Discovery Channel Finds The Missing Link!

"the Missing Link" is an ancient misnomer, which no longer has any real meaning. There is no single missing link, as we now know human evolution to be a continuum of several steps from ape-ish to man-ish. Australopithecus is certainly one of those steps.

Probably what they were trying to say is that Australopithecus was the first hominid to display obvious human-like features, unlike earlier links in the chain, which were ape-like.

The Discovery channel is "popular" science entertainment, not peer reviewed scientific journalism. "Likely conjecture" is the best term I can think of for their brand of re-creation made so popular with the Dinosaur series.

Your point is well made yet I do not agree with the 'oopsy' nature of the (Disc. Chan.) statement.

I feel that the term 'missing link' carries with it a great deal of conjecture (perhaps conjecture is not the best term but it suits my presently short vocab) and is mis-leading for the very reason you propose - there is no such thing at this point.

Clearly the fossil record has many treasures yet to offer. And the scientific and philosophical communities will have much to say as these hidden glimpses come to light.

Perhaps a disclaimer should be presented to the viewer that indicates supposition and possibility are the theoretical concepts of some scientists and the film-makers but are in fact unproven to date.

Like my Granpa used to say; "Boy, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it just might be a duck. But then again it could be a weasel in a duck suit."

I agree totally with your dislike of "Science for Entertainment" and like you believe that everything should be proved or disproved before it is accepted as scientific fact.

But if I could paraphrase your Grandpa, "Boy, If it walks like evolution and quacks like evolution it just might be evolution, but then again it could be creation in an evolution suit"

I believe in evolution within "A Species" but I believe in the creation of "All Species", it just seems to make more sense. Evolution has never been proved, I believe alot of people just don't like the alternative.

I also don't think they will find a missing link, simply because I don't think there is one.

"The Missing Link"

Hi NUMPTY

I also don't think they will find a missing link, simply because I don't think there is one.

What you see above is "The Missing Link". My missing link. So for you, now there is one. With out us recognizing (it, he or she) there will never be one. Finding the missing link in a chain must exclude all other links. Very short chain I think.

I find missing links every day in all fields of interest. Missing links in Biology are so imponderable, vague and in the end boring to prove either way. Interesting subject for speculation or entertainment. To claim on a TV show to have found the missing link is as brazen as the version suggested by me.

So, I created my own. There you have it. "Science for Entertainment".

Have a good one. Ky.

Like my Granpa used to say; "Boy, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it just might be a duck. But then again it could be a weasel in a duck suit."

Love you r grampa's quote. It is only too accurate.

Thanks. He was a great man. If you search "Granpa" in CR4 you'll find many of his greatest hits.

Yeh... you got one of my pet hates... BAD SCIENCE.
There is a lot of it about...one of my favourites was the theories about the depression in the doorway of some iron age houses... obviously for ritual offerings.
Once the built an 'Iron age village' it became apparent that chickens just like making a scrape/dustbath in the doorway for some unknown reason! They did it in every house!

The other pet hate is when they show graphs with hugely distorted axes to illustrate whatever point they are trying to make.....

Oooh and another...'house prices are falling' when in fact the rate of increase is falling! This sort of reporting creates the news rather than reporting it. (actually at the present they are falling in some areas...but you get my drift)

Del

Yep! Unfortunately, when people wish to make a point favorable to their previously formed conclusion, the facts, or lack of them dont make much difference.

I did not see the program but I am very interested in this subject. When I did a google search what I found was that there is a great deal of controversy on this subject within the scientific community. Many may not be aware that there is not total agreement among creationists either. There are young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists and these have variations. What I find rather disappointing is that this type of subject cannot seem to be discussed without lowering our behaviour to that of monkeys, or chimpanzees, or apes, etc..

I think it would be really great if more of my fellow Christians would do enough research to realize that science supports the Bible and the Bible supports science, and that the scientific community/media would learn the difference between proven facts and theory. Maybe then we could agree to disagree, while we all wait for the next piece of the puzzle to fall into place and enjoy the excitement of discovery in the meantime.

funny, I just read (in Carl Sagan's book) that Austriowhatisname really WAS the missing link because it was the first primate with frontal lobes. Not that it proves anything one way or t'other, but hey...at least that's science...not the story of "po lil Blue". And as I recall there was something about hand axes or hammers or both...but I fell asleep before I could make sense of it. I keep thinking about making some sort of post here about that, but then, what do a bunch of engineers know about anthropology?

Joking guys...just joking! Honest!

Carl Sagan is so 1980. That's the thing about science - even if the Discovery program was 100% pure science, it would be incorrect in a few years. I've seen some of those shows - especially the ones on the planets - become dated in just a year or so.

But - everyone squawks about the US not producing enough scientists and engineers, so anything that generates interest in science, and is reasonably close to the current scientific understanding, gets my applause. I'd like to see a lot more of this sort of programming.

"the narrator stated that Australopithecus was, in fact, the missing link. No arguments. No discussion."

Now come on, people, don't you know that this is the NEW Science:

Anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusions is a nasty, dirty DENIER!

Bill Morrow

The show has been out for a few years. It is still B.S. for the non discerning.

One can conjecture all day with a limited data set and being correct is not a given.

Postulation should be labeled postulation or it is fraudulent deceit.

Shouting long enough or loud enough so every idiot believes you is not science but our sad state of politics.

To bad our schools teach compliance not discernment so such shows would be laughed off the air. To teach bad thinking is a multiple error. The mistake repeats like a virus. And if you point it out you are ridiculed by the mob.

My complaint of pseudo sciences labeled science.

Brad

Ah dohn neeed noo steeenkeeeng logik!

Juss tell me whhere I can gette a t-shirt that sez:

"Make the world safe for bad science, before it's too late!"

(in 5XL, pleeeze...?)

I'ze myselfs iz waitin fer opin seezen on baad syants, moven targetz iz mutch funnerz!

We know Neanderthals by DNA were a parallel "link" what makes them think that "Lucy" is not also. I'd bet we share more data points with Neanderthals and they are not supposedly a part of the chain (haven't read the pier review articles yet).

Archaeology has a lot of poetic license. Take this months Archaeology Mag. in an article on Stonehenge, unless you read the article real well the "Amesbury Archer" comes off as "Britten's First Immigrant".

That's how things like Gordon Moore's "Moore's Law" become "fact" when that is not what he said. I talked to him about it in 1995 or 6 and he found it amusing. Wounder if he still does.

Times up, have to get off my soap box.

Brad

Archeology is not strictly science - it uses science (hopefully) to illuminate the remains of past cultures. The more remains you have the more scientific your conclusions can be, the less remains you have the more artful your conclusions have to be.

In the case of human evolution (which is anthropology, not archeology) we can apply all the means of science available to us to examine the remains we find. But those remains are so few and far between that connecting the dots becomes an art.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

We have enough evidence to know that our Neanderthal cousins were just that, co-evolved contemporaries. Multiple co-evolved hominid species has been the norm, not the exception. AFAIK, we are the only hominid species to exist on the planet alone, and that's occurred only recently.

nah - I just watch the Discovery Channel