Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history

originally posted by: whereislogic

Then why all the media anouncements concerning so-called "missing links"?

How about acknowledging that the media does that for starters? (cause you sort of tip-toed around that subject since that reality doesn't jive very well with what you said that I was responding to) As shown in the example from The Guardian. Rather than pretending I "think tracts published by religious institutions is the media" or that I think that the media is a reliable source. Just a nonsensical paintjob that is so far removed from what's actually in my commentary, that it's just silly.

"Pretending?" I blatantly called you out on depending on media sources. Why do you think I did that?

originally posted by: whereislogicThe UK science journal New Scientist also used the term when it said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.” As quoted in the first article. A surprising choice of words if one takes your remarks about it seriously, in your other paintjob on the narrator of the Discovery Institute (sponsored*) video. (*: I don't know how it exactly works but I know the video is on their youtube channel)

Again, you here cite the media as if it were a source for Anthropological findings. The "media" reported that scientists had discovered teleportation as well. Do you believe that also?
Did you note that "not a missing link" was the phrase?
There is not a "missing link" anywhere.
The term "missing link" is meaningless in human evolution. There is no direct line from type to type to have a "missing link" in.
In the case of media sources, it's just lazy journalistic practice - akin to jingoism. Regarding religious bodies, I think we all know the motivations there.

Harte

Harte and ~Logic what exactly is this disagreement about?

a reply to: Harte

An example of a media anouncement regarding a supposed missing link being found was quoted because that was the subject there, anouncements of missing links. It was also what my question was about. It's all pretty obvious why I didn't just ask the question but also gave an example of what I was talking about.

You just have a problem with who is doing the quoting and how they bring this issue to light. But it won't change the fact that:

The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.” Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.” However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”

It's all rather embarassing and telling as to what's going on here, so I understand you don't want to answer any questions about it and instead prefer to focus on ad hominem argumentation and scoff.

a reply to: Hanslune

Yes, Harte has done an efficient job of distracting from my very simple question in regards to his comment. Making this about me rather than what I asked about or shared regarding those using the term "missing link(s)" (including scientists, professors, evolutionists, i.e. promoters of evolutionary philosophies and science journals).

But it's not a complex question. Harte said regarding the Discovery Institute video:

The fact that the idiot narrator brings up the old trope "the missing link" - a thing which does not (and cannot) even exist tells the whole story about the ignorance on display in the vid.

My response:

Then why all the media anouncements concerning so-called "missing links"?

And then I gave an example of such a media anouncement. Harte saw this as an opportunity to do a little twisting and paint all sorts of ridiculous things on me for asking a simple question with a simple example as to what I was referring to. He probably also didn't like all the quotations from evolutionists, professors and science journals talking about "missing links". None of whom he has called "idiots" or "ignorant" for using that term, only the narrator in the Discovery Institute is supposedly an idiot and ignorant for using that term (double standards for the purpose of the original paintjob on and ridicule of that video and its narrator). It's just this routine again:

Here's a well known technique used by propagandists and religious zealots* alike (*: see the article that discusses "the tyranny of authority" to see who I'm referring to with "religious zealots", or who is included; 2nd response to Harte):

muddy the waters

make an issue or situation more confused or complicated.

Source: Oxford Languages (via google)

More examples of that trick:

Talking about media hype regarding evolutionary research and publications of supposed major discoveries or groundbreaking research, and all the excuses used by the scientists as to why the hype and inaccuracies in the news media concerning their work and publications are not their fault (it's just very convenient for their careers and funding, as discussed in the article earlier about these media anouncements concerning missing links, in the answer to the question they raise there about it)...

The situation is appropiately described by James Tour in this video (cause the situation is the same in the field he's discussing):

So, basically nothing and you are using this opportunity to shovel in loads of propaganda. You think scientists control the media? LOL. I wish we did as they usually announce things with hyperbole and mistakes.

So, are you clear that there are no 'missing links''? That such references to them are not scientific? Do you get equally as mad that Christians often talk about Hell but Sheol doesn't actually mean that? Should we get all butt hurt if they use that term incorrectly? I certainly don't...do you?

originally posted by: Hanslune
You think scientists control the media? LOL.

No.

There's a very clear reason why some promoters of evolutionary philosophies (under the marketinglabel "Science") don't like the term "missing link" anymore. They don't want anyone being reminded that the fossil evidence does not fit what they are selling. As mentioned in one of the articles:

Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠ Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. Don't want anyone to be reminded that the actual fossil evidence of the claimed evolutionary links between ape and man, fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and bird, reptile and mammal, is "missing". (Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?; Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak) In spite of all the pretense to the contrary and regarding a supposed 'mountain of evidence' and media anouncements regarding new “missing links” having been discovered.

Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.

Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.

From that chapter about letting the fossil record speak:

...

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠33​—Italics added.

This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠34

Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠35

What About the Horse?

...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Hanslune
You think scientists control the media? LOL.

No.

Deleted nonsense

No.

So, basically nothing and you are using this opportunity to shovel in loads of propaganda. I wish we did as they usually announce things with hyperbole and mistakes. So, are you clear that there are no 'missing links''? That such references to them are not scientific? Do you get equally as mad that Christians often talk about Hell but Sheol doesn't actually mean that? Should we get all butt hurt if they use that term incorrectly? I certainly don't...do you?

i heard an interesting theory recently
that spurts in evolution/mutations and such
were caused by nearby super novas radiation.

has anyone else heard that?

i have no links.

originally posted by: sarahvital
i heard an interesting theory recently
that spurts in evolution/mutations and such
were caused by nearby super novas radiation.

has anyone else heard that?

i have no links.

Yeah, this paper seems to speak about it. link.springer.com...

After the Middle Miocene, two important climatic changes took place, consisting mainly of cooling in both hemispheres. One occurred between 7.0 and 5.4 Ma and another at the end of the Pliocene, which marked the beginning of the Pleistocene in approximately 2.58 Ma. The proposal of this presentation is to analyze diverse forcings of these climatic changes, such as the influence of the joint occurrence of reversions of the geomagnetic field and explosions of a supernova. These events occurred coincidentally with the cooling of Earth. Also, biological changes in those time intervals are analyzed, especially the evolution of the Hominins since the oldest hominin fossils.

The characteristics of the Galactic Cosmic Rays, its influence on the climate and its potential mutogenetic effect were taken into account. Briefly, according to our analysis, it seems to be evident that together with other factors, the joint occurrence of the explosion of a supernova at less than 100 pc from the Earth and the weakening and/or reversion of the Geomagnetic Field was an important factor that promoted these two climatic and ecosystem changes.