Things you won’t see at the creationism museum:
The nearly complete and remarkably preserved skeleton of a small, 47 million-year-old creature found in Germany was displayed Tuesday by scientists who said it would help illuminate the evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts praised the discovery for the level of detail it provided but said it was far from a breakthrough that would solve the puzzles of early evolution.
I wonder how they will spin this finding.
You don’t think they’ll just ignore it?
God buried those bones there to test our faith in the Holy Bible. That’s how. And they were found by Europeans, for God’s sake! Who are you gonna believe – God or a bunch of Euro atheist sociaIists?
Every time scientists find a transitional fossil like this one, the creationists insist that it only counts as a transitional fossil if the animal lay itself down in such a way that its bones spell out the words, “I am an ancestor of Homo sapiens.” And even then, they’d probably discount it as the work of the devil.
Dammit, modereratered again. The usual political philosophy culprit.
C Nelson Reilly
The Lord works in mysterious ways
Look over there, a nipple on the teevee.
Also, godless liberals and shut up that’s why.
God works in mysterious ways. Also.
Test: ah, never mind.
Oh please. Same old saws rehashed a thousand times.
Carbon dating doesn’t work for antidiluvian time periods. Blah blah liberal conspiracy blah blah George Soros hoax blah blah Jesus hid it to test the true believers. And this doesn’t prove anything since my Uncle Steve is STILL not a monkey.
I may be wrong on this, but if I’m reading the articles correctly, this isn’t a transitional fossil so much as an early potential common ancestor in both the primate and lemur lineages.
Given that the last common ancestor of sapiens and chimps was probably about 4-6 million years ago, and about 10 mya if you add apes, a 47 million year old is way too old for a transitional fossil in the primate lineage.
Oh my, you apparently don’t spend a lot of time dealing with creationists! Any “professional” creationist already has reams of boilerplate, obfuscatory talking points that they can whip out in the face of any new scientific findings that strengthen the (already extremely strong) case for human evolution. From “The dating techniques are unreliable!” to “this doesn’t help prove that humans involved, it just complicates things further because of. . .blah blah blah!” to the always-handy “well you interpret the evidence one way based on your model and we interpret it another based on ours!” If Jesus himself came down to earth and proceeded to miraculously prove that evolution was true, the creationists would still find a way to spin it.
Sample wingnut drivel:
“GOD CREATED. FACT, whether you like it or not. Evolution never created ANYTHING, but a bunch of slime atheists”
There is no reasoning.
By screeching even louder that they aren’t monkeys, possibly accompanied by some feces-throwing.
Third Eye Open
I must admit that I have lived in some fairly metropolitan areas for most of my life, and for as many hours I have spent hashing out the whys and what-fors of the most benevolent cloud fairy, I have never had someone actually tell me that dinosaur bones were put there to test our faith.
I think I would laugh, get on a table and ridicule that person. Seriously.
Answers In Genesis (the people who run the museum that has a triceratops with a saddle on it):
LALALALAGODIDIT! Day 6, probably at like 7:34 PM local time. We’re scholars you know.
Sigh, corrections in italics (didn’t edit in time):
Well it’s not a transitional fossil between humans and non-human primates but it is a possible (though some of my favorite science blogs are saying this thing is over-hyped) transitional fossil between early primates and the lineage that gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. Again, maybe.
They haven’t. I heard Beck talking about it this morning.
There’s almost nothing in that NYT article that suggests that it really is a human ancestor. I know it’s a newspaper and not a scientific journal but there should be, at least, some mention of why the scientists (not cited) involved think it is. In fact, most of the scientists cited are skeptical, at best. This is sloppy science journalism, as is most science journalism, i.e., A study came out today that said…
Dave C: Perhaps I’m using “primate” incorrectly. I didn’t think it included lemurs (although they’re closely related), just monkeys, apes, and humans. In any case, I think we’re describing largely the same phenonena, but using slightly different language – which, again, I freely admit may be my error.
Stoopid liberals. There are no such things as fossils.
Well this is an easy one. They will prop up a figure of Adam riding the thing, or maybe teaching it how to sit, roll over, and beg. This will be followed by the creature drowning in the great flood because Noah just didn’t have enough room on the boat.
Nope, the primate order includes a bunch of things besides moneys, apes and us.
As Wikipedia explains, the primate order is
P.Z. is on it, as always.
But, and this is important:
More here from Wilkins on why it’s not a “missing link” (and why there really isn’t such a thing, anyway).
Big deal. Now there are two missing links where there was only one before.
@SGEW, @Dave C: Thanks, guys. Good, clear, explanations.
Your read is right (other then the primate part).
The History Channel is going to have a 2 hour show on it on Monday.
True. If a fossil looks like an ape, but also a little like a human, it’s just a deformed ape. If it looks like a human but a little like an ape it’s just a deformed human. Then they accuse scientists of never finding transitional forms.
I don’t care how old they say it is, Man still had dominion over it.
Monkeys and apes (we’re apes) would be ‘simians’. Lemurs, tarsirs, and a bunch of others are ‘prosimians’. All are primates.
Easy. It simply cannot be true. If you accept this as real, you’re abandoning spirituality. Next thing you know, you’ll be sniffing glue, buttfucking your poker buddies, and surfing the web for lemur porn.
Creationists complain about all the gaps in the fossil record. But every time a new discovery goes into one of those gaps, it creates two new gaps on either side of it. It is like Zeno’s paradox.
If you don’t find a fossil with the left side of the creature a monkey and the right side caught in the middle of becoming a modern human, it obviously means that there was a magical layer of water high in the atmosphere that all ran out to provoke a global flood in 40 days.
Intelligent designers will find this to be a proof of their arguments, for as a gap in evolution is filled, two new gaps are created!
Except for the climate. Man is powerless to alter the climate.
All this time, I’ve thought the Aye-Aye was created by Ricky Ricardo…
@Paul L.: Again with the Vox Day? He’s a bigger asshat than you are. Do you expect that weak shit to fly?
That’s where I was going with it. At this point, you either have to be absolutely stupid or completely unwilling to face reality to deny evolution. In Vox’s case, I’ll say it’s both/and.
They will look at it, see that it looks like a monkey, conclude that it was a monkey, and say, “what does that have to do with us humans?”
Go read any Creationist website. When discussing any early fossil records, they always just conclude that it was a monkey, and remind people that monkeys are not human, and move on.
For some reason, they seem to think that unless we find a 5 million year old fossil of a modern man, they’ve proven evolution wrong, despite the fact that its actually the other way around.
Yes, but then they’ve got to confront the Hindu creationist types (“Forbidden Archaeology”) in which it’s necessary to keep pushing back the origins of humanity to absurd lengths (350 million years) so that the reincarnation cycles can all have time to go through.
So, they’ll stick with everything being 6,000 years old or so.
God buried those bones there to test our faith in the Holy Bible.
Not nearly hard-ass enough.
God buried those bones there to deliberately mislead and confound non-believers, by making it look like evolution is in fact true.
Read’em and weep.
No, no…as an atheist, agnostic, skeptic or what-have-you, I think God aka Prime Mover/Creator of the universe, put the fundies there to put me here to question my faith.
I dont have lemer porn, but you can choose your very own meerkat if you like that sort of thing…
As for creationism, my father is one and as far as I understand the calculations of the carbon dating is supposed to be wrong as before Noah the water that caused the flood was in the atmosphere as another layer around the earth. God released this layer of water onto the earth ( which ‘explains’ where all that water came from ) and therefore there is a difference between the calculations made before the flood versus after the flood, as the suns rays etc will have a new different affect upon the earth and ruin the calculations.
Phew. I think that was what he said.
I’ve not looked into it though.
Dammit! I always forget about the glue-sniffing. Thanks for reminding me. I’m off to the hobby-shop…
@freelancer: What I love is that bit about evolution being an “alleged process of change in live organisms.” These creationist types intentionally try to make evolutionary theory sound absurd, like it was a process that works to change an individual of one species into a member of another species during that creature’s lifetime. Like a creature that was born a lemur was going to change into a monkey over the course of its life, and that lemur-monkey’s offspring would be born as monkeys and those monkeys would change into humans during their lifetime. Patent nonsense. But it doesn’t stop creationist pseudo-science and lies. These creationist types are such transparently disingenuous burks. Loathsome and pitiable are they.
Check out today’s Google logo.
Well, if it’s a transitional fossil there are now two gaps in the fossil record where before there was only one. By wingnut logic, that’s twice as many holes in evolutionary theory.
booful. wish it were bigger. made me feeel reverent. like i should light a candle to honor an ancestor or something.
I’d be less interested in how creationists would spin it, and more interested in how an alleged scientist admits that he’s is over-pimping this finding to get attention (read: money).
I suppose it’s too much to hope that one day they will just give up this battle as lost and find another pointless side issue to obsess about? I have little to no personal contact with hard-core fundies, so I don’t know if this issue is as important to the the rank-and-file as it is to the high-profile activist types, but I am truly mystified by all the fuss they make about evolution. Why does it matter so much? All this time and energy they pour into disputing every new discovery, trying to insert creationism into school curriculums, making themselves look ever more ridiculous and reactionary in the process, and in the end what bearing does it really have on the practice of Christianity? Is it just to prove that no secular authority trumps the word of God? I’m a non-believer now, but I went to Catholic school and we were taught the theory of evolution without any religious caveats attached, i.e. there was no perceived conflict between belief in evolution and belief in God.