

Darwin validated: Missing link found - tdedecko
http://blog.ted.com/2009/05/darwin_validate.php

======
yummyfajitas
On the contrary, this only hurts the theory of evolution.

Before, there was only one hole (between the early lemurs and primates). Now
there are two holes: the hole between the early lemurs and Ida, and another
between Ida and the primates. ;)

~~~
SamAtt
I understand you were joking but there's a grain of truth in what you're
saying. People who don't believe in Evolution are looking for holes in the
theory and those holes will always exist. Because no matter how many fossils
we do find they can always claim there were ones we didn't find that co-
existed with humans. So the anti-evolution crowd will always have all the
grounds they need to not believe.

Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it
wrong (though I'd argue that's largely because it's based on no real facts in
the first place)

~~~
tdavis
_Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it
wrong_

It's not that you could never prove Creationism wrong, it's that _faith_ is
not required to be proven. That's why it is called faith. People who believe
in God are going to believe in God, even if you could irrefutably prove beyond
any doubt that (a) evolutionary theory is correct and (b) God doesn't exist.

You'd still have failed to prove it in their "heart", or wherever pure,
unadulterated illogicality happens to live.

~~~
cglee
Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time?

~~~
tdavis
That's a silly question. You can believe whatever you want.

~~~
cglee
I guess I meant the question to be read in a more Socratic manner, rather it
being a genuine question.

------
sfphotoarts
Darwin doesn't need any validation. There is no evolution vs creationism
argument. The media purports this like the scientific community is evenly
split down the middle on the issue. The reality is actually quite different.
The scientific community is overwhelmingly behind evolution/Darwin. The number
of 'scientists' that do not accept the huge body of evidence behind Darwinian
evolution is a statistically insignificant number that can be safely ignored.
It doesn't much matter what the non scientific community choose to believe...

~~~
tybris
Yes, but unfortunately there is a significant number of people, and thus
politicians, that think they know better. Therefore, we should grab any
opportunity to show them that they are wrong.

Besides, it is really a marvelous discovery in biology that learns us a great
deal about how mammals transitioned into homo sapiens (just saying "natural
selection" doesn't cut it).

~~~
bad_user
> _Therefore, we should grab any opportunity to show them that they are
> wrong._

Why? Do you think you can change someone's faith through science? Good luck
with that.

Personally I don't understand the conflict ... how is evolution a threat to
God's existence? I mean, there's no mention in the bible that He created the
world in seven earth days, or how He did it.

------
rms
The paper, published under CC attribution:
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna..).

Blog discussing their decision to publish at PLoS One:
[http://everyone.plos.org/2009/05/19/plos-one-introduces-
darw...](http://everyone.plos.org/2009/05/19/plos-one-introduces-darw..).

Short overview and collection of links:
[http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/05/introducing_ida_-
_the_...](http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/05/introducing_ida_-_the_..).

They hired a marketing company to make that flash website because they have
investors that paid one million dollars for the fossil, probably because the
investors saw money to be made. I would blame the investors for the hype
rather than question the motives of the scientists.

The paper is published in PLoS One under CC Attribution which cancels out most
of the badness of having an all-flash marketing site in my opinion.

------
mhartl
Good thing, too. I was really starting to doubt the other eight million pieces
of evidence.

------
jonah
I'm a little surprised by the media frenzy surrounding this announcement.
Raising public awareness of science is a Good Thing(TM) but the significance
of this find seem to be overblown to the point of sensationalism.

"But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan 'This changes
everything' and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination,
the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to
be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more
prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a 'stem
group' that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, 'but we are
not advocating this.'"

\- NYT on the media build up:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19fossil.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19fossil.html)

~~~
rms
It's an interesting example of money and PR agencies corrupting science.
Probably inevitable when you have a topic so PR friendly as this one.

------
gort
The headline makes it sound as if this is the first such thing ever found. I'd
like to point to arch-Darwinist P.Z. Myers:
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masilla...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php)

"The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimportant, but because it detracts
from the larger body of the fossil record"

~~~
tybris
The ignorant will ignore the fossil record regardless of Ida. The only thing
they don't ignore is sound-bites.

------
nazgulnarsil
this form of argument would imply that all holes need to be filled before you
can "prove" the other side wrong.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Not at all.

The real difference between science and creationism is that science makes
predictions. Darwin's theory predicts that there were creatures that formed
bridges, as it were. That's a strong prediction, and the apparent absence has
been used by creationists to claim that Darwinism has a problem.

Creationism makes no predictions.

The fact that a fossil has been found that fits Darwin's predictions is strong
evidence that Darwin's theory is right.

~~~
TrevorJ
I understand your basic point, though I don't think it is strictly true that
Creationism makes no predictions.

~~~
spydez
Creationism doesn't, in my opinion, make any predictions. You have to go to
Intelligent Design proponents like biochemist Michael Behe before you get
predictions. He has the "irreducibly complex" theory, and a few examples of
biochemical reactions (human blood clotting is one) that he believes are
irreducibly complex.

Other scientists have tried to prove his examples weren't irreducibly complex
(e.g., dolphins and puffer fish have steps removed from their blood clotting
reaction compared to humans), but yeah. AFAIK, (biblical) creationism's whole
point is "the Bible is right, QED."

~~~
randallsquared
Creationists do make predictions regarding the Flood and other biblical
events, and regarding the ages of everything else. During the 80s, when I was
growing up Baptist, they liked to talk about intertwined human and dino
fossils, and dino tracks crossing human tracks that were clearly older, and
such. Dunno about now.

------
ilitirit
I think the BBC has a better article on the discovery:

 _Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author
of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity
machine surrounding the new fossil.

He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature
was not all that it was hyped up to be.

Dr Beard has not yet seen scientific details of the find but said that it
would be very nice to have a beautiful new fossil from the Eocene and that Ida
would be "a welcome new addition" to the world of early primates.

But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a
potential ancestor to humans." _

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8057465.stm>

------
cpr
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/19/darwinius-...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/19/darwinius-
it-delivers-a-pizza-and-it-lengthens-and-it-strengthens-and-it-finds-that-
slipper-thats-been-at-large-under-the-chaise-lounge-for-several-weeks/)

------
trapper
Regardless of the shameless PR, if it gets more people to think rationally
about their religious position I am all for it. I just hope it doesn't
backfire somehow.

------
username
Creationist preliminary comment on Ida.

Does Ida Deserve the Attention? A Preliminary Comment
[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-
miss...](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link)

