Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Massive New Cambrian-Era Fossil Bed Found

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the long-term-storage dept.

Canada 108

jfbilodeau sends word of a massive new trove of fossils located in Canada, which scientists say will rival the acclaimed Burgess Shale fossil bed. The rock formation inside which both fossil sites were found is roughly 505 million years old (abstract). The fossils provide insight into the Cambrian explosion, a time that brought the rapid appearance and diversification of many animal forms. "In just two weeks, the research team collected more than 3,000 fossils representing 55 species. Fifteen of these species are new to science." Paleontologist Jean-Bernard Caron said, "The rate at which we are finding animals — many of which are new — is astonishing, and there is a high possibility that we'll eventually find more species here than at the original Yoho National Park site, and potentially more than from anywhere else in the world." The fossils at the new site are about 100,000 years younger and are better preserved than those at the renowned Burgess shale site.

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just checking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221101)

You guys know Beta sucks, right?

It's the devil (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221181)

These 'fossils' are in fact put in place by the devil to convince mankind that there is no God, driving more hapless followers into his evil realm.

Re:It's the devil (4, Insightful)

Punko (784684) | about 6 months ago | (#46221287)

I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

Colour me surprised.

Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.

Re:It's the devil (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221571)

I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

Colour me surprised.

Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.

Oh, the hubris of the fundies who think that.

If God does exist, He damn well could have created man in His image via evolution.

Re:It's the devil (1, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 6 months ago | (#46221829)

To quote a great bit on this line of thinking from Robin Williams, the majoritie of fundies will say "no, God just went 'click'"

Re:It's the devil (1)

outlander (140799) | about 6 months ago | (#46222423)

He wouldn't have done it via image. He'd have kicked 'em, and used [puppet | chef | salt ] to customize the configs.

Re:It's the devil (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46221583)

No, you got trolled.

Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones. But only the loud and idiotic get on TV so now we have a christian stereotype. I believe in God and I don't presume to tell him how he went about creating the universe. In my opinion science is the method by which we understand God.

As far as the literal interpretation of the Bible goes... I've never really thought any religion, especially Christianity, intended for entire professions to be wrapped up in deciphering their holy works word for word to find hidden meanings. The Bible gives a pretty clear and definitive guide to being a good person. If someone needs to spend half an hour flipping from page to page to show me the clues to that lead them to believe some secret truth held there-in I usually just write them off as having way too much time on their hands. I know I'm a good person and have faith that God agrees with me. After I'm dead, if I find out Gods as big of a Jerk as these people have been claiming all along, well I don't want to hang out with him anyway. And if I find out there is no God... well I guess I wont find out will I? So it doesn't matter.

Re:It's the devil (2, Insightful)

Punko (784684) | about 6 months ago | (#46221905)

Not a Christian stereotype, a fundamentalist one. I refuse to stereotype as Christian those that use the Christian moniker for such restrictive viewpoints.

I completely agree that most Christians believe in evolution and the use of science to understand the existing universe, regardless of the source of the Universe.

I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.

As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.

Re:It's the devil (1, Offtopic)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46222247)

Well you're never going to cure another man of his bigotry against you and your beliefs by reciprocating that bigotry. In my time I've debated a lot of fundamentalists of several different religions. In almost every case I got to the end of the debate feeling pity for the person because I'd eventually realize their fundamentalism was just a manifestation of a much deeper set of problems.

One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.

His father stored off with him in tow, and at the very least that particular street corner was more peaceful, but hopefully his son could find his way through faith without the anger his father was consumed with. I don't know what happened to his father to make him that way, but I certainly don't hate him for it. I pity him, and did what I could to help him out of the clear hell he was living in.

Re:It's the devil (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 6 months ago | (#46222813)

One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.

Omnipotent: having all power (that exists)
Omniscient: having all knowledge. While the question about the square circle is about omnipotence, not knowing that answer shows that you are not omniscient.

The question I've often heard is: Can God create a rock so large that He couldn't lift it?

Re:It's the devil (2)

Stinky Cheese Man (548499) | about 6 months ago | (#46229209)

I can't defend the appalling behavior of your street-corner preacher, for "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

But C. S. Lewis had a good answer to your question about the square circle (or the more often heard question of "could God make a rock so large that he could not move it.")

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

... meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

Re:It's the devil (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46222275)

As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.

Personally, I find it interesting that men like Lincoln ran around saying that they hoped that they were doing what god wanted, while working hard to be good, while men like reagan and W ran around saying that they knew that god backed them in what they did and that it was all good, in spite of the lies, deceit, and thousands/millions (respectively) that were murdered in all of their invasions.

Re:It's the devil (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46222681)

while men like reagan and W ran around saying that they knew that god backed them in what they did and that it was all good,

I don't know that Reagan and Dubya held that position. Can you point me to quotes where they said such a thing? Make sure they're real, traceable quotes, not links from a fever swamp of some variety.

Re:It's the devil (0)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46222371)

I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.

I could introduce you to a large number of people in my town, then, if you're feeling left out.

Re: It's the devil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222777)

It really comes down to:

Did the Big Bang happen all by itself and did all existence emerge from nothing?

Or

Was the Big Bang initiated by an advanced form of life?

Re: It's the devil (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 6 months ago | (#46228325)

why advanced?

Re:It's the devil (1, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#46222431)

No matter how sane you are, once you reach senility your life savings still go to the first charlatan selling tickets to heaven. Usually though these days he wears a white lab coat.

Re:It's the devil (4, Informative)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46222433)

Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones.

Those statements are questionable without some significant disclaimers. Are you taking about worldwide or just the US? What qualifies as 'Christian' 'fundmentalist' or 'believing in evolution'?

Consider the latest highly publicized Pew Research poll [reuters.com] on the subject. One-third of Americans believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time". Note that's not disagreeing with the theory of natural selection or postulating 'God's hand', this is utter denial that species evolved over extremely long periods of time. For those that identify as white evangelical Protestants (a good surrogate for 'fundamentalist', I'd say) , that number is 64 percent. Also, FWIW, only 43 percent of Republicans agree that "humans and other living things have evolved over time".

So at least in the US, it would appear that most 'fundamentalists' (and Republicans) *do* reject the evolution of species outright. And while I can't say that third of *all* Americans that would represent a majority of Christians, it is safe to assume that those people would overwhelmingly skew Christian, and therefore if most Christians *do* believe in evolution, it's a slim (and apparantly shrinking) majority, at least in the US.

Clearly, deniers of evolution are not just a fringe minority with a loud voice, these beliefs are frighteningly mainstream.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46222765)

How one asks the poll questions is important. Polls can 'reveal' about anything that the pollster wants. The 'Pew Research' organization, for some reason, sounds in my head in the voice of a National Public Radio announcer. Perhaps that's where I've heard them cited most often. Daniel Shore's voice, or someone else with that 'NPR' diction.

Judging from what I read here, a lot of people on this forum hope deeply that what they believe, namely that there are a bunch of dumb people out there, is true. It's odd, but possibly validating to think like that.

Re:It's the devil (4, Informative)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46222931)

How one asks the poll questions is important.

Read the link from the previous post. Respondents had two choices: "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" or "humans and other living things have evolved over time". That's about as binary a choice as is possible on the subject, and the former choice pretty well defines 'creationist', that is, that one rejects all evidence of the evolution of species.

These results are pretty much in line with all other polls I've seen over the last 25 years. Do you have any contrary evidence to show that these numbers are massively overstated? Otherwise your clutching at straws to dismiss such data as just something to validate a deeply held hope that there are many "dumb people" out there (I, for one, find no hope at all in the idea) strikes me as a mere rationalization to deny that it could actually be true.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46223643)

That's about as binary a choice as is possible on the subject

Which makes it unsuitable for interrogating about beliefs that aren't similarly binary such as the example you gave.

Re:It's the devil (2)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46224573)

Really? While it doesn't make any distinction between anywhere on the spectrum from "I fully accept the theory of natural selection and the timelines of mainstream paleontology" to "I accept scientific observations that the earth is billions of years old, but I believe God intelligently designed the process", it does provide a properly binary choice: either you believe that the factual evidence for the evolution of species is real, or you don't. What third option is there?

Sorry, but if one agrees with "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time", then then that person *is* by definition the most extreme form of evolution doubter, i.e., the young earth creationist. (OK, I guess there might be some old earth creationists out there that believe that life has continued for billions of years in unchanged form, but that makes about as much sense as the the young earth evolutionist. [smbc-comics.com] )

If you want to disagree with the actual results/methodology, fine, but as I've noted, these numbers are not out of line with other polls I've seen. But it's disingenuous to attack the wording of the question when so many respond affirmatively to a statement that is unambiguously equivalent to "the evolution of species never happened".

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46225723)

While it doesn't make any distinction between anywhere on the spectrum

Yep. That's my point.

Re:It's the devil (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46226221)

Yep. That's my point.

But so what? The question is still entirely unambiguous by its construct, essentially, "do you believe humans and other species are unchanged from the beginning of time, or not?" There's no credible gray area there; if you answer in the affirmative, you deny or ignore all evidence of the evolution of species.

So while you can't draw any nuances from the views of those who chose the evolution option, it does quite clearly identify those who reject evolution entirely, right down to the fossil record. And the poll indicates an overwhelming majority of evangelicals and a very substantial percentage of self-identified Christians in general quite clearly, again, reject evolution *entirely*.

Which was *my* point, as counter-evidence to the OP's assertion:

Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones.

...where it appears the first assertion is at best marginally true (it shows a slim majority of Christians don't reject evidence of evolution entirely), and the second seems to be demonstrably false. I understand the inclination of the Christians who don't accept young earth creationism to distance themselves from it and to downplay its significance in the Christian faith, but that doesn't change the fact that by all estimates YEC is a very widely held belief among US Christians (your denomination may vary) and the dominant belief of US evangelicals.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46227629)

But so what?

It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints. Kind of how voting often works, especially in the US.

Re:It's the devil (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46230727)

It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints.

OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time". There's certainly none I can think of.

Not to mention, compared to other polls I've seen that *do* offer more nuanced options, this poll actually shows a *lower* number for the number who reject evolution (other polls show 45% or more). If anything this poll is biased towards showing people *favoring* evolution, not rejecting it.

For instance, look at Gallup's polling [gallup.com] on the subject over 30+ years. They offer 3 options...

- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God guides the process.

- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God played no part.

- God created humans pretty much as they now exist at some point within the past 10,000 years or so.

Yet with these more nuanced options, the creationist position has consistently averaged around 45% going back to 1982, 12 points higher than the Pew poll which you assert forces people into the more extreme position. Kind of blows a hole in your hypothesis, I'd say.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46235725)

OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time".

Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.


If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.

Re:It's the devil (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46236095)

Since you kept on this far...

Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.

That's a weak cop-out. You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process. Oh, you may have few jokers or idiots who don't understand the options, but that kind of noise is in every poll. You may as well say that no poll result (or in this case, 30 years worth of consistent results) can ever be trusted at all because people just answer randomly. If so, your argument ends there.

If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.

Well, now you're just coming up with rationalizations why the polls *can't* be true. In my view they *have* had significant success promoting their agenda, quite overtly, especially in the areas where these beliefs dominate. (And make no mistake, it is to a large extent a geographically and demographically concentrated worldview.) Even if I concede that with those numbers they should be even more successful, that doesn't prove anything about how prevalent they are. I would argue a large part of what keeps them from promoting their beliefs any further than they do is a functioning (at least somewhat) separation of church and state.

Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair. And if you have such evidence, by all means, bust it out. If not, though, then I have to go with the best evidence I have, which states otherwise.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46236279)

That's a weak cop-out.

Doesn't matter. It's good enough.

You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process.

I don't know any such thing. You don't either.

Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair.

Elections in the regions in question are a good indication that there are considerably less such people than claimed by the polls. Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?

My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population. If it really was 40-45% as claimed by the Gallop poll and others, then the US would look a lot different than it actually does.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46237449)

Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?

Well, just because you believe in creationism, doesn't mean you also wish the state force creationism onto others.

AFAICT, the polling question was only on what the person believes in, not whether they want the state to do something about it.

Let's have some nuance here ;)

And then there's money. There's more money from scientists (like those AGW scientists remember?) pushing their global warming agenda.

There's a casual link between climate scientists and fossil scientists too: climate scientists tell us we should stop drilling for oil, stop cutting down trees, etc. This benefits fossil scientists as the environment would be left undisturbed for them (because messing up the environment for profit is doubleplusungood, messing up the environment FOR SCIENCE is ok). If fossil scientist are successful in discovering more proof for evolution, they further indoctrinate kids to believe in science, which leads to believing in AGW, benefiting the climate scientists.

While the church also has money, I'll compliment the church and guess that much of the church's money is spent on actual charity, including education.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46244991)

Well, just because you believe in creationism, doesn't mean you also wish the state force creationism onto others.

But you do wish the state to force evolution onto others, which you don't believe in? I don't buy that reasoning at all.

Re:It's the devil (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 6 months ago | (#46239109)

My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population.

Yet over this entire exchange, you have yet to produce one shred of solid evidence for this, and dismiss out of hand all of the evidence indicating otherwise. Kind of like the creationists, actually.

You are pretty much reduced to (a) claiming that accurate polling is impossible on the matter (rendering the question unanswerable, how else can you measure the prevalence of beliefs?), and (b) claiming an unfounded number based upon your mere supposition of how those number would manifest politically, even though I (and the AC above, which I'm amazed anyone would still be following this thread) offered explanations why that would not necessarily be true. (Not even to mention, I think you overstate your general premise that creationists have a "really hard time" promoting their agenda, I assert they do quite well at it, especially in the areas where they are politically dominant).

Obviously, at this point I'm not going to convince you to accept any evidence that contradicts your belief. But you have made it clear that all you have to contradict that evidence is your belief, much like the creationists. So unless you have some actual contrary evidence as opposed to speculation and your unfounded "take" on the prevalence of creationist beliefs, I declare this horse fully beaten to death.

Re:It's the devil (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46244963)

Yet over this entire exchange, you have yet to produce one shred of solid evidence for this, and dismiss out of hand all of the evidence indicating otherwise. Kind of like the creationists, actually.

Recall I mentioned elections? That's hard evidence. Let me elaborate. There are several indications from elections for school boards and similar positions that creationists are not very common:

1. ) The development of Intelligent Design propaganda. If 40-45% of the US population is hard core creationist, then why the need for creationism-lite?

2. ) Non-uniform distribution of creationists. Keep in mind that if there really were that many creationists in the US, they would not be uniformly distributed. There would be places like the Bible Belt or Utah and Idaho where they would have a much higher concentration. As a result, they would be dominating the politics of those areas in a way that isn't actually being done. The fact that school boards and similar political organs aren't normally dominated by creationists indicates to me that they don't actually have a voting majority anywhere in the US.

3. ) It is rare for a creationist-heavy board to come to power and they generally do so by hiding their beliefs until they get a voting majority. Ninja boards are another indication that they aren't that numerous.

4. ) And when a creationist-heavy board does come to power, their goals are very limited, usually to things like advocating ambiguous "alternative viewpoints" to evolution.

5. ) And most of the time, when a creationist-heavy board does do the above, it gets voted out. Seriously, check up on a few of the famous cases from previous years.

So a Gallup poll says one thing and thousands of US election polls say another. Which should I believe? No offense, but I think this demonstrates that Gallup has gone downhill.

Re:It's the devil (1)

Stinky Cheese Man (548499) | about 6 months ago | (#46228953)

The poll questions, as well as your comments, reveal more about the misconceptions and prejudices of the speaker than about the actual beliefs of the respondents. A thoughtful YEC (Young Earth Creationist) could not answer "yes" to "do you believe humans and other species are unchanged from the beginning of time?" First of all, in the Genesis account of creation living creatures were created on the fifth and sixth days, not at "the beginning of time" (the first day). Second, no one in the YEC community believes that "species are unchanged". YECs allow for natural variation within created "kinds", which roughly correspond to the "family" in scientific classification. For example, a YEC would believe that most Felidae species descended from an original "proto-cat" (my term) through a designed process of limited adaptation. What a YEC does not believe is that inanimate matter plus chance plus time led to the great diversity and complexity of life that we see today.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46226797)

There are almost never binary choices. I can correctly answer true to 'existed in their present form' since before humans there was no concept of time as we couldn't think about it before we existed. We evolve slowly, so by the time we came up with the concept of time we were already similar to how we are now.

I don't believe many (if any) people used than interpretation when answering the question, but it's a valid interpretation if 'beginning of time' wasn't defined. English sucks. Word choice is extremely important. There are always different interpretations.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46223679)

Are you taking about worldwide or just the US? What qualifies as 'Christian' 'fundmentalist' or 'believing in evolution'?

The trouble is that US Americans ALWAYS impose the consequences of their irrationality on everyone arond them.

Case in point: this discussion. Many of us are interested in geology and archaeology, We would have enjoyed a discussion about the fossil beds, their composition, deposition process, the reason for their persistence etc. Instead, the Americans in the audience have (as they always do) hijacked the discussion for their own personal religious soapboxes. And it is monumentally DULL. Everybody has read these arguments here over and over and over again. They're repetitive, irrelevant, and uninteresting (to anyone outside the USA).

Slashdot doesn't need Beta to chase people away, just rude, arrogant and inconsiderate Americans.

World wide christian believe in evolution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46225325)

For example the vatican has long recognized evolution, and the earth as being very old. In europe creationism, YEC, and so forth are nigh unknown. It is an indiosynchrazie of the US with YEC and creationism, litterral bible interpretation.

Re:It's the devil (2, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 6 months ago | (#46222989)

> I believe in God

Why?

Re:It's the devil (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46222993)

Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones.

Actually, the numbers are inconclusive.

No less an expert on Christianity than Fox News recently told us that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
http://www.foxnews.com/science... [foxnews.com]

And 77% of Americans self-identify as Christian, with approximately 60% of them being classified as "evangelicals, fundamentalists and pentecostals".

If we start with the assumption that the only Americans who don't believe in evolution are part of that 60% of 77%, we can not with certainly say that "even the fundamentalist ones" mostly believe in evolution. Not if you back into Fox News' authoritative assertion of "1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution".

I can't think of another group that collectively tends to deny evolution, but I might be missing something.

Further, I would bet that the subset of people who don't believe in evolution is entirely within the subset who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.

What do you think? Do you think there is anyone who does not believe in evolution and does believe in climate change? I can't imagine it.

Re:It's the devil (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46224127)

foxnews id a horrid source. They have a long and well documented history of lying and leaving out important details. Far more then any other news agency. There is a reason that can't call them selves a news agency in Canada. IT's so bad that it just shouldn't be trusted no matter what side they appear to represent.

It's more complex the what FoxNews is saying in there effort to get creationism thought of a a legitimate science. Since that have no evidence, they resort to public opinion, as if that is good data.

try:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/1... [pewforum.org]

Re:It's the devil (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46225005)

foxnews id a horrid source. They have a long and well documented history of lying and leaving out important details. Far more then any other news agency. There is a reason that can't call them selves a news agency in Canada. IT's so bad that it just shouldn't be trusted no matter what side they appear to represent.

Oh, I agree completely.

But they did report the same number as the Pew site you studied. I was being sarcastic about Fox.

Re:It's the devil (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46228391)

its sad when the news sources (Fox news MSNBC) cant be trusted because they are so full of shit that we in america have to rely on outside sources for reliable news

Re:It's the devil (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46228369)

well I believe in evolution but not AGW. or correction, I dont disagree that AGW *may* be happening, I simply believe if it is, its not the doom and gloom that the supporters make it otu to be.

to me, the AGW crowd is the same as the people who believe that the rapture is coming, just their rapture is sea rising.

Re:It's the devil (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46228679)

well I believe in evolution but not AGW.

OK, you didn't read what I wrote.

I'm not saying that all climate-change deniers don't believe in evolution, I'm saying that all evolution deniers don't believe in climate change.

I think there is certainly room for someone who accepts science to question AGW. But not believing in evolution comes with a cultural, tribal set of beliefs that would include the notion that there is some conspiracy among scientists to fabricate man-made climate change in order to advance an evil secular agenda.

Re:It's the devil (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46232487)

After re reading i do see that your subset was reversed from the way I initially read it.Thank you for clarification

the meek shall inherit the worst (1)

epine (68316) | about 6 months ago | (#46227549)

Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones. But only the loud and idiotic get on TV so now we have a christian stereotype.

Where are all the loud Christians— the ones who aren't insane—when it comes time to shout down the anti-scientific bias being introduced into school systems in certain American states?

I'll take what you're saying far more seriously when I see the sober-minded Christians busy shouting down their own who cross the line. I sure as hell shout down scientists who begin to claim more than science can reasonably pretend to know. This particularly stereotype was well and duly earned through meek opposition. The meek shall inherit the worst.

Re:It's the devil (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 6 months ago | (#46228113)

you damned communist! oh wait .....

Re:It's the devil (0)

rthille (8526) | about 6 months ago | (#46222213)

Well, if you buy the whole bullshit story, then it's the same thing, since god created satan and nothing happens in the universe without god's knowledge and consent.

Re:It's the devil (0)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46222349)

I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

Colour me surprised.

Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.

You haven't read the Book of Job? Satan was allowed to put them there by God to test the faithful.

It's a joint effort.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222459)

The book of Job is a description of regression testing....

Re:It's the devil (0, Offtopic)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46222355)

were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

As were Hookers 'n Blow. So who are we to question God's divine plan? Personally, I welcome such a test. To prove my worthiness in His eyes, of course.

Re:It's the devil (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 6 months ago | (#46228733)

why is this OT (state as of 12022014 1617CET) ???

I respect hookers that respect my money. This already is a selection criteria that is sharp like a razor and if I were smart I would have also used why choosing my ex-wife by I digress. The hookers are as much of god's plan as the rest. I can imagine however that those not enforcing use of condoms should be condemned to hell, at least as long as all health issues associate with such reckless approach are not resolved.

Re:It's the devil (1)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#46222663)

Okay, okay, settle down. They both did it to outfox the other.

Re:It's the devil (1)

arobatino (46791) | about 6 months ago | (#46227209)

I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.

If that's true, then creationists are being blasphemous when they suggest that their beliefs are supported by physical evidence, since an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn't leave any. (Although they're obviously not above it if that's what it takes to get it taught in public schools.)

Re:It's the devil (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221319)

Darn that devil for foolin' us! But Darn god for giving us deductive reasoning. It's god's fault I'll end up in hell.

Re:It's the devil (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221493)

The devil's deception is so exquisitely designed and executed that it is worth studying and admiring.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222567)

They are, as everything, God's creation. So He clearly wanted us to find them, and come up with the theorie of Evolution. So who are you people do disagree with the Lord, all non-evolutionist will rot in Hell.

So this means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46223441)

FUCK BETA!!!111one

Re:It's the details (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46223467)

These 'fossils' are in fact put in place by the devil to convince mankind that there is no God, driving more hapless followers into his evil realm.

There are many theistic evolutionist out there, and many creationists that do not believe in a "young earth".
If anything, this would bolster the claims of "old earth" creationism, not diminish it.

The mindless posts by atheistic evolutionists attempting sarcasm, like those found here, does make you question where you can find an intelligent being in this place.

Re:It's the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46228347)

These 'fossils' are in fact put in place by the devil to convince mankind that there is no God, driving more hapless followers into his evil realm.

Yeah, don't focus on the awesomeness of the find.. Rather spend your time being a troll.

Comments like this nonsensical trolling are exactly why nobody can get along. Posters like this need to mature and start focusing on moving forward and progressing rather than picking fights, spreading more intolerance, and generally being Internet slime.

Its all about sex emerging 600 million years ago (1, Offtopic)

Baldrson (78598) | about 6 months ago | (#46221247)

The difference between groups and individuals is sexual individuals specialize to create asexual groups and asexual cells specialize to create sexual individuals. http://archive.org/stream/Huma... [archive.org]

Does North Carolina know this? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221259)

Or because it is not in the US it doesn't exist?

Unknown species (4, Interesting)

symes (835608) | about 6 months ago | (#46221291)

I am not a paleontologist and was surprised that 15 of the 55 species found were previously unknown. I really thought we knew more. Is it possible that a significant find could radically change the way we think of the past?

Re:Unknown species (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221333)

I'm not a paleontologist either.

Re:Unknown species (1, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about 6 months ago | (#46221533)

I also am not a paleontologist. It's true.

Re:Unknown species (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222151)

I play one on TV.

Re:Unknown species (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46232461)

I'm a paleontologist,

and so's my wife!

Re:Unknown species (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 6 months ago | (#46221385)

The fossil record is mainly a few specific locations, each location being a small time window of that location.
Without visiting the Gallapagos islands all those distinct species would never have been observed.

The fossil record is like looking through a tiny peephole at the crowd of life.

There can also be a lot of confusion between juviniles and adults of species. Are they distinct species or not? Sometimes the body size and skeletal formation can be quite different between the young and the old.

Re:Unknown species (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 6 months ago | (#46221435)

Radically? I'd say not from a layman's point of view. The biggest that happened in my lifetime is probably finding organ details of dinosaurs that indicate they weren't cold-blooded like modern lizards.

It shouldn't be a surprise that so many species have gone unknown, especially as far back as the Cambrian period. The odds of a creature being fossilized are very low after all.

Re:Unknown species (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46222385)

Radically? I'd say not from a layman's point of view. The biggest that happened in my lifetime is probably finding organ details of dinosaurs that indicate they weren't cold-blooded like modern lizards.

It shouldn't be a surprise that so many species have gone unknown, especially as far back as the Cambrian period. The odds of a creature being fossilized are very low after all.

I'm not sure that being endothermic was such a shock to me.

Putting feathers on T-Rex, however...

Re:Unknown species (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 months ago | (#46224429)

Depends on the layman. Still, there could be species that are radically different from any currently extant. E.g., I believe that all current species that have blood rather than ichor use either copper or iron as an oxygen transporter...but there could be something else. Also, all known species use 4 DNA codons (AGTC) or RNA codons (substituting Uracil for one of those...I'd need to look up which). It could be that there were earlier species that had more (or fewer) than four. That would be pretty much of a shock....though proving it from a fossil would be really tricky. They could find that feather-like things emerged as soon as multi-cellular animals. Etc.

Mind you, these are just examples. It would be REALLY shocking if one of them were true. But that there should be something equivalent that was true wouldn't be surprising, though any particular example would be quite surprising. Like feathers on a T.Rex. Or the brontosarus having the wrong head (so now it's an apatosarus, which isn't anywhere near a good a name, and the head is very different).

Re:Unknown species (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46221623)

I really thought we knew more.

We don't. We're aware of a tiny fraction what was around then... and usually only animals that had skeletons. Think of sharks... the only reason we know how long they've been around if because we find their teeth. There could have been entire species of invertebrates that ruled the earth and we'd have little chance of ever finding out.

Cthulhu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222969)

Didn't H.P. Lovecraft write about that? Most of his Ancient Ones were "protoplasmic masses" (see The Shadow Out of Time.)

Re:Unknown species (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 6 months ago | (#46227715)

There could have been entire species of invertebrates that ruled the earth and we'd have little chance of ever finding out.

The New Slashdot:

A) Cue the Cthulhu jokes

B) Crickets chirping...

Re:Unknown species (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46222013)

We've found a lot of fossils, from thousands of sites like this one around the world.

Take nets the size of an average fossil site, scatter 10,000 of them at random sites around the planet today, look at what you just caught. Now, take one more net and throw it at a new location - did you just catch anything new or different? Now, throw in the dimension of time - this site is geographically close to other well studied fossil sites, but displaced 100,000 years in time.

Satellite communications and jet travel make the world seem much smaller than it actually is, and 100,000 years can make a big difference in the local food-web.

Re:Unknown species (2, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 6 months ago | (#46222265)

I am not a paleontologist and was surprised that 15 of the 55 species found were previously unknown. I really thought we knew more. Is it possible that a significant find could radically change the way we think of the past?

Well, if we find rabbit bones stuck between the teeth of a Tyrannosaurus Rex we'll have to give creationism a second though.

Re:Unknown species (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 6 months ago | (#46223033)

Of course. Especially of eras such as this that we really know little about. The entire name Cambrian Explosion came about because of the scarcity of any fossils before that period. Then we started finding their ancestors and the explosion now just looks like an expansion of certain characteristics.

Re:Unknown species (2)

quantaman (517394) | about 6 months ago | (#46223199)

I'm not surprised we're finding new species back then as we're still finding new species now [yale.edu] .

Also consider between Yoho and Kootnay we may not be getting precisely the same habitat. Just go for a walk outside and the ecosystem can vary wildly within a small geographic area. And with a 100,000 year gap (not sure how accurate that number is) that's enough time for a few new species to evolve, go extinct, or even migrate into or out of that ecosystem depending on climate conditions. Just 10,000-12,000 years ago we had megafauna like mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, and giant beavers roaming North America, over the history of the earth I'd expect there's been a LOT of different species.

There's also the number of species to choose from, in both Yoho and Kootnay only a small subset of the species from those ecosystems were preserved and recovered, even if it was the same ecosystem and habitat you'd expect to get different subsets.

10-4 there, good buddy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46225467)

10,000 years ago?

Go to any Walmart in the USA, and you'll find more giant beavers there than you can shake yer stick at!

Re:Unknown species (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 6 months ago | (#46226941)

We don't even know jack about humans... [bbc.co.uk]

This makes no sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221349)

South Carolina just declared that evolution shouldn't be in text books, so I don't see how this can be...

Re:This makes no sense (4, Funny)

jfbilodeau (931293) | about 6 months ago | (#46221463)

That's because evolution is not found in books, but on stone tablets.

Just because THEY haven't evolved.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46223015)

:-)

Brace yourselves. (-1, Flamebait)

Ecuador (740021) | about 6 months ago | (#46221359)

God is giving us a great test. Only the truly righteous and resolute will be able to escape the appeal of "convenient" blasphemous explanations.

Re:Brace yourselves. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221475)

Wait -- are you talking about the fossil thingie or Beta...?

Re:Brace yourselves. (1)

Imagix (695350) | about 6 months ago | (#46222363)

Or... did $DIETY place those fossils so that we get hints as to how things will work?

Interesting moderation... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 6 months ago | (#46242635)

My comment went from +4, Funny to -1, Flamebait, which would mean most moderators seem to think that I am making fun of a rational POV in order to stat a flame war? Interesting, and you can't blame this to the Beta!

One of the most misunderstood term. CE (5, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 6 months ago | (#46221523)

Cambrian explosion is one of the most misunderstood terms, sometimes very willfully misrepresented. The "explosion" unfloded over a minimum of 10 million years, but more likely estimate is between 20 and 50 million years. For a species that has been in existence for less than 0.1 million years, belonging to a genus existing for less than 3 million years calling this an "explosion" is incomprehensible. Tool usage is less than 2 million years old. Fire has been tamed for 0.5 million years. Language is probably 0.075 million years old. Domestication of animals is 0.015 million years old. Plants> 0.01 million years, writing is 0.005 million years old. Metallurgy is 0.004 million years old at most. Now try to imagine how long 10 million years was.

All that happened was the emergence of bones/shells. This was the first thing that could fossilize. Everything earlier had just soft tissues and they did not fossilize well. So there was an "explosion" of fossilization, not necessarily speciation.

Re:One of the most misunderstood term. CE (4, Informative)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#46221795)

TFA goes into exactly that aspect. Apparently they found species at this site that are also present in a 10 million years older site in China, so unless these critters had access to time travel they could not exactly have been evolving at an explosive rate.

Re:One of the most misunderstood term. CE (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 months ago | (#46224511)

Where did you get that idea that tool usage is recent? People and Chimpanzees both use tools, so the conservative assumption would be that tool use pre-dates the split between the species. And it's not like it requires immense brain power. Crows use tools. Some of Darwin's Finches use tools. And many others. (Too many to list.)

The problem is, most of the tools are wood or straw, so they don't tend to be preserved. The ones I listed are all modern species, and the reason for that is that if we didn't watch them using the tools, we wouldn't know that they did. There's no evidence at all that it's recent along ANY of the gene lines. (For that matter, I believe that British Great Tits learned to use tools to pry the caps off milk bottles to get at the cream. This is a species that has, I believe, otherwise only been observed to use tools in nest-building.)

Re:One of the most misunderstood term. CE (1)

epine (68316) | about 6 months ago | (#46227529)

Metallurgy is 0.004 million years old at most. Now try to imagine how long 10 million years was.

I have a very good idea of the durations in question. Once I read an interview with an accountant who balanced Uncle Sam's accounts by day and her own household accounts in her non-work hours. Her quote: "It's pretty much the same thing, you just shift some zeroes."

A new car is $0.000,000,030 trillion dollars, which puts the recent Wall St. bail-out into good perspective.

You almost seem to be complaining that the use of the word "explosion" is insufficiently anthropomorphic. I find it quite refreshing for once.

Who cares - where's the oil?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221579)

New fossils, that's great.. whatever. Did they find any more oil?!? DIG THAT SHIT UP!

STOP and wait for US agencies! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221645)

This north state should stop the work immediately and wait for the permission from US agencies.
Otherwise drones will be sent.

Better preserved than the Burgess Shale???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46221723)

That is a bit hard to believe since the Burgess Shale preserves such exquisite detail.

And 100,000 years is a short time....

Re:Better preserved than the Burgess Shale???? (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 6 months ago | (#46222933)

Yeah... against a backdrop of 505 million years, 0.1 million years is 0.002% difference in the time scale. That's potentially significant for a handful of species, sure, but it's less time than modern humans have existed... which makes it a nearly-trivial eye-blink in evolutionary history. Not completely trivial, though, especially if the environment at the time was driving fairly rapid adaptation.

So its not far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222079)

You just get off the Bow Valley Parkway on the road going west to Radium (Highway 93), cross the Alberta/BC border, and stop at the Marble Canyon Campground (if you see a sign that says Vermillion river, that's the campground), and look NorthEast from there. From the pictures it appears to be the south western slopes of Mount Whymper W1, about 51.206N, 116.114W (The area was burned in a wildfire in 2005). There is a high valley with a glacier at the north end, and gobs of gravel in the middle of Whymper and Whymper W1. Just a guess though, could be wrong. I know its all top secret and whatnot. Mind you, its been there for a while.

If a fossil falls in the bed, and no palentologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222195)

If a fossil falls in the bed, and there is no paleontologist to find it, does it make a sound? err. I mean does it exist? Clearly "Bed down" has a different meaning to a paleontologist than it has to you.

The tally so far (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46222861)

48 comments before this, and 28 of them taking stabs at the fundamentalist anti-dinosaur strawman. I came for a fight and wasn't disappointed. Never mind that the other side didn't even show up.

Re:The tally so far (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 6 months ago | (#46228833)

I just saw this: " Get more comments 82 of 79 loaded " and I am still using classic - if betta is worse than this .....

15 new species of oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46225109)

How long do palaeontologists get before this site is destroyed in the name of oil?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>