Haha! Take That, Xtians!

[Scorpion]

Or some other variation, like he choose a smart ape to reveal himself to instead of, say a zebra or a praying mantis or some other animal?

 

I think it was Herodotus of Helicarnassus that said something like this:

 

"The gods of the Celts are red-haired and blue-eyed. The gods of the Nubians are black and flat-faced. If horses had gods, they would surelly take the shape of a horse."

[Antlerman]

Do you believe God guided evolution to create man? That he guides nature into a certain formation? Or some other variation, like he choose a smart ape to reveal himself to instead of, say a zebra or a praying mantis or some other animal?

I don't know. I haven't thought this much. Maybe I should?

I would think that would be of interest to the question of God. How did life come to be and what meaning does it hold as a result? A lot of people tie the significance of life to it being created by God, and hence why there's so much anxiety by some religious folks about saying life just happened naturally without some sort of divine plan or purpose. That rattles a lot of Christians and why you have such a nutty rejection of science where it challenges their non-scientific understanding of the world. They ascribe significance to it that to them would mean that life is meaningless if God didn't create it.

 

That you can reconcile it more respectably is one thing, but you never thought about it. That's just interesting to me.

 

Not sure if you realize it, but since you don't question that scientists know what they're talking about, did you know that the evidence points to all animal life on the planet evolved from a single animal? That it's not this animal evolved, and another type of animal evolved elsewhere? That all the animals started with one? Guess what animal that was? Don't say Adam. That would be the wrong answer. Think really simple animal. One clue... it lives in the water and is still around today.

That's interesting... kind of fish, isn't it?

2nd clue. You've probably used a modern relative of one to wash your car with, clean your dishes, or take a bath with. (At least the squishy skeletal remains of one no longer living, of course).

[Antlerman]

Alright... well maybe it's not quite settled on the sponge, but it's getting back there close to the first: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/...of-all-animals/

[scitsofreaky]

Frankly, I find this topic to be frustrating. The authors of the original paper (which was published in PLoS ONE) have contradicted themselves. As pointed out in the comments on the paper here, they said

Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.

Basically, they are not arguing in the paper Darwinius masillae is a missing link in human evolution. As far as I can find, there is no scientific consensus on adapoids being on ancestral to anthropoids, which includes us. But everywhere else they seem to be pushing the hype that this is the "missing link." Frankly, I find it suspicious that scientists in this field would use the phrase.

The best criticism I have seen is from Brian Switek here.

 

The way this is being handled may turn a very good, and in its own way, important find into a black eye for science. The bandwagon filled up very quickly, especially considering it was published in PLoS ONE, which is not designed to rigorously review the paper before publication, but to get topics into discussion more quickly. I really don't have a problem with this, per se, but in cases like this a little restraint should be used.

[Evolution_beyond]

Antlerman, sponges were probably the first multi-celled animals.

 

There are single celled creatures that could arguably be called animals because they get their energy by eating other single celled creatures rather than through photosynthesis.

 

Although I admit that only multi-celled animals are part of the Animal Kingdom.

[Jubilant]

After reading a few articles and discussions about "missing links" over the years (honestly, it isn't a big deal to me because I didn't leave the faith because of science anyway), I was under the impression that there are already numerous "missing links" exhibited at the Smithsonian Museum. Did I hear/read wrong?

[DarthOkkata]

Sort of. As I mentioned earlier, 'The Missing Link' refers to a very specific 'hole' in the evolutionary chain.

 

It's the last common ancestor between ourselves and the other Great Apes that 'links' us to them directly. [Hence the term 'Missing Link'] In other words, the animal that would be at the very point where the 'branches' of evolution between ourselves and the Apes converge together.

 

Still hasn't been found according to what I've read about this. Calling this 'the Missing Link' is just incorrect.

[DarthOkkata]

I stand corrected. Just watched the History channel presentation on this discovery. It is a 'Missing Link' of sorts. Just not, 'the' Missing Link I was talking about.

 

It's the transition between lesser [Lemurs] and greater primates [apes, monkeys, humans] and is in fact probably one of our ancient ancestors and a transitionary fossil. Proof that such things do exist, though not linked as directly to ourselves as say, the Fossil 'Lucy'.

 

It is a serious blow to creationist just by being one of the very transitionary fossils that they so loudly cry do not exist. It's the kind of thing that puts the theory of evolution very close to being a scientific law and may end up putting it over the top.

 

At any rate, it was a decent special. It was nice to hear the scientist speak about it themselves.

 

My favorite quote is from the very end, and I'm terrible with names so I won't try to guess and as yet have no reference to look it up. Anyone who wishes to add it would be appreciated.

 

[paraphrased as best I could from memory]: "A lot of people don't accept Evolution. They say, 'I don't believe in Evolution'. I reply, I don't 'believe' in Evolution either. It's a fact. Just as I don't 'believe' in the Theory Gravity, if I drop something, it's going to fall. It's a Law. Nothing in biology makes sense without the Theory of Evolution."

[OpheliaGinger]

It is a serious blow to creationist just by being one of the very transitionary fossils that they so loudly cry do not exist. It's the kind of thing that puts the theory of evolution very close to being a scientific law and may end up putting it over the top.

 

Nah, she was created as is.

 

I don't believe in evolution either; I understand it and accept it as being the best viable explanation for how man and other creatures came to be.

[Mriana]

Don't tell me. We have a Cretin er... um... Creationist, who believes in a young earth and if I said chimps, gorillas, etc were our cousins and pigs, given DNA, are also distantly related they'd have a cow. That's nice. I rather like the idea that other animals are related to us. Ida is rather cute IMO. Of course, one has to use their imagination to see what she might have looked liked beyond her skeleton.