Scientists say a partial skull thought to be 28 million years old discovered in Saudi Arabia has both monkey and ape characteristics.  The finding with other information suggests that monkeys and apes diverged from a common ancestor between 29 and 24 million years ago.  The July 15th issue of Nature has the story cover featured. 




Tags: Ape, Jubinsky, Monkey

Views: 29

Replies to This Discussion

That is rather cool. Another point for evolution!
It's going to become more and more difficult for the theist community to deal with evolution.
The implications of this will soar over theist's heads like a stealth bomber on speed.
Thats only 'cause sii-ance aint showd us no croco-monkey!
It's funny, I always thought Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort were perfect examples of transitional forms.
From human to jackass?
Well, I wouldn't have put it anywhere near that politely, but something along those lines :P
this is true if they use logical thinking and also don't keep their children away from school. If not, like Fabio said, they will use the same argument: "fossils are there to test our faith" or will invoke the god of the gaps: "show me the missing link between this monkey-ape fossil and apes". If we find that monkey-ape-ape fossil they will ask for the transitional form between that fossil an the monkey-ape fossil and also between monkey-ape-ape and the ape and so on. With this method they could ask even for a transitional form between my mother and me !

Although additional fossil finds are needed, the Saudi specimen offers a more reliable age estimate for a crucial shift in primate evolution than can be gleaned from DNA studies of living apes and monkeys, comments anthropologist David Begun of the University of Toronto.

I thought that DNA method of dating is accurate. Isn't it possible this is a cousin of our common ancestor between apes and monkeys? Maybe a second fossil will show some characteristics not found in monkeys and apes.
I thought that DNA method of dating is accurate. Isn't it possible this is a cousin of our common ancestor between apes and monkeys? Maybe a second fossil will show some characteristics not found in monkeys and apes.

I'm not sure how the DNA method works. Do they have to associate the DNA with dated archeological finds?
If a method of dating is correct, it should verify other methods of dating. So, if the DNA is good in estimating time, it should verify the fossile findings too.

By the way of DNA, it would be so nice if they could extract some DNA from the fossil's teeth...
Molecular clock dating is basically a dating technique resting on the assumption that mutation rates within genetic codes and, consequently, proteins are more or less regular and steady over time. That, at least, was the first formulation of the model and was greeted quite coldly right from the start. It was immediately clear that quasi-constant mutation rates are only witnessed in in vitro bacterial cultures, that is, in highly controlled environments. Newer models attempt to take into account more varied mutation rates and changes in demographics (e.g. caused by bottleneck events that drastically reduce populations), but as a rule of thumb molecular clock dating is only useful when combined with other dating methods.
It already is extremely difficult. The only things that they can do at this point are to immu-doctinate their youths against the name evolution and try to keep them isolated from it. Once the science gets any of them, it's too late and they have to be quarantined, sequestered, and shunned.

And it's not theists exactly but an esoteric subset thereof--indeed, the "evolution = not religion" thing is their shtick.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service