Babylon Posted 19 May 2009 Posted 19 May 2009 Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-New...rliest_Ancestor I know one poster who won't like this... I await his verdict via youtube presentation.
Finnegan Posted 19 May 2009 Posted 19 May 2009 Could you not have found a more trustworthy source? What have Yahoo got to say about this?
flanimal Posted 19 May 2009 Posted 19 May 2009 Great. Finally proof of evolution. Cos all the other millions of fossils were proper bullshit.
Alexikokopops Posted 20 May 2009 Posted 20 May 2009 Well taht Sky News article is a bit biased and misleading. The actual paper on the discovery doesn't claim it to be the missing link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be "a missing link". Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance. "It's extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied," he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as "Flores man" or feathered dinosaurs. The BBC's Fergus Walsh takes a look inside the Messel Pit 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." In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what Ida is. Basically the guy believes it to be the missing link but it's still only speculation and hasn't been proved yet
Babylon Posted 20 May 2009 Author Posted 20 May 2009 Well taht Sky News article is a bit biased and misleading. The actual paper on the discovery doesn't claim it to be the missing linkhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be "a missing link". Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance. "It's extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied," he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as "Flores man" or feathered dinosaurs. The BBC's Fergus Walsh takes a look inside the Messel Pit 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." In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what Ida is. Basically the guy believes it to be the missing link but it's still only speculation and hasn't been proved yet I know, I was just attempting to get an El Empty rant going I think it's far from what most scientists would look for when searching for the "missing link".
Alexikokopops Posted 20 May 2009 Posted 20 May 2009 I know, I was just attempting to get an El Empty rant going I think it's far from what most scientists would look for when searching for the "missing link". I can't watch You Tube videos at work so I thought I'd boom in an argument to save him having to
welck12 Posted 20 May 2009 Posted 20 May 2009 I know, I was just attempting to get an El Empty rant going We have been missing an El Empty rant for quite a while now, this would be just up his street as well
Babylon Posted 20 May 2009 Author Posted 20 May 2009 We have been missing an El Empty rant for quite a while now, this would be just up his street as well As long as he hasn't been drinking... if he has he's more likely to just offer someone out over it.
ozleicester Posted 20 May 2009 Posted 20 May 2009 Well taht Sky News article is a bit biased and misleading. The actual paper on the discovery doesn't claim it to be the missing linkhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be "a missing link". Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance. "It's extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied," he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as "Flores man" or feathered dinosaurs. The BBC's Fergus Walsh takes a look inside the Messel Pit 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." In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what Ida is. Basically the guy believes it to be the missing link but it's still only speculation and hasn't been proved yet ..wasnt he Benny Hills friend? This is all starting to add up now
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.