Darwinists rejoice: Missing link found

posted at 12:52 pm on May 19, 2009 by Allahpundit

Well, a missing link, not necessarily the missing link, although insofar as it seems to confirm Darwin’s speculation about transitional species, it’s a huge coup for fans of Uncle Charlie. I love the smell of fossilized monkeys in the morning. Smells like … victory. If anyone needs me, I’ll be at the bar drinking champagne with Charles Johnson.

Dude, what if Richard Dawkins planted it?

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs…

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.

Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don’t believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Sky News has the best piece on the fossil’s significance and how it ended up in scientists’ hands — it hung on someone’s wall for more than 20 years — but you’re better off poking around the ultra-slick website that’s been designed for it, especially the section “Who is Ida?” and “The Implications.” Click the image to proceed.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

I don’t have the time or energy to defend everyone here from every inappropriate remark made. I believe I have defended Evangelicals from abuse here, but cannot put my fingers on such posts at the moment, so perhaps I am mistaken.

as I said, you were not upset by the partial-birth loving wacko…couldn’t think of anything to say to him…very telling

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Gotta love the internet.

TexasDan on May 19, 2009 at 11:09 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:06 PM

oh yeah did you ever figure out the exact mutations, in order, that led to an eye?? or even ONE??? *laughter*

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:10 PM

you said I have a HABIT of doing that…and I have not done it to you…so you are a LIAR…duhhhhh

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:07 PM

You can have a habit of smoking cigarettes withot smoking every single cigarette you see. You can have a habit of biting your nails even if you don’t bite ever single nail. And you can have a habit of calling peope the child of Satan withot doing it to every single person you encounter.

Please, you’e trying to wiggle out of the fact that I told the truth about you by arguing semenatics is embarrassing.

You’ve lost. If you had INTEGRITY, you would jus admit it and apologize.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 11:04 PM

and in that other thread (I don’t remember you before that) that wacko said some very vile things about christians…you said nothing…guess you thought he was talking about protestants…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…you really are obsessed with me aren’t you??

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM

oh yeah did you ever figure out the exact mutations, in order, that led to an eye?? or even ONE??? *laughter*

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Trying to change the topic is “I’ve lost and I don’t know what to do” in right4life-ese.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…you really are obsessed with me aren’t you??

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Still not going to admit that you lied? Still trying to claim that I lied? Still going to stick with that Bill Clinton style “I was just mistken?”

Ok, then. I guess I’m done humiliaing you for the evening. Have a good night.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

you can’t defend your theory, but at least you’re good for a few laughs..loser.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Trying to change the topic is “I’ve lost and I don’t know what to do” in right4life-ese.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM

I knew you’d say something like this!! *laughter*

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Have a good night.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

running away…gutless as well as a liar…your hairygod is proud of you paduan!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Gotta love the internet.

TexasDan on May 19, 2009 at 11:09 PM

LOL

“Never argue with a fool for long, after a while people may not be able to tell the difference.”

Good night everyone. And may God bless each and every one of you.

Elisa on May 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM

oh one last thing…if I had a habit of calling my opponents ‘children of satan’ I would have called you that long ago…and its rather obvious why…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Again, fellow creationists…. we lose! They found a fossil of a lemur. You know what that means? Once upon a time, there was so much nothing that it exploded in to everything, then rain and lightning came and a single celled organism, with enough time, turned in to us. That’s clearly what the fossil of a lemur shows us.

RightWinged on May 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM

I would encourage our evolutionist friends to look at the biannual “Earth-like planet found” nonsense… Also, there is limited info out at this point, but I’d also point to things like “Nebraska Man” before you go too nuts over this.

RightWinged on May 19, 2009 at 11:44 PM

RightWinged on May 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM

thats right!! Darwin is all in all!!! praise darwin!!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:46 PM

loudmouth883 on May 19, 2009 at 1:13 PM

No, but I hear she mid-wifed it.

PJ Emeritus on May 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Off the cuff…

I find it very interesting that the fossil rich location this alleged fossil was found in has not yielded another single solitary complete or even partial fossil of the same species, or even another almighty human-like talus bone (much less no other fossil of this species has been found anywhere else in the entire world), yet this one happens to be totally and utterly complete right down to its fur and stomach contents after 42-million years… and whilst untold numbers of fossil hunters, professional and amateur, have been mining the same location for fossils for decades upon decades.

I find it intriguing that scientists scoff at the notion that this fossil can be a ruse and must absolutely be authentic because no one could possibly have faked it, yet it is conveniently encased and imprisoned in a thick layer of hard resin from which it can never be removed as it would destroy the fossil, and therefore it is impossible to scrutinize this fossil in such detail that all other fossils are scrutinized… because no one in their right mind encases fossils in hard resin. Molds of fossils for making copies are sometimes done in resins, but the fossils are protected from actually coming in contact with the solvent rich resins. They’re not encased in it.

I also find it very suspect that this fossil was found by an amateur over 20 years ago, no one knew what it was or even had an inkling of its significance, it was encased in a thick layer of hard resin which discolors and decays in time, and from which it cannot ever be removed, which makes encasing a fossil in resin ridiculous, and this whole thing is coincidently taking place at the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth also while intense debate over Darwinism vs Creationism is beginning to peak.

Back in the heyday of traveling circuses and traveling ‘freak shows’, many many faked animals, faked skeletons, and faked fossils of fantastic creatures, animals, mummys, and humans, permeated our country and other foreign countries on their whistle-stop tours. People believed some of those creatures and fossils to be authentic as well. Even the worlds top scientists of the time couldn’t debunk a few here and there until later on.

Many aspects of this entire ‘discovery’ is just all too convenient, including the shroud of secrecy before the ‘unveiling’, and I seriously question the timing. This whole thing abruptly bursting forth as it is alerts my common sense and my suspicious nature.

SilverStar830 on May 20, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Look at what we’ve become, granddad. We’re scarcely recognizable, I imagine.

We haven’t found solutions to the problems that vexed you. We do have a deeper understanding of the problems now, though, some of us.

About the cannibalism and incest, by the way, all is forgiven. You always did the best you knew how, and I wouldn’t be here without you. Thanks for everything.

Kralizec on May 20, 2009 at 12:50 AM

I find it intriguing that scientists scoff at the notion that this fossil can be a ruse and must absolutely be authentic because no one could possibly have faked it, yet it is conveniently encased and imprisoned in a thick layer of hard resin from which it can never be removed as it would destroy the fossil, and therefore it is impossible to scrutinize this fossil in such detail that all other fossils are scrutinized… because no one in their right mind encases fossils in hard resin. Molds of fossils for making copies are sometimes done in resins, but the fossils are protected from actually coming in contact with the solvent rich resins. They’re not encased in it.

I missed a lot of the earlier pissing contest here, but I would also add that the fossil was split in 2, long ago.

At any rate, with extreme sarcasm, I repeat:

Again, fellow creationists…. we lose! They found a fossil of a lemur. You know what that means? Once upon a time, there was so much nothing that it exploded in to everything, then rain and lightning came and a single celled organism, with enough time, turned in to us. That’s clearly what the fossil of a lemur shows us.

RightWinged on May 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM

RightWinged on May 20, 2009 at 1:04 AM

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM

You don’t get to say what I believe or don’t believe or what I support or don’t support. I do.

I oppose abortion. I get along quite well with members of other Christian denominations.

You make lots of accusations without any supporting evidence. You use innuendo to spread slurs. Your posts often drip with contempt and hatred for those with whom you disagree. This is why you so frequently ignite criticism aimed at yourself. I suggest a different approach.

Love lights more fires than hate extinguishes

– Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 1:07 AM

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Sorry I hit the strike instead the quote button.

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 1:09 AM

If evolution/natural selection does indeed happen and has happened then to laugh at this is to laugh at the handiwork of God…for He must have foreseen how all this would have happened even before He created the universe. Actually, I imagine that we actually amuse Him.

I envy my more enlightened Christian brethren as they don’t have bodies, don’t have to eat, breathe, urinate, defecate, procreate or all the other things that mere animals do.

Perhaps there is too much focus on the body rather than the divine spark within.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM

You don’t get to say what I believe or don’t believe or what I support or don’t support. I do.

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 1:07 AM

yeah actually I do. apparently the truth hurts.

I oppose abortion. I get along quite well with members of other Christian denominations.

so you say. I don’t remember you saying anything against partial-birth abortion in that other thread. not a peep of protest from your righteous self!!

You make lots of accusations without any supporting evidence. You use innuendo to spread slurs. Your posts often drip with contempt and hatred for those with whom you disagree. This is why you so frequently ignite criticism aimed at yourself. I suggest a different approach.

I suggest taking the plank out your own eye before you take the spec out of anothers…

right4life on May 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM

You don’t get to say what I believe or don’t believe or what I support or don’t support. I do.

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 1:07 AM

yeah actually I do. apparently the truth hurts.

Arrogance and hostility may result in submission, but they don’t win hearts, change minds or save souls. There is a religion the name of which means submission in English. It’s not Christianity.

I oppose abortion. I get along quite well with members of other Christian denominations.

so you say. I don’t remember you saying anything against partial-birth abortion in that other thread. not a peep of protest from your righteous self!!

Why presume the worst about another person, when you can ask questions to determine what they believe?

I can’t give you links to my every post on this issue, but there are two recently that don’t fit into your lies about me. Here and here.

You make lots of accusations without any supporting evidence. You use innuendo to spread slurs. Your posts often drip with contempt and hatred for those with whom you disagree. This is why you so frequently ignite criticism aimed at yourself. I suggest a different approach.

I suggest taking the plank out your own eye before you take the spec out of anothers…

right4life on May 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM

If I’ve falsely accused you of anything you haven’t done, please correct me. I will apologize and correct my errors. My accusations are aimed at your style, which I find hostile and abusive. Apparently others do too.

I am not suggesting that you change your beliefs about the Bible that differ from mine. What I am suggesting instead, is that you make your points using a different approach. Your current approach is harming your cause.

I suggest you try loving those with whom you disagree. I look forward to reading posts from you that convey genuine love, generosity, patience, and even good natured humor, especially if you aim some at yourself. I believe such an approach work better for you.

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 3:34 AM

Have a good night.

justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

running away…gutless as well as a liar…your hairygod is proud of you paduan!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Glad to see HA denizens just as sociable and sharp-witted as ever. Evolution has been thoroughly proven wrong, here – mankind has always been beastly and will forever, never change.

trailboss on May 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM

Arrogance and hostility may result in submission, but they don’t win hearts, change minds or save souls. There is a religion the name of which means submission in English. It’s not Christianity.

you complain about arrogance and hostility?? pot meet kettle

I can’t give you links to my every post on this issue, but there are two recently that don’t fit into your lies about me. Here and here.

oh please, you didn’t say anything about partial birth abortion in the previous thread…you were FAR too interested in belittling me…and proving how ‘good’ and ‘holy’ you are.

My accusations are aimed at your style, which I find hostile and abusive. Apparently others do too.

yes you definately are an accuser…thats seems to be all you wish to do in my regard…I find your style arrogant, condescending, and hypocritical. yes you make a fine accuser of the brethren…

I suggest you try loving those with whom you disagree. I look forward to reading posts from you that convey genuine love, generosity, patience, and even good natured humor, especially if you aim some at yourself. I believe such an approach work better for you.

oh yes your such a fine example of ‘loving’. we’ve had this conversation before…to you ‘loving’ is agreeing with someone who has no problem with partial birth abortion…apparently to you ‘love’ is submission.

I don’t think I’ll ever reach your level of holiness..

so I’ll tell you what…this is my last post to you…no more casting pearls before swine…I suggest you ignore me in the future..

right4life on May 20, 2009 at 7:25 AM

Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., has co-written a paper that will detail next week the latest fossil discovery in Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, online journal.

“This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates,” Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, said in an interview.

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.

/The Teutons might take some confidence claiming preemptive existence prior to the Lucy African Eve.

Arguing over literalism when our awareness is yet so vague in terms of omniscience is juvenile.

Good morning, Loxodonta. /Never take the bed bug bait from those incapable of comprehension. Whether chronological or emotional or social, some people have chosen to be crude.

maverick muse on May 20, 2009 at 7:26 AM

Nothing in nature evolves up to a higher form. Evolution, Global Warming and Socialism is a hoax. Apes are still apes, I asked one why he decided not to evolve. He explained that the chances of him being a college professor was too high, therefore he preferred his current status.

Easydoesit on May 20, 2009 at 7:39 AM

maverick muse on May 20, 2009 at 7:26 AM

I hope it evolves into a good morning.

Drats! Did it again!

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 7:58 AM

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 7:58 AM

Indeed it is. Banana Walnut drop cookies (banana bread recipe) with a hot cup o’ joe. Cool overnight temperatures, fresh water for the birds and garden, and soon enough ready to walk the dog before the day heats up.

maverick muse on May 20, 2009 at 8:11 AM

Easydoesit on May 20, 2009 at 7:39 AM

Above his pay grade?

You know about promotion, always ending up one step higher than competent.

maverick muse on May 20, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Things to consider HERE.

Excerpt:

Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.

A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”

If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.

Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?

So it’s clear what Ida is not.

This is the equivalent of the religion of evolution seeing a “missing link” appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 8:18 AM

I find this news about ‘Ida’ very exciting, because it tells us something about the state of the world 47 MILLION years ago – and adds another piece to the arc of life on earth.

This thread on the other hand is embarrassing. By and large, participants are using their ‘internet cloak of invisibility’ to attack each other’s viewpoints. Honestly, AP, it’s a transparent traffic-gambit (and one that seems to work wonderfully).

LAST TIME: SCIENCE ANSWERS QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RELIGION; RELIGION CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

To contend otherwise is foolish. Now play nice everybody.

blish on May 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Thank you for that excellent exposé of the distortions and obfuscations of the Young Earth Creationists.

Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature.
Nobody, to my knowledge, claimed otherwise.

A fossil can never show evolution.
Of course it can’t. However, evolution predicts transitional fossils, and each one that is found is corroboration of evolution.

Similarities can never show evolution.
This paragraph is an attack on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is used to produce scientific theories, but it is not scientifically acceptable as a means to corroborate them. This is half anti-reason and half straw-man argument.

The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial.
Even taking this argument at face value and accepting the premises as true, AiG is here using the same induction process they attacked in the paragraph above: “Some fossils show evidence of rapid burial; therefore there was a universal flood of the sort described in Babylonian mythology.”

If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. This is the No True Scotsman fallacy–the distinction made between found transitional forms and REAL transitional forms is entirely arbitrary and self-serving. To them, the distinction between a real and a “fake” transitional form is simply that no real form can ever be found.

Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found.
The methodology of science is to always seek additional evidence. General relativity predicted the possibility of black holes, but it took decades for the first evidence of them was found. This was not a weakness in the theory, but finding them corroborated its strength. Technically, EVERY link is a missing link, every “hole” in the fossil record that is filled in leaves two holes–one on either side–and the evolutionary record could not be complete unless every individual creature that ever lived could be found in a fully-preserved state. That the fossil record is incomplete is not a weakness of the theory, but that continued archaeological efforts continue to unearth additional “missing links” is continued corroboration of its strengths.

This is the equivalent of the religion of evolution seeing a “missing link” appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich.
Evolution predicted that lemurs and monkeys would have a common ancestor that would have features in common with both. Ida is the fossilized remains of just such a creature. It’s not an apparition in a sandwich (that you would even suggest such a thing is proof that you are neither arguing in good faith nor using the rational parts of your brain in analyzing the data); rather, it’s like a Creationist finding the ark.

hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM

or me!

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Thank God for small miracles. I don’t usually praise him for racists, but I can make an exception here.

you’re right I was mistaken to write ‘anyone’

I misspoke, I don’t consider it a lie.

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Misspoke? You were still sticking to that line after justfinethanks showed a quote from last week proving you had called someone a child of Satan.

What did you mean to say? That you only do it sometimes? That you only do it when people are really mean to you? What?

How would you now clarify your statement to keep it from being a lie?

Remember, there are more quotes out there.

uh moron I am part white, part native american and part indian…

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 10:17 PM

So? Is that supposed to mean you can’t be racist against white girls, even though you admitted as much in an earlier thread?

A half white man managed to sit in Rev. “God Damn America” Wright’s church for 20 years without thinking anything was wrong with a man who would talk about “white man’s greed.” He even wrote a book with him in it.

You can’t prove you aren’t racist because of your blood but because of your actions and words. You know, “you will know them by their fruits“?

but I have never accused you of that…and your hero’s esthier’s few examples…over a year or so…do not consist of a habit..

right4life on May 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM

I’m certainly not his hero. See, I know you think I only post here when you show up, but I’m actually in several threads on a fairly regular basis, and I know this may seem weird to you, but justfinethanks and I actually have argued on other threads. We just seem to be able to do so without resorting to childish insults or questioning the other’s spirituality or deeply held faith or beliefs.

But as I wrote above, those were just a few quotes. How many would it take before you admit it’s a habit? What’s the limit here? Set the parameters first, so you can’t then come back and say that’s not enough either.

And let’s clarify, we’re talking about a habit, not a compulsion. The latter is one you can’t control, so much so that you would, as you say above, call everyone you disagree with Satan’s child. The former is something you simply often do. There is a very serious difference between the two, and no matter how you personally define the word habit, understand that’s how most people define it, and that’s what justfinethanks meant when he said you had that habit, not that you have a compulsion, but a habit.

So again, set the parameters. How many quotes would I need to find before you are willing to call it a habit?

Esthier on May 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM

A different perspective:

“Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.
A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood.4 Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”5
If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.
Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?”

Vaporman87 on May 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

If anyone needs me, I’ll be at the bar drinking champagne with Charles Johnson.

While you are at the bar with Mr. Johnson, Allahpundit, could you do a mitzvah and explain a few things to Mr. Johnson:
.
1)- The paleological identification is subject to scientific critique and falsification,
.
2) – If the paleological identification is correct (as I suspect) it would seem to put another nail in the ultra-literalist Creationist coffin, but why get so get worked up about it? Even the Early Church Fathers weren’t Biblical literalists in regard to the creation stories.
.
3) – If the paleological identification is correct (as I suspect) it has little if any impact on Intelligent Design arguments because Creationism and ID are not the same; and from my reading, ID contemplates and accepts the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for common descent (which is not paleological evidence BTW)
.
4) If the paleological identification is correct (as I suspect) it does not bolster Neo-Darwinist argument because it provides no new evidence supporting evolution by random mutation,
.
5) Classical Darwinist mechanisms for evolution were in effect debunked and falsified by Watson and Crick.
.
.
Thank you ;-)

Mike OMalley on May 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Great article about this
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98642

Here is a taste

“There are many primatologists who already disagree with that interpretation and see this as a lemur,” Wells explained to WND. “That’s a controversy within the scientific community that has nothing to do with evolution, simply classification of the specimen.”

“For Attenborough to come out and say, ‘We have the missing link; it’s no longer missing,’ only admits they haven’t had missing links before this time,” Ham told WND. “If evolution is so decided, why would they get all excited about one fossil that they find now, when they claim they’ve had proof of evolution for years?”

“When you listen to Darwinists, they claim their theory is as well established as gravity,” Wells told WND. “If that were really the case, we wouldn’t be getting these startling announcements that we finally found the proof that we need. There wouldn’t be any controversy. This would be like someone running up and saying, ‘Stop the presses. I just saw another apple fall from the tree; Newton was right!’ In the evolutionists’ own framework, it’s nonsense. It demonstrates their theory is not as well established as they claim.”

kangjie on May 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM

LAST TIME: SCIENCE ANSWERS QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RELIGION; RELIGION CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

To contend otherwise is foolish. Now play nice everybody.

blish on May 20, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Define science.

You can’t observe evolution. You can’t reproduce it. Some of what we do observe and reproduce contradicts it. The theory itself has changed (and contradicted itself in the process).

What you have there… is a religion.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Vaporman87 on May 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Thank you for PLAGIARIZING Answers in Genesis after somebody posted the EXACT SAME TEXT with attribution just four posts prior in this exact thread! I don’t know what’s worse: you finding the need to steal someone else’s writing, or that you would find AiG worth stealing from.

Given that you missed that it had already been posted this morning, you likely also missed my rebuttal here: hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM.

hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Define science.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ProDem

hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Even taking this argument at face value and accepting the premises as true, AiG is here using the same induction process they attacked in the paragraph above: “Some fossils show evidence of rapid burial; therefore there was a universal flood of the sort described in Babylonian mythology.”

What they “attacked” is exactly what they are NOT doing. They are not using the induction process to make statements of irrefutable fact as Attenborough is. Attenborough is claiming (rather openly as brazenly) that this fossil PROVES evolution. AiG does not say anything of the sort. They present the evidence from which (naturally) they propose by induction a Young Earth scenario.

If you can show me where AiG goes to the degree that Attenborough has (thus the reason for stating points one and two), I’ll consider your complaint. However, your beef is with Attenborough. He is the one claiming absolute conclusion here.

As for the cheese sandwich… the analogy is this… they see an extinct Lemur and withing the apparation of a homosapien. I happen to think that is stupid. They also fail to explain the utter lack of “transitional” forms among the billions of fossils found to date.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM

nice…..Man evolved from this….now that can be put to rest….

WAIT…..where did IDA come from? Oh yeah, I guess someone still had to create IDA huh?

SDarchitect on May 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM

As for the cheese sandwich… the analogy is this… they see an extinct Lemur and withing the apparation of a homosapien. I happen to think that is stupid. They also fail to explain the utter lack of “transitional” forms among the billions of fossils found to date.

mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM

You misunderstand completely.

hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

You misunderstand completely.

hicsuget on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM

It’s quite funny to see these armchair pseudo-scientists debunking something they know so little about. I thought HA was a political site, not a polemical site.

trailboss on May 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Not to take sides, but isn’t even having an argument about this discovery a little, well, stupid? I don’t know too many people who would categorically reject the possibility that apes and lemurs evolved from a common ancestor.

This appears to be, if you read the articles, just the biannual misleading headline nonsense to set off another round of arguments, soundbytes, and Google holidays.

HitNRun on May 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM

They found the “Missing link”

How exciting.
That in itself is an admission that they didn’t have the missing link.
On what presuppositions and extrapolations were they expecting us to believe in the muck to mallards theory before now?

seven on May 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Micro-evolution is obviously true because we see different variations within species. Darwin articulated natural selection, which proves long haired dogs are more likely to survive in cold environments etc, and for that he gets credit.

Setting aside his own struggles with how the eye could have ever developed solely through natural processes. For macro-evolution to be true, he predicted that we would find millions of transitional fossils when we finally had the knowledge and techniques to excavate them. So…cool. If this “missing link” is a truly transitional fossil, which won’t be determined until after further investigations. It will be one. Not a million, but hey, it’s something and it raises the debate of whether finding a million fossils is necessary.

But to claim “all theories of evolution are true” because of this “missing link” is a shot in the dark. This missing link has little to say about: space time and matter coming from nothing in the Big Bang, chemical evolution, and supernatural abiogenesis.

Ejasz on May 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Correlation does not imply causation.

That an adapid once lived long ago (which is the only thing such a fossil tells us) does not imply that it is the common ancestor of anything but its own species.

That’s just the fact. It’s neither evolution nor creation.

bilups on May 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM

right, I guess you’re not coming back to defend yourself against all of my “lies”?

That’s alright. I’ll just put these quotes here, so they’re all on one place next time.

yeah here’s what He’d say to people like you:

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

so yeah calling you an idiot is rather mild…but very truthful…

right4life on January 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM

‘trash’ is bad language? give me a break. its the truth…perhaps I should have just said:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

the bible also says don’t cast pearls before swine…and many of these people are swine..do you think thats a bad word too?

right4life on December 21, 2008 at 10:18 AM

did your ‘father’ tell you that??

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM

obviously you have…but its your nature…like ‘father’ like son…(and no you won’t get the reference)

right4life on May 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM

as far as calling me a devil…anyone who preaches a doctrine of works is preaching doctrines of demons…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 9:56 PM

And once again, this isn’t everything.

Esthier on May 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

right4life on May 20, 2009 at 7:25 AM

Your posts are indeed hostile. Lots of people can see it.

Take a deep breath and recall some of the words of “Make Me a Channel of Your Peace” (the prayer of Francis of Assisi):

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted;
to understand, than to be understood;
to love, than to be loved.
For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.
It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.
It is by dying that one awakens to eternal life.
Amen.

Then come back and state your views more openheartedly, in a way that better respects others’ dignity and better preserves your own. My 2 cts.

Edouard on May 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Nothing in nature evolves up to a higher form. Evolution, Global Warming and Socialism is a hoax. Apes are still apes, I asked one why he decided not to evolve. He explained that the chances of him being a college professor was too high, therefore he preferred his current status.

Easydoesit on May 20, 2009 at 7:39 AM

Indeed! This would violate the current laws of science including Everything that currently exists has already been created and everything in the Universe is in a degenerative state. But, that doesn’t square with Darwin so shhhh! We don’t talk about Thermodynamics and complicated stuff like that…

sabbott on May 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Everything that currently exists has already been created and everything in the Universe is in a degenerative state.

Soooo…that means that we really didn’t trade in the horse for the automobile?

As for thermodynamics, energy doesn’t really run out…it just ends up as a useless form. Doesn’t mean that prior to potential energy vs. entropy equilibrium somewhere down the road, you can’t make a mountain out of a mole hill. ;-)

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Calling any paleontologist or wanna be palenotologist

I just saw this post and I am genuinely trying to be open minded about this. I was wondering if there was a simple way to explain the process of finding a fossil like this and then calling it “a missing link.” I am not trying to be obtuse. I was just curious about the scientific process. Thanks in advance.

Mormon Doc on May 20, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Is that Pelosi?

Extra Special Prosecutor on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Oh my! Raptor Jesus!

Mr. Joe on May 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Oh my! Raptor Jesus!

Mr. Joe on May 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Too funny…that was my thought exactly

Jamson64 on May 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM

It’s amazing how evolutionists will toss aside laws of physics and thermodynamics yet accept this as proof of their debunked 19th century religion… Scientific indeed…

CaliConstitutionalist on May 20, 2009 at 9:15 PM

It already falling apart as “the missing link”. An article today shows that it is nothing more then media build up for a documentary coming up.

[Coauthor Philip] Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal: “There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”
“That rings all sorts of warning bells,” [University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter] Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.
“It’s nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates . . . but they’ve cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they’ve been criticized (by other scientists) for doing that.”

wakey74 on May 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM

It’s amazing how evolutionists will toss aside laws of physics and thermodynamics yet accept this as proof of their debunked 19th century religion… Scientific indeed…

CaliConstitutionalist on May 20, 2009 at 9:15 PM

What’s even more amazing is calling a scientific theory accepted by 99.9% of the people who study life for a living “debunked.”

justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 12:23 AM

What’s even more amazing is calling a scientific theory accepted by 99.9% of the people who study life for a living “debunked.”

True. This theory has only gotten stronger over time. All theories are suspect including the ones that are the basis for electricity, chemistry, medicine-in short, everything that modern technology is based upon. Sure, some theories are stronger than others, but natural selection is a major foundation of the biological sciences. There is no such thing as ‘scientific fact’…’fact’ is a term used by propagandists.

If a theory is no good, it will be discarded and in much less time than natural selection’s been around. If a theory keeps on leading scientists to new discoveries and explanations that lead to new technologies then it is probably a decent theory. Actually, a theory is a hypothesis backed up by data, time and acceptance by the scientific community. Shakier ideas not backed up/accepted they would call a hypothesis. Note that it’s not the ‘hypothesis of evolution’.

Biologists treat natural selection as an assumption because it’s so strong and it works for them. Just because all the mechanisms have not yet been nailed down doesn’t matter as this only takes time. I’d say that biologists are much more on the same sheet of music on this than we Christians are concerning transubstantiation, intercessions through the Virgin Mary, the dead Christ on the Cross vs. the arisen Christ/empty cross, etc.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Man. I’ve been a cop for 20-years and I learned a long time ago that if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it’s probably a rat.

.

SilverStar830 on May 21, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Yeah I found the nice people!

Okay. This is a serious question. I went to Sea World a while back and as they were telling us all the amazing ways Orcas have evolved to be the biggest and best the sea has to offer… I started wondering why Grey whales evolved differently than Orcas… Were they the same once or have there always been both? I mean in evolution theory not real life.

Then I started wondering why there isn’t a strong trend toward a single predator and a single prey species.

Why isn’t natural selection making there less diversity instead of more. Everything should be getting more powerful all the time. It’s late I’m not sure I’m making sense… but all this evolution talk…

petunia on May 21, 2009 at 1:59 AM

True. This theory has only gotten stronger over time. All theories are suspect including the ones that are the basis for electricity, chemistry, medicine-in short, everything that modern technology is based upon. Sure, some theories are stronger than others, but natural selection is a major foundation of the biological sciences. There is no such thing as ’scientific fact’…’fact’ is a term used by propagandists.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM

False macro-evoultion theory has gotten weaker over time
The tree of life we were taught 20 years where neanderthal was in it has been debunked
We are not descendants from Neanderthals.
And what is interesting is that there were morons just like you teaching this little nugget as absolute fact.
Natural selection, adapation true, macro-evoultion not so much

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Was that thing stepped on?

ProudPalinFan on May 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM

I thought that King Kong was the “eighth wonder of the world”.

Wouldn’t this be the 23rd wonder of the world?

As a geologist and palentologist, there is something a little… strange…. about this million-watt rollout. In addition, the bizarre provenence of this specimen makes me a little suspect, and the “missing link” hoopla is not scientific but off-putting.
Perhaps unintentionally, it brings up the old “Piltdown Man” scenario, and that is not something that Cenozoic paleontologists like to remember, kicking it back to the dumb anthropologists, whom they hate, anyway.

TexasJew on May 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I thought when I saw it (aside from all the fun I am reading now) that it was one of those bird evolutions, perhaps it had on front of that Snoopyish face, a curved beak akin to what we see in macaws today. After all, we have seen the bird evolution from a dinosaur variant.

Ok had enough of seriousspeak. Ol’ Chihuahua, ran over.

ProudPalinFan on May 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Harry Reid in the morning.

ProudPalinFan on May 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I don’t know if anyone else has posted this or a link to it, but AP’s and Charles’ orgasm may be a little premature:

Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper. “There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”

Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth,” the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. “It’s like going back to 1994,” says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. “They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.”

Garbage in; garbage out. (And I’m not a Creationist, let alone a Biblical literalist Evangelical.) Google a sentence or two to find the science magazine’s web site as I ussed my clipboard to copy the quote rather than the URL.

andycanuck on May 23, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8