New Dinosaur Species Is a Missing Link 194
An anonymous reader writes "A new dinosaur provides a link between what paleontologists consider 'early' and 'later' dinosaurs. There's a gap in the fossil record between the oldest known dinosaurs, which walked or ran on their hind legs about 230 million years ago in Argentina and Brazil, and other predatory dinosaurs that lived much later. Daemonosaurus chauliodus helps fill in a blank in dinosaur history."
And now there are TWO gaps! (Score:5, Funny)
And now there are TWO gaps!
Re: (Score:2)
It's the key idea of "The Bisection of the Species", a book written by Darwin's lesser-known great-great-great-grandson who studied computer science. Incidently, they both had similar beards.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the key idea of "The Bisection of the Species", a book written by Darwin's lesser-known great-great-great-grandson who studied computer science.
A classic binary search...
Incidently, they both had similar beards.
Well I don't know about Pappy Darwin, but the Younger Darwin surely knew that he'd never get any respect as a computer scientist if he didn't have a big bushy beard.
At least if he used UNIX...
Dear USA (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one.
Kind regards
The rest of the world
ZOMG stop persecuting Christians! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's come to a reasonable agreement ... you use slashdot.us, and the rest of the world will stick to slashdot.org.
Which begs a question :
Domain Name: . . . SLASHDOT.US
[SNIP]
Registrant Name: . . . Host Master
Registrant Organization: . . . Geeknet, Inc.
Which begs another question ... and it redirects to slashdot.org. Unsurprising.
[bloody "lameness" filter!]
Fake! (Score:2)
It is a fake. The "fossilized" quarter is a dead giveaway.
Heh! (Score:2)
"Daemon"osaurus? (Score:5, Funny)
Did it run on Linux?
Sorry, but it is /., so I had to ask.
*BSD is dying (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But then of course, Netcraft confirms that FreeBSD is dead.
And so are the dinosaurs - I think you're on to something!
Re:"Daemon"osaurus? (Score:4, Funny)
It ran on the ground, but Linux may well have ran on it.
If you watch closely, you can see it running in the background in Jurassic Park.
Re: (Score:2)
Species 404? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats OK, this is slashdot - nobody is going to click on it to RTFA anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, it said in the title the link was missing. Where were we supposed to click?
Now there are two gaps .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with.
First, let me ask, what exactly are you trying to persuade the creationist into doing?
We have species that look alike presently. We had canines for instance, that if we knew nothing about them other then their fossils, we would probably call different animals. So evolution as in one species becoming another and splitting and become yet another in the fossil record is a little of semantics to begin with. But more importantly, it's
Re: (Score:2)
I repeat, I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with. I attempted to explain it, you must have gotten lost somewhere in between "it" and "is".
Re: (Score:2)
lol..NO. It's actually quit
Re:Now there are two gaps .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.
Re: (Score:3)
Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.
Of course, if the rest of us weren't so complacent when it's time to vote for the school board, that problem might go away.
The Texas State School Board pulled some of its usual idiocy not too many years ago, and actually motivated people to get out and vote some more sensible people in. But by the next election complacency had set in again, so the kooks got their seats back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then they'll burn in hell.
And in the process, they'll be on the receiving end of all sorts of shit from their contemporaries - literally shit if they go to some of the less gentle schools of the world - which will make their lives feel like hell before they die. So you'd better have kids with pretty strong characters.
Re:Now there are two gaps .. (Score:4, Informative)
How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly? Aside from your entire argument, that was a great argument.
As a parent of two kids in public school in Kansas [wikipedia.org], yes, I am concerned. I could also point you to several other states, Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor. The Creationist movement is quite active, and if we don't stand up to these idiots, they will happily eviscerate public school science education.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist. My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regar
Re: (Score:3)
He is probably more opposed to the presentation of both "sides" as if they stand on equal footing. For example no one will complain if a social studies teacher explains the conflict between religious fundamentalism and science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?
I do. I also choose not to have my children lied to in school, which makes educating them a lot harder.
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
Then you reject the biology you claimed to have studied, and for what? A handful of Bronze age myths that you find more compelling than empirical evidence? I guess congratulations are in order, if you find that to be laudable enough to admit in public.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Are you also going to educate them in every other creation myth from every other religion? My kids know about Creationism. We dissect that oddball assertion
Re: (Score:2)
I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
That's quite a testimonial for your school.
My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs.
Why? If you don't think evolution is right why not teach Pastafarianism or something else you don't believe?
But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.
Both. ROFL. As if there's only "A god did it" and "A god didn't do it". There are 900 types of baptists, let alone all christian sects, or worse, all religious beliefs. And then there are the "Aliens did it" and other beliefs. Do you teach your children about the Greys AND the Klingons? How do you explain the head-bump/no-head-bump schism in Klingon society?
I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots"
O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself?"
I simply fail to understand why people voted parent message "Troll".
What the parent message says is true.
You just do not let others teach your own children how to think. You have the responsibility too.
Re: (Score:2)
I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.
Email the Consumerist about getting your money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor.
Ultimately, it boils down to, "who cares?" You should have involvement in their education. Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities. Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.
Frankly, in
Re: (Score:2)
Kids are pretty smart about figuring things out so long as they have all the facts and its presented in a method and level relevant to their age and comprehension abilities.
This is the crux of your argument, and the point at which it fails. Creationism is not fact. It is not supported by facts. It is a lie. There are any number of lies(call them creation myths if you want) one could add to my child's science education. And none of them should, because science education is about teaching facts and the process for finding facts, not some superstitious nonsense that the teacher would like them to believe.
Ultimately, by attempting to hide creationism from them, you're actually making it more appealing (like drugs) and creating an environment where they are less likely to openly discuss their views and understanding of the subject matter.
I don't "hide" Creationism. As I pointed out in another reply, we dissect th
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
I don't "hide" Creationism.
Actually, you do. Period. Like it or not, legitimate or not, creationism is a semi-prevalent belief. Ignoring it is hiding and in doing so, you are directly empowering it. Pretending it doesn't exist, only implies you position is so weak and and invalid, you're attempting to hide the
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. So what you're saying is, the theory of evolution is so weak in your opinion it can not withstand debate from people who have no facts to support their position. If that's the case, then creationism has already won. Sad.
Are you completely daft? Are you completely ignorant of the evidence in favor of evolution? Creationism lost the debate long ago. Should we waste time in with every other failed explanation for the universe in our classrooms, too? Why not flat earth? Hey, let's bring back Vulcan as an explanation for volcanic activity! And I'm sure that explaining meteorological events using Thor won't be a complete waste of time. Maybe we can start teaching blood letting in medical school again. Teach the controversy, righ
Re: (Score:2)
You're not looking very hard. Even over the last several generations, we have directly observed new species evolving. Furthermore, we have proof wolves evolved into dogs. Various felines have evolved into cats. And this is the extremely, extremely short list. Literally, evolution is basically proven. Its fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Your evidence depends entirely on how you label species.
Nope. We can determine derivation among related species via a number of methods, including genetic and morphological comparisons. You should educate yourself about things like horizontal gene transfer, which can paint a very rich portrait of decent. For example, in comparing 3 species, if you find that all three species share HGT point X(say, virus DNA which was integrated into the genome), which only 2 share HGT point Y(another viral integration), then you know that the 3 species are related(as they all sh
Re: (Score:2)
As the parent of a 27 year old Tennessean who may soon make me a grandparent, I second your concern. I also point out that she has chosen to avoid buying a house closer to her workplace because she wants to live in a school district that provides a decent science curriculum for that potential grandchild, and is willing to commute more to do it. Judging by the difference in property taxes and housing costs people will endure to get their kids in a school where they can be confident real science will be taugh
Re: (Score:2)
Teaching kids to just believe anything as "it's a matter of faith"?
Teaching kids to ignore what their own senses/experiences tell them and instead believe some stuff written in a book ages ago that makes no rational sense?
I always thought that schools are about education, not indoctrination. If "God" wants to be in schools, he can damn well give the lessons himself (unless he's too busy planting fossils to test our faith).
Re: (Score:2)
My own senses tell me there is a God or else I would have just killed myself many years ago.
Alternatively, you chose to believe in a God to avoid killing yourself. A Buddhist might believe in enlightenment and some kind of eternal lifeforce. Neither point of view is based on hard evidence. I'm an atheist and haven't killed myself, even if I think life is ultimately pointless.
Do you really think someone that gets an 8 year theology degree completely lacks any critical thinking?
The sad part is when desire to believe a certain viewpoint overrides critical thinking.
If it weren't for atheists we wouldn't need any critical thinking any way.
I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean.
And anyway, do I really need critical thinking to read a blueprint?
Critical thinking helps you reject false authority and instead debate decisions on merit
Re: (Score:2)
How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly?
It's a moot question. Everybody is taxed to pay for schools, kids or not. What's given in a public education is the concern of all the public.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal gov't may well be distributing money (unconstitutionally) to "even things out" but that doesn't give Californians the right to tell Tennesseans how to run their state.
As long as they're accepting federal money, the whole public has a vested interest. If the states don't like it, they can stop accepting the money. But even so, the Supreme Court has been applying the Bill of Rights to state or local governments. Teaching religion in science class at a public school violates the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If you look at all the species you will see that if there was a creator, he either was not good or had a real bad sense of humor.
F.i. why give bats eyes, or why the fundamental flaw in the human throat where you can either breath or swallow?
There are cases like this in each and every animal out there.
Also the typical 'half an eye' example will come up, but if you look at the multitude of different types and development of eyes, it clearly shows
Now I am no biologist or anything, but I can see that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're like my very own tiny, angry, Slashdot pet.
Aww. Isn't that cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Aww. You're a good little boy, yes you are.
*pats apk on the head*
Re: (Score:2)
Waaah. Waaah. Waaaait a minute. You're a solid decade older than I am unless you started posting on Slashdot at age five. How on earth do you get through daily life if you don't even know when to quit a conflict with a second class troll? How long is your list of personal enemies? When I'm sixty will I still be able to come here every day for a few minutes of entertainment at your obsessive rage?
Also, now that the people with mod points have moved on to other threads I don't really care if I was cau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you just spectacularly failed a detect sarcasm check, apk. I admire your attempts to be a one man army though.
And I'm afraid you've been deceived at some point in your life. Even if what I did was genuine trolling, and everybody in the whole world knew that I did it, it doesn't change the fact that nobody freaking cares
. Go ahead. Sue me. Haul me before the courts and declare that I'm a troll. Yell it from rooftops, and get it on the 6 o'clock news. It will raise all the public interest of "D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person?"
Biological and medical science wouldn't be where they are without knowledge of evolution and DNA, part of the whole picture is our evolutionary pattern.
BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.
Sure,
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.
Be careful, knowledge burns them.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think teaching millions of children who would rather be ignorant is a fair price to pay for the thousands that advance our civilization. Correlation may not equal causation b
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is why everyone should be well-educated generally, not just in whatever narrow field they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding our evolutionary path gives us insight into our behaviors. Our continued success is a trait that was molded upon the past success of our evolutionary path. The windfall you speak of is the consciousness raising understanding of everything that encompasses our evolutionary heritage.
Your bets are wrong. Don't worry though, you're not the only one.
Re: (Score:3)
Your analogies are ridiculous and they fail spectacularly. They fail because we'r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You comment is really interesting because it shows how ignorant of the problem you actually are.
If that was a belief held and circulated for thousands of years and thought to have something to do with your existence after death, then yes, they should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if evolution was instructed as how you just claimed, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem creationist see from a government forced propaganda machine that is the school is that science and evolution is being taught in class in ways that leave the student believing there is no other way. That's where the issue comes in and why the vast majority of ID or creation intrusions seem to be centered around the entire concept of something else could be true too. And that really is the problem people are having with ID, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia, allowing other things to remain possible instead of shoving evolution as the only way.
I'm confused, because you seem to be arguing for creationism, but you don't seem to actually understand the mindset of its proponents well at all. Most creationist proponents believe that anyone who disbelieves their teaching will suffer forever in some afterlife. It's their belief that anything which detracts from their teaching in any way is morally wrong.
Creationists don't really want ID + Evolution taught. They want evolution destroyed because it doesn't exactly match their scriptures. But, they've been
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing for creationism at all. I'm arguing against science disproving it when it hasn't or somehow taking a person's right to hold a belief a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you are paying attention. Just look around here where people claim evolution is a fact that disproves creationism.
Sadly, its you who doesn't understand anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, could you ever disprove anything other then trying it and it not working or witnessing the supposed act and noting or recording the differences?
I'm not saying by any means that creationism is science, I'm saying that it isn't disproved by science nor could it. But that doesn't mean it never happened or that it never could happen. At best, science has found a way that didn't need it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused, could you state why? We have genetically altered and species and showed that we can create new species so it's not like creation is a complete stretch.
But when I said you couldn't disprove anything, I mean things in science as well.
Sure, but I don't believe I was ever ar
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world makes you think it would be ill educated people? Religions play a large role in the interactions and behaviors of people and if you don't know how that effects some, you are the one who is ill educated. I never said indoctrinate the
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should open your eyes and read the damn shit in front of you. I have never said religion or creation is a scientific theory. In fact, what I said here was that science shouldn't be making claims about creation or a religion in the first place. And yes, that is because of the same damn reasons you hav
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to bury your head in the sand and shrug your shoulders at systemic ignorance, by all means, fuck off and have a nice day. You can take your mealy mouthed acceptance of the fundamental rejection of human knowledge and take a flying leap. The rest of us will st
Re: (Score:2)
ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask:
In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this?
I don't believe it. But it's much more in line with all the physical evidence than "Spaceghost made us cuz he was lonely".
have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?
Once again, not a belief. But yes, a tremendous windfall - being able to independently evaluate thing has helped in all facets of life. From avoiding a bad mortgage to avoiding beliefs.
Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no. Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have.
Being religious strongly correlates with believing what people tell you. Many people believed GW Bush's lies about Iraq because they trusted a fellow religious believer, and over a million people were wro
Re: (Score:2)
ok, i'm only going to do this once, but i have to ask: In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person? have you ever gotten a raise for believing this? have you ever gained any windfall from this being what you believe?
Tthe understanding of the concepts of evolution have indeed been very helpful in my life, it allowed me to better understand the scientific method, my origins and i can apply principles of evolution to other fields. Oh, and i do not believe evolution, i accept it as scientific fact. I would love if someone could disprove it as that would further my understanding and knowledge, but so far, that hasn't happened.
Right, I'm willing to bet, the answer to that is no.
You just lost.
Now, sure, a person could argue a lot of philosophical things about believing in God, vs believing in Evolution, but when it all boils down, what you believe about the origins of mankind, the world, and the universe, has little bearing on what kind of life you are going to have. As long as you are taught to not act like a cockbite, and be somewhat civilized, your going to be fine, religion be damned.
Your problem is that you think people believe in evolution. They do not. They acknowl
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't ignorance, the problem is teaching people to reject reason in favor of faith. Faith is all well and good but it does not build bridges or cure diseases (apocryphal stories to the contrary notwithstanding). Teaching children that rejecting reason is okay is always a recipe for disaster
Re: (Score:2)
And you're not going to convince imbeciles like that. Write them off, minimize them. Try to counteract their idiocy where possible. Don't waste energy trying to convince morons. You'll only frustrate yourself and make sentient beings like pigs jealous.
Re: (Score:2)
All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor. Well, no kidding! All animals share a common ancestor, even if was microscopic and swam in some muddy pool. For that matter, we have not found a fossil or even a species that is a direct ancestor to any other species.
What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean that because it's not possible to trace a direct lineage from a given fossil bone to yourself, that you have doubts that any of it happened?
That's not to say I don't believe evo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, pet hate. Also, nobody's telling you that you can't question it. What you actually can't do is make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't), tell your followers that this proves evolution is all lies, exclaim that as a result it is now 100% certain that god did it, and then (and this is the bit that gets people like me really upset) demand to use my tax money to spread your dumbass beliefs to everyone else's children.
DING-DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said "I just get really offended when someone tells me I can't bring up questions about it." See, if I question it, some kind of ignorant, Bible thumpin' bumpkin that is using ignorance to prove the existence of God.
You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't
Re: (Score:3)
"You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't."
Where did I do that?
I asked a couple of questions of you, but I didn't make up a straw man and knock it down, as far as I can tell. Who's making shit up now?
I wasn't accusing you of pushing your agenda into schools, by the way, I have no reason to think you (specifically) are doing that.
However, 99% of th
Re:Now there are two gaps .. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor.
Homo Heidelbergensis [wikipedia.org]
Homo Antecessor [wikipedia.org]
Homo Erectus [wikipedia.org]
Australopithecus Afarensis [wikipedia.org]
Ardipithecus [wikipedia.org]
How far back do you want to go?
It's rather irrelevant, anyway. Let me rephrase your complaint:
"You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."
Yep. Makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3)
160,000 years ago [berkeley.edu]
I mean its not very hard to find which is surprising considering how hard fossils are to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your objection is laughable
And that is my point. I do not "object" to evolution. I am bringing up the point that if you even ask a question about evolution or show where evidence is missing, I get ridiculed. Most religions allow for more questioning over the existence of God than pseudo-scientists allow for evolution.
Even if we never found a single fossil, ever, the evidence for evolution would be robust - There's biogeography, there's genetics, there's morphometics, there's observed natural selection in the modern world, and so on.
Right! I agree and even said as much. TFS is about finding the "missing link". Well, no it's not. The missing link is that elusive species A that evolved into species B. You said yourself that we have not found i
Re: (Score:3)
you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
We can and do, where we can prove a complete relationship. Primarily bacteria, in this case.
But we are primarily talking about fossils here. We have to have definitive proof that species X was the direct ancestor of species Y to make that claim. We can use a variety of methods(DNA, and morphology, for example) to determine that species are in a familial lineage, but that's not proof of direct ancestry. So, this being science and not applied mythology, we can only state that these two species are part of a
Re:Now there are two gaps .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The process of evolution is gradual. Speciation doesn't occur in a single generation, or even in a single lifetime.
Consider equines. Horses and donkeys clearly share an evolutionary ancestor. In fact, they haven't even completely diverged from that ancestor; despite "obviously" being different species, they are inter-fertile. The offspring (mules) are infertile, so it is reasonable to call horses and donkeys different species; they can produce live offspring, but those offspring are a genetic dead end.
OK, how does that relate to my point? Well, sometime many millennia ago, there were a group of equines that, although not exactly like today's donkeys, were close enough that you would call them donkeys. There was a similar group of "horses". Here's the weird thing: they were the same species (interfertile and producing viable offspring). Somewhere over the millennia since then, the two groups, breeding primarily within their own group and not between groups, reinforced certain traits to the point where cross-group offspring were no longer fertile.
The question for you: how the heck do you define where speciation occurred? Was it when the (still interfertile) groups started moving apart? Was it the first member of each group that could not produce fertile offspring with more than half the potential mates in the other group? Was it when there was one member of each group which were mutually incapable of producing fertile offspring with any descendents of the other? For that matter, how do you define thr groups themselves? There were probably some fertile proto-mules for a while, which didn't fit cleanly into either group. They either died out without reproducing or were merged back into one of the groups, the line would nonetheless have been somewhat blurry.
Now, next question: how do you determine, from the fossil record, where that speciation occurred? Which of a bunch of old horse/donkey-skeleton-like rocks (that's all fossils are) was once an animal that gave rise to modern horses which can't produce fertile offspring with modern donkeys? How do you distinguish, from the fossils, that it was X, and not the parents of X, or the children of X, or possibly the specific children of X by Y? How do you distinguish that it was X and not X's sibling that got a slightly different set of chromosomes and was no longer able to produce fertile offspring with his or her corresponding member of the other group, yet went on to breed successfully and pass those chromosomes onto the other members of the group?
Seriously, demanding to see "direct ancestors" in the fossil record is absolute stupidity. I'm no biologist (as I'm sure any biologist reading my post noted) but I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless. Combine that with the way that most individuals never get fossilized, much less last long enough after fossilization to be found today (never mind the many fossils that we don't have yet; new finds are still occurring). Given all that, it'd be a minor miracle to have gaps of only 1000 generations in a direct chain of ancestry. That's enough generations for some pretty significant changes, when you're looking for incremental differences between a horse and a donkey. 1000 generations ago, your ancestors were recognizably human, but they still looked different enough from you today that you wouldn't have been able to call them a "direct ancestor" or not from fossilized bones - and they were probably still close enough that you'd have been interfertile!
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point and excellent example.
And I fully agree that there is a ton of evidence to support evolution, including evidence that shows that two separate species share a common ancestor. However, and this is my point, we have no record that species at all. We have no record of any parental species whatsoever.
It's like the parent said: "You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you
Re:Now there are two gaps .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone else kinda jumped on you and decimated most of your comment (cbhacking did a particularly good job [slashdot.org]), so I'll just take the bit that's left:
And again, since you're reading comprehension is obviously weak, I never said that the the lack of this evidence is proof that evolution is false. I said that this is a pretty big fucking piece of evidence that we have not found YET and if I even bring it up, I'm instantly ridiculed. It's almost as if I walked into a %place-of-worship% and started saying that %Deity% doesn't exist.
You're being ridiculed because you clearly don't understand how evolution works, and instead of trying to learn you're going around complaining that there's missing evidence. The fact that you're making comparisons to religion only makes you more worthy of derision.
If you start saying things like "you know, we have no direct evidence that any Jews were gassed in WW2", what do you think the implication would be there? If you say "We have no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved with 9/11", what's the implication there? If you go around claiming "You know, nobody on the Earth could ACTUALLY see Apollo 8 on it's way to the Moon", what do you suppose might be the implication there?
You don't get to make idiotic statements with ominous implications, and then pretend that you're "just asking question". It's dishonest, it's cowardly, and it's fucking annoying. Yes, I know all the conspiracy theorists do it all the time; if they're your role-model, you've got serious issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that cbhacking made an excellent post. He did a great job of explaining how the evolutionary model works. But in response to my question, he offers the following:
I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless.
In other words, "it's hard". I agree, it's very hard.
He also used the donkey and horse as evidence for evolution. However, I said in my first post that we can point to several examples of species that share a common ancestor, but we have never found that ancestor. dbhacking gave an example of my point, and then said that we don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, of all the species that have ever existed, and all the species that are STILL EVOLVING TODAY, you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.
How do you show a direct ancestor is actually a direct ancestor? Once you get beyond genetic testing (and most fossils don't have genetic evidence), then you can't. This problem is not well-formed because we don't have the means to answer the question in the affirmative past a few recent and limited cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man.
Someone has already responded to that last faux pas. As for the rest, consider how sparse the fossil record must be. If you went looking for the skeletons of your ancestors, what percentage of them could you find from two generations ago? From ten generations ago? A hundred generations? A thousand?
And that's a species that likes to put its dead where they can be found again.
Now consider what are the odds of any individual (dinosaur) that lived at least 65,000,000 years ago would be preserved to start wit
Re: (Score:3)
My take on the whole controversy....
Evolution by natural selection poses a problem for Christianity because its very brutal process. If its God's natural order, then this brings into question the goodness of God. It also brings into question the idea of sin, since natural selection is argued to produce behaviors historically regarded as sinful. Furthermore nasty animal traits appear to go back hundreds of millions of years, which is difficult to square with common concepts of a 'fall' from paradise.
Indiv
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but that misses a very key truth about natural selection: goodness is also rewarded by the system. Tribes and herds and hunting packs survive better by working as a team. Similarly, the hunted also survive better by working together for the common defense. Monogamy prevents the spread of diseases and makes it easier to determine parentage. And so on.
For every sinful t
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but that misses a very key truth about natural selection: goodness is also rewarded by the system
Yes, but evil is also rewarded. What kind of a system instituted by a loving god rewards both good and evil? This problem is even pointed out in the Bible. "God causes his sun to shine upon the evil as well as upon the good, which is an aggravation of the evil."
evolution and natural selection can be thought of as a battle of good versus evil, played out on a planetary scale.
In the scientific theory of evolution, evil prevails where it does either because it is favored by natural selection, or else from random happenstance. There aren't any players besides necessity and chance. Introduce any other element, and you m
Re: (Score:2)
This goes back to the Christian notion of God, which itself can be split into two parts: the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. The OT God was a complete bastard, being petty and jealous and committing genocide. The NT God is loving and caring but mostly hands-off. Most Christians seem to believe in the NT version which is how Jesus described him.
The problem is that you can't have a god who is both caring and living but also does not get involved in things directly. Imagine you were a student and
Re: (Score:2)
Does that sound reasonable?
I would regard it as craven to stoop to kiss such a God's ass, and moreover I don't think its reasonable to assume that God is good and then try to bend our perceptions to fit that assertion. Better to also consider the possibilities that God is non-existent or even evil, or some combination of those, and look to see what is actually the case. Here are a few additional observations though.
A reason your residence hall is not in good repair, is every weekend the residents get drunk and trash the place. Furt
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but it's actually much simpler than what you think. The theory of evolution contradicts the first few chapters in Genesis. In a lot of churches, people are taught that anything which casts doubt on the absolute truth of the bible is a false teaching. Therefore, evolution must be false.
Your argument includes other smaller arguments people make to justify their initial position, but if the bible started with Genesis 12 instead of 1 (after creation and the flood and babel), we wouldn't be having thi
Re: (Score:2)
If the Bible started at Genesis 12, the argument would as you say disappear for most people, since most people don't think very much about such things. But the underlying contradiction would still be there, and we would still suffer from many of its symptoms. It is appropriate for Genesis 1-11 to be the way it is because it does fit with the main thrust of what comes after.
The arguments I described are real for many sincere and intelligent people, not just justifications for their faith in the Bible. If
New* Dinosaur Species (Score:5, Funny)
*For very old values of New.
Evolution is a continuum (Score:3, Insightful)
The is no such thing as a missing link, because there is no stable state - every new generation is a link to subsequent generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be subjective, was the fossil dated based on its features attributing it to be a transitional fossil between the Eoraptor and Tawa?
Or was it placed in that gap because it was dated such first?
It's an important distinction, as if the three species overlapped in date (two were alive at the same time) or this new find is newer than the species it was supposed to transition to, its status as a "missing link" or even a transitional fossil is false. There's not much information out yet about this but my guess
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trying to say a dog can't have evolved from a wolf, because we still have wolves? That a species branches off doesn't imply the old species must go extinct, they may very well exist in parallel. Even if it turns out a crossbreed isn't the transitional form and newer than that, it's still strong evidence of a common ancestry. That we today have mules is strong evidence of a past common evolution of donkeys and horses sharing ancestors.
In short, you're spouting creationist garbage and while it doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
Every creature that reproduced, you mean!
Anything that dies before it spawns is a dead end.
Re: (Score:3)
It is too bad that they didn't define "much later" in the article. 230 million years ago and 205 million years ago is only about 10% difference in gap from now. If much later is 65 million years ago, then I'm not sure if this really fills a gap.
When people express interest in a "missing link", it's not the chronological gap that interests them. It's the gap in the record of the evolutionary development of features - usually morphology, when talking about dinosaurs.