Missing link between man and apes found

[Danno 1,228]

I don't understand why this article should inspire suspicion.

I'm sorry, but you can't reasonably argue a case for skepticism based on zero evidence related to the claims being made. And by evidence I do not mean some spurious, blanket idea that scientists are political hacks.

I CAn't speak for other sceptics but for me, I base mine of the historic record.... so often these new finds turn out to be more "news story" than weighty, longlasting science.

This year alone I have read man did not come out of Africa... but Europe... then Asia.

Lets give this "new discovery" some time before we pin the "Missing link" badge on it..... We have waited like 150 years,,, whats the rush now?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's just media speak - the research itself makes no real claims about it in 'missing link' terms - just that it's a previously unknown species of human.

From that point of view, the article is interesting as is the find.

Where did this idea that Darwin was trying to destroy religion come from btw? You do know that his wife was devout and he had no desire to prevent her from following her own beliefs, so the idea that he was systematically trying to destroy religion or even Christianity by his research is idiotic. Where do such ideas come from?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the idea that he was systematically trying to destroy religion or even Christianity by his research is idiotic. Where do such ideas come from?

From religious people. They stupid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I CAn't speak for other sceptics but for me, I base mine of the historic record.... so often these new finds turn out to be more "news story" than weighty, longlasting science.

This year alone I have read man did not come out of Africa... but Europe... then Asia.

Lets give this "new discovery" some time before we pin the "Missing link" badge on it..... We have waited like 150 years,,, whats the rush now?

Why offer *any* strong opinion on it at all? No-one here is in any position whatsoever to have anything approaching an authoritative opinion. I read the article, thought it was interesting, but clearly I can't speak for the rigorousness or accuracy of the research it describes. Neither can you or anyone else.

[TBoneTX 48,363]

Missing link between man and apes found

Who was it? Paul? Gary? BY? Shooter?

Someone once noted to me that it was Patrick Ewing of the New York Knicks.

[Danno 1,228]

It's just media speak - the research itself makes no real claims about it in 'missing link' terms - just that it's a previously unknown species of human.

From that point of view, the article is interesting as is the find.

Where did this idea that Darwin was trying to destroy religion come from btw? You do know that his wife was devout and he had no desire to prevent her from following her own beliefs, so the idea that he was systematically trying to destroy religion or even Christianity by his research is idiotic. Where do such ideas come from?

Who said Darwin was trying to destroy religion? (though many suggest darwinism .. is a practice in faith)

In fact, if anyone brought in the religious context (except you MC), I missed it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dan T (a fellow "skeptic") brought up Darwin and his goal of the "destruction of religion". So looks like you did miss it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who said Darwin was trying to destroy religion? (though many suggest darwinism .. is a practice in faith)

In fact, if anyone brought in the religious context (except you MC), I missed it.

Of course you missed it, you appear to go through life with blinkers on. However, I only responded to something that was put forward by someone previously in this thread.

What the hell is 'Darwinism'? Darwin simply put forward theories on what he felt explained observations he made regarding the differences between related species through extensive research. His theories have since proved to be inspirational in describing the continued process of change through which all species go through as mutations prove useful - or not - to the conditions that species find themselves in. It's fascinating and awesome in the real sense of the word. It is not scary or threatening.

[Dan T 8]

an exerpt from Darwin's auto-biography regarding his religious views. Ill leave you to draw your own conclusions.

As for my personal beliefs I do believe that evolution is plausable, and the Earth is several billion years old. I do not subscribe to the creation story of any abrahamic faith, nor do I attend an abrahamic church. As a non-denominational pagan inspired practioner I do not question the existance of god, as a matter of fact I am a polytheist which you can immagine puts me at great odds with the majority of people on Earth that only believe in 1. I was simply stating in my previous post that science and religion were created for different reasons and are best suited to solve different, non-overlapping, problems of man. This endless battle between them to eliminate the other is rediculous in my view as I believe we as humans have equal need of both. I think the constant back-and-forth reduces the credibility of both sides and makes me doubt any person who is trying to sell me on either a scientific theory, or religious dogma. The word theory, as opposed to law, is attached to evolution for a reason. It is not as concrete as say Newton's laws of motion. This does not mean I don't believe that evolution of species has happened over the millenia but I do distrust any institution or person who seeks to sway followers of any religion away from their church or belief in their god just as I would a preacher who tries to convince me that tries to convince people that the earth only dates back to 4 or 5 thousand bc and that species are fixed and unchanging.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

Edited April 9, 2010 by Dan T