Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great Ida Debate

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,065 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    Would've taken me hours. Still getting used to these opposable thumbs.

    lol that was made of win!


  • Options
    #33
    Pinky Pixie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭Pinky Pixie




    Now you have that song in my head :p


  • Options
    #34
    Acacia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    Can anyone actually argue for Creationism anymore? Surely this is the final nail in the coffin?


  • Options
    #35
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    Acacia wrote: »
    Can anyone actually argue for Creationism anymore?

    Not if you have a brain in your skull. Science is about basing the conclusion on the evidence. Creationism is about selecting "evidence" to suit a conclusion that has already been made. I don't expect they'll stop doing it now though. I don't like it any more than you.


  • Options
    #36
    Acacia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    jackpalance wrote: »
    Not if you have a brain in your skull. Science is about basing the conclusion on the evidence. Creationism is about selecting "evidence" to suit a conclusion that has already been made. I don't expect they'll stop doing it now though. I don't like it any more than you.

    But sure this fossil could have been put there by God to test us! :p:pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Acacia wrote: »
    Can anyone actually argue for Creationism anymore? Surely this is the final nail in the coffin?

    There most likely will always be a die-hard rump of IDiots who will cling to it. No matter what science reveals about the universe or life's origins they'll just keep moving their sky-daddy that one step outside the reality that the rest of us live in.

    One just hopes that their numbers diminish so as not to hold the species back to any appreciable degree.


  • Options
    #38
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Tyler MacDurden wrote: »
    There most likely will always be a die-hard rump of IDiots who will cling to it. No matter what science reveals about the universe or life's origins they'll just keep moving their sky-daddy that one step outside the reality that the rest of us live in.

    One just hopes that their numbers diminish so as not to hold the species back to any appreciable degree.
    Acacia wrote: »
    But sure this fossil could have been put there by God to test us! :p:pac:
    jackpalance wrote: »
    Not if you have a brain in your skull. Science is about basing the conclusion on the evidence. Creationism is about selecting "evidence" to suit a conclusion that has already been made. I don't expect they'll stop doing it now though. I don't like it any more than you.

    Somebody help. These people are imagining trolls to respond to. Swine flu?


  • Options
    #39
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    Somebody help. These people are imagining trolls to respond to. Swine flu?

    Where's the harm in a little pre-emptive troll-whacking?

    Acacia brought up an issue that is, for better or worse, lurking in the background of this story. We don't need a representative from the Creationist Society present before we mention them surely?

    Here we are, discussing a 47-million year old fossilised lemur, without needing her input into the discussion. Same goes for our thus-far silent Creationist buddies.


  • Options
    #40
    slippy wicket
    Registered Users Posts: 693 ✭✭✭slippy wicket


    So if we are all apes, if election canvassers come into your area is it ok to defend your territory by throwing sh*t at them?


  • Options
    #41
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    You know this is the second thread on palaeontology in After Hours in the last week or two.
    You know what this means....


    I'm finally cool!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The good people of After Hours have gotten wind of the story:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055569232

    Been some pretty good jokes/feedback on the story.


  • Options
    #43
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Galvasean wrote: »
    You know this is the second thread on palaeontology in After Hours in the last week or two.
    You know what this means....


    I'm finally cool!!!!!

    Less of the false modesty G, you know you've always been cool. You've got a DinoDog in your sig for feck's sake. :D

    *heads over to Palaeontology forum, we get the hint*


  • Options
    #44
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The good people of After Hours have gotten wind of the story:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055569232

    Been some pretty good jokes/feedback on the story.

    And why, oh why did I go there to discuss it? Abject apologies for neglecting fossil-central. :D


  • Options
    #45
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Tyler MacDurden wrote: »
    Less of the false modesty G, you know you've always been cool. You've got a DinoDog in your sig for feck's sake. :D

    This much is true.
    The kids can call me G-dawg.


  • Options
    #46
    phasers
    Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    I hear it's from someone pissing in the drinking water.


  • Options
    #47
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Acacia wrote: »
    Can anyone actually argue for Creationism anymore? Surely this is the final nail in the coffin?

    Dunno, I find it kinda funny that so many people will uphold it as an absolute fact that we're directly descended from apes when this missing link was/is unfound for so long despite science best efforts ( and occasional attempts at fraud :pac:)


    Personally i suspect aliens more than god. Though god, by definition, is an alien really I guess..hang on...


  • Options
    #48
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Dunno, I find it kinda funny that so many people will uphold it as an absolute fact that we're directly descended from apes when this missing link was/is unfound for so long despite science best efforts ( and occasional attempts at fraud )

    From what I understand (from random youtubing, I recommand Thunderfoot on anything evolution releated.) The missing link is no longer an essential componentent to proving evolution and has become quite outdated in fact, but still holds a rather populer romantiscm in the media so is constantly brought up as a talking poiint. It seems there is more then enough evidence for evolution in dna and cell research. But I could be wrong.

    My personal stance on evolution is that while I can get a basic grasp of it, I still dont understand it so I do not use it as an element of my belief structure, hence in religious debates its something I wouldnt argue for, because its stupid to argue for or against something if you do not understand it.

    Which probably explains why I find *some* (had this argument before by mistake) athesiests annoying who use evolution as their proof and I have a better understanding of it then them and I wont go beyond considering myself Agnostic.


  • Options
    #49
    SoupyNorman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭SoupyNorman


    This is great news, although I double checked it on BBC News as the source is from Sky News in these here parts.



    So WTF actually happens now? Jurassic Park, cures for AIDS/Cancer or does the fossil just get catalogued and stuck in a drawer?


  • Options
    #50
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Interesting how Ida lived alongside Propalaeotherium, a primitive horse the size of a cat. I wonder did Ida ever get drunk on fermented grapes and ride one like a little horsey?
    No, but i can dream...

    propalaeotherium_hzoom.jpg


  • Options
    #51
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Bambi wrote: »
    Dunno, I find it kinda funny that so many people will uphold it as an absolute fact that we're directly descended from apes when this missing link was/is unfound for so long despite science best efforts ( and occasional attempts at fraud :pac:)

    The famous 'missing-link' that hasn't been found is the direct (and 'last') ancestor of both humans and chimps which is believed to have lived some 7million years ago. As has been said already on this thread it is a fairly romanticised notion (that we absolutely must find this scientific holy grail or all is lost).
    However it is not essential to find this particular creature to prove that we evolved from a type of ape (actually if you want to get really picky, humans are actually a type of ape).
    For example several kinds of upright walking ape from the last 5 odd million years (like Australopithecus have been found, showing how the transition from tree dwelling primate to ground walking human occured.
    SoupyNorman wrote: »

    So WTF actually happens now? Jurassic Park, cures for AIDS/Cancer or does the fossil just get catalogued and stuck in a drawer?

    The last choice is the closest to the truth. As an important and very well preserved fossil it will no doubt be studied by scientists for years to come, every time they want to study the origins of mankind (which is all the time).
    High quality casts might be made and sent to museums for people like me to oogle at. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    b28
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭b28


    Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »
    That's old news.
    The missing link was discovered years ago in Clara, Co. Offaly.

    Hes one in a million:pac:


  • Options
    #53
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    I'm kinda surprised there's not bigger discussion about this. I'm not a Scientist but I found the sensationalised story on sky quite striking so I came here for the fax.
    Quite surprised it's been in a private collection for 80years and been in secret for another 2. I suppose this is the norm ?


  • Options
    #54
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    I'm kinda surprised there's not bigger discussion about this. I'm not a Scientist but I found the sensationalised story on sky quite striking so I came here for the fax.

    Yeah, we are Ireland's biggest (and also best!) palaeeontology forum. :cool:
    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    Quite surprised it's been in a private collection for 80years and been in secret for another 2. I suppose this is the norm ?

    Unfortunately a lot of fossils do end up in private collections as private collectors can often outbid museums/scientists etc. It is a shame as they cannot be studied. I shudder to think what amazing secrets have been lost to science due to such collections.
    As for the two year delay in releasing information to the general public, that is to be expected. Many finds are not published until long after their initial discovery. It gives the scientists time to study their finds properly.
    In some cases when articles are rushed out to meet deadlines mistakes can be made andreputations can suffer as a result. Perhaps the most well known case of such an occurence in recent years is the infamous Archaeoraptor hoax fossil which fooled National Geographic magazine. Such was their haste to quickly publish this 'missing-link' between dinosaurs and birds, they missedout on spotting that it was in fact fossils of two different creatures (a bird like dinosaur and a dinosaur like bird) stuck together.
    In short, it pays to be careful with these things.


  • Options
    #55
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    I actually saw it mentioned on Vincent Browne and I think the headlines was "this picture will be in school books in 100 years". Or something like that.

    I had a science teacher who would talk about current events, affairs, discoveries etc.
    I always liked that rather than the abc,123 curriculum.


  • Options
    #56
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Acacia wrote: »
    Can anyone actually argue for Creationism anymore? Surely this is the final nail in the coffin?
    Since creationists can agree on when the world was created then ...

    or ask them if God can do anything ?
    if he can then a 15 Bn year old universe is not a problem

    can we get the thread title change to You are a primate which is a type of mammal.


    But seriously this has nothing to do with Creationism, no matter how many missing links are found they will just ask for another one between them.

    as for evolution you can see the origin of a new species in our sea gulls
    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species


  • Options
    #57
    grizzly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭grizzly


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Oh yeah, seriously though, If we evolved from apes why are there still Apes walking around and not evolving?

    Apes are still evolving (it's a slow process you may not notice it happening :P).


  • Options
    #58
    zuroph
    Registered Users Posts: 11,097 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    as for evolution you can see the origin of a new species in our sea gulls
    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
    evolving, more like REVOLVING AMIRITE?!?!?




    I'll get my coat.


  • Options
    #59
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    [Edit: take two]

    This new paper (available here) is basically trying to figure out what monkeys and apes evolved from. Fossils from 50-odd Mya (million years ago) in the eocene show two different superfamilies of 'prosimian' primates spread across North America, Asia and Europe. These are the 'Omomyoids', which looked like today's tarsiers, and the 'Adapoids', which resemble lemurs.

    Fast forward to today, and we've two main orders of primates that diverged perhaps 60 million years ago. These are the 'Strepsirrhini' - lemurs and lorises - and the 'Haplorrhini' - the 'anthropoid' monkeys and apes, and the more distantly related tarsiers. The first recognisable anthropoids - to which we belong - turn up in the fossil record around 34 million years ago. The puzzle has been what they evolved from - an prosimian from one or other early superfamily, a tarsier-like intermediate that in turn evolved from an Omomyoid, or something independent. Fossil evidence is limited, and sometimes hard to square with inferred relationships between living animals, so scientists have backed different hypotheses.

    This new paper describes a 47 Mya fossil dubbed Darwinius masillae that once roamed in a para-tropical forest in what is now Germany. Comparison with other fossils classes it as an Adapoid. By comparing its skeleton with living primates, the authors group it - controversially - with the Haplorrhini, as it shares with apes and new & old world monkeys several 'derived' features thought to have evolved after the split from the Strepsirrhini. That would put it on our side of the family tree, not long after the main primate divergence - hence all the 'missing link' talk. Needless to say, other researchers disagree.

    The relationship diagram in the paper only includes the Strepsirrhini, Haplorrhini and this new fossil on our (Haplorrhini) side of the Strep / Hap divide. It doesn't include other fossils, or show the position of the tarsier lineage:

    attachment.php?attachmentid=80400&stc=1&d=1242784163


    Oh, and it looks quite sweet too, going on the artist's likeness:

    attachment.php?attachmentid=80401&stc=1&d=1242784175


    Johns Hopkins primate palaeonotologist Chris Beard, interviewed on Radio 4's The World Tonight was a bit underwhelmed. He dismissed any talk of it being a direct ancestor of ours, and said that fossils of similar primates have been known for 150 years, though not so complete and well-preserved.


  • Options
    #60
    RossFixxxed
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭RossFixxxed


    Ok I lied, HE'S corey and I'M Trevor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    From what I understand (from random youtubing, I recommand Thunderfoot on anything evolution releated.) The missing link is no longer an essential componentent to proving evolution and has become quite outdated in fact, but still holds a rather populer romantiscm in the media so is constantly brought up as a talking poiint. It seems there is more then enough evidence for evolution in dna and cell rese

    *Science has joined the conversation*

    Christianity: hai science
    Islam: oh hai

    *buddhism is away*

    Science: oh hai guys, I just disprove creationsim, all ur church r belong to me lol

    Christianity: o noes!11

    Islam: wtf? u found missin link?

    Science: missin link? lollerpops.. RTFM dude: "The missing link is no longer an essential componentent to proving evolution and has become quite outdated in fact, but still holds a rather populer romantiscm in the media"

    Christianity: wait...wat? no missing link?omg r u using haxx?!!?

    Islam: WTF Link r GTFO science

    Science: ROFL

    *science has been kicked*

    Islam: tard
    Christianity:jebus


Advertisement