Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Uncle Skeleton · May 20, 2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man's Earliest Ancestor | World News | Sky News

That's about the worst written article on evolution I've ever seen. Downright terrible. This fossil would be a link between lemurs and the rest of the primates, it would give zero information about the link between humans and other animals. It's hardly "the final piece" for evolution, nor does it "prove" evolution any more than the hundreds of previous missing links that have been found since Darwin's time. Also I don't get the asteroid analogy.

Laminar · May 20, 2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I find it hard to believe that Carrot Top is apart of a divine plan.

God is testing your ability to resist killing someone.

ebuddy · May 20, 2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It would help immensely if you knew what you were talking about, then perhaps we could form some sort of reasonable argument. There is no such thing as macroevolution.

As if Creationists made up the word.

It doesn't really help your case against others' ignorance when the first factoid out of your post is wrong.

macroevolution-berkeley.edu

macroevolution-paleo121

macroevolution-anthro.palomar.edu

Given the fact that you apparently haven't a clue what you're talking about, is there any particular reason why the rest of your post is valid at all? Just checkin'.

stumblinmike · May 20, 2009, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Call me a fundie or a nutbag if you want

Thank You! I choose nutbag! Thanks again for the invite!!!

spacefreak · May 20, 2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

That's about the worst written article on evolution I've ever seen. Downright terrible. This fossil would be a link between lemurs and the rest of the primates, it would give zero information about the link between humans and other animals. It's hardly "the final piece" for evolution, nor does it "prove" evolution any more than the hundreds of previous missing links that have been found since Darwin's time.

Yeah, I've been told repeatedly that proof of Darwin's evolution theory was irrefutable. Yet all of a sudden, this "finding" of an crushed, 18-inch skeleton is represented as being the irrefutable piece, er, the "missing link".

My question is, if the theory of evolution was absolutely irrefutable before this story (as per its supporters), why is this finding such a big deal?

smacintush · May 21, 2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

In my limited capacity of understanding, no. It seems incredibly unlikely and almost mathematically impossible that the complexity of life on this planet (in both plant and animal life) could possibly have come into existence by utter meaningless, random, and chaotic chance.

Well, by definition any creator who would be able to create ALL of this complexity through a sheer act of will would have to be even MORE complex than his creation and thus even MORE unlikely.

smacintush · May 21, 2009, 12:14 AM

Does anyone else find it hilarious when christians require irrefutable proof of scientific claims?

Railroader · May 21, 2009, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Right, except they were about a thousand years behind everyone else when they were still murdering people.

Seriously? This is your reply?

Seriously?

Never mind. Carry on as is I was not here. I don't want to waste your time.

Railroader · May 21, 2009, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Does anyone else find it hilarious when christians require irrefutable proof of scientific claims?

Are you saying you'll accept refutable evidence? Are you saying Christians should?

smacintush · May 21, 2009, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Are you saying you'll accept refutable evidence? Are you saying Christians should?

Seriously? Do you really not get it or are you just messing with me?

spacefreak · May 21, 2009, 01:35 AM

I find it odd that this discovery came with a complete global marketing and PR plan. Heck, textbooks featuring the fossil are already in print, and the movie hits theaters this weekend.

Surely some sort of widespread scientific debate must occur before such a proclamation is made, right?

Uncle Skeleton · May 21, 2009, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I find it odd that this discovery came with a complete global marketing and PR plan. Heck, textbooks featuring the fossil are already in print, and the movie hits theaters this weekend.

Yeah I noticed that too. Totally, totally weird. I smell a hoax.

Railroader · May 21, 2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Seriously? Do you really not get it or are you just messing with me?

I trolled, just like you did.

Seriously, you didn't catch that?

Dakar V · May 21, 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yeah I noticed that too. Totally, totally weird. I smell a hoax.

From what I gather, they purposely held on to this discovery to release it with the bicentennial of Darwin's birth (or something Darwin related). So if it feels artificial, I think that's why. They said they had this for a few years already.