tazinib1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 This should cause some pretty intense debate. MISSING LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 HOLY CRAP! That looks just like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm pretty skeptical about it myself. (the fossil, not evolution) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I stopped when it said 47 million years old. When the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Anybody else think it looks like Hugh One? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Anybody else think it looks like Hugh One? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I stopped when it said 47 million years old. When the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 That article is crap. The fossil is a nice pice of the puzzle, but labeling it a missing link is a disservice to understanding evolution. Here is the journal article from PLoS ONE ... and a more reserved article on the subject from the NYT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 That doesn't look like Biggie Fries. This is true. I have less hair on my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 wow, one fossil. to summon the spirit of cliaz ... if we found one old fossil of a midget, would it then be logical to assume that at one time, all humans were midgets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 wow, one fossil. to summon the spirit of cliaz ... if we found one old fossil of a midget, would it then be logical to assume that at one time, all humans were midgets? statistically speaking, yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 google likes it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 wow, one fossil. to summon the spirit of cliaz ... if we found one old fossil of a midget, would it then be logical to assume that at one time, all humans were midgets? Well, what defines midget - since it's pretty clear the ancient man averaged less than 5 foot tall. And lol at the 'wow one fossil' comment when in fact this is the first complete fossil from this era, but supports theory based on other, numerous and incomplete finds. So, yes, despite the wow it is quite important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 any time they find any meaningful fossil that further nails down our knowledge of primate evolution, the news reports inevitably treat it like Have to agree here they found The Missing Link!!!1! kind of silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) wow, yet another fossil that completely confirms what evolutionary theory predicts fixed Edited May 20, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Most rational people whether Christian or not, already believe in some measure of evolution. At the most, this find only reinforces a specific chain of one line of evolution, but it doesn't really add anything to the argument of whether evolution actually occurs or not. That's pretty much already been shown (and of course will continue to be rejected by fundamentalists). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I like the part where it says that this confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution....which is a crock of chit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I like the part where it says that this confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution....which is a crock of chit.... Which part, the theory or the confirmation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I like the part where it says that this confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution....which is a crock of chit.... care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 fixed yes, with lucy that makes two ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Which part, the theory or the confirmation? the confirmation....plus I don't believe in his theory of evolution... this is just another monkey species......we didn't evolve from monkeys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 And lol at the 'wow one fossil' comment when in fact this is the first you are contradicting yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 wow, one fossil. to summon the spirit of cliaz ... if we found one old fossil of a midget, would it then be logical to assume that at one time, all humans were midgets? Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional creatures existed between modern animals and extinct animals. Every time one is found, it is evidence in support of evolutionary theory. One fossil by itself does not confirm anything, but the sum total of found fossils make a strong case for it. I am still waiting for intelligent design to produce evidence in support of a supernatural force tinkering with every one of the millions of species on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Well, what defines midget - since it's pretty clear the ancient man averaged less than 5 foot tall. And lol at the 'wow one fossil' comment when in fact this is the first complete fossil from this era, but supports theory based on other, numerous and incomplete finds. So, yes, despite the wow it is quite important. what was the proof again supporting the "fact" that man was less than 5ft tall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 yes, with lucy that makes two ... right. here's a 552 page book about those two fossils they've found. maybe you should read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.