The Media’s And Mayor’s Debacle On The Claims Of Ida

Last year there was media-frenzied presentation of Ida which captivated the mayor of NY who revealed the specimen at a press conference. The history channel already had a documentary waiting in the wings. Sky News said this…This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he said. “This is the one that connects us directly with them. “Now people can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’. “The link they would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”

However not all were convinced that Ida was a distant relative of humans while others believed that future science would fill in the gaps which is very common in evolutionary thinking. Some pro-evolutionists began to call this hype as “shoddy scholarship” and live science had published very critical pieces on Ida.

So-called ‘missing links’ are hyped for a reason, it’s a money maker and it draws interest to the evolutionary side. In this case, the hype and so-called ‘evidence’ was disproved again as science daily reports…

“In an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.”

“They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.”

Ida had nothing to do with human evolution despite all the hype from the media and some scientists. Ida has nothing to do with evolution in general. Ida was a well created animal with variations within primates that existed. Show us the evidence we say and here’s how they go about doing it…

It was noted for it’s exceptional preservation and it’s shady past. In 1983, the fossil was discovered in a private collection and split into two halves. A Wyoming fossil collector had dressed it up to make it look complete said science daily. As for the other half, it stood on a German collector’s wall till 2006 which later fell into the hands of a private fossil dealer who presented it at a trade show. One million dollars was raised to obtain it which is ten times the normal price for rare fossils.

Even though the Ida claims have been put to rest you still see fudging going on by this latest research by referring to a what I call an attempt to rescue their hypothesis known as convergent evolution. They said certain traits are “known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage.” Known? Are they willing to swear they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth rather than just speculating?

Creationist Museum’s Second Anniversary

Containing more space than London’s Natural History Museum, the BBC asks the question, “who goes to the creationist museum and what motivates people to make a visit?

I remember the controversy when this particular creationist museum was proposed. As I recall, they had to change locations due to special interests groups which turned out to be much better, and added more space to the project. When the museum did finally open it was greeted with some protesting from airplanes flying by to protesting signs on the ground…

I find it interesting, those who believe in a faulty view of separation from church and state (the government can only disagree with religion), would be so worried about a creationist museum. One of the reasons is competition from other museums, another is the fact that they just don’t like Christianity or any other religion.

Back to the BBC quest in answering why people go to a creationist museum. They interviewed a few people, not a very good study but interesting comments nevertheless…

Laurie Geesey, the former high school teacher, who says she believes God created “everything visible and invisible”, feels people look down on her views “especially under the current [White House] administration”. “It interferes with their lifestyle, you know ‘If it feels good go ahead and do it’ – the Bible doesn’t teach that,” she says.

Scott Rubin, “Evolution is a good theory, I don’t believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible,” he says. “When it comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God’s changed my life. I believe God created the world in six days, I do believe that.”

Dan Schoonmaker, the Army helicopter pilot (who as a member of the military gets in free) described himself as a “creationist in training”, admitting it needed “a lot of faith”. “I personally don’t know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open,” he says.

Robert Mailloux, the retired businessman dismisses Darwin’s theory as “not even a low grade hypothesis” and said it had “no substantial science” in it. “The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and we flat believe that. There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old – only 10 say it’s real old…Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He’s not a king. He’s the king of the atheists’ movement.”

What I found also interesting, the BBC enters the creation vs evolution debate by trying to make a case for evolution with the fossil Ida found years ago, which has been dismissed by most evolutionists even as a ‘missing link’ and used for profit reasons.

So there has been skepticism from the other side about Ida’s impact on the hypothesis of evolution but the BBC makes a weak attempt to say otherwise…“The most recent such finding, a “47-million-year-old fossil” of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a “fresh insight” into evolution.”

Speaking of skepticism, what I found lacking in the BBC report, was the fact that anti-creationists have visited there as well, not just outside protesting, but actually taking on tour on the inside. The Creationist Museum is a great family destination,  and refreshing to see that evolution is not taught like a religion like you see in secular museums.

May Day Media Frenzy: Missing Link Discovered?

Touted as the most important discovery to come along in 47 million years, the alleged new  ‘missing link’ the one that is supposed to connect us directly with apes. This hype is being played up big time to gather public interest. The Texas Freedom Network touted the news as proof  concerning their belief in  the so-called abundant supply of transitional animals in the fossil record.

In the Wall Street Journal, Gautam Naik writes…

“Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.”

“The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn’t been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the “missing link” controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically “missing links” until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.”

Interesting to note, the scientists who wrote a peer reviewed paper on the fossil don’t even claim it’s a ‘missing link.’

Reading their disclaimer…

“Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.” Humans are considered “anthropoids” in the story of evolution.

So what about this new lemur fossil of a female nicknamed Ida? The fossil was actually discovered back in the 1980s in Germany and has been part of a private collection until purchased for research. The study of the fossil was kept a secret until the major unveiling media campaign this month along with the History Channel’s scheduled program about it.

Preliminary indications are as follows; this particular ancient lemur doesn’t have a claw used for grooming and also it doesn’t have a toothcomb (a fused row of teeth) normally used for grooming by a modern lemur. According to Philip Gingerich who I had brief contact with in the past, and is the American Paleontological Society president said it’s unknown if this particular ancient lemur had a nose or not.

So there you have the differences in the animal which is being used to hype it as a new species, the so-called ‘missing link’, other than that, it resembles a modern lemur.  Speaking of a modern lemur, some have been found in rock strata below Ida.  Monkeys also have been found in rock strata below Ida.

In addition to Ida being so complete for an animal being that is assumed to be 47 million years old with little difference to modern ones, these observations from the rock strata totally disrupt the evolutionary time frame!

Similarities in themselves is no proof of evolutionary transitional forms nor is there any scientific proof that only total uniqueness is designed by intelligence namely; God, like an orphan gene which that in itself gives the hypothesis of evolution problems.

The BBC writes…

“Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be “a missing link”. Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance.”

“It’s extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied,” he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as “Flores man” or feathered dinosaurs.”

Of course the discoverers are all for the hype because of the possible fame attached to the the story and those who didn’t discover the fossil are slower to make such a conclusion until further study is done. Even from an unlikely source “Time” has weighted with skepticism on the media frenzy story concerning the fossil of Ida…

“Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws,” says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. Ida, by contrast, has pretty much every bone, from the skull to the tip of the tail, and they’re all in place. Not only that: you can see impressions of its fur in the surrounding material, and there are even the remains of what was presumably Ida’s final meal (leaves and fruit) still visible where the digestive tract used to be.”

What is interesting about this particular fossil, it was preserved so well, of course evolutionists reject a global flood and try to explain the rapid fossilization of the animal by some volcanic gases which poisoned the lemur causing it  to fall into a lake then buried by sediments before she could decompose. But falling into a lake and being buried rapidly is not what happened, it was the global flood in the days of Noah which is the most likely cause for a rapid fossilization of Ida.

“The purchaser’s stated motivation for obtaining the fossil seemed to emphasize business over research. University of Oslo paleontologist Jørn Hurum nicknamed the fossil “Ida” after his own small daughter and told UK news outlet The Guardian, “You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in…this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years.”

“Hurum purchased the fossil for an undisclosed sum from the dealer based on seeing only three photographs and not the actual fossil, a “huge gamble” that suggests pressure to make some kind of return on the university’s investment.” -ICR

The business aspect of the hype has a high potential of hurting future discoveries as the public would grow weary of such claims. But from what has been actually observed and it’s not every day one agrees with a liberal slanted publication like Time, but a few missing features (a toothcomb, and a claw) doesn’t necessarily prove it’s a missing link between ape and man.