419-million-year-old fish fossil resolves 'missing link' in evolution | Hacker News Reader

419-million-year-old fish fossil resolves 'missing link' in evolution

abc.net.au

135 pointspg121 comments

Richard Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life is an accessible account of evolutionary biology and goes to great lengths to disabuse even a sloppy reader of the popular [pre-genetic sequencing] notions of "missing links."

Evolution suggests that creatures in similar environments are somewhat likely to develop similar adaptations without one species being the ancestor of the other. From a scientific standpoint the claim that modern fish are descendents of the extinct Placoderms is neither falsifiable nor for practical purposes verifiable - DNA simply does not survive that long.

Sparrows and bats have a common ancestor but it is improbable that it had wings.

Or to put it another way, the rationalist's notion of a missing link as expounded in the headline is as dependent upon the logic of the Great Chain of Being as that of an Ussherian creationist - their disagreement is large, but mainly resides in what constitutes the relevant details of a teleological account and the criteria for acceptance is the plausibility of the account to the individual and the intellectual communities to which they belong.

>>Sparrows and bats have a common ancestor but it is improbable that it had wings.

Isn't this a required truth of evolution (not necessarily these animals, but the concept) - that humans and centipedes (or sharks, or dogs, or pigeons, or mushrooms, etc.) all have a common ancestor if you could trace evolution with perfect accuracy back to the beginning of time? Sparrows and bats, being birds and mammals, respectively, would likely have a common ancestor with less in common between the two than sparrows and pigeons or bats and ferrets, correct?

I'm no expert in evolutionary science beyond the basics, so correct me if I am wrong. I read your comment to suggest that evolution does not require any sort of "missing link," which I don't know enough to talk about.

> Isn't this a required truth of evolution (not necessarily these animals, but the concept) - that humans and centipedes (or sharks, or dogs, or pigeons, or mushrooms, etc.) all have a common ancestor if you could trace evolution with perfect accuracy back to the beginning of time?

No, its not a "required truth of evolution". Evolution works just fine if you have life arising independently in multiple places.

Universal common descent was among the hypotheses Darwin proposed in The Origin of Species, but its certainly been challenged many times without the basics of evolution being challenged; I think it is part of the current scientific consensus based on the available evidence, but its not at all necessary to evolution.

Thanks, that makes sense to me, but it has never been presented to me like that. It's similar to spoken languages evolution, then, correct? In that many languages developed very similar basic rules independently? I don't have a lot of experience beyond high school evolution lessons (which present the common ancestor as a necessary piece of the puzzle), but I took some nature of language classes in college and found that very interesting.

As I understand it, those sort of relationships rely on the reasonableness of human-defined taxonomy.

For instance, if we referred to eels as "snakes" then they would have less in common with other snakes than they would with fish (I believe they are closely related to fish anyway, I might be wrong there).

Also, there are also some relationships that many might find surprising. For instance, most people know that birds and reptiles are fairly closely related, but the fact that crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles, etc) specifically are the closest living relatives to birds might be surprising. Personally I would have guessed some sort of more nimble reptile, lizards perhaps.

My point is that morphology has proven to be a poor way to determine evolutionary relationships in light of modern genetic sequencing and beyond extant species or those of the recent (evolutionary) past it becomes increasingly suspect. The most recent common ancestor of humans and whales probably looked shrew like.

By the time one goes back half a billion years, morphological similarities become like snakes and earthworms - likely to arise independently based on environmental factors.

Let me put it this way: The elephant bird of Madagascar and homo sapiens evolved bipedialism as their primary form of locomotion as an adaptation to their environment. Until historical times, neither was extinct. Imagine our evolutionary successors claiming that the elephant bird is the missing link between birds and bipedal mammals of the world 500 million years from now.

>Richard Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life is an accessible account of evolutionary biology and goes to great lengths to disabuse even a sloppy reader of the popular [pre-genetic sequencing] notions of "missing links."

I think it's ironic to quote Dawkin's in this light considering he's spent most of his career a proponent of phyletic gradualism. He's spent most of his career arguing with people like Stephen Gould against the assertions you present here.

This is way, way out of my knowledge, but...

Is the term "Missing link" actually useful? Seems to me that what we keep doing is create more "missing links" with each discovery in the chain. We are sort of filling in gaps created each time we, er, find more missing links. In a 1000 years, we'll still be finding missing links until the whole thing is perfectly mapped out, if that is possible.

There's the Creationist "missing link", and then there's the one used by sane people. A biological missing link would for example be if we didn't have Archaeopteryx. It's true that this of course creates two new gaps in the evolutionary chain, but those aren't as annoying as the big gap before :-)

Also out of my knowledge, but the hypothesized tree of evolution contains only distinct species AFAIK. A true missing link would be an intermediate stage, like catching the first fish with legs as it adapts to land. Fish with wings aren't interesting because they are an (extant) species in their own right.

It's like catching someone on a layover -- you're very clearly in the middle of two stable (but distinct) spots. But you don't spend much time there -- which is why it's been so tough to find.

Also inb4 Futurama fans start complaining about the endless "chain" of evolution. It's not that simple -- similarity does not imply inheritance.

Here's the screenshot from that episode:

http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images/5/57/Human_Evolution.pn...

> Also out of my knowledge, but the hypothesized tree of evolution contains only distinct species AFAIK. A true missing link would be an intermediate stage ...

They're all species. There's no such thing as an intermediate non-species. Species are conventionally defined as a group that breeds with its own group, and are distinguished by the fact that they cannot breed with other species. So all those intermediate stages were also species.

Some species didn't last very long, and the farther back in time we go, the less chance we have of locating clear evidence for particular species. But that doesn't mean they weren't species, as that term is defined.

There is no difference between "distinct" or "transitional" species. All species are transitional, that's the way evolution works. Some species are more long lived than others due to being well fit to their ecological niche but every species has the potential to evolve to other species even so.

One might consider as "transitional" those species that exist between stages of punctuated equilibrium (if you consider punctuated equilibrium valid).

It's not hypothesized, it's theorized. There's a massive difference between the two scientifically.

Fish with legs can be found in some pet stores. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

It's useful to illustrate the big gap that wasn't covered between some species.

I don't think the analogy with "links in a chain" is good though, but instead "link in the tree diagram".

Tree, yes much better term.

Although as a get out, I would try argue that in my head, even if not conveyed in my post, the the branches are sort of chains... Even then I can see that falling apart.

But yeah, over all, tree is much better.

I'd say the usefulness of the term is to cover cases where, as here, scientists aren't sure how predecessor A evolved into successor B.

Wouldn't that imply lots of missing links? Or are the vast majority of evolutionary, er, jumps known and understood?

My minor point was about a "missing link", in normal conversation it is used as though its one specific fundamental thing. Seems to me there are or would be many missing links.

Or, am I just pedantically reading far too much in to something that is a lose term and not a specific scientific thing? And now I think about it.....

There are usually lots of missing links in a chain, so to speak, but a "missing link" typically means any (reasonably estimated to be) definitive ancestor of Species 1,2,3...N, where 1,2,3...N are believed to be descended from a common lineage, but there is no extant proof of such. Even if there are 200 missing ancestral species in a theoretical lineage, a "missing link" is any of those 200 that demonstrates that the lineage existed, and that establishes its directionality. A missing link is a sufficiency, not necessary the completer of a set.

To your point: the word "link" implies that only one piece of a chain is missing, and furthermore, it suggests a linear relationship. It's misleading in both of those cases. But it makes for a good, easily understood metaphor.

Zeno's arrow paradox for evolution? Interesting.

An armoured fish? Like... a fish tank?

Thank you. I'm here all week. Try the placoderm.

Thanks for the chuckle. :-)

419-million-year-old fish resolves 'missing link' in evolution. Two new missing links now created. (creationist logic)

> A team of scientists, including an Australian,

Crikey, an Australian scientist. Whatever next

It sounded weird at first, but it is a website from Australia and I guess the news agency feels proud.

I assume they specifically mentioned it because it's an Australian website.

But upvote, because LOL :D

This is an Australian news website (run by the publicly funded national broadcaster), hence the need to tie in with an Australian angle.

We do this thing quite a lot actually. Most news articles that are positive will try to have some tie in with Australia to make it relevant to the readers. Maybe the bolts used to tie together the worlds highest balloon ride are made by an Australian company; they literally get as tenuous as that at times.

I'll skip another 'Welcome to journalism' comment, and instead observe that an Australian scientist may actually be surprising news under the new government there!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/20/tony_abbo...

> the fossil's jaw looks a lot like those of modern fish... She says this shows the Placoderm to be the ancestors of modern fish.

Admittedly skeptical layman here... but is that really enough evidence to draw that conclusion with that much certainty? Or is there more unreported context?

No, not really. Since it isn't observational it is best guess.

Does it make the earliest known organism that had a jaw, or are there instances of jaws evolving independently in other lineages (other than insects)?

I believe jawed fishes are just the ancestors of vertebrates (with jaws). Everybody else is on their own, chewing-wise.

No matter how many "missing links" are found, the die-hard fundamentalists will find a way to ask for more. I've grown up in that environment. There are discrete jumps in fossils; unless you can find a complete lineage from "a rock to a walking-talking human", no True Christian will even waver for a minute.

On top of that, I hate the term "missing link" because it immediately means that science is catering to these fundamentalists. It's another fossil, it fills in some previously extrapolated part of the graph. Great! But let's not play on religious turf, because there's no way to win there.

Well you really can't blame them. They literally don't know what they're talking about.

If I have 5 items, there are 4 spaces between them.

If I add a 6th item, then there are...5 spaces between them.

They'll always move the goal posts because they don't understand the mechanism you're trying to explain.

Nope. instead it will cement his beliefs that there is a sinister plot to weave a web of lies concealing the fact that Gawhd the Awlmighty created heaven and earth in seven literal twenty-four hour days.

I remember seeing a lecture by a Creationist "biologist" who said that in the late 1970s he looked at the old edition of an "evolution textbook" and the brand-new edition. In the old edition it said they didn't know what the link between modern cetaceans and their land-based ancestors was; the new edition claimed to have found such a link. And this was PROOF that they were lying.

I went onto Wikipedia and looked up when the fossils of early flippered cetaceans were discovered. Sure enough, it was 1979, in Pakistan.

In short, because Christian "knowledge" is circumscribed and explains everything, it is obviously correct. Because science is incomplete and has gaps that haven't yet been empirically filled in, it's obviously Satan's lies.

Your bias is showing through quite heavily, that may contribute as much to your lack of winning on "religious turf" as your arguments do. Yes, there are plenty of the believers that draw a hard line, but by stereotyping you potentially alienate other believers that would otherwise gladly contribute to the discussion.

There are many Christians that believe in evolution. There are many that believe in creation and many that believe in a hybrid of the two.

I consider myself a "True Christian", and yet I am not a die-hard fundamentalists. I believe that Someone got this whole party started, but I don't believe there are enough facts to establish exactly how much they interacted with this thing we call earth, life, and the universe.

If there is a God, then he would have to know all the science, even the science we don't know, sort of like the ultimate hacker. So he sets up his lab (the universe) aligns all the conditions and drops his sample into the petri dish (earth). I believe that much. The question is, how much did he have to interact with the petri dish after that? Did he have to add food? or zap things with lasers? Did he have to move the dish to a different light source at some point? If creation was setting up the lab and getting things started did he not still create this world?

Note: I don't think we're all just one big science experiment. But if God is all knowing (which is fairly universally accepted among the religious) then he would know science. But at the same time, are our scientists not working towards artificial life? Cold fusion? The physics behind orbits and the like? If we had all the resources and technology we needed would we not have scientists that would want to "move a planet" and try to start life?

Either way, now you have two people, one non religious, and one believer who have a common scientific understanding to start from: The theory of evolution is completely possible and we can work together to test, re-test, prove and improve the theory until it becomes fact or is disproved.

TLDR; Your stereo types and blanket dismissive statements can do as much to hinder the science you're trying to promote as the firm line that many of your opponents draw on this topic. You'll meet more success looking for and arguing to a common ground and then building from there.

IMO, your point about common ground is lost when you misuse the word "theory", which sadly (because I agree with what I think you were trying to say), gives his point more strength.

edit: oops, forgot to show you what i mean, read the first sentence of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I don't think I misused the word theory. I meant it as "not 100% fact". Even a scientific theory is not a fact.

"If only one fossil was to be found in the strata where it did not belong it would automatically disprove evolution theory--there would be no saving it. If a dog was found in the Cambrian period or a bird anytime before reptiles it would disprove the theory."[1]

Since we do not yet have the technology to map all layers of the earths strata to the point where we could find all existing fossils it still remains in the realm of possibility that a fossil is found in the wrong strata and the whole theory falls down. There are other falsifiable points to the Scientific Theory as well. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be a scientific theory it would just be a belief based theory. So far it has not been falsified, but it still falsifiable.

Maybe my word use was a little off, but I believe my intent remains intact. Anyone who says evolution is a fact is doing so on faith and doesn't understand or accept that their are still falsifiable points left that could happen. Yes, it's well past theory and into Scientific theory, but it's still a theory.

[1]-http://freethinkerperspective.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-darwin...

I generally don't see pro-science people making the argument that evolution is an unfalsifiable 100% fact. I agree with you that such arguments are within the domain of faith. Perhaps I am not being imaginative enough, but I can't think of an example of anything closer to an objective "100% fact" than a general scientific theory that survives over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny.

Aha, but they haven't found any fossils that bridge the missing link between this new Placoderm and the ones we already knew about. If evolution were true, we'd have found those fossils as well! All science can do is continually and conclusively prove that science doesn't have all the answers.

My holy book has the correct answers, I know because the book tells me it does. Therefore it trumps science.

Sadly, there will be millions of people who will think exactly this.

I hope it is only millions...

The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but I don't see anyone on here criticizing you for putting your faith in science. I would like to have thought that the Hacker News community would be above unwarranted comments such as this.

Short of actually taking the first two paragraphs literally, I don't think you could have misunderstood the point of my post more.

And no, I don't put faith in science. Faith means belief without evidence. I accept science. I acknowledge that scientists are human, and that humans can be fallible, corrupt, egotistical and plain old stupid. And I admire the Scientific Method for doing an excellent job of counteracting most of our human failings.

The definition of faith is, "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". It has nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence supporting the thing you have faith in.

Arguing dictionary definitions is so tedious.

That's just one of numerous definitions of the word, a historically legitimate definition to be sure. Sadly any innocent use of the word for that purpose is -- to my mind at least -- tainted by the other, socially dominant meaning.

And anyway, even using your cherry-picked definition, I still say I don't have faith in science, because I can't afford it "complete trust or confidence". While I do think the core principles of science are the best tools we have to describe the natural world, even these core principles can not be immune to questioning.

I am sure he doesn't have complete and total trust or confidence in evolution; evolution is after all, falsifiable. A rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian would surely rock his boat. The boat has already been rocked many times before, and course adjustments were made based on the new information conveyed by that rocking.

It just so happens however that none of the things that would kill the theory have ever actually been shown.

Faith does not mean belief without evidence, it is more belief in something not seen. That does not imply a lack of evidence.

For example, you have faith in the efficacy of a pharmaceutical product based on the fact that you trust the peer reviewers of the reports of its clinical trials, and the reputation of the journals those reports are published in.

Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion unless you had directly observed the experiments they were based on. Neither could you believe anything on the news or any historical event you hadn't observed.

So there's evidence-based faith, and faith-based faith?

There's pretty-good-guess faith and blind faith. Mathematical axioms and believing what other people tell you about science you haven't observed yourself are examples of the former. Belief in God varies between the two from person to person.

There's a way of formalizing this, so we don't have to rely on the imprecise and loaded word "faith": Bayesian probability, e.g. as described on http://lesswrong.com. See also http://rationality.org.

> Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion

Nonsense. I don't need faith to assign various claims varying degrees of trust and confidence.

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics, but I think that is a large part of exactly what faith is!

Or perhaps you just dislike the term because it's often used in a religious context?

You might be arguing semantics, but I'm not. I see a gulf of difference between any definition of "faith" and how I derive confidence in science.

No definition of faith I'm aware of relates to confidence based on weight of evidence, or balance of probabilities.

To use your example of pharmaceutical efficacy, I take a pill with the expectation that it will elicit results comparable to its stated claim. I hope that it works. I'm happy if it does work. But my worldview won't be shattered if it doesn't.

This was discovered in Yunnan, the southwesternmost province of China that is already well known for its fossil record, both in terms of early ocean life and humans. Just last year they discovered what appears to be an entirely new species of hominid[1]. I lived in Yunnan for 5 years and really fell in love with the place, which is surrounded by Tibet, Burma, Laos and Vietnam and is China's most biologically, climatically, culturally, historically and linguistically diverse province. Despite a near total lack of credentials, I'm currently writing a long form history of Yunnan for a general audience from prehistory through near-present in English, as a fun long term side project. I'm also an Australian. Australians have been involved in many other studies in the area, such as historical water level studies of the region's impressively large alpine lakes. Kew Gardens in London also collaborate with the province on a shared long term global seed bank project.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people

Today on HN: posts about missing links in evolution and rants about global warming reports.

Wonderful.

It is unfortunate that biology news has the capacity to cause such a shitstorm. Imagine if this sort of thing happened every time there was a new article about NASA discovering some new property of Saturn or something.

I guess we should be thankful that most religious have only chosen biology as a good place for a last stand in defense of a "God of the Gaps". Science discussion would be far shittier if they did this to every biology and chemistry discussion...

Arguably, the religious have chosen to pick on other sciences. Climate science, for instance. Hence, the GP's comment.

Maybe, is that really a religion thing though?

Sadly, yes. I've heard of some who believe that nothing man can do can possibly damage or destroy Earth before it's time for Armageddon, because man is unimaginably weaker than Earth's creator. Or, who believe that Earth was made for man, and thus will always have enough resources and never become inhospitable.

It looks like a 'shurtle': The product of breeding a shark with a turtle.

I can see the ad campaign right there: "Darwin's Whiskey, one night stands before it was cool". Or "Influencing evolution since way back". (With a picture of a shark and a turtle the morning after, with a "What have I done" expression).

Look for Shurtlenado on the Syfy network this fall

It resolves a missing link in the history of life, not evolution. The latter term is often used to mean the former, but I think that's a bad idea. It's confusing to people without a good understanding of the distinction.

Evolution, the scientific theory of how life changes over time, does not depend on the fossil record for its validity. It's trivially easy to study with living animals; thousands of undergraduates do it every semester with fruit flies.

Is your religion compatible with evolution? I'm curious to know what makes intelligent developers believe in the religion.

I think Islam is compatible with evolution, though many Muslims would beg to differ. There is some notion of God having a hand in designing humans, but that is worked around easily enough by assuming either extremely high precision in initial conditions of the universe or allowing for strategically placed genetic mutations and such. Clearly unfalsifiable, but it this isn't science, or any sort of proof, but just a lack of contradiction with science.

Note, this doesn't mean I believe everything in Islam is the one and only truth.

Pretty much any religion is compatible with evolution. Some of them have needed (appropriately enough) to adapt a bit, but there are (e.g.) lots and lots and lots of people who accept both Christianity and evolution.

(The US is very unusual in having so much creationism despite a reasonable overall level of scientific literacy.)

But could we please not turn this thread into an argument about religion? There are plenty of those on the internet already. The science is interesting enough in its own right.

You are right. I should not start talking about the topic. Thanks.

I'll assume your question was not meant to sound condescending (because I don't think it was).

Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution. Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and therefore is complete truth. The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution. That being said, there are lots of denominations of Christianity that have accepted evolution by "reading between the lines" of the creation story and assuming things that are not there. Catholicism, for example has made an official statement (by the Pope) that there are no incompatibilities between the two.

But, your question and the statement that follows are not related. I am not a Christian because I don't believe in evolution. The converse is also true; the reason I don't believe in evolution is not because I am a Christian. I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life. I am a Christian because having hope that someday everything that has happened here on Earth will someday be worth it is what makes me get out of bed in the morning. I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there was no purpose to life.

(And yes, I do consider myself an intelligent developer)

"I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life."

Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then? They also offer something that will make you feel comfortable with your belief; Christianity is nothing special or unique regard to some existence beyond your current life.

"I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is."

I couldn't disagree more. This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations.

"Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then?"

Maybe I stated it a little too simply, but I think you got my point.

"This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations."

I agree with you mostly. Life is precious. And the thought of "after-life" does drive some people to do some terrible things. But the same can be said for some people who believe they have nothing to live for. The "religious fanatic" argument only really works with religious fanatics and the unfortunate part is that they are usually the only ones that make the news. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left shaking our heads and hanging them in shame because of the senseless things that are done "in the name of < insert religious figure head here >".

But this has gone way off the topic of the article. The fish still looks cool and, as someone else put it, like a turtle fish. I wouldn't want to get into a fight with it.

turtle shark :-)

But yeah, I agree with you: even if I'm not an authoritarian/fundamentalist, I still believe in the core of the Christ story.

> I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there was no purpose to life.

This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can.

"This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can."

I guess I'm just not willing to accept that. I've always been stubborn.

> Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and therefore is complete truth.

Some of Christianity does.

> Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and therefore is complete truth

Very few Christian sects do that. Quite a lot of interpretation goes on (for instance, see consubstantiation versus transubstantiation).

"..., in its purest form,...'reading between the lines'...and assuming things that are not there..."

Should we assume that your answer was not meant to sound condescending? 'Cause it kinda sounded like it was.

> Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution.

I don't think this is true at all.

> The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution.

I think this is just a symptom of reading too much into the wrong thing - the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is not written as an exact historical account - the writing style is very different to the parts in Genesis that are supposed to be historical. And if it were meant to be about the literal ordering and times of creation, then why is there a creation narrative with a different ordering of creation in the very next chapter?

The point of the narrative is more theological - about the nature of God and humans. It's not making claims about cosmological mechanisms...

I think this article was fairly good on the subject but I read it months ago so I don't exactly remember - http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

Evolution is too general a term. Everyone believes in natural selection, because that is scientifically observable. Where many Christians (I can't speak for other religions) disagree with the scientific orthodoxy is whether or not natural selection is sufficient to change one species into another. We've observed finches turning into finches (with different beaks), moths turning into (different-colored) moths, but we've never observed a lizard turning into a bird. We've seen fossils that look like a lizard-bird, but that is not proof of the mechanism that created them.

For this reason, I often wonder why the subject of life origins (or related what-have-you) is deemed science in the first place. [EDIT: Likewise with between-species evolution.] As it stands, between-species evolution is something one needs to "believe".

Take the present fossil ostensibly under discussion here. Was that in fact an intermediary creature between species? I don't know, maybe. I do not see compelling evidence that we know for sure. I for one really have a hard time stating such things as facts with a straight face; I feel like I need to prepend phrases like "The fossil record suggests that".

Incidentally, I feel the same way about historical anthropology... statements like (making something up) "These ancient people wore fur hats and ate with their fingers out of stone bowls," based on some bowl fragment and a bit of fur found near the remains of a skull. Well, I don't know, maybe that was true! But such evidence seems weak to me, and hardly enough to present those ideas as facts.

And perhaps my gripe is more with mainstream media presentations and with loosely-written educational materials than with actual scientific research.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's what happened to life after it originated.

Oops! Edited. It looks like like you may still disagree with me though. :-)

Thank you. Because these two issues - life's beginnings and the account of the observed diversity of life - are conflated in (at least some) religious traditions, it's too often assumed by the ignorant that they're inextricably linked in all cases.

>> such evidence seems weak to me, and hardly enough to present those ideas as facts.

Maybe the problem is that you don't have the full context of the evidence being presented. How was the material found; was it in the exact same layer of dirt? Was it dated to the time period of the rest of the site? Some bowl fragments don't provide evidence independent of the context that gives them validity.

But you should be comforted to know that the evidence for evolution from DNA is so overwhelming that there is no room for doubt at all. Species are related to each other and the approximate time that their common ancestor lived can be established as well independent of any fossil evidence. There is no other plausible hypothesis besides evolution that can be presented to explain the evidence.

Which is bullshit. Anyone making such an argument doesn't know much about evolution or science or just ignores it.

I eagerly await your evidence.

First of all you aren't using the word species correctly. Different types of barnacles and birds that were observed in the nineteenth century were different species as were the different species observed on tropical islands that were related but clearly distinct from those on the mainland or from the fauna on other islands. In all of these cases only a hypothesis that they were related to a common ancestor could explain (1)how geographical variation seemed to imply corresponding changes in the fauna (2) how different species had 'adaptations' that provided advantages in their environment (3) why geographical variation seemed to be compounded the farther you got away from the mainland.

There is no other explanation besides natural selection that could explain these basic facts. Besides Darwin other scientists were independently converging on the exact same solution.

In the same way only natural selection could explain the existence of vestigial features among related families of species such as the existence of hind limbs in whales or the curious why that the eye of the vertebrates is constructed. This was recognized immediately in the 1860s once Darwin's work was published.

DNA evidence supports evolution 100%. Hypothesized descent from two families can be easily verified from DNA evidence. The whale really once had an ancestor that walked on the land with four limbs. There is simply no other explanation could produce DNA in the exact way that would be predicted from natural selection.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

"...whether or not natural selection is sufficient to change one species into another..."

Species aren't necessarily as well defined as you might like. The (complete form of the) usual definition is something like, "A species is a group of critters (that look alike, and) that interbreed among themselves but which do not (normally) interbreed (in the wild) with members of another group of critters (and produce fertile offspring)." (Plus a few caveats that I've probably missed.) There are many reasons why two purportive species do not interbreed: they physically can't, they produce sterile offspring, they don't find each other attractive, or they are simply geographically separated; although in the last case, separated groups tend to quickly become morphologically different, in which case one of the other options applies.

For a brilliant example of the taxonomic follies, check out ring species[1]:

"The Lesser Black-backed Gulls [of Northwestern Europe] and [European] Herring Gulls [mostly from Great Britain and Ireland] are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize [, but the E.H.G. can hybridize with the American Herring Gull, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull]; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe."

This is not to say that "species" is not a meaningful distinction, is a "judgement call", or is "open to personal opinion" or something. There are good reasons to divide critters up, but unfortunately, it is not the case that Someone sat down and said, "THESE THINGS ARE NORMAN'S HERRING GULLS, NOW AND FOREVERMORE!"

"We've observed finches turning into finches (with different beaks)..."

Finches are a family (as in kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) containing something more than 100 species.[2] Please don't make the creationist's error of declaring, "all bats are bats and are all one thing". If a different beak shape makes Rupert's Seed-Eating Finch unattractive to the Red-Breasted Yellow-bellied Fruit-Smacking Finch, so that they don't typically hook up, then they're legitimately different species, as much as any two others.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Finch

The actual paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...

All you guys are developers and you know how hard it is to develop a computer system. Our body has multiple systems running in perfect harmony. And all the animals has it too. The solar system with all the massive planets spinning with an unbelievable precision that we can calculate where a planet will be in 10.000 years from now. And they are travelling around the universe and you think now body is in charge? Somebody very very intelligent designed all this. And most of you hope that God does not exists because He left commandments that we not follow and He will judge each and everyone of us and because of that men hate God.

He sure took his sweet time.

Addendum: There's an argument here about Intelligent Design that I thought I should elaborate on. High intelligence tends to slow down your perception of time, in a manner of speaking. Low intelligence humans can persist at drudge jobs long enough to make a career out of them, but high intelligence people will eventually find something more interesting to do.

So Intelligent Design states that something incredibly smarter than us front-loaded a ginormous amount of design work such that after the big bang, billions of years later, we'd emerge, like clockwork, no continuing intervention required.

Where'd it go? What's it doing? If you want to dislodge evolution as a directionless force, and avoid Occam's Razor, you need to account for this intelligence somehow, because evolution already describes a reality in which it's not necessary.

You might as well say "bored teenagers like to light things on fire. Teenagers bored for very long times like to start very large fires. Therefore the fact that the sun is a massive nuclear inferno is evidence that it was created by an incredibly bored teenager."

Of course there is no evidence for this bored teenager, so making guesses as to the circumstances, motivation, and mental functioning of this teenager that could cause him to light up a nuclear inferno is just silly.

I prefer not to use this argument. It's not really all that interesting. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity-like figure, because you can't nail down specifically what they actually are.

If a God did exist, it could easily skirt our evidence-based process simply by leaving none. Science is of no help. But we could argue against particular ways that a God might act because action without intent is nonsensical, and a God without sense isn't God.

My point is that because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods, gods have no place in anything that calls itself scientific.

If you want to believe in Intelligent Design that is fine, it's a free country, but it isn't a scientific belief and has nothing to do with science.

Why restrict ourselves to the purely scientific?

Because anything else is offtopic. For some reason people always see fit to bring up their personal religious beliefs when the topic is biology, but it doesn't often get brought up when the discussion is, say, the formation of stars and planets. I don't know why that is, but I know that one tangent is not more appropriate than the other.

>>Where'd it go? What's it doing? If you want to dislodge evolution as a directionless force, and avoid Occam's Razor, you need to account for this intelligence somehow, because evolution already describes a reality in which it's not necessary.

You can state a similar(and in my view incredibly strong) objection to ID by pointing out that diverse bodies of evidence(DNA, morphology, speciation) support evolution in a way that would any other competing explanation would need to replicate. Considering this was identified in the 1700s once it was seen that whole classes of animals went extinct in the past it seems rather silly that with exponentially more evidence that has to replicated by a creation-like argument anyone would even consider ID as a serious view.

Um, we're talking science and evidence. No need to proselytize here.

I laid down the evidence. Just look around. Or I could ask you to show me the evidence of evolution. Could you do it?

There are entire literal libraries filled to the brim with evidence of evolution. If you were really interested in reading it you would have noticed that you are practically swimming in evidence of it by now.

Just give us 1 evidence for evolution. The best evidence you can find. So we can discuss if is a scientific evidence or just a "I think" evidence.

See, your unidiomatic usage of the word makes me worry that you don't even have a solid grasp on what evidence even is. I've already told you where you can read scientific literature about evolution, if you have any specific concerns I'm happy to discuss them; I often learn from those sort of conversations.

This site has a very gentle introduction to evolution, you can start here if you like: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Just one evidence. Can you give me? I bet you thought about the bacteria, uh? :)

This isn't going to work if you refuse to read comments that other people are kind enough to give you. I am telling you that there is a staggering amount of evidence for evolution. If you think otherwise, then take your pick. Pick at that massive body of evidence wherever you want, you don't need me to tell you were to focus.

Lets roll with this bacteria idea though, you seem to think you've got a clever game-plan lined up; what is your problem with bacteria?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be smarter than you. Probably, I'm not. I'm just trying to make you see that actually, there is no evidence for evolution. What you have is tons of text books telling they showed you the evidence, but they did not. And I pic bacteria because everybody give this as an evidence and think it's a prove of evolution. And it is not because in the end of millions of interactions in the lab the final result that a bacteria is still a bacteria. Show an experiment that in the starts with a kind of animal and ends with another kind of animal. I could not find one.

See here:

http://talkorigins.org

The site has extensive information about evolution, as well as a section that addresses claims and assertions made by creationists/ID proponents about evolution. Even if you don't wind up accepting that evolution is the best currently available explanation for the diversity of life on earth, it'd be worth your while to have a look, if only to gain a better (and more accurate) understanding of the theory of evolution.

This is the best example of Poe's law that I've seen all month. Thanks!

> All you guys are developers and you know how hard it is to develop a computer system

As some interested in both computer science and the science of evolution, one of things I know is that it has been demonstrated that computational systems that may be hard to deliberately design for have been demonstrated to be producable by processes fairly directly analogous to biological evolution, so long as they happen to be what is useful in the environment inhabited by digital organisms. [1]

[1] For a place to start, see http://avida.devosoft.org/about/

To add to what you are saying, one of the the interesting perspectives that computer science taught me early on was an appreciation for the emergence of complex behavior from simple rules. Cellular automaton are fascinating to learn about, particularly if you are having trouble grappling with the fact that not all complexity is born from equivalent or greater complexity.

Does that look like a turtle shark to anyone else?

Awesome.

Makes a prediction that there'll be a movie soon involving a group of partiers on vacation who get slowly gobbled up by this fish

(It'll be in 3D too)

You were thrilled by SHARKNADO.

Now get ready.

To experience a new terror.

Coming from 419 million years ago,

it rises one last time to swallow you whole!

It's the ANCIENSHARK!!!!!111eleven

Yes, I know it's not a shark, but really - who would go to see the ancient not-shark fish that just sits there with a dumb look on its face?

In the end they cook it and eat it. Then the sequel is that the people who ate the ancient fish start evolving into Neanderthals (sharkderthals?) IN 3D

how many times have we resolved the missing link ? Damn ! I should shut up, I will lose all my karma.

It's probably like software development.

"We fixed that bug, yay!"

"But now theres 5 bugs instead of one, what the hell?!"

"Well those are different bugs. Do you want them fixed, too?"

"AAAAAaah."

    99 bugs in our code, 99 bugs in our code.
    Look one up, mark it as fixed.
    103 bugs in our code, 103 bugs in our code...

wonderful - can we call it the infinite bugs song?

This is the advantage of programming over biology: when someone finds a "missing link", they only create two more opportunities to find more missing links. When a programmer fixes a bug, they can introduce an arbitrary number of new bugs.

Now there are two missing links.

Stop me if you think you've heard this one before

Reply on news.ycombinator.com