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.











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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »
Yawn…
echosyst on May 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
indeed.
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Now it all makes perfect sense.
canditaylor68 on May 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Let’s see, modern science is great for
1) modern medicine, including gene therapies & adult stem cell therapies.
2) modern technology
3) atomic bombs, nuclear power and nuclear medicine
but not evolution. Odd.
Now science can be manipulated by those with political agendas, such as global warming & theories of racial superiority, but real science is not here to prove or disprove a super-natural entity, but rather simply to understand the natural world.
rbj on May 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Guess what? The ultimate proof will come with the Rapture. All the while, we will be laughing at those with the monkey bones.
carbon_footprint on May 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I think the Asian countries are creationists. . . as are the Indians. . . however the evolution theory sort of morphs on the Hindu idea of levels of incarnations.
Why couldn’t that fossil just be of another extinct animal? We have huge fossils of dinosaurs, what happened to their evolved descendants? I know we have snakes, aligators, and other reptiles, but why not evolved T-rex’s.
Why assume that this creature is an evolutionary chain instead of extinct like the other dinosaurs?
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
that is my view as well. it seems to me like a false dichotomy being used by certain people to paint others with a brush of their choosing, if you catch my drift.
kind of like the idiotic BS being hurled at carrie prejean, or the “christian vs. gay showdown” meme being played up now with regards to the american idol finalists.
homesickamerican on May 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Wonders 9 through 12 are Pelosi’s eye jobs.
marklmail on May 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
And that should be Crichton!
Dang – snarky before Google always causes problems like that…
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Apologies if this has been said already, but
it looks like a miniature tyranasaur or a baby godzilla.
moc23 on May 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Oh look! They have their own version of the stain on the fridge that looks like the Virgin Mary!
If Chimpanzees had gone extinct a couple of million years ago, and they found a fossil of a chimp, would the chimp fossil be proof that humans evolved from apes?
Buddahpundit on May 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
.
Yes, but was the missing link in any way connected to those Vlams Belang clowns? That would totally spoil it for Charles.
iurockhead on May 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM
It’s even worse than I thought: they found the monkey in a box of Jesus’ bones.
Settled science!
jeff_from_mpls on May 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM
If that rat is an ancestor of humans, then where do the cavemen who lived with dinosaurs fit in?
Cicero43 on May 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Allah, this is why I appreciate you.
Thanks for articulating what is at the heart of this discussion!
brotherbell on May 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM
OK, maybe I am taking your comment too seriously. But you seem to think that the article is claiming that the fossil is human, and that humans are monkeys, and they are saying neither of these things.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Yawn. Look at all the religious Luddites getting all threatened about their literal interpretations of the Bible. Another reason this Conservative isn’t a Republican anymore–as a RATIONAL human being I’m embarrassed to be associated with you.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Priceless!
myrenovations on May 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Suddenly a banana sounds mighty tasty!
capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I have a strong Christian faith but I’ve never had any problem with evolution or science in terms of them being “incompatible” with my religion.
I can see the Almighty trying to figure out a way to explain molecular biology to the ancient Hebrews and thinking “you know, I better go with the Genesis bit…”
Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Nor are evolutionists. Evolutionists are only interested in shaping the way that the world looks a science. When any avenue of research surfaces that disagrees with what the Athiest saviors (Richard Dawkins, Eugenie “Eugenic” Scott, NCSE slavery fanbots) say, regardless of the authenticity of the research, Atheists do everything in their power to shut that person down, cast them out of the Big Science community, and try to discredit them and ruin their professional lives in any way possible.
What a nice, tolerant set of people you Atheists and Darwinists are! I mean, don’t get me wrong, I think you Darwinists should be able to have your cute little anti-religion religion and all, but maybe you should instead just treat it as a……you know…..recreational thing.
leetpriest on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Ok so you are going to tell everyone that they are idiots for looking at a freaking “drawing” that was done before you and I were even thought of in any spectrum via thousands of years?
Give me a freaking break! It isn’t like we can go back in time and go “what are you paiting on that wall?” and ask them why? Who knows why people paint things on the walls back then… heck who knows why people paint and do the stuff they do now?
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
This is awesome! Great post!
brotherbell on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Fossilized Gorn.
Christien on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
A single fossil proves nothing. And since theories are merely explanations of facts, no scientific theory (germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory) can be proven. It simply enhances our knowledge of the history of life on Earth.
(sorry for going over the word count)
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
CUZ!
Kini on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
.
The evolved descendents of dinosaurs are birds.
iurockhead on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
They found Joe Biden’s brain?
HornetSting on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
So you post here, because……….?????
capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
God is not flesh. We are made in HIs image – our eternal souls – not our physical shells which is only dust. Adam was only dust given life by the “breath of God”. Our bodies are pointless to that.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
It would be a lot more impressive had it been released with more sobriiety. C’mon, timed to coincide with a Darwin holiday, billed as the 8th wonder, the science is now settled? Methinks someone sunk a boatload of cash into this and needs to recoup the investment
I’m agnostic on this one, will wait for peer review and all that dry, boring stuff formerly known as science.
obladioblada on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Exactly.
I guess what irritates me most is the certainty that evolutionists project. They take this…
“This fossil represents a species with features that are similar to these other two species, but also with significant differences. Now – it might be a discrete and distinct species on its own. But I can imagine how they might be related to the other two. In fact, I can imagine how — assuming macroevolution is true — this fossil might represent an intermediary species between those other two species.”
…and turn it into this…
“This fossil is the link between those two species and proves evolution.”
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I thought we all were “transitional” and constantly evolving.
Aristotle on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I really, really doubt “made in God’s image” refers to the physical form our bodies take, but to the eternal nature of our souls. As CS Lewis said, “Man is an amphibian” – we exist in both the physical and spiritual worlds. The spiritual reality, which Christians regard as the more lasting and permanent, is where the important similarities are apparent.
In the physical realm, I think these similarities are most apparent in our conscious minds and our consciences.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I watched the little video, and they were oooohing (those damn o’s again!) and ahhing about how perfect it was. They had xrayed it and said that it was proven to be real.
maybe so, it appears to be a beautiful speciman, but it is still in the original matrix rock, and analysis of the bone and matrix is needed, since the damn thing supposedly sat in somebody’s house for 25 years, mounted on a wall – not a good place for a scientific masterpiece to be sitting.
A bit of an analogy: one of the main industries in Morocco right now is faking paleontological material and selling it to collectors, often on eBay. Spinosaurus teeth, large trilobites, dinosaur eggs – many of these are “reconstructed” items at best, and outright fakes at worst.
There is a lot of real fabulous Moroccan material, however, so it’s a crapshoot.
TexasJew on May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Oh–by the way–the Earth is 4 BILLION years old, not 4,000. And there’s no Santa Claus, either. Sorry to upset y’all.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
and somehow we managed to lead the world in science, industry, inventions…well at least before the age of Obama…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
What I am saying is it is a drawing, or painting of something that someone did in which will will never know why they did it.
Maybe it was a nightmare they had and they decided to put it in to light for others to see. Maybe it was a fossil they say that scared then and they think that it will come after them. We do not know. That is my point.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Ignoramous! The comments so far have been somewhat reasonable. You just had to get your bigotry out there for all to see. Well done young man!
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM
That’s not true. I consider myself a creationist (though yours and my defenitions of the term are likely different.) Science is great, and it doesn’t proves or disproves God’s existence.
I think it’s be silly for anyone to either put great faith in this discovery or dismiss it outright until it can be studied further.
BadgerHawk on May 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Exactly, that is why Christians throughout the history of the world have been at the forefront of scientific discoveries, trying to understand how God created it all! And maybe why.
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Last time I checked, this was a conservative site–not legally affiliated with the Republican party, OR Liberty University. (rolling eyes)
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Suddenly a banana sounds mighty tasty!
capejasmine on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Who are you, Hannibal Lector?
TexasJew on May 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Ahh true. I have some trilobites from morroco… and if you looked at the three I have, they all look different. I wonder if they are fake or nit… but how would one know unless tested and they aren’t worth testing.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM
You saying he has one?
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Scientists and scholars were aware the earth was not flat long before Columbus’s time.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Exactly my friend. Theistic evolutionists just force “science” to the bible.
At least as an atheist, you have the common sense to see that.
The bible says; “So God created man in his own image”
The bible also says, Death came into the world because of sin. Before sin, there is no death.
maynila on May 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Hear hear…
Skywise on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Scientists (or, more accurately, persons using the methods of science) had known for thousands of years that the world was round. It was because such knowledge was deemed incompatible with medieval Christian theology that the flat earthers ruled Columbus’ day. The evidence was quite literally all around them (one sees the mast of a sailing ship come over the horizon before one sees the hull, the shadow from a stick at the bottom of a well makes a different angle than the shadow from a stick at the top of a tower, etc.), but they chose to ignore it for religious reasons. Sound familiar?
One cannot ascribe motives after the fact to F&I. Perhaps they thought Columbus was annoying, and they were just paying him to go away–falling off the edge of a flat earth isn’t much different than taking a long walk off a short pier.
There is no such thing as verifiable science. As to useful science that moves society forward, evolution has, among other things, given us a number of new drugs and medical treatments that a creationistic biology could not have.
Learn to drive better.
That is all.
hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM
rbj on May 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
OK here is my throw down challenge for the evolutionists
Please explain how the Robinsonian fissions and fusions necessary for our chromosome to be as they are now occurred.
Please explain how we humans who are very prone to negative genetic mutation and a reduction in fitness from those mutations were able to escape the Founder’s Effect.
Now this part should be pretty easy I am just asking you to explain how we changed to become Human as we are now, not even asking how we moved up from lemur to chimp to human (or which ever progression you believe).
If you can not explain these scientific questions with a scientific answer then perhaps you will agree with me there is a lot more study that needs to be done before we worship at the altar of creationism.
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
For a new species, there needs to be information added to the genome. We have never found such. Never ever.
Dawkins tells us wazzup.
seven on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM
So since the door is open, I assume that I can use this thread to tirelessly mock Charles Johnson and his jihad against all things not in perfect lockstep with his own beliefs. Christianity, Creationists, People who like Robert Spencer, etc, etc.
I wonder how many of us were old LGF’ers who walked away (or like me, were banned) for daring to disagree with him…..
mjk on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
But they sure do spend a lot of blog space advising the Republicans and the Christians.
myrenovations on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Understanding the mechanics of a miracle should not take away awe of the miracle. And if God represents what we don’t know, every time we learn something the amount of what we don’t know always seems to expand. So God gets bigger with knowledge, not smaller (look at any Hubble space picture to understand that).
Personally, I think the difference between the biblical version of Creation at six days vs. the geological evidence of billions of years is easy to understand.
Project scope creep.
michaelo on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Maybe all the Lemur does is show a link between apes and Hobbits.
Obviously, evolution, in regards to humans, is unsupportable. We evolved from aliens after all!
Weebork on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Go downfield, hard left with the monkey. Break.
Hail Mary pass.
jeff_from_mpls on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I think we underestimate our ancestors…look at things like the antikythera mechanism…and works like the pyramids, which we would have a great deal of difficulty duplicating…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Yeah, I saw a TV documentary about that. They showed how velociraptors evolved into turkeys.
Yeah, I can see how that fits into the “survival of the fittest” framework.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 1:28 PM
daesleeper wrote:
O, RLY?!
carbon_footprint wrote:
I’m laughing too. But not with you. More like at you.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Ah, yes, the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument.
It’s ALL about what that “propter” really means. And the truth is that humankind doesn’t have the ability to “prove” that evolution is spontaneous and unguided.
That’s what it all boils down to. The whole controversy. It’s not whether evolution occurs; it does. It’s not whether creatures on earth existed in less and more complex forms at different times in the past; they have. It’s not even about whether we find fossil records in the time sequence we would expect to, if Darwin’s theory is correct; on occasion, we have.
It’s whether whatever process we deduce or posit was unguided, or was guided by a creative intelligence. That’s what the point of dispute is.
And science does not have to tools to EVER prove or disprove that.
J.E. Dyer on May 19, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Found, and not on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Kini on May 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I forgive~
carbon_footprint on May 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Ah, thanks cupcake!
carbon_footprint on May 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I thought atheists were supposed to be…..smart?
Guess not, you can’t even comprehend the meaning within a single sentence.
leetpriest on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Your findings are interesting, care to verify with objective data?
Got a supposition for you – what if the Genesis story is indeed correct. Adam was formed, given life, and he’s standing there. Now, if McCoy and his tricorder happened to be handy at the time, how old would the good doctor say Adam is?
Adam looks to be a healthy man of say 20, but you, I, and Dr. McCoy know he just showed up about five minutes ago.
What if the “carbon dating” thing is actually the background radiation of Creation? That the numbers are there because we honestly don’t know where zero is on the chart.
Just a thought.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Because you interpret the evidence to fit the theory, not build the theory based on the evidence.
SheofTwoMinds on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
another darwiniac fairy tale…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
.
Agreed, LGF has turned into a 3-topic borefest. I got blocked, too, no explanation. Doesn’t really bother me, since I’ve lost interest in the blog. Pity, I really used to enjoy LGF.
iurockhead on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
you either misunderstood my post or i didn’t express myself clearly enough.
i was only trying to say that i think that “god (or creationism) vs. evolution” is a false dichotomy that people on both sides of the argument often exploit in order to paint the other side with the rhetorical brush of their choosing.
a political football, if you will…
homesickamerican on May 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
He has a Moral Equivalent Superiority Complex.
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Pope Benedict XVI pointed out at a recent seminar on evolution that the decisive fact in human evolution is the structures and acts of consciousness, not the particular morphology of the body.
It’s easy to argue against bible Christians, but if you want a genuine intellectual challenge, I wish you’d take on the Catholic teaching on evolution now and then. It’s not as easily dismissed.
jeff_from_mpls on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
So were Christians. It was the Catholic church that for some reason opposed Galileo because they for some reason thought that the earth had to be the center of the universe. . . however that is not Biblical.
That is completely made up. Penicillin was an accident. Most drugs we now have were results of them studying one thing and discovering something else. Evolution has not provided a shred of useful information for our society.
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
OJ’s gloves had better provenance than this lemur, and he was declared Not Guilty.
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Yes, I am back on the market, so ladies….
carbon_footprint on May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM
ISNT THAT AN XRAY OF helen thomas????
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
That looks like getalife.
fogw on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Although fortunately not T. rex, or my cat would be in big trouble.
exception on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Heh.
You’re too busy being an insufferable prick that you’ve forgotten how to notice sarcasm.
BadgerHawk on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Now. I know because we look like Obama.
WashJeff on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
No I understood you. I am just of a different aspect.
I don’t go off of God/Evolution. I am more the type to look and wonder WTF was this person thinking when they drew it?
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM
1,700 years before Columbus, Eratosthenes not only understood that the Earth was an orb, but he also calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of precision.
Cicero43 on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
another darwiniac fairy tale….
link
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Hey Catholics. . . Jeff says you aren’t ‘Bible Christians’. How’s that make you feel about your faith?
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
This won’t be as fun without Saint Olaf.
exception on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Maybe Afghanistan and Pakistan. The more developed ones, say Japan or even China, not.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The bible states that the earth is round since the first book was written.
The “flat earth” is only the “consensus” during those times. Just like evolution and global warming.
They persecuted non-conformists then as they marginalize them now.
Scientists and inventors who discovered many things that really matter believed in the Creator.
They have a presupposition that there is a God and we use science to understand his ways.
Today, the “wise guys” conclude that there is no God and we have all the answers.
maynila on May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM
(Dramatic narrator voice) Until now!
SheofTwoMinds on May 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Nice! This happened because Velociraptors were too chewy when rotisserie roasted over an open fire.
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM
You know what us crazy Christians say, there’s a time for everything. So the genius atheist wastes his time laughing at someone on an internet forum?
Gee, you sure are smart! Where can I get some of that carefully proctored evolution text that made you so smart?
leetpriest on May 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Speaking of evolution, Democrats are walking evidence that evolution has kicked into reverse.
jediwebdude on May 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM
By the way, there is plenty of supporting evidence in regards to the Theory of Evolution. It is why it is a scientific theory (many people have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a scientific theory versus the word “theory”). However, one of its main deficiencies is the time required for things to evolve. Given the randomness at which evolutionary traits change, and the time it takes for those traits to be tested in the environment as either beneficial or harmful to the species, the time it would take for life to have evolved this way on earth, to be true to evolution, is longer than the current age of the universe.
With that said, it is erroneous to suggest evolution should be thrown out because missing links are not found, or of the time issue. It is a valid theory that is supported by a lot of hard evidence. It just needs to be modified to fit observed data. Science is in the process of doing that, regardless of dogma on either side of the evolution issue. Time is slow.
Weebork on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Calm your nuts thacker.
The proper argument against evolution was always that “it doesnt prove anything” NOT “we have proved otherwise”. There is no “proof” that we didn’t evolve, only skepticism based on incomplete data.
ernesto on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
No, we look like half of Obama.
Race bait!
leetpriest on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
You’re just making that up as you go.
First, you make a false premise..that the USA rejects evolution, and then try to make it sound like you have data that sifts that false premise and weeds it out to a “top two”..the USA vs. Turkey.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you provide any of the data sources you used in your research?
Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
.
You didn’t pay attention to the documentary. Velociraptors were dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs were velociraptors. Different evolutionary line. Google Archaeopteryx, then have a good look at an emu.
iurockhead on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Cool, so when do we start praying to it?
Daemonocracy on May 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
The key insight of Darwin’s theory was that the process of variation and natural selection could account for the appearance of design seen in nature. The hypothesis that a Creator did it was therefore not necessary. In other words, Darwin made natural theology moot.
starfleet_dude on May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM
The debate isn’t just between “evolutionists” and “creationists”.
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Nicely said, michaelo. Thanks.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Obviously not a big fan of Darwinian Evolution, but if this proves it great. HOWEVER, I smell fraud. This fossil spent 20 years over some German dude’s home bar, only to be discovered later at “a murky black market fossil auction”, only to be picked up some guy who promoted something called Predator X. His handpicked team of scientists then did a study in which they dated the volcanic rocks, not the fossil itself. It will be shown for one day before being shipped off to Oslo never to be examined again. And this is the holy grail of Darwinists? The potential along the chain of custody for fraud is so great, and the lack of scientific review so profound, that as of now it cannot be given credence. But don’t feel bad AllahPundit, my Uncle has a jackalope in his den. Maybe that’s the missing link. Seriously though, we all know this will be touted as the be all end all evidence and then hidden away from critical eyes forever. We need a wide-range of scientists and skeptics to examine this thing and find the truth one way or the other.
chicagojedi on May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next »