an alternative, get back to us. Until then: Put up or shut up!

    • Mitch J commented on May 22 2009

      What else do you need? We can observe beneficial mutations, reproduce speciation in laboratories, observe the long term process in the fossil record and observe in real time as beneficial mutations become dominant. There is plenty of supporting evidence such as the results of DNA and haemoglobin comparisons. As I pointed out before, evolution is regarded as a fact in the scientific community (also as a theory). Sure, we don’t have some details, but that’s all they are: details.

      If you’re interested in evidence about evolution I’ve heard good things about this book (though I haven’t read it myself):

      • James Drake commented on May 22 2009

        Mitch,

        Thanks, I will check into the book.

        I like what you present, but without going into a much longer dissection of the material that I really want to do right now, some of the material that you present, shows a picture of micro-evolution, something that people have been doing with dog and horse breeding for centuries, and a well established fact. However, no matter how much breeding that you do, or how hard you try, the end result my look vastly different (ex. a Great Dane and a Daschund) behave differently, and even live differently, but are still Canis familiaris. By the way, the evidence with Fruit Flies make make the fruit flies desire different mates, but ultimately, it is still is a fruit fly.

        That is the issue. I had someone post ecoli evolution path that took like 30,000 generations to evolve one ability. ONE. And so I see the millions of steps that it must have took to get from proteins to us and think that we are still missing something. That is why its not fact.

        • Mitch J commented on May 23 2009

          “some of the material that you present, shows a picture of micro-evolution”

          The distinction between macro- and micro- evolution is artificial. Arguing that there is a significant distinction is like conceding that one and one equals two, but refusing to admit that continuing to add one will eventually get you to a million.

    • Donald Buckley commented on May 24 2009

      James take a little peek at http://www.icr.org/article/4642/

      In pursuit of a degree in business I was given this axiom, “Figures never lie but liars often figure.” I have found this to translate into science far too often and usually for business reasons (raising money from patrons) or for reasons of conscience. But the indisputable mechanism is whether in science, philosophy or religion once one settles on a particular conviction then all observation from that moment onward is filtered through the lense of that conviction.

      No one remains objective past the age of five or six.

  • Bret Willis commented on May 21 2009

    just remember…JESUS LOVES YOU ALL…

  • Jonas Grimfelt commented on May 21 2009

    It’s really fascinating to see how many uneducated people participating in this thread. Example of idiotic question: “How can they tell it’s that old?”. Sad sort of… I got semi-religious friends but they are not plain stupid like examples above. The world needs better teachers, hope Internet solves this.

    Signing out with: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png

    Peace

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 27 2009

      People in the United States will continue to be ignorant about science and how it works because the Religious Right wants it that way. People are easier to control when you can make them believe that “Big Brother” is watching their every move. If half the Christians knew any of the facts about their religion, and how untenable their beliefs really are the Right would lose power and never recover.

  • James Drake commented on May 21 2009

    Oh BTW, I could care less about the creation vs evolution debate…I just think that it is all just silly marketing either way…collect my 10% every Sunday, or charge me $21.00 to go on a tour to see a dead monkey you claim is my ancestor.
    BOTH groups have the ability to distort facts, BOTH can “see what you want to see”, and BOTH tell me that everything you believe is “obvious”, and I am a moron for not interpreting things your way.

    So you know what? I think I will wait for something better…and just read and decipher life my own way thank you very much. I am a curious person, truly, but just because a scientist or a priest tells me something, does NOT mean it is true or fact…or even MATTERS.

    A few hundred years ago “scientists” thought that the world was FLAT too…and Priests thought that drilling holes in the heads of people would let the demons out. Oh, but NOW you got it all figured out? Again, I think I will wait for something better…

    • Mitch J commented on May 21 2009

      “A few hundred years ago “scientists” thought that the world was FLAT too…”

      No they didn’t. You can look it up.

      What part of evolution do you disagree with exactly? We know there are mutations, and we know mutations will either be beneficial or detrimental. We can watch it happen as cane toads in Australia develop longer legs, or drug-resistant bacteria. We know that natural selection can lead to speciation: it’s been observed in lab conditions. We can make connections between species with haemoglobin and DNA comparisons: notably species that look similar but developed in different areas will have completely different DNA. We can observe similar bone structures such as the pendactyl limb. As the article shows, we can make connections in the fossil record, and different stages of evolution correspond to the area of rock that the fossil is found in.

      Evolution’s a fact. All we have to do now is fill in the gaps.

      • James Drake commented on May 21 2009

        Sorry Mitch, evolution is not a FACT. There is a HUGE difference between a certain subset of creatures with a tendency toward certain traits to succeed over those who do not, and become dominant within a population, to one SPONTANEOUSLY developing specialized organic structures (new organs, limbs, cellular structures, etc) to overcome an environment. New species are not created by “the cane toad method”…you just get cane toads with longer legs.
        As far as the world is flat…the MAJORITY of 15th Century scientists “believed” that the world was flat, because if they did not teach it that way they were arrested for being heretical by the Church(ironic now). Galileo encountered this with his “heliocentrism”. The unfortunate thing is that science is studied by humans, and humans are fallible. I am not saying that evolution is wrong….but it is far, far from FACT, at least from the true scientific meaning of the term. Religion suffers even more from that same analysis.

      • James Drake commented on May 21 2009

        Please, will some scientist, SOMEWHERE show me a current, natural mutation that has been beneficial to a species?
        I am not talking about resistance to drugs by a virus, which is NOT proof because it is simply another STRAIN becoming dominant in a population because you are killing off the ones NOT RESISTANT.
        I am not talking about cane toads with longer legs, either….
        I am talking about a physical malformation not before demonstrated within the population creating a new species that is more successful than the original…or for that matter, is successful in passing that malformation onto it’s offspring.
        And I am not saying a mutation that just doesn’t kill the thing outright…I am talking about an ADVANTAGEOUS mutation.
        That is the missing link…the ability of the scientist to SHOW successful mutation development. Because we HAVE observed in the wild that those with mutations are not successful in attracting mates, much less not ending up as dinner for the others.

        • Zen Faulkes commented on May 21 2009

          “will some scientist, SOMEWHERE show me a current, natural mutation that has been beneficial to a species?”

          Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS 105(23): 7899-7906. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105 PDF: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf

          The abstract reads, in part, “Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988(.) They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit ) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity.”

  • Nagendra Singh commented on May 21 2009

    I quite liked her tail, i wish i had one like that :P

    • Christopher Perry commented on May 22 2009

      A relative in your evolutionary history did. ;)