gorillagirl wrote:
Last I saw Ida didn't have enough strepsirrhine characterisitcs to be in the lemur group, so was sort of assigned to the haplorrhines (monkey/ape mega group). Has this changed?
GG is SMART.
| Dominion Lunch http://www.dominionlunch.com/ |
|
| Ida, the "missing link" http://www.dominionlunch.com/ida-the-missing-link-t3640.html |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Zwick [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Ida, the "missing link" |
may not be after all. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_controversial_fossil |
|
| Author: | CookieKwan [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
I think darwinius is my new favorite word |
|
| Author: | Zwick [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
It would be my pet name for my winky, had I felt the need to give it a nickname |
|
| Author: | zerospeaks [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
There is no such thing as a missing link. We have more than enough links. However this happens all the time, they are just arguing over where exactly in the tree it should be put. Neanderthal was first thought to be a "link". However now we realize it was just an off shoot. Another branch if you will. We did not evolve from them, they evolved separately. |
|
| Author: | Zwick [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
This new skeleton is now though to be a lemur. News agencies really don't care if something has been peer reviewed. If it can generate excitement in the general population, they run with it. That's why I never pay attention to ANYTHING reported by the Center for Science in the Puplic Interest. |
|
| Author: | CookieKwan [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
zerospeaks wrote: There is no such thing as a missing link. You obviously have no idea who Manny Ramirez is then |
|
| Author: | Zwick [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
Remember Milt Thompson? He might be |
|
| Author: | zerospeaks [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
"News agencies really don't care if something has been peer reviewed." It is being peer-reviewed right now. That's why the debate over it has begun. Apparently this guy sat on it for years and now that it is out the real debate can begin. I have a feeling they will end up siding with him though. He had several different experts from different fields study it for years before they decided to classify it and release it. |
|
| Author: | gorillagirl [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
Last I saw Ida didn't have enough strepsirrhine characterisitcs to be in the lemur group, so was sort of assigned to the haplorrhines (monkey/ape mega group). Has this changed? |
|
| Author: | Zwick [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
The article said it is in the family that includes lemurs. I don't know how broad that is |
|
| Author: | Logan [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
gorillagirl wrote: Last I saw Ida didn't have enough strepsirrhine characterisitcs to be in the lemur group, so was sort of assigned to the haplorrhines (monkey/ape mega group). Has this changed? GG is SMART.
|
|
| Author: | gorillagirl [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
Awww, thanks Logan, but I have the dumb a lot of time. The doco I saw said that Ida wasn't placed in the lemur group because she lacked the features that are found in the group, but I see they have changed their mind now. |
|
| Author: | free cat [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
zerospeaks wrote: There is no such thing as a missing link. We have more than enough links. However this happens all the time, they are just arguing over where exactly in the tree it should be put. Neanderthal was first thought to be a "link". However now we realize it was just an off shoot. Another branch if you will. We did not evolve from them, they evolved separately. Did you see they came out and said we used to have sex with neandrathals? I'm guessing it wasn't our male ancestors who were going for the hairy, muscular, and dangerous types. |
|
| Author: | zerospeaks [ Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
Quote: Did you see they came out and said we used to have sex with neandrathals? I'm guessing it wasn't our male ancestors who were going for the hairy, muscular, and dangerous types. It would make sense. Human females evolved to accept the genes of a man who could bring home the most meat, to provide for the family. Human males evolved to give genes to any woman willing to accept them. The truth sucks. |
|
| Author: | free cat [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ida, the "missing link" |
What? No, it wasn't about forming a traditional family unit. They were a different species and the mating couldn't produce offspring. It was all about the bad ass neanderthals getting some evolved poon. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|