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)

  • Pingback: Arrows Linking Information | parapluie123

  • Serge Patlavskiy commented on Dec 17 2013

    Darwinists have finally found a missing link between an ape and a human — it was drinking beer in local pub.

  • Paul Cope commented on Sep 9 2010

    I’d also like to comment on the above comments coming back on topic. Having being an atheist and quite an evangelical one at that :) And now being Muslim. Atheists delight at making us religious types squirm unfortunately they cling on to dogma just as much as we do. Just find your way in life with an open mind and to the extent of your intellect. Argumentum ad hominem will never win an argument and infact makes you seem rather illogical. Peace to all you are all my brothers in mankind.

  • Paul Cope commented on Sep 9 2010

    Christopher I very much appreciated your comments. And even as a humble muslim your text regarding the intelligence of God made me chuckle. I hear this 8 year old argument a great deal and would like to clear up a few misconceptions. I think that people who have already decided that there way is correct will pick up on any old wives tale to pat themselves on the back with and say “Good Job (insert name here) i always knew i picked the winning horse” Marriage in Islam is allowed when a female or male attain puberty it is not governed by age, however both parties must be in full agreement. There you go now your body tells you when you have the ability to bear offspring it doesn’t just switch on the minute you reach your 18th birthday surprisingly. Now what right does anyone have to stop these people from marriage when they are considered adults?

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

    Here is a great primer on evolution for anyone who is interested: http://www.roiscience.com

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

    Murry said,

    ” I don’t think you need evil to have good.”

    Yes you do. How would you know “good” without that which is “not good”? What would you compare it to in order to attach the label? If everything were “good” the “good” would cease to exist as a concept.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

    Murry said,

    “Just because people misused the parable to kill means nothing to me. They used it for evil.”

    Again, IF God defines what is “good” and he says to kill people THEN killing would be good NOT evil. You are using your SECURAL morals to say this is evil. How you don’t see this boggles my mind.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

    Bert Bril actually made a very salient point earlier when he asked “Since when does evidence play a part in religious beliefs?” This is the problem with society today, especially in the US, who ranks lowest in the world (next to Turkey) in acceptance to evolutionary theory. We call for evidence in every avenue of our discourse (business, politics, science, etc.) except for in our discourse on religion. Why must this be so? Why is religion the ONLY part of our lives that necessarily escapes reason and evidence?

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 8 2009

      I gave you evidence. The parable of the fig tree was deciphered during and well before WWII. Then came true in the face of impossible odds.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        You gave me no evidence Murry, stop lying.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 5 2009

    Following up on Murry’s question, “”Where does the Bible say kill non believers? What verse?””
    the following verse comes (supposedly) out of the mouth of gentle Jesus himself:

    Luke 19:27
    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

      This was a parable. Read the previous verses. Jesus wasn’t saying right then bring people and slay them. I know you don’t believe in revelation. However the context of this parable actually refers to what will happen to the enemies of Christ during Armageddon. Ask a Bible scholar, you’ll be told this fact. Armageddon will be the final battle between good and evil. So doesn’t it stand to reason that the enemies (verse doesn’t say non believers) of Jesus in that battle will be pure evil and will need to be slain so Jesus can reign in goodness without evil undermining His kingdom. And the first time Jesus was gentle. The next time He’s going to be a warrior and judge. This verse refers to next time, Armageddon and revelation. This is about the armies of Evil, literally guys in tanks fighting for the same stuff the Nazis did. Wasn’t it right for the US GI to slay them. Of course this is another level. Next time Jesus will end these armies. The verse is referring to the battle to come.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        The point of a parable is to instruct people what to do in a roundabout sort of way. Look into Christian history and you will see the consequences of this verse. I assure you the Inquisitors had this verse at hand when they murdered, maimed, and tortured “those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them” (basically anyone who didn’t accept Jesus as being God).

        Another thing here that is complete nonsense is “good” overcoming “evil”. “Good” and “evil” are subjective terms. “Good” cannot exist without “evil”, they are dependent on one another for their existence. Lao Tzu expressed this fact when he wrote:

        “The unnamable is the eternally real.
        Naming is the origin
        of all particular things

        When people see some things as beautiful,
        other things become ugly.
        When people see some things as good,
        other things become bad.

        Being and non-being create each other.
        Difficult and easy support each other.
        Long and short define each other.
        High and low depend on each other…”

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 8 2009

          Just because people misused the parable to kill means nothing to me. They used it for evil. I don’t think you need evil to have good. Who’s to say, evil has been around from the pretty much from the get go from what I can gather. We do not know. After the millennium we’ll have only good, according to the Bible which has been proven true by the parable of the fig tree. Evil being committed because of this verse is incorrect. It’s not the consequences of this verse, it’s the consequences of not understanding the verse or manipulating it to act out the evil people have wanted to act out.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 5 2009

    Murry asked,

    “Where does the Bible say kill non believers? What verse?”

    I think it’s funny that Christians don’t even know the contents of the book they say they believe in. Well, Murry, there are several verses that give such an instruction.

    Deuteronomy 17
    17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

      Deuteronomy is old testament Jewish Law. That was their Jewish state and this was their law. They were under a covenant with God. Idols were the major problem and they had to deal with it to remain in the covenant. I think most Jews of that time believed in the covenant and so they probably agreed with this law.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        May I remind you of the contents of your Bible?

        Matthew 5:17 – 18
        Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

        I suggest you read this: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/butthatstheoldtest.html

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 8 2009

          Have to consult others on this. More learned.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 5 2009

    Murry said,

    “Evolutionist personal convictions need to be questioned against the evidence.”

    No Murry, you have it backwards. The convictions of Christians go AGAINST the evidence. Science looks at evidence and makes conclusions. Christians take their conclusions and try to fit the evidence to those conclusions.

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

      Science takes a look evidence and makes a conclusion. like when they say “Missing link Found” not the brightest group.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:12-21). Not the brightest dude on the planet.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 5 2009

    Murry. You said,

    “Even IF a muslim thinks Islam is true this practice should make them question it, and leave the religion. ”

    This is an appeal to emotion. It is a LOGICAL FALLACY. When judging the truth value of something, it is pragmatic to not commit logical fallacies. Like I pointed out already, I could reject Christianity based on the fact that the Bible presents a God which rivals the likes of Hitler and Stalin, but it is not LOGICAL to reject Christianity on such a basis.

    I understand logic isn’t something Christians are too fond of using when making decisions, but I would advise you look into it. ;)

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

      Taking a stand against child rape is not reacting with emotion. It’s opposing a crime. Wow, you still don’t get this. Child rape, the crime, negates Islam as a religion.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        As Dr. House said on the show, “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.”

        I’m done repeating my point. It’s obvious you don’t have the plumbing upstairs to understand.

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 8 2009

          Dude you’re quoting Dr. House. I think you just proved that donkeys and snakes do talk. I turned that show on at , I think eight o’clock, and two women were having sex. This easily could have been seen by children, that show is proof that we are living in the days like Sodom and Gomorrah. At least keep it for after 10:00. You’re actually quoting house. You’re further out there then I though. I am not religious. Jesus Christ is my savior and I am His servant. I do not go to church. I have a relationship with the Creator. Who doesn’t have the plumbing? You’re quoting Dr. Seuss. oh I mean Dr. House. Signing off for good. Praise Jesus

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 6 2009

      1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
      2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
      3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
      4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn’t much logic in her move.
      5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

      It doesn’t seem logical to me that a person would consider child rape a thing of God. Sound judgment would dictate otherwise. Reliable facts point to “Missing Link Found” as a ridiculous statement. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. Christians scholars are very logical and knowledgeable about the Bible. It takes decades to fully understand the Bible. Dismissing the Bible is ignorant.

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 8 2009

        “It doesn’t seem logical to me that a person would consider child rape a thing of God.”

        IF morality is defined by “God” AND a book “written by God” says that child rape is “good” THEN child rape is good.

        Am I claiming child rape is good? No. I’m pointing out (which you don’t have the capacity to understand) that if you accept that morals come from God, and NOT humans themselves, then their are certain implications. Do us a favor and look up Euthyphro’s Dilemma, then come back once you have gained a bit of understanding.

  • Bert Bril commented on Jun 4 2009

    Religious people:

    When I was on (christian) high school, there was a very christian physics teacher there saying: “God always leaves an alternative. If not, we wouldn’t have free choice. Therefore, God created everything such that there is an alternative to the true story: the evolution theory. A test of faith. So he created this all perfectly – otherwise it wouldn’t be a good test.”.

    Well … this is great! The ‘free choice’ paradigm unites us all: we all see that Evolution actually *works* in an overwhelming majority of cases – for some because God made it so.

    So if you are going to apply a theory, what would you use: the scripture that gives no predictions and explanations, or evolution theory that must be really good because God made it good.

    Thus, for religious people, problems and outliers of the theory point to the actual existence of God, for the rest these are things yet to tackle.

    So could we now please stop the pointless attacking of evolution?

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 3 2009

    To “Murry Melville”

    I have made a valid argument. It seems you aren’t familiar with rational argumentation. I said IF Islam is true (keyword IF) then, THEN marrying 8 year old girls must be considered “good”. Your moral universals are from a JUDEO CHRISTIAN perspective. In other words you ASSUME your perspective is the one that holds true.

    The point I’m trying to make is this: you have no RATIONAL objection to Islam, and this is why you presented what you did. You commit the fallacy of appeal to emotion. I could reject Christianity purely on the fact that the Bible presents a God who is worse than the likes of Hitler and Stalin, but that would not be a rational approach.

  • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 3 2009

    Has anyone noticed that Christianity and conspiracy theories seem to go hand in hand? Look at this “Murry Mellville” nutjob. People like this need to be put at the margins of our society, or they will end our world. Have a look at this folks:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmjMRgT5o-Ig&ei=spgmSuGDO4-Ntgf2tfXeBg&usg=AFQjCNHuULa33sPCVYXnGCwptxCil6tRZQ&sig2=7epVDXM9nCkFzY2MPnBojw

    These people and their eschatology are a DANGER to not only the citizens of this country, but the World. It’s time to start speaking out folks. Beliefs of this sort should not be tolerated.

    • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 4 2009

      The universal morals of not marrying an eight year old are shared by everyone except apparently you. Even Muslims are confounded by this fact. Resorting to calling names is unintelligent. Everyone should be able to express their views. Experts say the arms race is kicking into high gear, where have you been? “Beliefs of this sort should not be tolerated” sounds like you’re a NAZI. What are you afraid of Chris, free thinking ideas. End our world? The nukes are about to be mass produced by Iran. I just want to enjoy America without the type of intolerance you want to spread. Free speech is what I am about. I even think “Missing link found” is free to be proclaimed as long as others can get on the net and point out what an absurdity this statement is. But apparently you don’t want anyone who disagrees with your theories. This is the real danger. Are you afraid of free speech? I am a non violent free speech proponent. Thank God for America and the right to free speech. Free speech is vital

      • Christopher Perry commented on Jun 4 2009

        Again you miss my point. IF Islam is true THEN marrying 8 year old girls is good. There is no way around this logic. We of course, know that this is wrong, and we DON’T get this from reading our religious texts, in the same way that we know that slavery is wrong, which if we got our morals from the Bible, would not be the case.

        I’m not advocating to take away the right of Free Speech, what I’m advocating is Conversational Intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. In other words, if you want to pass legislation based on unsupported religious views, you had better be prepared to have your legislation pushed back in your lap.

        • Murry Mellville commented on Jun 5 2009

          I am not missing any point. I realize you said IF. But you went on to say,
          my universal truths, as to say standing against child rape was a Christian belief. And ” Who are you to tell God he is wrong” I know you said IF. It doesn’t matter this practice of marrying children should have been immediately denounced by you not argued. Even IF a muslim thinks Islam is true this practice should make them question it, and leave the religion. Just like the the proclamation “missing link found” should make evolutionists question there faith in these types of organizations. Evolutionist personal convictions need to be questioned against the evidence. Intellectual honesty has to win out here. “Missing link not proven” parable of the fig tree proven. The parable of the fig tree is supported and therefore Israel should be backed and allowed to live in peace. Either the Bible is true or evolution is true. Your side puts forth a “creature” with no proof. I put forth the parable of the fig tree FACT.