Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[Coyoteman]

Dear Coyoteman--came across a nice little quote, and I thought of you--

Anthropologists believe that the plural of anecdote is “data.”

IOW--Anthropology is just sociology with relics. A social science trying to pass itself off as important.

Actually, anthropology has traditionally been divided into four primary fields: cultural, physical (biological/medical), linguistics, and archaeology.

The cultural and linguistics fields more closely resemble sociology, but the philosophical underpinnings are significantly different. There is limited use of the physical sciences, and some use of statistics.

The archaeology and physical anthropology fields (in which my primary training is) make extensive use of the physical sciences, so much so that they barely fit into the same department as the first two fields.

As an example, just in the past two weeks I have had to deal with faunal remains (animal bone and human bone), floral remains (pollen, phytoliths, and macrofloral), radiocarbon dating, stable isotopes (15N/14N, 13C/12C), lithics (the stone from which tools are made), and a number of other technical fields. Other fields we have to know something about include geology, soils, statistics (including sampling theory), etc. Occasionally the county coronor calls with interesting problems.

I am fairly accomplished in a couple of these fields, and have to be able to do all of the others at a basic level or better, and understand/interpret/compile the results supplied by other specialists for the studies I can't do myself.

And, unlike sociologists, archaeologists are not afraid to get their hands dirty!

Nice try at an insult, though; better luck next time.

[Mamzelle]

Indeed. And there's a Nutritional Anthropologist on Alton Brown's "Good Eats." She can tell a good story--social scientists are frequently entertaining to listen to.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Having a creationist, not of science, come into the lab and telling the scientist of his opinion of what should be method is akin to having the night janitor going into the operating room and telling a brain surgeon his opinion and what method he should use.)


I also agree with you on this. The thing with me is that I don't dispute what evidence shows. I just get to wondering how complete it is. Which, is why I'm on these threads. I do have my doubts, but when evidence, and well reasoned explanations answer my questions, I'm good with that. It is not necessary for me to stick my head in the sand to maintain my beliefs, as I don't see a conflict.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Hook up a generator to your treadmill to get the POWER for your PC!



That's great! I imagine my accuracy will deminish while typing. Here, let me give it a try.

cab youuu telllleee whatrthI'm ewwrubthuhjfbjvahj./? djkshdhjdfgurfhgvyghoskj!hfjjj fucdj/'uryfsu_bd.
gprtghtoh whotrj so9ftheh sijrk
?! duhhhhhhhhhduhhdhhhjddrrrr.15$##%!#ye3876ubheyfytt!11.


How's that?

[jec41]

I also agree with you on this. The thing with me is that I don't dispute what evidence shows. I just get to wondering how complete it is. Which, is why I'm on these threads. I do have my doubts, but when evidence, and well reasoned explanations answer my questions, I'm good with that. It is not necessary for me to stick my head in the sand to maintain my beliefs, as I don't see a conflict.

My advice is keep a clear head and a open mind. In my life time I have seen more change and knowledge than in the previous thousands of years. I can remember when some people thought cars a passing thing and a sin (some still do). Of the first TV in town some people called it the devils work (some still do). Going to the moon was thought impossible and many deny that we have done so today. The first impulse of most is to refuse new knowledge and attempt to show it false. By trying to show it wrong with all the various evidence they usually show it correct at the time. Things will continue to change at a increasing rate and as new evidence and facts occur the explanation may be different. That you question with a open mind rather then a effort to protect opinion is most favorable. A open mind has few limits. If a explanation changes, review the evidence that forced the change. Knowledge is not absolute and as new knowledge occurs some old knowledge will be refuted and thus one's views on matters will change. Thirty years from now if you only have today's knowledge you will be thought backwards whether we advance or decline. The answer is to continue to learn with a active mind. Try to learn something new every day.

[jec41]

I have a math major and many of the math terms of today did not exist 40 years ago. Most times it is something I have learned with a different terminology. I simply keep my mouth shut until I can review it. That way I don't expose my ignorance.

[andysandmikesmom]

The word 'theory'is being used in a scientific manner...its meaning within the scientific world, does not change depending on what people, whether pro-ID, pro-evolution, pro-creation, whatever...the meaning of 'theory' within the context of science does not change, depending on what people use the word...that is really just plain silly...otherwise everyone could go around making up whatever meanings they wanted for whatever words they wanted...and that makes no sense at all...

[Conservative Texan Mom]

That was a very kind reply. I appreciate that. I've been giving so much of this a lot of thought. I find it all so very engaging and intellectually stimulating. It's pretty funny at times too. So thanks for having me! I will keep an open mind. My question, if they sound skeptical at times, are to satisfy my curiosity. I might play devil's advocate from time to time, but, and you will probably notice this, I'll do it from both perspectives. It's good to throw out a good challenge whether it be to a creationist, or evolutionist, since I am a creation evolutionist. I am amazed by the level on knowledge on these threads. It certainly has me studying, which I enjoy. I've been studying evolution, and the many different interpretations of creation, as well as philosophy. I thrive on learning. It makes me a better teacher for my kids, and makes life much more interesting.

[jec41]

philosophy

Pay particular interest to Descartes. Though not accepted he provoked much thought.

[jec41]

I have a question. What happens if science is forced to accept Creation or ID as a fact even if it is or is not? Who gets to explain the ID or God?

[Sun]

Sorry, I'm a free thinker. There are scientists that have more education than you or I, that agree with me, so what does continuing education have to do with it?

I'm also so secure in my beliefs that I don't need to put people down who don't disagree with me, as you and some other evos have attempted to do. Thou doth protest toooooo much.

ID is a scientific theory, and Evo is a scientific theory.

[Sun]

I don't know how evos can expect anyone to take them seriously when they are afraid to teach both theories in the classroom, and let students decide for themselves.

[Sun]

"....otherwise everyone could go around making up whatever meanings they wanted for whatever words they wanted...."

Kind of like what evo scientists do when they have a dictionary different from the rest of us????

[ml1954]

ID is a scientific theory

Except that 99+% of scientists don't think it is, and that by the accepted definition of 'scientific theory' it's not. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Even Behe, under oath in a court of law in the Dover trial, admitted that the definition of science must be changed for ID to be considered a scientific theory.

So you can repeat this all you want, but it won't advance your cause at all. Better find a new slogan.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't know how evos can expect anyone to take them seriously when they are afraid to teach both theories in the classroom, and let students decide for themselves."

ID/creationism isn't a scientific theory. There is only one theory (evolution) that makes testable claims that have been supported by the evidence. ID/creationism is a theological/philosophical position. ID isn't testable. The hypothetical *designer* is alleged to be able to do anything. There is no way to differentiate between a feature designed through natural processes and one designed by an Intelligent Designer (Human artifacts are the only exception, and we didn't created the Universe).

Leftists teachers have already tried Whole Language and Whole Math. Now creationists/ID'ers, allegedly on the Right, want to introduce *Whole Science*, where every claim is just as good as any other and we'll let the kids decided what is correct or isn't. Whole Math and Whole Language were great failures; Whole Science promises to be just as much so.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Kind of like what evo scientists do when they have a dictionary different from the rest of us????"

We use the same dictionary; we know that you can't just pick out of a hat which definition of a word you will use. Words like "theory" have long established meanings in science; so much so that the first definition you will usually find of "theory" is the scientific one. Anti-evos have to jump to the 4th or 5th definition in order to make it look like theory is a wild-ass guess. That sort of postmodernist technique is a direct attack on the language; this is usually a Leftist agenda. Destroy the language and words can mean anything you want them to.

Deliberately ignoring what words mean is not conservative.

[Mamzelle]

And I think there ought to be a limit on these crevo threads. Sideline them, combine them, put them in their own room, something. Fr is providing a venue for a gang of obsessive freaks who care nothing for conservatism.

[Mamzelle]

The evo-freakboys got together and decided on a list of definitions for here on FR. Then they spam that list endlessly, like it's an authority. Just refuse to credit it, ask "why should I take your particular list seriously?" They'd love to believe they can set the terms.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And I think there ought to be a limit on these crevo threads."

Nobody is forcing you to join these threads.

" Fr is providing a venue for a gang of obsessive freaks who care nothing for conservatism."

Well, the anti-evos have a right to post here too. It's a big tent.

"The evo-freakboys got together and decided on a list of definitions for here on FR."

No, we use the commonly accepted definitions of words. We didn't write the definition of a scientific theory; it's hundreds of years old. Anti-evos want to makeup whatever definition they feel like using. That is why they have to pick the 4th or 5th definition on the list for theory to become a wild guess. That's what leftists do.

"Then they spam that list endlessly, like it's an authority. Just refuse to credit it, ask "why should I take your particular list seriously?" They'd love to believe they can set the terms."

Unlike you, we know words have specific meanings. We are trying to saving conservatism from postmodernist claptrap.

[js1138]

Aren't you aware that true patriots, like Dr. Dino, are out on the front lines, showing their patriotism by refusing to pay taxes and flouting community laws.

Anarchy is the only true form of conservatism, apparently.