# The Missing Link **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536 "2006-04-06T05:34:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/21 "2006-04-06T16:11:46Z")
So their position is that it has no bearing on their lives or their salvation (from a christian standpoint) so why bother having a position on it? I can respect that provided they stay out of conversations regarding evolution v. creation. My wife is the same way. She sees no practical reason to take any position regarding origins. She believes that God did it and doesn’t care how. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/22 "2006-04-06T16:19:33Z")
In my above example the person _did_ take a position, and that position was the astronomical, geological and evolutionary account was incorrect, as it contradicted scripture. Again, this person was a _summa cum laude_ biochemist, and now practices medicine as an Ivy grad. If I hadn’t seen her with my own two eyes I would have told you such a creature was an impossibility. Her explanation was simply that the evidence was misinterpreted. She accepted that the scientific account was good for some things (like getting good grades when recitation was required), and worked tolerably well as an approximation in some circumstances. Nonetheless, creationists are right, and that’s that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/23 "2006-04-06T16:23:10Z")
When I saw the title to this thread, I expected it to be in response to the other recent story: [Skull of ‘Missing Link’ Human Ancestor Found In Ethiopia](http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060325_ap_ethiopia_herectus.html) which I doubt that many Creationists would find persuasive, (single skull, found in pieces, “just guesswork,” “ape suffering hydrocephaly (or something),” etc.). _(And I agree that “missing link” story titles are bogus, as all fossils are transitional and continuing to use the phrase supports a misunderstanding of the actual process of evolution.)_ I doubt that the find in the OP is goiong to change anyone’s opinion regarding the Theory of Evolution in the sense of “proving” it. What I would hope might happen would be for some of the evidence to nibble away at some of the arguments (from ignorance) regarding the “science” aspect of evolutionary thought. From the NYT article: > [@](#): > > In a statement by the Science Museum of London, where casts of the fossils will be on view, Dr. Clack said the fish “confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes were made.” If there are, indeed, specific _predictions_ that have been made in the past regarding the fish-to-tetrapod development that are confirmed in this find, then we have (one more, but dramatic) example of evolutionary thought as science, making predictions and having them confirmed. > [@tagos](#): > > ‘Intelligence’ and belief in creationism are contracdictions. I’m sorry - but people who believe creationism are displaying their stupidity like peacocks looking for a mate. Not really. I might question the motivation, and perhaps the sanity, of a palaeontologist who suddenly declared that after 30 years in the field, he had come to realize that it was all wrong and that the multiple disciplines involved in geology, palaeontology, taxonomy, all the techniques for determining dates, all the examinations of DNA, and all the other evidence were in error. However, for most people, the technologies, the techniques, the accumulated evidence, and the histories of hypotheses advanced and either confirmed or disproven are far outside the knowledge they possess while also being counter-intuititve. It simply makes “more sense” (to those people) to accept their feeling that the world was created in an orderly process as supported by a myth they grew up being taught (regardless that the truth of that mythology may have been written to make a different point), _especially_ since the truth or error of their belief does nothing to impinge on their ability to secure food and shelter or to raise their kids in a safe environment. People–even very intelligent people–use computers all day long with little to no understanding of binary code or how transistors, resistors, memory chips, or even basic electricity actually work together. ("Any sufficiently advanced technology. . . . ") It is not necessarily a lack of intelligence so much as a lack of desire to expend time and energy on a proposition for which they believe they already have an answer that propels the vast majority of believers in Creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/24 "2006-04-06T16:47:05Z")
This is a find that’s very exciting for biologists, but not because it provides support for evolution. Or sort of. You see, biologists don’t need more convincing. As actual evidence, this is simply confirmation #67853 of many, nothing special. But biologists also understand that laypeople don’t really bother to spend time to learn what they need to learn about evolution to know why its considered so certain. And so, in that this find provides a nice media event with a fairly cinematic, simple to grok idea, it is exciting in that sense. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/25 "2006-04-06T16:53:46Z")
Also, despite the claims that no amount of evidence will ever change anyone’s mind, enough of the right evidence does seem to change people’s minds. Creationists have had to modify their positions many times in light of pretty undeniable evidence or this or that. The reason is not smoe much whether there is good evidence, but whether the evidence is easy to understand and popularly understood as undeniable. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/26 "2006-04-06T16:54:22Z")
It’s interesting precisely because it’s a bit of missing concrete information about the transition from water- to land-dwelling that everyone knows occurred anyway. Certainly it’s very interesting and exciting, but I think without the creationist bunk that’s been thrown around about “gaps in the theory”, the angle to the reporting in the popular press would be quite different. As we all know full well, filling those gaps has zero impact on creationist thought, so, again, those who are confident in the science can feel more smug, and those who believe in the Biblical account can roll their eyes as they always do. It’s a wonderful find, and I’m sure it will open up all kinds of new and interesting avenues of research. But Missing Link that Confirms Evolution Like Never Before? Please. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/27 "2006-04-06T16:55:09Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > In my above example the person _did_ take a position, and that position was the astronomical, geological and evolutionary account was incorrect, as it contradicted scripture. Again, this person was a _summa cum laude_ biochemist, and now practices medicine as an Ivy grad. If I hadn’t seen her with my own two eyes I would have told you such a creature was an impossibility. Her explanation was simply that the evidence was misinterpreted. She accepted that the scientific account was good for some things (like getting good grades when recitation was required), and worked tolerably well as an approximation in some circumstances. Nonetheless, creationists are right, and that’s that. Is your friend a YEC or does she just believe that God helped things along from time to time? If the former, I think she’s quite rare-- a YEC with a degree in one of the physical sciences. Is she a fundametalist Christian? If not, I suspect a sit down with her priest or minsister might be enlightening for her. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/28 "2006-04-06T17:03:10Z")
Also, despite the claims that no amount of evidence will ever change anyone’s mind, enough of the right evidence does seem to change people’s minds. Creationists have had to modify their positions many times in light of pretty undeniable evidence or this or that. The reason is not smoe much whether there is good evidence, but whether the evidence is easy to understand and popularly understood as undeniable. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/29 "2006-04-06T17:05:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Is your friend a YEC or does she just believe that God helped things along from time to time? If the former, I think she’s quite rare-- a YEC with a degree in one of the physical sciences. Is she a fundametalist Christian? If not, I suspect a sit down with her priest or minsister might be enlightening for her. She’s a kind of soft YEC and pretty much a fundy, yes. It’s been like four years since I’ve seen her, and more than that since we conversed about the subject, so I can’t say for certain what she’s thinking now. Anyway, if I remember correctly, she said there’s legitimate doubt about exactly how many thousands or tens-of-thousands of years it’s been since the Earth was created, but billions of years ago is orders of magnitude wrong. Noah’s flood happened. Dinosaurs? Dunno, but there must be a good explanation. Etc. I’d like to say I’m kidding, but I’m not. Did I mention she was an extremely attractive woman of Korean descent who spoke three launguages fluently (English, Korean, French)? I mean, she was so sweet, bright, and goldurn beautiful even I was willing to overlook her patently bizarre outlook to do dinner and a movie (never even got a chaste hug, so no need to go there) on occasion, and even stranger, she never once tried to convert me. Rare doesn’t even begin to describe her. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/30 "2006-04-06T17:06:40Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > In my above example the person _did_ take a position, and that position was the astronomical, geological and evolutionary account was incorrect, as it contradicted scripture. Again, this person was a _summa cum laude_ biochemist, and now practices medicine as an Ivy grad. If I hadn’t seen her with my own two eyes I would have told you such a creature was an impossibility. Her explanation was simply that the evidence was misinterpreted. She accepted that the scientific account was good for some things (like getting good grades when recitation was required), and worked tolerably well as an approximation in some circumstances. Nonetheless, creationists are right, and that’s that. Even stupid people get PhDs, true its a stupid/savante duality , but not that uncommon. Also plenty of people seem to beleive that God created and cause evolution to work the way it did, the creation story in the bible just showing the best a primative society could come to comprehending what God did. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/31 "2006-04-06T17:34:58Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Well, here it is. [Link to the Link](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) . Hi’ daddy! But, grandfather, what big scales you have! ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/32 "2006-04-06T17:48:30Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Even stupid people get PhDs, true its a stupid/savante duality , but not that uncommon. Nope. In my experience stupid simply isn’t an explanation. Willfully ignorant? Maybe, but I never got the sense talking to her or a couple of her friends from her church volunteer group (she met them in something called “The Vinyard”, though I don’t know much about it) that they were really in control of their beliefs to the extent that I could call it “willful”. That’s not to say there aren’t sophists and idiots aplenty among the creationists, or any of a myriad other sorts of folks, but the notion that their beliefs can be easily explained by stupidity is, well, oversimplified at best. And that’s what make sit so disturbing to me. There’s no easy explanation that I can think of for why I think this and she thinks that. Upbringing? Genes? Both? I don’t know. But the stupid simply can’t be the whole story. Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/33 "2006-04-06T18:42:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > From the NYT article:If there are, indeed, specific _predictions_ that have been made in the past regarding the fish-to-tetrapod development that are confirmed in this find, then we have (one more, but dramatic) example of evolutionary thought as science, making predictions and having them confirmed. Actually, this fossil tends to confirm a newer model of for the water-to-land transition, and contradicts earlier views. From a recent article from [Scientific American](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000) (which contains more information on the newest discovery on the home page): > [@](#): > > Until about 15 years ago, paleontologists understood very little about the sequence of events that made up the transition from fish to tetrapod. We knew that tetrapods had evolved from fish with fleshy fins akin to today’s lungfish and coelacanth, a relation first proposed by American paleontologist Edward D. Cope in the late 19th century. But the details of this seminal shift remained hidden from view. . . . The problem was that the pertinent fossil record was sparse, consisting of essentially a single fish of this type, Eusthenopteron, and a single Devonian tetrapod, Ichthyostega, which was too advanced to elucidate tetrapod roots. > > With such scant clues to work from, scientists could only speculate about the nature of the transition. Perhaps the best known of the scenarios produced by this guesswork was that championed by famed vertebrate paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer of Harvard University, who proposed in the 1950s that fish like Eusthenopteron, stranded under arid conditions, used their muscular appendages to drag themselves to a new body of water. Over time, so the idea went, those fish able to cover more ground–and thus reach ever more distant water sources–were selected for, eventually leading to the origin of true limbs. In other words, fish came out of the water before they evolved legs. > > Since then, however, many more fossils documenting this transformation have come to light. These discoveries have expanded almost exponentially our understanding of this critical chapter in the history of life on earth–and turned old notions about early tetrapod evolution, diversity, biogeography and paleoecology on their heads. As it turns out, fish seem to have evolved legs _before_ they came out of the water, and this new fossil tends to confirm this picture. > [@](#): > > Among the first fossil finds to pave the way for our modern conception of tetrapod origins were those of a creature called Acanthostega. . . . Although in many ways this animal proved to be exactly the kind of anatomical intermediary between fish and full-blown tetrapods that experts might have imagined, it told a different story from the one predicted. Here was a creature that had legs and feet but that was otherwise ill equipped for a terrestrial existence. > [@](#): > > One of the most interesting revelations to emerge from this work is that, as in the case of limb development, many of the critical innovations arose while these beasts were still largely aquatic. And the first changes appear to have been related not to locomotion but to an increased reliance on breathing air. > [@](#): > > The hypothesis favored on current evidence is that as the backwardly directed fins gradually turned into sideways-facing limbs with large areas for muscle attachments, they gained in strength. And although it would be millions of years before the forelimbs developed to the point of being able to support the body on land, they may well have functioned in the interim to allow the animal to raise its head out of the water to breathe. The toes could have facilitated this activity by helping to spread the load on the limbs. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/34 "2006-04-06T18:44:30Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Nope. In my experience stupid simply isn’t an explanation. Willfully ignorant? Maybe, but I never got the sense talking to her or a couple of her friends from her church volunteer group (she met them in something called “The Vinyard”, though I don’t know much about it) that they were really in control of their beliefs to the extent that I could call it “willful”. That’s not to say there aren’t sophists and idiots aplenty among the creationists, or any of a myriad other sorts of folks, but the notion that their beliefs can be easily explained by stupidity is, well, oversimplified at best. > > And that’s what make sit so disturbing to me. There’s no easy explanation that I can think of for why I think this and she thinks that. Upbringing? Genes? Both? I don’t know. But the stupid simply can’t be the whole story. Not even close. Yes stupid is a poor word for me to have used. Willfuly ignorant, or blindly observant work better. You see it with people who have only one way of thinking about things. People who can understand huge swathes of classical physics but balk at quantum physics. Few would say they beleive quantum physics is wrong or a lie, but many would rather not think too much about it and long for a more intuitive replacement. I see this longing for something being at the heart of many of these stubbenly closed minded people. “I don’t want to be just an inteligent ape. I want to be a specially created supra-animal, half creature half angel.” I can’t blame people for this, hell I hang on doggedly to a belief in having free will. Not because of there being any overwhelming evidence for its existance, but because the opposite seems too ugly and unpleasant to me. I’d rather believe the poorly founded fairytale of free will, choice, and culpability. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/35 "2006-04-06T19:28:58Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Actually, this fossil tends to confirm a newer model of for the water-to-land transition, and contradicts earlier views. However, the “newer model” was still a predicition based on the examination of evidence. I suspect that we will continue to revise a lot of proposed understandings as new information emerges. My point was merely that there are anti-evolutionists who insist that evolutionary study cannot be “science” because we do not “witness” it, yet the proposal and testing of predictions is a core aspect of science and this discovery supports that process. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/36 "2006-04-06T19:55:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, the “newer model” was still a predicition based on the examination of evidence. I suspect that we will continue to revise a lot of proposed understandings as new information emerges. My point was merely that there are anti-evolutionists who insist that evolutionary study cannot be “science” because we do not “witness” it, yet the proposal and testing of predictions is a core aspect of science and this discovery supports that process. Yes, quite so. I was merely remarking on one particular prediction, rather than challenging your statement in general. The new fossil is still intermediate between previously found ones, it is just intermediate in a different way that one particular hypothesis would have predicted. It is an excellent illustration of the way science works. Make predictions based on particular hypotheses, then look for evidence that confirms or refutes them. If they are refuted, then formulate new hypotheses that can be tested on the basis of the new data. In this case, many recent discoveries have tended to confirm the new hypothesis that fish acquired many apparently “terrestrial” adaptations while still aquatic. These were actually adaptations to stagnant shallow-water environments, rather than to land. It shows how “pre-adaptations” can allow the exploitation of new niches, and illustrates how the argument of some creationists that intermediates would have been too ill-adapted to survive is a crock. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/37 "2006-04-06T23:48:16Z")
Semi-unrelated, but have we anyone working for the Dope that would have a more enlightened stance on what this (could possibly) mean? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/38 "2006-04-07T00:22:56Z")
**Colibri’s** stance, to give a nice example, wasn’t “enlightened”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/39 "2006-04-07T00:47:33Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Semi-unrelated, but have we anyone working for the Dope that would have a more enlightened stance on what this (could possibly) mean? I can’t figure out what that sentence means. Why is your question “semi-related” and to what is it related? What do you mean by “enlightened” and what “this” are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536/40 "2006-04-07T01:22:28Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Semi-unrelated, but have we anyone working for the Dope that would have a more enlightened stance on what this (could possibly) mean? What could you possibly be talking about? Many people have offered very clear statements about what this particular fossil means. Mainly, while it’s quite interesting, it doesn’t mean anything very much in terms of the overall evolution-vs-creation “debate,” if we can call it that. To go back to some of your previous statements: > [@LOUNE](#): > > I was hoping the debate would end up being a “now that there’s ‘proof’, does that change anything?” > > It seems people here don’t need the ‘proof’, probably because they followed evolution anyways. The fact of the matter is, there has been overwhelming proof of the fact of evolution for over a century. This does not depend on just the fossil record, but on many other lines of evidence, including genetics, development, and anatomy. This is just one more intermediate fossil, of which there are thousands of other examples. Although it is a quite interesting one, it is no more Earth-shattering than _Archeopteryx_, which has been known for over a century, and any number of others. Scientists don’t need additional proof, because there already is more than enough to convince a real scientist. Discoveries like this are expected. Creationists aren’t going to be convinced, because if they are not convinced by the existing evidence, they never will be. The significance of this will be denied. > [@](#): > > Hey, nobody ever said this would be an Amazing Debate, but the potential explosiveness of the situation is hard to ignore. Then again, it could end up fizzling out and not being as revolutionary. I think you overestimate the relative importance of this in the great scheme of things. This is just one more brick - a pretty one, perhaps, but just one brick - in the great edifice of evidence that supports evolution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-missing-link/351536.md?page=3)