Missing link

[Dynamite_1303]

I like how it's turned into a good belief debate. Now like most ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens I do believe in the basis of the theory of evolution. You only have to see some of my friends (and perhaps even myself) to realise that the genepool has not evolved greatly from the earliest hominids. Plus fossils are great. When you find them in a nice strata you've got a reasonably accurate age to within several million years or so.

Now the problem with Ida (the wee little monkeys affectionate if not silly name as she was probably known as ugga during her life time) was brought from a private seller at a fair. Let's be honest ... a flea market. I used to go to the fossil and rock fairs at Bakewell only to find that about 20% of the stuff was fake. Now! We know that they are real bones, but little has been said about the resin. It's been cast in resin, so where does the fossil start and end and where does the resin start and end? They also say that it must have come from such and such quarry because it was cast in resin! Mad. Surely anyone can cast in resin?? No work was done on the crystalline fossil matrix to provenance it. Dating was apparantly taken through isotopes (whether they used carbon 14 or not I'm sure - they were very sketchy), but also if the things being sunk in a huge blob of yellow plastic then surely there's going to be interference to the date!

However the find in itself is remarkable. It's definately mammal, a fossil and really really old, but the distortion of the bones through time and pressure do not allow them to say what's a nail and what's a claw. I've dug up many bodies and bones in the past and the first thing that would have been disturbed on that little crittur as it lay on the bottom of a lake would be the metatarsels and metacarpels if so much as a fish farted on its way past.

Right I'm going to do some work now and perhaps find myself a tree to swing from and evolve in! (I wonder whether the little feller was any good with flint and steel?)

 

[WhichDoctor]

This hole thing does seem to have been rather hyped up, with a big unveiling and lodes of media attention. Yes it is a beautiful fossil but its not the missing link because there isn't one, there are just lots and lots of transitional fossils. It mite be the common ancestor of both the grate apes and modern humans or it mite not, there's no way of saying for certain with only one fossil.

But I am a bit alarmed by the way some people on this thread seem to think that science is just another word for I believe it because I wont to. A lot of hard work and rigorous observations of the world go into scientific theorys to make them stand up and then even more effort is put into trying to knock them down. A scientific theory is the highest level of proof that can be achieved in science, it means that nothing that has ever been documented directly contradicts it. The theory of evolution is just like the theory of gravity or The atomic theory, its the best explanation we have and judging by the massive weight of evidence supporting it it's probably pretty close to the truth.

Here's a video that sets out some of the evidence and reasoning behind it quite nicely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&feature=channel_page.

 

[Mikey P]

Now this is cool they have found the missing link.

I met him in Portsmouth.

 

[BigShot]

Swagman.
No worries.


Dynamite, interesting post there.
It seems to be a bit predictable, a fossil turns up in some questionable circumstances leading to every man and his dog claiming it's x years old and fits "here" in the history of evolution when there's some absolutely howling problems with it.
This is why Piltdown Man is so famous.
I sincerely hope they've not used Carbon 14 dating. I'll be forced to laugh my head clean off my shoulders if they have.


WhichDoctor
I wouldn't say science was another word for belief. I would say that the theory of evolution is impossible to prove or disprove and I have serious reservations about the ability of hard science to comment either way on it.
The most anyone can even conceivably achieve is saying "it could have happened this way" but that is no stronger a statement than extra-terrestrial origins, divine origins, hardcore 6day creation or anything else.

Nothing directly contradicts evolution because it is a theory that can't be disproven. We have a mountain of available facts, and those facts serve as evidence for all the diverse origin theories. Granted, most people in the scientific community and their followers lean towards some form of spontaneous origin and evolution, but that doesn't add any weight to the argument at all.

I believe the "theory of evolution" is a misnomer when taken in contect of electromagnetic theory and the theory of gravity. They are theories that have been rigorously tested for centuries, being tweaked and fine tuned as new information comes to light. But the difference is they have been tested using the scientific method.
You simply can't say that about the theory of evolution.
Noone has ever taken a rock layer the age of which we already know and used it to test the methods for ageing rocks, ditto with fossils. We've calibrated the system with an uncalibrated base. The holes in the theory are varied from basic circular reasoning to complete faith-based statements and at times wilful ignorance of facts.

There cannot ever be scientific "proof" of or against evolution, just like there can never be scientific proof or disproof of creationism, the existance of a divne being (creator or otherwise) and so on. Science is, but its very nature, limited to things we can test and measure in repeatable units in the present time. Since evolution (or creation) happened in the past there is simply no way to test it in that way and so it can never be afforded the same weight and respect as atomic, gravitational, electromagnetic or any other theory.


My personal view on it all?
I've got absolutely no idea what happened. Both sides have compelling arguments and some big holes. Both have some pretty big impacts when you use the different views to assess things like morality, law and other forms of human interaction/action.
It's not a closed book in any case.

 

[Prawnster]

Swagman.
No worries.


Dynamite, interesting post there.
It seems to be a bit predictable, a fossil turns up in some questionable circumstances leading to every man and his dog claiming it's x years old and fits "here" in the history of evolution when there's some absolutely howling problems with it.
This is why Piltdown Man is so famous.
I sincerely hope they've not used Carbon 14 dating. I'll be forced to laugh my head clean off my shoulders if they have.


WhichDoctor
I wouldn't say science was another word for belief. I would say that the theory of evolution is impossible to prove or disprove and I have serious reservations about the ability of hard science to comment either way on it.
The most anyone can even conceivably achieve is saying "it could have happened this way" but that is no stronger a statement than extra-terrestrial origins, divine origins, hardcore 6day creation or anything else.

Nothing directly contradicts evolution because it is a theory that can't be disproven. We have a mountain of available facts, and those facts serve as evidence for all the diverse origin theories. Granted, most people in the scientific community and their followers lean towards some form of spontaneous origin and evolution, but that doesn't add any weight to the argument at all.

I believe the "theory of evolution" is a misnomer when taken in contect of electromagnetic theory and the theory of gravity. They are theories that have been rigorously tested for centuries, being tweaked and fine tuned as new information comes to light. But the difference is they have been tested using the scientific method.
You simply can't say that about the theory of evolution.
Noone has ever taken a rock layer the age of which we already know and used it to test the methods for ageing rocks, ditto with fossils. We've calibrated the system with an uncalibrated base. The holes in the theory are varied from basic circular reasoning to complete faith-based statements and at times wilful ignorance of facts.

There cannot ever be scientific "proof" of or against evolution, just like there can never be scientific proof or disproof of creationism, the existance of a divne being (creator or otherwise) and so on. Science is, but its very nature, limited to things we can test and measure in repeatable units in the present time. Since evolution (or creation) happened in the past there is simply no way to test it in that way and so it can never be afforded the same weight and respect as atomic, gravitational, electromagnetic or any other theory.


My personal view on it all?
I've got absolutely no idea what happened. Both sides have compelling arguments and some big holes. Both have some pretty big impacts when you use the different views to assess things like morality, law and other forms of human interaction/action.
It's not a closed book in any case.

I don't think I've ever read a post on this site or any other about this subject that made more sense to me than that one Big Shot.

My hat is off to you sir.

 

[Matt.S]

BigShot, there are experiments done on evolution. Certain simple life-forms are used due to their short gestation period. Evolution occured in the past but is an ongoing process. Problem is that with most life-forms it takes so long that ongoing experiments and observation are impractical and so long past examples (mainly from the fossil record) must be relied on.

 

[locum76]

...Discussions like this make me think someone should just switch the internet off for good.

...PMSL!

 

[BigShot]

Prawnster, Locum - glad you approve.

Matt.S
There have been experiments which show that mutations happen. Experiments on natural selection. That does not equal experiments on evolution, as much as they may be intended or interpreted as such.

I believe you'll be referring to (among other things) the experiments which take a colony of bacteria, expose it to a poison of some sort (antibiotic, disinfectant, whatever) and a certain percentage die, of the survivers, all of which have a genetic immunity to that poison a new colony is formed and when re-exposed some still die, demonstrating that the genetic mutation which afforded the immunity is now gone.
The environmental conditions in the experiment select for or against certain mutations. A very interesting experiment and a wonderfully clear deomonstration of natural selection.

Unless there's been an earth-shattering experiment that's been kept mightily quiet there's never been an experiment that's turned one kind of bacteria into something completely different. Or (predicting one possible response) a snail into a non-snail.

There are a mountain of experiments on natural selection which is absoultely a theory anyone should afford the same credibility as gravity, electromagnetism and so on. The equating of that with evolution, or the unproven claim that natural selection is the/a mechanism of evolution however is a step too far.

Evolution may have occured in the past, that is not established though. Accepted by many, for sure, but not established.

The past examples you cite (fossils) are examples of creatures that once lived.
Not a single fossil (nor all the fossils) proves that species eventually gave rise to something fundamentally different.
The fossils are the fact, the use of them to evidence everything from neodarwinism to 6-day creationism and flood theories are interpretation. Not fact. Not science.

By all means you can believe what you like, but you really must keep fact and interpretation separate. Just as evolutionists cite fossils as a "predicted" result of evolution which evidences it, creationists cite them as a "predicted" result of a global flood, others even cite them as a "predicted" result of a divine creator who is somehow messing with us as a test.
The altter aside, the above arguments all "predict" that the world ends up the way it does as a rexult of their chosen worldview. When both are taken within their own context they have similar degrees of credibility (and they must be takin within their own context, using conclusions of one to debunk another is comparing interpretation with interpretation, not interpretation with fact)

When it comes down to it, the scientific method could very well demonstrate that evolution is possible or that it is happening now, but even that wouldn't prove that it did happen. The drawback of the scientific method is one of its strong points. It is concerned with the things we can observe, measure, test and repeat. Since we can neither observe or measure what happened in the past we can't test or repeat it. All we can do is interpret the leftovers, but it is no more and never can be more than interpretation. That's not hard science.

I'm sorry I gave such a long response to your rather succinct and well worded post.
It's a complicated subject and I often struggle with brevity at the best of times.


I still don't know what happened. I don't believe we can ever know.

 

[gregorach]

I just know I'm going to regret getting involved in this....

I sincerely hope they've not used Carbon 14 dating. I'll be forced to laugh my head clean off my shoulders if they have.

No, of course they haven't. That would be incredibly stupid, and incredibly stupid people don't, as a rule, manage to get PhDs. The rock unit was dated using an Argon-Argon radioisotope technique, see: Mertz DF, Renne PR (2005) A numerical age for the Messel fossil deposit (UNESCO World Heritage Site) derived from 40Ar/39Ar dating on a basaltic rock fragment. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 255: 67–75. (Not available on-line as far as I can see, but since you seem to consider your opinions well-founded, you must have access to the relevant literature, right?)

I wouldn't say science was another word for belief. I would say that the theory of evolution is impossible to prove or disprove and I have serious reservations about the ability of hard science to comment either way on it.

If the frequency distributions of alleles in a population change over time, evolution must happen, because when you boil it right down, that's what evolution is. We know the frequency distributions of alleles in populations change, because (a) we can observe it happening, (b) we know that DNA replication errors occur, and (c) some alleles offer clear fitness advantages in some environments, but not in others - such as the alleles linked with sickle-cell anaemia.

Nothing directly contradicts evolution because it is a theory that can't be disproven.

Demonstrating that allele frequencies do not change over time would disprove it totally at one fell swoop. The famous "rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian" would also do some serious damage.

Noone has ever taken a rock layer the age of which we already know and used it to test the methods for ageing rocks, ditto with fossils.

Simply false. See, for example Achievements and Limitations of the K-Ar and 40Ar / 39Ar Methods: What's in It for Dating the Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits? (Ivanov A. V., Boven A. A., Brandt S. B., Brandt I. S., Rasskazov S. V.; Berliner Paläobiologische Abhandlungen 4 65 - 75 Berlin 2003) [PDF - 860kB] which explains how various dating methods are calibrated (among other things). Radioisotope dating is also supported by the fundamental principles of nuclear physics.

There cannot ever be scientific "proof" of or against evolution

Would actually observing it happen in the lab satisfy you? It's been done.

 

[gregorach]

When it comes down to it, the scientific method could very well demonstrate that evolution is possible or that it is happening now, but even that wouldn't prove that it did happen. The drawback of the scientific method is one of its strong points. It is concerned with the things we can observe, measure, test and repeat. Since we can neither observe or measure what happened in the past we can't test or repeat it. All we can do is interpret the leftovers, but it is no more and never can be more than interpretation. That's not hard science.

I take it you're not a CSI fan then? And if your house were broken into, you'd insist on disregarding any forensic evidence as to who the perpetrator was, and in fact you wouldn't even be certain that your house had been broken into, since you can't prove anything about what happened in the past?

 

[BigShot]

I'm no fan of CSI, I'm no fan of most things on the box really, there's a whole list of things I'd rather do than sit in front of a TV.
That said, forensics is a pretty well established science based on a lot of observations and experiments (the Body Farm for one).

"It's been done" - an interesting one that, read about it a while back. Though, I don't recall saying mutations (even big ones) don't happen.
I do recall saying that even demonstrating that it could have happened doesn't equal it did happen. Proof of concept is not proof.
I live in Manchester, have access to knives, and have been unable to account for my wherabouts at the time of an unwitnessed murder witha knife that took place not far from here.
Proof of concept that I could have done it.
Doesn't prove that I did it though.
As a matter of fact, I didn't. But then, I can't prove that either.
Same thing really.

Re Carbon-14, I said "i hope not" in response to someone else's comment. I said "i hope not" precisely because I know how monumentally stupid that would be. I don't need that pointing out.

Distributions in alleles, I simply don't agree that changes over time equals evolution.
One benefit or another, one change or another within a species is not the same as one species becoming something completely and utterly different.
Fitness in one environment but not in another does not make a snail a non-snail, a dog a non-dog or, taking your example of sickle-cell anemia, does not make a large number of sub-saharan african aboriginals and their descendents non-human.

I understand the view that given time the changes will add up (or leap, depending on the argument) and give rise to something fundamentally different but that's unestablished.


I'm starting to regret getting involved too.
How about we call it a day and go outside instead?

 

[locum76]

How about we call it a day and go outside instead?

its too blinking hot thats why, i've been out since 9am and i'm going loopy. why didn't people evolve better weather proofing? somewhere down the line there must be a missing link with a built in parasol!

 

[BigShot]

Hahaha!
Reminds me of a light hearted critique of evolution I heard a while back.

Something to the effect of "When you're coming home from the shops with arms full of groceries and need to unlock the front door, did you ever think how useful a tail would be? There's no way losing a tail was an advantage!"

Funnier in its original wording, but you get the idea.

'tis a hot one, unfortunately I've been indoors for most of it.

 

[Prawnster]

Why did we evolve a sense of humour? Natural selection can't explain that.

A sense of beauty? Why do sunsets stir the soul? An animal never looked at a sunset and thought anything of it. The same is true of art except that we have the ability to admire and create art.

What about love? The scientists in the cold light of day might call it social bonding that benefits the group or species, but tell that to your partner or your child. It is surely much much more than that.

As you can tell I'm no scientist but I don't feel the need to be to comment on this. I am human, I have a mind, I am not a glorified ape. These points may seem whimsical and from the heart but it is in my heart that I know evolution cannot be true.

I'm sure a scientist will come along and tear me to bits but it won't change my gut feeling on this. As a human who, unlike any other species on Earth, is able to contemplate these great questions, I'm going to stick with my feelings on this.

 

[BorderReiver]

This thread has got me thinking.

What does it matter? What good is it going to do to find out "where we came from"?

We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds to study as far back as we can to "Big Bang" conditions, why?

What will we do with the knowledge? Will it feed the millions of people dieing of hunger world wide? Will it stop a person dieing every minute from malaria?

We have evolved from single cell life forms to an entity that has suceeded in influencing the fundamental systems of the entire planet, for the worse.

Well done us.:sulkoff:

 

[John Fenna]

Study of the past will not save a single life...not saving lives will help overpopulation...which may help the entire human race from destroying the planet and wiping itself out...thereby not saving a single life but saving the entire population of the Planet!
Other scientists spend millions trying to save individuals from disease,...thereby contributing to massive overpopulation...which will eventually doom humanity (and the planet) to destruction....
Life is a sexually transmitted disease that is invariably terminal...curing death will lead to death of the planet and therefor our species...
We are all doomed, whatever the scientists say or do!
Let us go sit under a tree and enjoy ourselves while the tree exists and we still can find it!

 

[BorderReiver]

Study of the past will not save a single life...not saving lives will help overpopulation...which may help the entire human race from destroying the planet and wiping itself out...thereby not saving a single life but saving the entire population of the Planet!
Other scientists spend millions trying to save individuals from disease,...thereby contributing to massive overpopulation...which will eventually doom humanity (and the planet) to destruction....
Life is a sexually transmitted disease that is invariably terminal...curing death will lead to death of the planet and therefor our species...
We are all doomed, whatever the scientists say or do!Let us go sit under a tree and enjoy ourselves while the tree exists and we still can find it!

Yes, the planet will eventually be vapourised when the sun goes supernova.

Don't worry about overpopulation, nature has a way of sorting that out; war, famine, pestilance etc. So all will be well.

 

[WhichDoctor]

Distributions in alleles, I simply don't agree that changes over time equals evolution.
One benefit or another, one change or another within a species is not the same as one species becoming something completely and utterly different.

You do seem to be a very thoughtful and intelligent person and I'm happy to let this drop and go do something useful but I'm sorry I just have to comment on this.

"I simply don't agree that changes over time equals evolution" I'm afraid that's pretty much the definition of evolution. If a creature can accrue changes over time and keep on doing so indefinitely eventually it will be totally different to its original form. There's simply no mechanism that can stop it.

 

[Chinkapin]

Reading these posts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know its going to end in disaster but you just cant look away!

 

[Prawnster]

Reading these posts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know its going to end in disaster but you just cant look away!

Here's an idea that might not be popular with some.

How about we lump 'evolution' threads in with religion and politics and ban them!