bad week for creationists

Flamed Diving

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

And undoubtedly they will jump on another as soon as they find a replacement.

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

heh,right i get ya.

Is the top one not a Brachiosaur?

The proper name for Brontosaurus is Diplodocus,right?

The top one is Camarasaurus. The proper name for 'Brontosaurus' is now Apatosaurus (and always has been since they were the same animal and Apatosaurus was first to be used. In life Apatosaurus was a close relative of, and would have looked like a slightly less elongated version of Diplodocus.
Interestingly, there is a close relative of Apatosaurus which was named Eobrontosaurus in homage to the lost name. What's worse some scientists now think it wasn't athat closely realted to Apatosaurus, but rather Camarasaurus (the wrong head guy so to speak). Ah, such delicious irony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eobrontosaurus

marco_polo wrote: »

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

Creationists dispute evolutionary findings. Stop the presses.

Dades wrote: »

Didn't that happen with the Rhinosaur?

The clue is in the name: Rhinoceras... rhino...saurus.... :pac::D:eek::eek::D:eek::pac:

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.

For the love of God scince man!!!! Horizon documentaries are the most overblown sensationalist excuses for scientific programming you can get on mainstream TV. Ever seen 'Warrior or Wimp?', their programme about the possible scavenging habits of T.rex? It was atrocious. They gave the scavenger hypothesis people far more air time than the pro hunter group (who actually have a hell of a lot more evidence). Why? Sensationalism that's why!
Then there was their hour long show about the Atkins diet where they started off saying how the laws of physics would need to be revised because of it. Then a tiny footnote at teh end saying that people on the Atkins diet simply end up eating less and therefore losing weigh. So no changes to the laws of physics then? :rolleyes:
Horizon are the whores of scientific journalism.

AtomicHorror

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.

Documentaries =/= science. Horizon is entertaining, at best an engaging place to start one's research. Not the point at which anyone should be convinced of anything. Primary papers and journal correspondence, or mainstream articles that back up their points with references to said sources.

darjeeling

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?

Not to the satisfaction of all primate palaeontologists. The ancestor of the anthropoids (monkeys and apes) back in the eocene, 50-odd million years ago, has been a mystery, and different scientists have come up with different candidates.

Some of the people behind this paper have favoured one particular early primate group as our ancestors, and now they have a new fossil that they say supports their idea. It comes from their preferred group, but - they say - has acquired additional features common to monkeys and apes. If they're right, it would be one of the earliest fossils on (or most likely budding off from) the branch that led to us. Other scientists, though, have been quick to voice their scepticism.

There's a bit more on this in this Palaeo thread.

Back on topic, the fossil evidence doesn't show whether or not Ida was a creationist.

AtomicHorror

darjeeling wrote: »

Back on topic, the fossil evidence doesn't show whether or not Ida was a creationist.

If we could just determine whether Ida had a PhD in the sciences then at least we'd be able to say there's a 0.0001% chance that she was a creationist. We know she's German, so maybe we can infer something from that.

Galvasean

Someone posted a link to the official site (apparently prehistoric creatures get their own websites now) over at the Palaeontology forum:
http://www.revealingthelink.com/
(See that? I reposted it here as not to blackmail you all into visiting my forum, arent i nice?)