Ancient Fossil Offers Clues To Primate Evolution 311
langelgjm sends in an update to a story we discussed over the weekend about an extremely well-preserved fossil of an ancient primate, Darwinius masillae, that sheds light on an important area of evolution. The 47 million-year-old specimen has now been officially unveiled, and while many media outlets are stumbling over themselves with phrases like "missing link" and "holy grail," it's clearly a very impressive find. "Discovered two years ago, the exquisitely preserved specimen is not a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but hints at what such an ancestor might have looked like. According to researchers, 'The specimen has an unusual history: it was privately collected and sold in two parts, with only the lesser part previously known. The second part, which has just come to light, shows the skeleton to be the most complete primate known in the fossil record.' The scientific article describing the find was published yesterday in the peer-reviewed, open-access journal PLoS ONE. Google's home page is also celebrating the find with a unique image." Science blogger Brian Switek offers some criticism of the academic paper and the media swarm, saying, "I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well."
I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... says it's a hoax. Any takers?
Actually, even if not, the circumstances are now rather dubious. Hopefully it hasn't been damaged in the course of it being sold in two parts and shipped around in private hands.
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Funny)
... says it's a hoax.
Of course its a hoax. everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old.
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you stop this Christianity bashing already? We admit it, it was a mistake, the earth is older than 6000 years
Damn right! It's 6013 years old.
Primate evolution (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that the Earth has only been around for about 6,000 years. ... I believe that Adam and Eve were created "with age," and not created as newborn babies ... Do I have proof of this? No, it's faith, I'll admit that. But you really can't prove I'm wrong either.
The moment there is any onus to prove wrong someone who makes claims without any proof of these claims, a fortiori claims as extraordiary and implausible as these, we are in real trouble. Perhaps it would be best for your to heed St Augustine'
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Funny)
... says it's a hoax. Any takers?
It's a pseudo-hoax. I'm sure the citizens of Magrathea are quite pleased that we're stumbling upon the little details they left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was found over 25 years ago - why is it just now getting attention. Sound like a play for grant money to me
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:4, Informative)
Not just that, it was allegedly found by an amateur and hung in a collector's living room for 20 years [sky.com]!
Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.
She was cleaned and set in polyester resin - and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector's wall for 20 years.
Sky News sources say the owner had no idea of the unique fossil's significance and simply admired it like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.
But in 2006, Ida came into the hands of private dealer Thomas Perner, who presented her to Prof Hurum at the annual Hamburg Fossil and Mineral Fair in Germany - a centre for the murky world of fossil-trading.
So the word, "fake" has crossed my mind too!
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Informative)
This was studied for two years before it was released, so it seems that they've done some due diligence to make sure this was NOT a hoax.
X-rays were taken taken of the internal structures (which are allegedly impossible to fake) and they proved out to be authentic.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
10 PRINT The power of Christ compels you !
20 GOTO 10
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ex. (Score:2, Funny)
... says it's a hoax.
Of course it's not a hoax...it's my Ex. I just forgot where I buried her.
Re:I got 10 bucks here ... (Score:5, Funny)
No way, Google [gmodules.com] changed their logo for this! It *has* to be real!
Re:Evolution is real -- even for modern man. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation is not causation. Just because different "racial" groups statistically have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept) doesn't mean that race has anything to do with it. The assumption that this difference is caused by "racial"/genetic factors, without offering any evidence to support that assumption, is invalid and may be considered racist.
The history of humanity suggests that culture is the overriding causal factor. Asians and Europeans are just as capable as Africans (or any other "race") of having a primitive, oppressive and destructive culture, as has been well established through the ages. For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known. Also, contrary to popular prejudice, there are African countries that are doing pretty well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?
ie, are Asians and Europeans just as capable of certain African peoples of sprinting or long distance running?
have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)
Ridiculously silly.
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known
I think you need to learn your history a little better. You're discussing myths and falsehoods, which makes whatever your beliefs about some "cultural" reasons utterly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice straw man. I never claimed the brain is exempt from these.
Ok, if you didn't, then cool--that makes up a lot of what I disagreed with. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you claimed that culture causes intelligence--I took that as meaning intelligence has no heritability. Glad we agree on that point after all.
p.s. I still don't understand:
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known.
That makes race a purely cultural concept.
Yes, race IS a cultural concept. I would not argue that point. I think I've been pretty clear in the last couple points about mentioning "certain African peoples" etc rather than saying "Blacks." As an example, using the
Re:Evolution is real -- even for modern man. (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand it, IQ tests were largely developed by whites. You'd think that if they were biased, they'd have fiddled it so they came out on top.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at your post history, it seems as if you're just trying to troll but I feel like this point needs to be addressed
A key one is, "Why must the Bible mention dinosaurs?". The oldest book in my home is a '73 VW Chilton's manual, but why should I expect *IT* to detail every step of evolution, DNA, and the singularity?
You shouldn't expect that information in a Chilton's manual. Though, if the book didn't even hint at the existence of your engine, vaguely described the workings of the other components of the car, contradicted itself frequently, and was blatantly incorrect on major points, you might question the knowledge of the books authors.
Give it a rest (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh noes! People made money off it!! Science was "hindered"!
Please. Any hindrance is temporary (47 million years old and it's been a couple more years! Avast!!) and the fossil getting this much attention can only help the cause - money pouring into the area isn't a bad thing either unless you really like staying a poor researcher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. Except for the fact that until it is cut in half, all you have is a rock. You have to cut the rock to see whats inside..
Re:Give it a rest (Score:5, Funny)
"That's amazing", said the tourist, "How do you know the age so exactly?"
"Well, that's easy", replied the guide. "It was 6.5 million years old when I started working here, and that was three and a half years ago."
Re: (Score:2)
If he told you it was 6.5 million years old you have a problem either you hav a hearing problem or you went to a lousy museum or you went to a museum with a lousy guide....
6.5 million years a go T-Rex was already extinct for quite a while.... Place the decimal point a bit to the right and you get in actuall dinosour territory....
Re:Give it a rest (Score:5, Funny)
Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
That people can get elected without having basic modern ape like intelligence is the scary bit, this primate was probably more self-aware than many of those elected officials.
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
And scariest of all? The world still turns, and objective reality refuses to accept that proper science is vital to hold the fabric of space-time together.
Honestly, the only reason anyone ought to care what a politician thinks about creationism is if they decide what's taught in public schools. This is almost always a state matter. Your U.S. Congressman has bunk to do with it.
And if it really, REALLY troubles you that some congressmen are anti-science, I suggest you give equal time to folks like Dennis Kucinich; after all, is seeing UFO's somehow more scientifically acceptable that an ID-proponent?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? It's likely that Dennis is lying about seeing a flying object he couldn't identify? Because that is all he said. Didn't say aliens, didn't say anything except that it was flying, it was an object, and he couldn't identify it. Only people looking for an excuse to dismiss Kucinich give that story any credence.
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, the only reason anyone ought to care what a politician thinks about creationism is if they decide what's taught in public schools. This is almost always a state matter. Your U.S. Congressman has bunk to do with it.
Ah, yes, thanks for reminding us about the theory of federalism [wikipedia.org], on which our governing system is ostensibly based.
Now I'm going to explain to you how it works in the real world.
In the real world, the national government has become intimately involved in decisions at the state and local level, well beyond its enumerated powers. If nothing else, federal funding of local education has enabled it to threaten states with, "Don't want to do what we tell you? Then kiss your funding goodbye."
Yes, the federal government does have significant control over what can be taught in public schools. Why do you think the Supreme Court ever rules on cirriculum issues? Why don't federal judges respond to all such lawsuits that make it to their level by saying, "Meh, state matter, go away"?
So please don't act like Congressmen are powerless over what's taught in public schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation, please. Name one significant school curriculum issue the US Supreme Court has ruled on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go. [wikipedia.org] Issue: teaching of ... creationism.
Edwards v. Aguillard
In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The act did not require teaching either evolution or creationism as such, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, so-called creation science had to be taught as well. ... the State appealed to the Supreme Court. ... In 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Louisiana act was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:4, Funny)
I disagree. While the generation of material fragments is certainly interesting and has some practical applications (notably in armour and weapons designed to break it [wikipedia.org]) it's still a somewhat specialist and niche subject.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:4, Informative)
Seeing a flying object that you can't identify is scientifically acceptable. That is all he said. Tim Russert asked him about it, he said that all he has seen was an object he couldn't identify.
Dennis Kucinich is one of the only true liberals left in the Democratic party, and I would vote for him for president in a heartbeat. This UFO story gets blown all out of proportion by right wing loons in order to discredit him. Stop listening to loons.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-60.htm [exopolitics.org]
Obviously this isn't Kucinich himself and has validity only as testimony, but, if the person who was with him when the "encounter" (or whatever) took place says this, it hardly seems fair to blame your political foes with "blowing it all out of proportion." Is Shirly Maclaine a "right wing loon" (I know nothing about her, other than she is the godmother of Kucinich's daughter)?
Watching the Kucinich answer (youtube), he doesn't deny the above account, and responds
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are quoting a story from an 'Extraterrestrial Politics' site? Seriously? Don't you think they might be a little biased?
Shirley McClain is a left wing loon. I would take anything she says with a huge grain of salt. Here's a transcript of the question Russert asked:
RUSSERT: Shirley MacLaine writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in Washington state, that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a triangular craft, silent and hovering, that you felt a connection to your heart and heard directions in your mind. Now, did you see a UFO?
KUCINICH: Uh, I did. And the rest of the account. It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something. Now, to answer your question. I'm moving my, and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico, and another one in Exeter, New Hampshire, OK? And also, you have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency.
I stand by my position that this is being blown out of proportion by people who don't agree with Kucinich's politics.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism:
biology
biochemistry
genetics
physics
astronomy
astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism:
biology
biochemistry
genetics
physics
astronomy
astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
I'll just take the last three, physics, astronomy, and astrophysics, and use one example to prove you wrong. Now, go read up on THIS [wikipedia.org] GUY [pbs.org] who used all three of these to support the idea that God created the universe.
Now, don't get me wrong, I find flat eathers and young earth creationists just as annoying as you do, so please don't lump all "creationists" together. Many are brilliant scientists who present valid cases for differing levels of creationism based on actual science, much like the example I listed above.
Religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Also do not confuse "old earth" creationists, who by-and-large support evolutionary theory, big bang theory, and other matters of settled science, with "young earth" creationists and ID pseudo-scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
Re: (Score:2)
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
You simply said "creationists". You didn't specify YEC's. Yes, YEC's are a subset of Creationists, but they do not make up the whole. It would be like me railing against Democrats because of their socialists views, even though not all Democrats are socialists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
True. However, Lematre was driven by God. The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth. That means that the universe had a creation. The thinking at the time, as put forth by Einstein, was that the universe was static. A sta
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I agree with you on some levels...but if creationism is saying that God happened to push the first strands of DNA together, if God happened to tweak the mutation that gave us speech, etc, if God DROVE human development over millenia, is it really contradicted?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism: biology biochemistry genetics physics astronomy astrophysics
Biochemistry and genetics are large fields within biology, and likewise astronomy and astrophysics are areas within physics. But to your list, we can add
Re: (Score:2)
Like what?
I'm sorry, but I happen to think a misunderstanding of economic theory is vastly more devastating to a country's public policy than a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Re: (Score:2)
is seeing UFO's somehow more scientifically acceptable that an ID-proponent?
Disclaimer: I can't stand Kucinich's liberal policies. He might be a great guy for all I know, but I think his politics suck. That said, yeah, I put UFOs and ID on entirely different planes. First, there's approximately zero chance that we're the only intelligent life. Second, science says you don't get to reject data just because it doesn't conveniently fit your hypothesis. I'm not saying that UFOs bearing visiting aliens exist, but we don't know of any hard reason why they couldn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That people can get elected without having basic modern ape like intelligence is the scary bit, this primate was probably more self-aware than many of those elected officials.
C'mon. They're self-aware alright, and they know all too well who's paying them. And it's not the voters.
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon now, slashdot always has these remarks, but you know what? NBC nightly news reported this find last night - the epitome of mainstream - and there was no mention of the Bible or controversy over the validity of evolution, none at all. Just excitement over a great find that may fill in the picture of evolution a bit more. At some point, decrying all this supposed scientific opposition which is really just a small fringe, becomes self-pity, or a persecution complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Principles, not intelligence. Remember the definition of "demagogue": A man who promotes principles he knows to be false to people he knows to be fools.
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Answers in Genesis (Score:2)
They seem to think that the preservation provides good evidence for the Noachic flood - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link
Scientists really do need to discover a crocoduck, but I doubt that would even cause these idiots to shut up. They have so much foot in mouth they resemble a hoop.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
Really? Which representative in congress believes the Earth is 6000 years old?
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in general, but some people I know, I'm glad they don't.
Re:Meanwhile over in Congress (Score:5, Informative)
I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention
And here we uncover the fossil known as Straw Man.
and that there is no higher power to answer to.
So? There is no evidence that there is. And if there is, there is no way we could know what "morality" he expects us to behave by. There is no reason that his standard of morality should match up with what we consider to be ethical.
And above all, I find it worrying that people only behave ethically out of fear of having to answer to some "higher power".
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting though that they don't. Atheists and theists often come to the same conclusions on moral questions, even if the latter have to adjust their reading of their holy texts to what they actually feel is right. Dawkins describes this very well here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/dawkins_on_mora.html [onegoodmove.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Without some timeless being which created everything, there is no absolute truth, which means that morality is a construct of society, and reflects the values of that society.
But as long as you're in line with society, you're probably ok- you don't need a higher being, right? I mean, we can all accept that killing is wrong, don't need Jesus to tell us that.
But then again, I'm sure people thought slaves were just fine too, back in slavery days, since it was right
Re: (Score:2)
So? There is no evidence that there is. And if there is, there is no way we could know what "morality" he expects us to behave by. There is no reason that his standard of morality should match up with what we consider to be ethical.
Likewise, there is no evidence that there ISN'T.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if there is, or isn't a god/God/whatever--and furthermore, I don't think that we CAN know that. I view devout atheists as I do devout evangelicals...they're basing it all on their feelings--they have no proof that there is no god...after all, what could possibly constitute such proof?
Secondly, IF you believe in a religion, then you typically believe in a founding member, or members who are divinely inspired to reveal what true mor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which would you consider more noble, ethics that I follow because I have decided that it is genuinely the right and proper thing to do by my own reasoning, or ethics that I follow because I am afraid of being punished for my transgressions in either this or the next life? I'd argue the former; an ethical system that derives its power from fear of the whip is not an ethical system at all, its slavish servitude.
Re: (Score:2)
People respond differently. Duh--this is as simple and obvious as it gets, so I don't know why I even wrote it :-)
An early Greek philosopher (I unfortunately don't remember which at the second...will try to find) divided people into groups based on what activities they found pleasureable. Those who found pleasuring from having, those who found pleasure from power, pleasure from sensual delight, pleasure from ethical action, etc.
In your own life, I'm sure you've run into plenty of people who don't think twic
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you consider more noble, ethics that I follow because I have decided that it is genuinely the right and proper thing to do by my own reasoning, or ethics that I follow because I am afraid of being punished for my transgressions in either this or the next life? I'd argue the former; an ethical system that derives its power from fear of the whip is not an ethical system at all, its slavish servitude.
There is a problem with your line of thinking. Let me give a hypothetical example to explain.
First, nearly all religions say that cheating and lying are wrong, period. No excuse. Even if you won't get caught or you think you are doing it for good reason, they are wrong.
Now let's say there is an election and you are an election official. You fully support Candidate X and know with all your heart that he will lead the country in the right direction. The election comes down to your district and your cand
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to.
You find arbitrary morality more comforting than convention?
It's weird (Score:3, Insightful)
It's weird that people think following the supposed arbitrary whims of a giant invisible daddy figure in the sky is a decent basis for morality.
Re: (Score:2)
Right...and what does that have to do with anything?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's silly. I'm alive, conscious, and experiencing the world. I'm the only thing I really know - it's ridiculous to think that I don't think I'm worth something. And the people that I encounter in my life, some I dislike and others I like. The latter set is far smaller than the former, and I value its members more highly.
But of course you're talking about ultimate value, in
Re: (Score:2)
You receive your morality from a higher power. Is that really the only reason why you act morally? Is the only reason why you don't rape murder and steal just so that you don't get burned in fiery brimstone for all eternity?
If somehow it was proved that there was no higher powers at all would you really think "Well, theres no point in being all goody good now, that 13y/o girl looks like a nice first victim..."
I find the thought that the only thing keeping everyone from murdering each other is a supreme bei
Re: (Score:2)
I find the thought that the only thing keeping everyone from murdering each other is a supreme being waving his finger at us from 2000 years ago saying "Do it and I'll spank you!" quite scary.
Nobody thinks that, and quite frankly I view it as ignorant to claim so. (ok I won't say NOBODY because there are people out there that believe literally anything...but next to nobody)
Look at many cultures around the world that believe in extreme (by my view) punishments such as gang-rape, murder. Many, MANY other cultures allow the virtual rape of children (through arranged child marriages). If morality was as simple as you make it out to be, shouldn't everyone in the world have arrived at similar conclusi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mean to make morality simple but to simply illustrate that to base ones moral compass solely on the threat of a supreme being is ludicrous at best.
Yes, and as I said, I don't think anybody in the world has a moral compass that is 100% from religious belief and 0% from their own personal thoughts. Again, if you can give me some examples of people who have no moral compass separate from religion, I'd be interested in seeing/reading about that...I just don't believe they exist.
In fact, the point you make in your first para--for instance, looking at morality of actions in Christian society's in the past offers a perfect example of this. SOME morality may
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to. I suppose they think we're more "evolved" now.
Yes! Lets go back to a time of morality such as the Salem witch hunts, or the inquisition!
God fearing folk sure know how to be moral! Oh boy! We'll burn books, brand people with red hot iron warmed over those bonfires, it'll be swell!
The pimp hand has been shown (Score:2)
I was going to slap you down with mah pimp hand, but it looks like you done been slapped already. It is impossible to get real morality from an imaginary sky daddy. Real morality comes from examining the world: right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look. You stopped looking as soon as you heard that a sky daddy will spank the evildoers for all eternity. That's not morality, that's pathology.
Re: (Score:2)
Real morality comes from examining the world: right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look
Right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look? I find that to be a very...childish...view for lack of a better term.
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is the death penalty right or wrong?
Is jailing somebody with a family right or wrong?
Is jailing somebody at ALL right or wrong?
Is drug usage right or wrong?
Is preemptive warfare right or wrong?
Is invading another country EVER right or wrong?
Is it right or wrong to kill somebody who is attacking you?
Whichever answer you give for any one of these questions,
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to.
The problem with a higher being responsible for morality is that now you have to wonder why he's right. Is it specifically because he's a higher being? If so, is that because he simply knows better than the rest of us as a parent knows better than his child? How can you be sure that, even though He knows better, his goals don't involve screwing you? You're not even taking His word for it, you're taking the word of quite a bunch of people that came before you and weren't quite entirely consistent about w
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to.
Why? There is ample evidence from history that a belief in a higher power is used far more frequently to motivate atrocities than to prevent them.
No one has ever been burned at the stake due to an excess of reasonableness on the part of their accusers. Faith, however frequently it has been used to op
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Wives submit to your husbands and husbands submit to your wives. You're taking other passages out of context to read other meanings into them. Stop it.
3. A sacrifice to end all sacrifices where the one sacrificed come back from the dead? You got a problem with this? Seriously?
Reject christianity? sure. Bash it ignorantly? You'd be stupid to do that.
Great, 2 more gaps created in out fossil records;) (Score:2, Funny)
nt
Media event (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more of a media event than a true major discovery. All orchestrated by the History Channel.
See this article. [discovermagazine.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Paleontologists really need to work on their language usage. An Engineer, Computer Scientist or Lawyer when describing these findings would say, "Attribute X on the skeleton shows a greater likelihood of this specimen being part of the following descendant groups, a, b, c. Further studies are warranted on other specimens for confirmation."
Instead you get "Woo hoo, call it Darwinius, this is my great grandfather to th
Six day old and questionable (Score:2, Funny)
Why is this 'news', it is an old report IF you look at archeology reports.
Why is everyone so behind the times?
Igniting a non-existant debate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
John Holmes.
No way (Score:5, Funny)
Not a chance. They'd have to reduce the Hitler coverage to do that.
rj
Re:No way (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be dissing on the Hitler Channel. Those who are ignorant of Hitler are doomed to use him in Internet arguments.
ancient fossils (Score:3, Funny)
Check out Google (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/ [google.com] - check out today's logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Will that link work tomorrow? TFS did a better job, if you can bother to read it.
Maybe the link won't work tomorrow - the point of my post is that it is there TODAY.
If you had bothered to RTFA(s), which I in fact had, you'd notice that this was yesterday's news - oh - sorry - that was in TFS, too.
Thanks a lot for your highly cogent criticism.
Looks like a monkey to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, she wasn't found two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
She was found in 1983 by an anonymous collector. She was sold to the University of Oslo two years ago.
Tony.
Its Parentage (Score:2, Funny)
latest phdcomics is an exact fit (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php [phdcomics.com]
47 Millions years OLD? Really? (Score:3, Informative)
Are you positively ABSOLUTELY sure it is 47 Million years OLD?
Really?
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1382 [astroengine.com]
-Hack
What's up with Google's image? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They mean that it is a relative of modern humans, but not a direct ancestor. You inherited DNA from your grandmother, but not your aunt.
Re:Gand*N+1 Aunt? (Score:5, Funny)
Admit it, you're just pretending to be from Alabama. It's obvious.
If you were for real, you wouldn't be able to read.
Re: (Score:2)
No it won't,the science behind evolution has been there for years and that doesn't stop them. They'll just argue that there's still a gap between this fossil and the rest of the great apes clade so it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
God doesn't exist yet because we haven't evolved into Him yet. We got it all backwards.
Couple of things: (Score:2, Informative)
2) Nobel Prize for X, not the Peace Prize.
Re:Interesting Subtext (Score:4, Insightful)
Creationists didn't hava a any leg to stand on....
Never did, it is simple an example of sensationalist journalism...
Anybody who thinks that creationists will simply give up one day when you show them a missing link is wrong.... creationists will simply point out that to them you just created two new missing links in the family tree....
The don't have arguments... just their dogma, you are not going to convince them.