The "missing link" is probably no longer missing...

[Davros (Lauren)]

Ohh now we are talking my talk. Postgrad Quals in Palaeoanthropology has me very interested in this. latest thinking is that Neaderthals were bred out by us. They were not a seperate species as such, as interbreeding was possible. An interesting point is that up until the arrival of Homo sapiens, sapiens (modern man) on the scene there were always at least two seperate populations of Homo or Australapithecene if you go back far enough. We are alone on this earth for the first time.
The new species is certainly a very interesting creature but i think they are drawing a long bow by calling it the 'missing link'. Time will tell, it always does.

[marki]

Originally Posted by CoombellKid

Ummmm.... I dont think that is totally true. In the 150 years (give or
take) since Darwin wrote his book. It's held up to science pretty well.
In fact I dont know of any science yet that has disproved any of his
theory. But in the last 150 years what have we learned. The earth
wasn't made/hand crafted/whatever in 7 days 12,000 years ago. I
think all the proof of that is pretty consistant with science. And the
evolutionary step of sand to man and rib to woman is just a tad
stretched. these are just a couple... I'm sure there are many more.

Oh yeah! the land isn't flat, we orbit the sun. It was religion that
proposed this thoeries and Science that put everyone right.

regards,CS

Please note that in none of my comments have I backed the creation story as viable alternative to the theory of evolution simply because it is not. You are incorrect in assuming Dawins theory is complete or absolutely correct as many assumptions have been made based on visual observations and inferences. The advent of DNA sequencing has shown that all is not as it appears. If there was overwhelming evidence for this theory it would be Dawins Law not theory. Even as a law it would be open to change if evidence was found to bring it into question. Dirty words in science include "proof" and "facts" because you can never prove anything beyond all doubt and if we beat our fists on the table expounding scientific fact we begin to work in absolutes. If that was to happen we may as well wear robes, set up temples and sacrifice those not deserving to live to the great God Science. The moment you shut down to scientific equiry and discard scientific method then it's pretty much the end of the discipline altogether. Remember The physics crowd were discouraging students from studying physics at the turn of the last centuary as Newton had already worked it all out . I will always arc up to suggestions of proof or fact as my training as a scientist demands I be sceptical and critical about everything and that has been the basis of my comments on this thread. In the end all we have is the method of investigation itself. Right now the theory of evolution through natural selection its the best we have but it does not mean it is the best explanation we will ever find. It is always best to keep an open mind as many of the fixed ideas that have been entrenched in science history are the cause of much mirth today.

Ps. I can imagine the grin on Chris's face when he started this thread. Looked like the Cheshire Cat I'll bet .

Mark

[marki]

Originally Posted by Davros

latest thinking is that Neaderthals were bred out by us. They were not a seperate species as such, as interbreeding was possible. An interesting point is that up until the arrival of Homo sapiens, sapiens (modern man) on the scene there were always at least two seperate populations of Homo or Australapithecene if you go back far enough. We are alone on this earth for the first time.

Yes I remember reading some articals about this where the researchers found both species living side by side in the same settlement. I think (long time ago so don't quote me) they found something similar in the NW WA .

Mark

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by marki

Please note that in none of my comments have I backed the creation story as viable alternative to the theory of evolution simply because it is not.

Mark

Yes. I thought Mark had made his position quite clear earlier in the thread. We were all pretty much in agreement that religious matters should be kept out of scientific argument as they were not subject to scientific proof.

Rob

[marki]

Originally Posted by Robh

Yes. I thought Mark had made his position quite clear earlier in the thread. We were all pretty much in agreement that religious matters should be kept out of scientific argument as they were not subject to scientific proof.

Rob

Thanks Rob . I think I might throw a curve ball here to better illustrate what I am trying to say in regards to evolution theory or any scientific theory that is based on a single focal point (ie missed the forrest because of all the trees, wouldn't be the first time) .

You will need to suspend your disbelief for a moment but suppose as our polar icecaps melt away due to global warming ( ) a group of highly intelligent (yet somehow fragile but totally ethical) intrepid reseachers found an ancient spaceship with the door wide open sitting on top of a glacier directly over the magnetic north pole. After a moment of confusion and and heated debate they tentively enter the ship and find fully preserved male and female Homosapiens inside dressed in some strange tight fitting metallic body suits (shades of Arthur I know). How could evolution theory be used to explain such a thing? We would naturally assume that we ourselves are alien to this planet and killed off all of the neanderthal's using our superior technology (more likey they died due to all the new germs we carried with us). All I am saying is unless we have the full story all we can ever do is speculate and apply the method and develop theory on what we see (thats why science is fun, it doesn't mean we are right). This is very evident in both evolution theory as well as cosmology with all it's fudge factors and I suspect many of the accepted theories will very likely change as technology develops and affords greater power (as has often been the case). As always we are missing a large part of the story and need to keep open minds so we can deal with the curve balls that are constantly thrown at us.

Mark

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Mark it could just mean that future time travelers got into a spot of bother during one of their visits to the past....LOL.

[marki]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Mark it could just mean that future time travelers got into a spot of bother during one of their visits to the past....LOL.

LOL . Wonder how the physics people would deal with that one.

Perhaps I should have added " when the intrepid researchers inspecected the strange clothing of the aliens they found lables with strange hyroglyphics embroided on them. The captain tore one off and sent it too CIA agents who had it analysed by the worlds most powerful super duper computer. After 6 months of number crunching the computer finally spat out the analysed text. The agents gathered around to read the results.

" This suit is a product of ACME Pty. Ltd. Wash in warm soapy water and hang to dry. ACME warrents this suit impervious to all light sabre stikes by Jedi Knights and Sith lords for a period of one millennium"

That should take care of that one as we all know it happended long long ago in a galaxy far far away .

Mark

Mark

[GrahamL]

How could evolution theory be used to explain such a thing?

Well it can't mark because you are loading the debate with a
"What If " without giving any basis for enquiry as to why evolution therory should be challenged .. I thinks its great that the religion over the years has always looked to the skys with a view to try and make sense of what we see..even better ..that most who take the time to
enjoy this most complete and humbling look into where we are ,
have been , and going to .. are able to reconcille there faith entirely in regard .. whatever that faith or lack thereof may be.

[marki]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

Well it can't mark because you are loading the debate with a
"What If " without giving any basis for enquiry as to why evolution therory should be challenged .. I thinks its great that the religion over the years has always looked to the skys with a view to try and make sense of what we see..even better ..that most who take the time to
enjoy this most complete and humbling look into where we are ,
have been , and going to .. are able to reconcille there faith entirely in regard .. whatever that faith or lack thereof may be.

Nightstalker as I have stated on several of my posts on this thread I firmly believe religion should never be discussed along with science as in the end it is a very personal belief and am a little confused as to your reference .

The problem I have with evolution as an all encompassing proven theory is that it has become entrenched as the only possible solution when there may well be other answers which is why I injected the "what if". Remember embrassing scientific theory as fact can be just as dangerous as dogmatic faith (wittness the nazi era). I have given my reasons for why I am not totally convinced in my posts below but I will attempt to restate them more clearly here.

Since the advent of DNA sequencing bacterial taxonomy has had to be revisited as a number of the organisms placed in a certain catergory based on physical simularities did not belong there. My point here is that even if an organism has different DNA to another, they may have very similar characteristics which would have them seen as related if only visual characteristics are considered. Simularly it is also possible for organisms having very little in common physically to be linked genetically as was the case with the bacteria. To add to that as Enchilada pointed out is the confusion that can be caused by the expression and regulation of genes which may very well mask simularities and differences in DNA if the grouping is done by physical characteristics alone. Much of the evidence gathered in support of evolution is based on the incomplete fossil record. Fossils do not easily yield testable DNA to make these visual assumptions confirmable so we cannot check our sums so to speak. This for me is enough to fire my skeptism gene and science has made a few bloopers in the past.

I am simply stating the requirements of applying the scientific method. Work in a methodical way to gather as much testable evidence as possible to support or reject a hypothesis. To do this you must keep an open mind (be prepared to be wrong) and try as hard as you can to detect all possible sources of error (there is always error). I am not disputing evolution as the likely cause as to how we come to be as I am reasonably convinced that it is the case. But have I missed something? More than likely and that is why I am trying to add some skeptisism to this debate. Is it done and dusted? No .

Mark

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by marki

The problem I have with evolution as an all encompassing proven theory is that it has become entrenched as the only possible solution when there may well be other answers which is why I injected the "what if".

Mark

An interesting point. There is no more futile argument than an opponent who simply repeats the thoughts of a higher authority. I'm not trying to hijack this thread but it is analogous to the entrenched support of the Big Bang Theory. There is a collection of evidence to support it but there are also major gaps or holes that have yet to be filled. Too many people accept a higher authority as the last word on the subject. I'm not saying their opinions should not be respected but you have to question all assumptions made without the strictest evidence. Historically, science itself is a dynamic and evolving system and we should be ready to change direction whenever new information arises.

Regards, Rob

[marki]

Originally Posted by Robh

An interesting point. There is no more futile argument than an opponent who simply repeats the thoughts of a higher authority. I'm not trying to hijack this thread but it is analogous to the entrenched support of the Big Bang Theory. There is a collection of evidence to support it but there are also major gaps or holes that have yet to be filled. Too many people accept a higher authority as the last word on the subject. I'm not saying their opinions should not be respected but you have to question all assumptions made without the strictest evidence. Historically, science itself is a dynamic and evolving system and we should be ready to change direction whenever new information arises.

Regards, Rob

Great minds think alike Rob . You don't happen to be a science teacher as well do you? I think the biggest problem is many people do not understand the nature of science or scientific method (which I am trying to defend here) but would prefer cling to facts and truths rather than accept uncertainty. I spend so much time trying to drum this into my students, everything is open to change simply because it must be as a direct consequence of scientific thinking itself. Nothing is proved only evidence gathered to suggest a possible explaination.

Mark

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by marki

Great minds think alike Rob . You don't happen to be a science teacher as well do you? I think the biggest problem is many people do not understand the nature of science or scientific method (which I am trying to defend here) but would rather cling to facts and truths rather than accept uncertainty. I spend so much time trying to drum this into my students, everything is open to change simply because it must be as a direct consequence of scientific thinking itself. Nothing is proved only evidence gathered to suggest a possible explaination.

Mark

Did a science degree years ago but ended up as a maths/computing teacher with a spattering of science. The irony is my two daughters have absolutely no interest in it and are absorbed in the Visual Arts.

Rob.

[Jen]

ouch you guys make my head hurt

[Karls48 (Karl)]

It is very interesting to read views of two teachers and reflect on what sort of benefits the “education” has given me. Beside of literacy and basic mathematics – not much. Probably greatest lesson the school teach me is not to trust any authority. I think that about half of things that I learn in History, Biology and Physics classes some forty-five years ago are not true today. I think that there is a need for Philosophy to be included in curriculum in schools at very early age and to be given same importance as the Maths and Physics. The schools should teach how to think not what to think.
I have to say that I wish I had teachers like marki and Robh.
Back to “Missing link”. I don’t realty understand why everyone who contributed to this tread takes Evolution v Creations in Christianity context. After all every religion I’m aware of is a political system with main purpose of controlling the population. Unfortunately it seems that Science is becoming new religion. I was atheist from age five (long story as to why) but some years ago I come to conclusion that me being atheist is hypocritical because I cannot (to my satisfaction) disprove existence of some sort of Creator. Because of that I would describe myself as agnostic. Evolution is very plausible explanation as how the all-living things come to existence. But there is one big problem. The first organism that can be considered as Life is supposed to start in primordial sea by action of ultraviolet radiation and electrical discharges acting on chemical compounds contained in seawater. There have been many experiments trying to create Life by mimicking conditions that existed when first Life appear on the Earth. Although experiments did created from inorganic compounds all sorts of complex organic molecules, none (to my knowledge) did produced something that can reproduce itself and therefore can be considered Life.
I do not propose that some sort of Creator has created Life. I’m simply saying that so far – we don’t know.

[marki]

Well said Karl. It is not what we learn that is important but rather how we went about learning itself that counts. Why? I don't remember half the crap they tried to stuff in my head when I was at Uni but I sure do remember how my thinking and analytical skills developed as a result and that will stay with me for life.

Mark