If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Crucial 'missing link' in Theory of Evolution found
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.htmlScientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.
Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.
As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.
Well let's hope this finishes off any further attempts to introduce ID where it doesn't belong.
*waits for fundies to claim God planted the fossils to confuse us*
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
His name is Martin Keown.
As for whether God created man, well it's just about the most improbable thing ever. If some choose to believe that, fine- so long as it's kept within religious education lessons only as far as education is concerned.
As more and more fossil discoveries are made, the already very weak position of ID becomes more unattainable, certainly as a "scientific" theory.
ID is a religious belief, which is fine if one chooses to believe such things... but it must never be allowed to enter the curriculum under the false pretences that it is a scientific theory and should be taught or even discussed anywhere outside religious education lessons.
simple thing is that 'design' cannot be proved either way EVER, it is not a scientific theory, as it argues a lack of evidence means its correct, much like many creationists use.......
yeh of course the concept can be discussed however it should be realisedv it is not a scientific theory, in the court case for that school in america started by parents against the governers, this was shown
However, I do dispute that "superior intelligence" is the only difference between humans and other animals. Superior dexterity, genuine speech and a bipedal stance are more distinct differences. Not to mention our ability to alter our habitat (cultivation, civilisation and exploitation) and tendency to form monogamous unions and copulate face-to-face.
You can look at any skeleton and find a similarlity across species - it doesn't take a genius to work that out. Paleantology is all very well, but it can't actually answer the question everyone wants to know the answer to: why does life bother to exist at all?
how about it just does? does there need to be reason? sometimes i think people look for reasons in things which just occur without reason or cause - and that isnt a scientific argument, its a philosophical one, but im happy to admit that - personally we all live, then we all die, and so it kind of cancels itself out
there are chimps in the world who approach problems VERY well, theres a group of chimps that uses 2 different tools to solve one problem i.e they show the ability to problem solve, i cant remember the exact details, but its like they use one tool to get access, then use another to get the food itself
and how we deal with relationships is very similar to other animals imo some cheat, some commit, some do rather nasty things, some have more than one at once......... gorillas are more monagamous than humans whilst many chimps commit gang rape
Countless species have some physical and behavioural characteristics that are practically unique to them. Does that mean they cannot be classified as animals either? No it doesn't. The human race is an animal species just like any other, regardless of intelligence or social habits.
Frankly I find any suggestion that we are not part of the organic animal life found on the planet but something completely different extremely dumb
That's a meaningful question indeed- but one for the philosophers perhaps? As far as the creation of organic life on this planet is concerned it does not have much bearing.
I think it's more than just intelligence. Humans have more reasoning power than animals, are more analytical and logical and display a social code (e.g. caring and respect for our old people - rather than driving them from our 'group' or killing them) that is unparralled in the non-human world.
All animals care about is food, sleeping and shagging - humans move away from that when we leave University.
many animals use their elder animals to help raise young ones, lions being one
Only while they are useful to assist in hunting etc ... not quite benevolance as we know it..
Whereas we just send them off to nursing homes...
Social codes amongst animals are universal, something which human social codes aren't.
Now that isn't quite true. This is a mainly Western practice which has developed over just a century due to economic factors ... and not all Westerners do this anyway.
Furthermore, while shit happens in these nursing homes, would you knowingly submit your grandparents to abuse in them? No - most normal humans would do all they can to find them somewhere better and safer to stay.
I think you might be wrong about humans being the only species showing a social code. Others species show such traits. Some of them grieve for lost ones and will protect the weak and old from attackers.
Everyone spends time mind-fucked about existence but the problem only arrives when that question is answered with dogma.
Yes, human social codes aren't universal because we are sentient beings. Animals just follow their evolutionary programming.
Do you believe humans are somehow "set apart" from the rest of the tree of life by more than evolutionary progress?
I used the word 'unparralleled' as opposed to 'unique' but I get your point ...
No - I never said that. All I said to Aladdin was it was more than mere intelligence that makes us different from the rest of the animals ... and we've (he and I) have kinda squared that one up now.
"what I don't agree with is the suggestion that we all came from monkeys and therefore are no different than animals......."
Though sorry if you weren't doing so as well.
Seeing as only a century ago mankind didn't even know a small fraction of the things we know today and that new discoveries are being made all the time, it is only a question of time before it is found.
Just because we haven't yet found absolute final evidence of everything it should mean that we ought to treat highly improbable beliefs that are not backed in any way whatsoever by the smallest trace of evidence in the same way as highly probable scientific theories that are already partially backed by lots of evidence, even if questions and holes remain. Not in the classroom at any rate, which is the bottom line of all of this. People are allowed to believe in anything they want naturally.
If it's so difficult to prove it's all an accident, which is the most likely explanation, how the hell are you supposed to prove it's all on purpose?
the main difference between man and all other creatures is ...man has free will or choice.