More and more pro-evolution publications are coming out on the side of too much hype for the Ida fossil. But it’s interpretation from readers varies, some militant defenders actually believe Ida is still a direct ‘missing link’ waiting to be proven despite claims to the contrary from their own camp…
In Live Science Robert Roy Britt reports…
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.”
A blogger by the name of RamblinglyVeryBored replied…
“Let’s hope as you stated in the other threads article, the science works out and she is our ancestor. Otherwise they just gave something for deniers to rub in believers face. Since that’s exactly what it will turn into.”
Apparently, this blogger didn’t read outside of the realm of CNN, AP, and the History Channel when it came to the actual claims of this fossil. Nor did this reader actually read the very article in which he/she was responding to but rather was more worried about the PR campaign for evolution.
Also it wasn’t the only article that condemned not only the media campaign for Ida but also the allegation of the animal being a direct ‘missing link’ for monkeys and humans found in Live Science…
“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.”
“They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes.”
“This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. “And they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.”
More concern about the PR campaign of evolution with the public from a pro-evolution defender but makes a slightly interesting observation…
“The problem I see is that we don’t just have a gap in the fossil record, we see a complete absence of certain animals in the oldest sediments. If the mainstream fundamentalists are correct and all animals were created at the same time, then the fossil record should show them as contemporaries.”
The foundation of animals were created in two days, all at once in a fully formed capacity but variants of those ancient species didn’t come till later. Similarities do not give us any evidence of evolution nor does it disprove an intelligent designer namely God. But what I find interesting is the hype of Ida which has brought the debate of so-called; ‘missing links’ to light. It also exposes the way the media and public officials try to promote evolution.
This was an obvious case of media hype for a well-preserved fossil that even many pro-evolutionists couldn’t deny, but this happens a lot in the world of trying to find a ‘missing link.’ This is not how science works as some claim. Walking on the moon and exploring it’s surface for the first time deserves hype because it’s true and not a story, but the claims of fossils like Ida, do not.
New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism 
In Eelco’s wikipedia link on another post, Ida is listed.
I find it very curious that Wikipedia would just assume that IDA is a missing link considering the contraversy in the evolutionary community about it.
I think it shows how biased and uncrittical wikipedia is in favor of evolution.
It shows without question “wikipedia” is highly unreliable in content as it goes by CNN and AP hype rather than the facts, even the research paper itself has a disclaimer on it saying Ida wasn’t a ‘missing link.’ It’s just overwhelming and obvious. If Eelco believes in “dry facts” than he shouldn’t use this source.
No, the wikipedia page lists it as a transitional fossil, NOT as a ‘missing link’! That is something you fill in yourself.
Of course the whole Ida thing was badly hyped-up, and sold as a ‘missing link’. But the wikipedia page I quoted does not say that.
It says: “transitional form between adapids and either prosimians or simians”.
So there is still some discussion there, but it *is* a transitional form.
See also the fair discussion on Ida on it’s own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae
And I do not use wikipedia as a source !! Krissmith777 asked for transitional fossils, and wikipedia has a nice list (but not the only one !!). But for the *source* one needs to look up the references, or read Prothero’s book and the references therein. Those are the dry facts, not the wikipedia summary. As far as I know encyclopedia’s have never been treated as ‘source’ material.
Eelco,
“No, the wikipedia page lists it as a transitional fossil, NOT as a ‘missing link’! That is something you fill in yourself.
“
Hello!! — Ida is the very first listed under “Human Evolution” on the page. — That is the virtually the same as making the claim that it is a miising link between ape and man.
Look here on your page you kined on the other blog post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution
It is the first specimen on the list of supposed human ancestors, that is the same as saying it is a “missing link” for human evolution.
“Those are the dry facts, not the wikipedia summary. As far as I know encyclopedia’s have never been treated as ’source’ material.”
It’s not a “dry fact” that any fossil is a transition at all. — That is based on interpretations alone which are subject to change.
The only “dry fact” is that they found dead animals in the dirt.
No, that is *not* the same. It is *not* a transitional form between Homo Sapiens and other Homonidae (your ‘apes’).
It is a link between adapids and either prosimians or simians.
As this wikipedia page is only a list, it does not actually tell you where this link in the ancestral tree is. There are several links between this one and the human-ape link that people are so obsessed with.
“The only “dry fact” is that they found dead animals in the dirt.”
That kills off any discussion, of course.
“No, that is *not* the same. It is *not* a transitional form between Homo Sapiens and other Homonidae (your ‘apes’).”
Oh, yeah, sure. Just because Wikipedia lists it under the section for “human evolution, that doesn’t mean they are insinuating the claim.
Riiiiiiiiight
““The only “dry fact” is that they found dead animals in the dirt.”
That kills off any discussion, of course.”
Hate to break it to you, but it is the only fact.
If the wikipedia link didn’t mean that IDA was a “missing ling” in “Human Evolution”, then it shoulndn’t have listed it under “human evolution.”
That is misleading.
No, it is not misleading, as explained. You do not seem to grasp the idea of a tree with lots of links.
“Oh, yeah, sure. Just because Wikipedia lists it under the section for “human evolution, that doesn’t mean they are insinuating the claim.
Riiiiiiiiight”
Indeed ! They are not insinuating the claim ! Well done !
They are indeed NOT saying it links Homo Sapiens and the other Hominidae. It *very clearly* states another link. *Both* man and apes came (much) later, roughly five (?) speciations later, with their own link. So both man *and* apes have Ida as their 5th ‘concestor’, as some have dubbed this.
Why does it list it under “human evolution” if that is not the impression they wanted to give?
Why didn’t they just put it on the side and make the note that it probably was a transition, but not an ancestor of humans?
It is an ancestor of humans, but not the *latest* ancestor, which is the man-ape link (as you like to put it).
It is the 5th (if I counted right) “concestor”, and therefore part of the human evolution (which has lots of links in the long chain of speciations).
“It is an ancestor of humans, but not the *latest* ancestor, which is the man-ape link (as you like to put it).”
Well, nobody is saying it’s the latest. But “New Scientist” says that it is a side-branch, not an ancestor of homo sapiens at all.
For the graph, the link is below:
Asan ancestor of humans, it questions that. But it places it unquestionably as a side-branch, to be more accurate.
“Well, nobody is saying it’s the latest.”
You were. You came up with “That is the virtually the same as making the claim that it is a miising link between ape and man.” Which is the latest. It was not your claim, but you were saying that wikipedia was claiming that. Which they were not.
The authors of a “new scientist” article (which you do not reference !) place it “unquestionably” as a side-branch. That is not saying that this is generally accepted !! I think this is still under discussion.
If one person says “unquestionably”, do you then immediately stop questioning that ? I don’t.
It might well turn out to be on a side-branch, who knows, but at the moment this is unclear to me.
But it seems you do adopt the idea of an ancestral tree (which is not quite accurate anyway, but let’s keep it simple), with speciation and all ? That is part of the theory of evolution, of course.
You often hear evolutionists point to speciation as evidence of evolution. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. A process that transforms one species into another in an orderly fashion, regardless of whether it happens “overnight” or over a long period of time, is not an evolutionary process — nothing evolves! This is a transformation. A metamorphosis that produces no chaos, or the same “chaos” every time, as a byproduct, is the result of design or planning.
The ONLY way speciation can be considered evolution is if it produces a myriad of randomly disfigured, dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. There have been no such findings in the lab or in the field. The vast majority of life forms in the fossil record seem to have emerged well-designed and functional in their first appearance. This is not evolution, although evolutionist like to call it that.
It’s asinine enough to believe that a long series of trial and errors can eventually, accidentally evolve a new life form, but to be faced with concrete evidence that no trial and error even occurred and still believe life somehow developed without a plan or design guiding it, is moronic and delusional.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the fossil record of any species even transforming into another one. The sudden appearance of various life forms shows not even a transformation process. That’s not to say this can’t happen, there’s just no evidence of it in the field.
What evolutionists have done is taken the occasional aberration of nature, like “TikTaalik” and “Ida,” and concocted convoluted explanations of how they must have come from one species and evolved into another, because the fossil has some bone structures similar to both.
You don’t need bones and fossils for this. So many life forms have eyes, ears, noses and a host of other similar organs; do these even more striking similarities prove all these life forms evolved from one ancestor? Similarities can just as well make an argument for Creation: species have similarities because they were created by the same God.
Well, God, evolutionists point out, is not science. Let me see if I understand this. To say that God created life is not science because you can’t prove God’s existence. But to say that life created and developed by itself, which is also unprovable, that is science. Just taking God out of the picture makes it science?
Evolutionists make the mistake of thinking that because analyzing biological systems today is a science, any unproven concoction of how it all came about is also science. Evolution falls in the same category of “theories” as “the earth is flat.”
Evolution forums are probably the best evidence of how bereft evolution is of any true science. Log on to some forums and you’ll find that evolutionists’ response to any opposition to their “religion” is usually countered with the most vile, hostile and belligerent language. Most don’t even bother to discuss science. Interestingly, those that point out the shortcomings of evolution talk about science in far greater numbers than evolutionists. And there’s a reason for this: evolutionists just don’t have the science to support their views, while disproofs are in abundance.
Evolution today is no longer a science issue. The theory has been disproven so often from so many different angles it’s become like hitting a dead horse. Evolution is basically a struggle between those who need it in their lives and those who don’t. Dispelling the godless religion of evolution boils down to spreading the message that “the horse is dead.”
from newsback.com
Well said coming from newsback, I believe evolution just thrives on “mystery” rather than progress on empirical science. Take the study of “bees” for example, how were they given the ability to learn about physics and aerodynamics? Did a bee figure it out, and taught his fellow bees? Did some sort of lucky mutation arise and natural selection picked it, after trillions of bees fell dead from gusts of wind? A mystery for evolution! Government grants roll in. A mystery that would allow a story to be created and worked on for many years, and this is what they call science…
“Most don’t even bother to discuss science.”
I don’t see any science at all in these last two responses …
Pingback: The Media’s And Mayor’s Debacle On The Claims Of Ida « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism
Apparently this blogger didn’t bother to read the person’s responses. RamblinglyVeryBored was one of the many tricksters on LiveScience before they erased all the old posts. To highlight this in one article he claims and proceeds to argue that Killer Whales are a myth caused by Scientists attempting to be politically correct due to the nature of Moby Dick portraying white whales as evil.