So Who Should i Believe?




Ida is believed to be the most complete primate fossil ever discovered. She is 95% intact and so well preserved that her tissues, hair and even her stomach contents are visible. By comparison, the much more recent fossil "Lucy" from Ethiopia is only 40% complete.

• She died 47m years ago in the Eocene epoch and was discovered in Messel pit, a world-renowed fossil site near Darmstadt in Germany, in 1983.

• The Messel site has yielded thousands of superbly preserved fossils including eight species of crocodile, 20 or so snakes, more than 60 specimens of pygmy horse, the largest ant ever to crawl the planet and eight fragmentary primate specimens.

• Ida is named after the daughter of the researcher who assembled the team of scientists that have spent the last two years studying her in secret. Her formal scientific name is Darwinius masillae in honour of Charles Darwin's 200th anniversary year.

• Ida is obviously a primate because she has nails on her digits rather than claws and she has opposable thumbs and big toes.

• Ida is female because she doesn't have a baculum, or penis bone.

• She dates from around the time that our branch of the primates (the haplorhines) which includes monkeys and apes split from a second group including the lemurs, lorises, pottos and bush babies (the strepsirrhines).

• Key features of her skeleton suggest she is not an ancient lemur. She has no "grooming claw" on her second toe, a feature that all lemurs share. She also does not have a set of fused teeth in the middle of her bottom jaw called a "tooth comb". Finally, the tarsus bone in her ankle is shaped like our ancestors. So it is likely that she is a very early haplorhine primate.

• Ida's left wrist was broken, but had partly healed. The researchers believe this injury would have hampered her climbing and may have contributed to her death.

• Ida's large eye holes in her skull suggest she was probably adapted for night vision and so was nocturnal.

• Her milk teeth are in place with adult teeth forming behind, indicating that she was still a juvenile – probably six to nine months old.

• Ida's last meal is visible in her preserved stomach contents. It contained fruit and leaves, but no insects.

At risk of sounding all Richard Dawkins, science and associated Darwinist theory is constantly questioning, looking, (and finding in this case!) evidence. Religion and creationist theory is predominantly about acceptance and faith. While there is obviously some crossover (historians and archeologists do find evidence of biblical events for example) you pick one or the other. I know which side I am on but it's a matter of personal choice.

CNNBREAKINGNEWS said:

There's a bone in it?

squirrelgrease said:

HIDE THE BONE!

CNNBREAKINGNEWS said:

Proven scientific evidence, or an invisible man in the sky? You decide.

squirrelgrease said:

What would make you believe that?

Interesting...Prince's song, "A colonized Mind," is very clever and thought provoking.

There are similiar fossils found Continents apart that lead to the "Pangea," theory.

I have a problem with believing the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old...so I don't ever know what to make of historical rocks, fossils and facts.

Tame said:

Looks to me like this should be moved to another forum

But I think this is very interesting. Why do you, Tame, have a problem with our planet being 4.6 Billion years old?
My reply to that would be that I have no freaking clue how it is possible to determine those sort of things. We meassure with tools that are constructed through theories and experiences and every now and then do we see that we were wrong.
I will never get how it is possible to determine exactly how old something is, especially not things as discussed here. My brain doesn't function like that...

squirrelgrease said:

Oh hell!

TheEnglishGent said:

Both!

NouveauDance said:

When was that picture taken?

squirrelgrease said:

1998.

stanleylieber said:

jesus was DYNOmite!!!!!

stanleylieber said:

That's Steven Spielberg, right?

Hmmm, who to believe, Prince's superstitious ramblings or evidenced scientific conscensus? Will have to get back to you on that one...

VenusBlingBling said:

there are carbon isotopes in most things. Carbon isotopes have a Half-life. The carbon decays over time at a rate that has been determined...what the rate is exactly, I don't know. But the fact that it' a half-life means that some will always be left. By measuring how much carbon is left and comparing it to how much it should have started with, they are able to age the object in question. They have tested this process on objects where the age is known...like dead people and trees and such.



this is what also makes it possible to figure out what rocks r meteorites and how old the moon is and the earth in general. Metorites r usually MUCH older and much less un-decayed carbon in them.
[Edited 5/21/09 7:01am]

BobGeorge909 said:

Carbon dating is not exact, but a very close scientific approximation of a specific time-frame.

KeithyT said:

Fossil's pop star arrival born of a new thirst for PR
May 22, 2009 Quotes from Sydney Morning Herald

... the episode has left the remarkable find mired in controversy, with scientists, rather than the media, criticised for overstating her significance with claims that Ida was "our earliest ancestor".

"This is a wonderful find, but the excessive spin appears to be more about selling a book and a TV program than communicating good science." ... "Personally, I think it is dangerous. At best it leaves people scratching their heads trying to figure out how this is the answer to the meaning of life, at worst, it reinforces an ill-founded but growing view that most scientists are self-serving and more obsessed with the pursuit of grant money than the pursuit of knowledge." ... "It could have been different, there are ways of making science relevant without having to resort to spin." Susannah Eliott, CEO Australian Science Media Centre.

"Ida is an extraordinarily complete specimen but it's not telling us too much that we didn't know before." Elwyn Simons, Duke University palaeontologist

Australian primate expert, Prof Colin Groves, Australian National University, is one of the independent scientists who suddenly found themselves having to counter "misleading" claims by the Ida scientists that she was the "missing link" between early primates and humans. "They ought to have been more careful,".

Dr K. Christopher Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History describes Ida as more like "a third cousin, twice removed"... "And there is no one missing link between humans and our primate ancestors - just many pieces in the puzzle."

Science, when perverted for publicity or to "prove" Richard Dawkins' faith in atheism, is as bad as when religion perverts science. There is no choice between science and religion unless you choose to separate them. To quote the head of the Australian Catholic University - "Intelligent Design is bad science and bad religion". Scientists are no more likely to be athiests than anyone else.

Read books like Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong" to see acceptance and faith in science. And books like Francis Collins' "The Language of God" to see that people like the head of Human Genome Project successfully pick both - Science is the study of God's creation.

Wrong Forum

mzsadii said:

With respect, I disagree: We are discussing Prince and Music etc.

We are discussing the words of "Colonized Mind" from LotusFlower, the views behind them and how they compare to the views of his fans (on the assumption that Orgers are fans).

This is more on topic than the multitude of threads about haters and fams. Almost all threads are ultimately about fan's opinions and this is no different.

To be more direct:
In my opinion, Prince through his song "Colonized Mind" expresses the view that Science without God leads people to wrong positions (A position with which I agree).

He does it in a way that shows support for Creationism (A position with which I disagree).

He considers that Science without God leads to minds being "colonized" by politically correct but ultimately wrong views. My reply is confirming that there is "colonization" here as the scientists are using hype and supposition that other pro-evolution Scientists disagree with and recognise as ultimately destructive.

KeithyT said:

Steven Of Nazareth