THE PACK Message Boards

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... ssing-link

After two years of research, a study was published in the open source journal of the Public Library of Science on May 19, 2009. A 47 million year old fossil of a female primate, nicknamed "Ida" but scientifically known as Darwinius masillae, has been found to possibly be the crucial "link" between prosimians (such as lemurs) and monkeys, and as we know humans are descended from the great apes which are descended from monkeys. "Ida" looks similar to a lemur, but closer inspection has shown that "Ida" also has some anthropoid features, likely proving "her" to be the transition fossil between primates and the evolutionary branch of monkeys that would eventually evolve into humans.

More information about Ida and the study can be found here: http://www.revealingthelink.com/

Woot! Did it mention anything about werewolves or dragons?

Very interesting.

That must be the b**** who ate the apple. (<Bible reference.)

ROFLMFAO XD Baron most of what you said was a insult to females especialy to the female lycans in our forum LOL XD

I don't believe in that kind of evolution, but still, what an awesome find!!

Very interesting. ( not really into evolution. ) But still.
That's a good picture taken you can see it very clearly.
Usually a lot of the pictures they take of things like this the pictures are all foggy and you can barely tell what it is.
At least of what I've seen.

From what I heard and read about this find so far it isn't deemed by the majority of scientists as important as the press pushes it's story. It is an interesting and surely important find, due to it's amazingly good preservation - but calling it the-long-searched-for missing link to our direct ancestral line is putting it somewhat too dramatical. The most special thing to say about 'Ida' is it's researcher's pretty awesome journalistic marketing strategy.

But nonetheless - it's a good find and it will tell us a lot more about evolutionary processes. Another missed part of the bigger puzzle called Evolution - and even more nicer that it was revealed in the year of Darwin's 200 years anniversary. Let's see what my Prof in prehistoric archaeology says about it tomorrow.

@sugarpoultry: Just out of mere curiosity - don't you believe in the darwinian evolution concept as a whole or do you mean that you don't believe in the postulated importance of this find for human ancestry?

Very interesting. It shows how Evolution is a slow and ongoing process which produces transitional models as well as finished versions of a given life-form.

Now, some advocacy group will probably sue; claiming that this article slanders the Apes and Chimps of the world.

Even more interesting are the other certs on the original webiste, adding even more info on this fossil.

Good Stuff, Gevaudan!

Grayheart wrote:@sugarpoultry: Just out of mere curiosity - don't you believe in the darwinian evolution concept as a whole or do you mean that you don't believe in the postulated importance of this find for human ancestry?

I don't believe in the Darwin kind.

Ah, okay - thank you for clarifying! Wasn't sure how to exactly understand your former post.

Grayheart wrote:Ah, okay - thank you for clarifying! Wasn't sure how to exactly understand your former post.

No problem.

Jeez, Ida looks kinda freaky. I kinda figured the "missing link" wouldn't have a tail as long as the rest of their body. Learn something new every day, I suppose. Pretty bad a** find, especially, as Grayheart pointed out, given the time frame.

Aki wrote:I kinda figured the "missing link" wouldn't have a tail as long as the rest of their body.

Well, considering the fact that the oldest known so far missing link - the so called Ororin tugunensis - lived around 6 million years ago and is the first species thought to be able of an upright stand, this isn't as surprising as it seems. Ida maybe one of the earliest ancestors of the line that eventually evolved and then split into the lines of modern apes, monkeys and humans - but she's certainly no close relative to us. More of a fourth grade cousin, like some scientists mockingly said during the last days.

Have creationists said anything about this?

And for that matter, have they indicated any plan to incinerate Ida? *readies to grind his axe*

As a Christian (creationist I guess) myself, I think its a nice find, but I don't think it will prove anything to the point of offending us too much. I honestly don't care that much about it.

I dont know guys,i think its to good to be true.

don't believe in the Darwin kind.

Lamarck, Lamaaaarck!

Wselfwulf wrote:

don't believe in the Darwin kind.

Lamarck, Lamaaaarck!

Not sure if its him either. haha

sugarpoultry wrote:As a Christian (creationist I guess) myself, I think its a nice find, but I don't think it will prove anything to the point of offending us too much. I honestly don't care that much about it.

I see. Well, I personally don't mind creationists, but the ones who're hardcore enough to believe all the Chick Tracts are the ones I get wary of.

I saw that on Google's front page the other day. Well, it's official. We evolved. End of story.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. The fossil record is just too complete for us not to have evolved along with the rest of life on Earth. One can debate how species relate, but to say the whole thing is some colossal prank played by a kind and loving but angry diety that's infinitely powerful but rather needy is just kind of reaching way too far at this point.

And, to deny evolution at this point is to give the middle finger or hurl one's shoes at our ancestory over 3.6 billion years and all they had to accomplish to get us here.

I believe in evolution, don't get me wrong. I just don't believe in the type that contradicts my beliefs. But, I'm cool if people believe whatever. It doesn't bother me.

Now you made me curious, sugarpoultry - in what kind of evolution do you believe that doesn't contradict your beliefs?

I never had the opportunity to ask this, because I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in Darwin's theory on the origin of species. Here in germany this kind of creationist's thoughts are pretty uncommon if almost non existent througout society as a whole - so it's very difficult for me to understand how someone couldn't believe in Darwin's theory, despite all the facts that actually exist.

Just to make clear from the start: I'm asking this for understanding, not to challenge your believes. I'm well aware that this sticky topic should be treated with care and respect for each other - that's the reason I didn't asked this earlier, out of fear to fuel some heated argument about this. Still, I'm curious to know and would be really thankful for you sharing about this.

Grayheart wrote:Now you made me curious, sugarpoultry - in what kind of evolution do you believe that doesn't contradict your beliefs?

I never had the opportunity to ask this, because I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in Darwin's theory on the origin of species. Here in germany this kind of creationist's thoughts are pretty uncommon if almost non existent througout society as a whole - so it's very difficult for me to understand how someone couldn't believe in Darwin's theory, despite all the facts that actually exist.

Just to make clear from the start: I'm asking this for understanding, not to challenge your believes. I'm well aware that this sticky topic should be treated with care and respect for each other - that's the reason I didn't asked this earlier, out of fear to fuel some heated argument about this. Still, I'm curious to know and would be really thankful for you sharing about this.

Well, there's NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), or something similar like theistic evolution, but that's just my guess. Let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Or rather, the wolf's muzzle.

The mainstream culture of the United States is a peculiar thing. Over here, we are only beginning to come to terms with the idea that we're not the pinnacle of civilization. A lot of people believe in a religion based on one particular very literal interpretation of the Bible.

They believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. They reject the layers upon layers of fossilized evidence that allows us to go back and describe life on Earth, the arrangements of continents, and the overall climate for the past 4.6 billion years. The very number 4.6 billion is too large to be real to them; a thousand and infinity are in their minds logically equivalent, even though the difference is pretty obvious to an educated person.

They believe that most life on Earth was vanquished a few thousand years ago in a great flood, and that the survivors were two members of each species, one of each gender, located and coaxed onboard a gigantic lifeboat by seven humans motivated only by faith that one of them knew what he was doing. (They don't even bother to read the part about "seven of every pure and two of every unpure animal" when they quote the tale of Noah, even though it's right there in Genesis itself.) The problem of the genetic bottleneck is solved by the convenient plot device of God's infinite power.

The problem is basically that many people here have a viral idea uploaded into their brain at an early age that actively blocks out education. It tells them that they have to believe this viral idea, and that they have to reject any information that contradicts it.

To those of you who are inside the context of that belief system, consider this: God seems, from time to time, to test the beliefs of His subjects. He apparently does not intend for you to bat away counterarguments, but instead dares you to face us head-on, not by re-quoting the Bible over and over, but by genuinely with an open mind considering the evidence that He put so much work into putting into place. It strikes me as quite illogical that a compassionate and infinitely powerful God would purposefully insist you ignore a massively complex natural realm or the properties and behavior it exhibits. Instead, it seems to me that one of the best ways to relate to God would be to explore nature and science on their own terms. To ignore nature and brand it as a distraction from God is to tell God that he is a bad artist. And, true science should not make you afraid; true science is agnostic, not atheistic--it assumes nothing new and starts with what's already right there, in front of you to see. You start with observations and form theories around them--and that's how Darwin and others over time came to describe evolution. Fundamentalism, by contrast, starts with the assumed belief and then demands that you accept only the facts that seem to support it, rejecting any others--if you listen closely, that's pretty much what Fundamentalists themselves tell you.