bad week for creationists

Valmont

What if all this is just an elaborate marketing scam to promote some new shopping mall or something?

toiletduck

Zillah wrote: »

Has Creationism ever had a good week?

The First Week :pac:

Dades

Just noticed Google today...



Now that's coverage.

Stephen

Awesome @ google

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R370YkYhV0w

genericguy

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Unlike Jimitime I will be hoping to see the peer reviewed documentation surrounding this.

To Theists: Decry it all you want, science does the one thing you cant do - backs up its claims!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

The ed of nature doesn't have any time for it at all, but I think it's very convincing myself.

Tim Robbins

Elliemental wrote: »

The thing is though, the bible is so open to interpretation, that the Creationuts will always be able to find away around all evidence that to prove that there is no God, just like they always do. Because they`ve changed thier tune now. They still say that the earth was created in seven days, just not seven consecutive days, and that is why the earth is so old. So according to them, this fossil will still be the product of "creation".

Or they say, the earth was created to just look like it was created another way. Yes they're daft. But Science has a responsibility to teach what it knows correctly, coherently and properly rather. It's not doing that IMO.

Flamed Diving

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Or they say, the earth was created to just look like it was created another way. Yes they're daft. But Science has a responsibility to teach what it knows correctly, coherently and properly rather. It's not doing that IMO.

Because...?

Hivemind187

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Scientists like to look smart, chicks dig smart guys.

And if Mick Jagger, Hugh Heffner and Peter Stringfellows conquests are anything to go by, chicks dig fossils too.

... I'll get my coat.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

The king is in his altogether, his altogether, his altogether.
The king is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

This an anti evolution song or an anti tabloid media song? This fella fits into the tree of life, so at the very least he's yet more evidence of evolution by natural selection, and yet more evidence that there's no intent behind the system.

Genghiz Cohen

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This an anti evolution song or an anti tabloid media song? This fella fits into the tree of life, so at the very least he's yet more evidence of evolution by natural selection, and yet more evidence that there's no intent behind the system.

Could be a general dig at people believing just what they're told, in which case there is no facepalm.jpg large enough.

A Primal Nut

JimiTime wrote: »

The king is in his altogether, his altogether, his altogether.
The king is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

For those of us who don't study poetry, what the hell are you talking about?

Hivemind187

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Could be a general dig at people believing just what they're told, in which case there is no facepalm.jpg large enough.

And THAT ladies and gents is the post of the evening.:D

JimiTime

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For those of us who don't study poetry, what the hell are you talking about?

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

It's 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... but set to music...

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

There's an element of that to the coverage, but have you seen the fossil itself? It's just about the most perfect fossil I've ever seen, though I'll admit I haven't seen many!

Mickeroo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's an element of that to the coverage, but have you seen the fossil itself? It's just about the most perfect fossil I've ever seen, though I'll admit I haven't seen many!

It is pretty rare to get something that intact right? Or even that many bones of the one specimen.

marco_polo

Mickeroo wrote: »

It is pretty rare to get something that intact right? Or even that many bones of the one specimen.

Not to mention that much of the softer tissues were fossilized as well, a very rare event.

I must admit that while it is good that science gets positive coverage, alot of the media coverage surrounding the whole affair was nearly as cringeworthy as when the LHC was switched on.

Galvasean

Its very rare to get something so complete (in this case 95% of the bones). Only part of one of the legs is missing. There is also a fur outline which is even more rare. Heck, skeletons with over 70% of the bones are considered 'complete' for some reason.
Some dinosaurs have been found with skin and even internal organ impressions, so it is not unheard of altogether, just very rare.
Here are two well known examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thescelosaurus#.22Heart_of_stone.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipionyx#Paleobiology

*shameless plug inbound?*

Also check out these amazingly preserved Cretaceous bugs trapped in amber:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055570707

Teferi

I guarantee it's just an advertisement for a new shopping mall.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

Its very rare to get something so complete (in this case 95% of the bones). Only part of one of the legs is missing. There is also a fur outline which is even more rare. Heck, skeletons with over 70% of the bones are considered 'complete' for some reason.
Some dinosaurs have been found with skin and even internal organ impressions, so it is not unheard of altogether, just very rare.
Here are two well known examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thescelosaurus#.22Heart_of_stone.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipionyx#Paleobiology

*shameless plug inbound?*

Also check out these amazingly preserved Cretaceous bugs trapped in amber:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055570707

Internal organs? Jebus.

I think I read recently they consider some skeletons complete when they're only 70% or whatever because some bones correspond with others, like left and right legs, so for example if they have a fossilised primate with only one femur they consider it the same as having both as the bones would be more or less identical.

marco_polo wrote: »

Not to mention that much of the softer tissues were fossilized as well, a very rare event.

I must admit that while it is good that science gets positive coverage, alot of the media coverage surrounding the whole affair was nearly as cringeworthy as when the LHC was switched on.

Yea i agree,it is getting sensationalised a lot. And theres already a book and documentary tie-in?? Its like the paris hilton of fossils i say :P

It seems theres a fair few scientists who don't think its the missing link others claim to be.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/lets-not-go-ape-over-ida/

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think I read recently they consider some skeletons complete when they're only 70% or whatever because some bones correspond with others, like left and right legs, so for example if they have a fossilised primate with only one femur they consider it the same as having both as the bones would be more or less identical.

That seems logical, but I've seen 'complete' skeletons that were missing their heads! :eek:
I'm guessing they must make assumptions based on related creatures. It didn't work too well for the dinosaur formerly known as Brontosaurus mind. That particular dinosaur had been reconstructed with the wrong head for years.

Wrong:


Right:

Mickeroo

heh,right i get ya.

Is the top one not a Brachiosaur?

The proper name for Brontosaurus is Diplodocus,right?

marco_polo

Mickeroo wrote: »

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/lets-not-go-ape-over-ida/

Guess Rush Limbaugh ended speculation as to whether or not he is a creationist.

We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm guessing they must make assumptions based on related creatures. It didn't work too well for the dinosaur formerly known as Brontosaurus mind. That particular dinosaur had been reconstructed with the wrong head for years.

Didn't that happen with the Rhinosaur?

Hivemind187

Tbh I cant see how this is being over-played at all. It's an awesome thing to be sable to look at a few rocks and ascertain the existance of gigantic lizards from a period before we roamed the earth.

Christmas gets reported every year, as does easter and various other religious holidays which are little short of a consensual mass lie. Being able to find another component in the map of how we got our opposable thumbs is nothing short of astounding.

Why the down playing? Shouldnt we be celebrating this in even more hysterics and frenzy we do Christmas? Afterall, this will only happen once ... Jesus is garaunteed a sequel :rolleyes:

Goduznt Xzst

As a fossil, and discovery this is amazing, but the media-hype is out of control. Has it even been proven, under peer review, that this primate is even on the human evolutionary line?

As far as I've read so far, this is mere speculation that is being heralded as fact by the media who want a sensationalist story. It also seems coincidental that this hype is being generated less than a week before the show "The link" is aired in US and the UK version on the BBC.

I don't doubt the significance of this discovery and it's possible future worth. But the media are really jumping the gun on this one and I fear it will just give creationists another spanner to throw in the works if the speculations by the researchers do not prove to be true under peer review of the findings.

BTW, research article here, with hi def images:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

HD image: (Ida is a lot smaller than I imagined)

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723.g001&representation=PNG_L

cls

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

As a fossil, and discovery this is amazing, but the media-hype is out of control. Has it even been proven, under peer review, that this primate is even on the human evolutionary line?

Scientists have been studying it for 2 years. Its not like they have jumped to conclusions on first impressions. All the same, I'll have to wait for the Horizon documentary before I am convinced.

Flamed Diving

Isn't the notion of a 'missing link' a fabrication in itself?

No matter how many fossils you find, there will always be 'missing links', just like there are missing links of you in your photo collection.

Genghiz Cohen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Isn't the notion of a 'missing link' a fabrication in itself?

No matter how many fossils you find, there will always be 'missing links', just like there are missing links of you in your photo collection.

There are thousands of missing links. Creationists jumped on the one that suited them.

Goduznt Xzst

cls wrote: »

Scientists have been studying it for 2 years. Its not like they have jumped to conclusions on first impressions. All the same, I'll have to wait for the Horizon documentary before I am convinced.

Well the fossil was unearthed in 1983, so they have taken their sweet time to get around to it

Also, from the research article I linked:

We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid, but the adapoid primates it represents deserve more careful comparison with higher primates than they have received in the past.

For this primate to be THE "missing link" it would have to be anthropoid, to bridge the gap between the highest anthropoid and the lowest man. I'm sure it is A link, but whether it has significance to the early, pre-anthropoidal lineage of humans has yet to be determined.