2 more missing links.
Ping!
Just in time to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book.
Isn’t that odd?
How can a link so far back in time be a ‘link’ to that which is so recent in time?
I must be dumb as I miss the ‘connection’.
Google has it on its logo today - guess that means it’s time to declare that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is a fraud.
All hail the magic lemur!
I’m actually more in agreement with the answersingenesis article than I am with many media reports on this find. Much of the media is talking completely out of their arses on this.
THIS story potentially makes sense:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
THIS story (and many like it) sounds like utter crapola:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_missing_link_found_fossil_of_47_millionyearold_primate_sheds_light_on_.html
Talk of the size is irrelevant and designed to give the impression to the impressionable of such a differing size with humans that it could not be a human precursor.....40+ million years ago. Make no mention that htis is not SUPPOSED to be the size of a human It's a false argument. Humans have not always been the size we are now either. Human skulls have undergone major changes over millions of years. Homo habilis was quite different than Man of today.
Here's a misdirection...a strawman:
The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.
Nobody claimed it looked anything like a human....burn the strawman. They are using this as evidence of "a" "link" between early primitive primates that no longer exist....and simians and prosimians that lived later....not with Man.
The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.
An irrelevant piece of information. Who cares who found it, when it was found, and that it was in 2 pieces after millions of years and an amateur excavation?
Here's a lie:
Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates).
Not all primates have opposable thumbs, that is a bold-faced lie. Lemurs do as do "most" simians (most, not all).....and "some" prosimians (some, not all). Ida is merely being touted to be an example of the evolutionary bridge between early primates that no longer exist....and later living prosimians and simians, who no longer exist as they did.
Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks...
That would be relevant if Ida were....a lemur. Ida is not a lemur. Ida is lemur-LIKE.
These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind.
Well, THAT's a nice claim to have in your pocket...almost as good as "all evidence is evidence of Creation." Any alterations in physical appearance can now be lumped into this generic nonsense claim. Lemurs having regular teeth.....lemurs having monkey teeth....all easily explained by "variation within a kind".......except that Ida....IS NOT A LEMUR. Ida is something that no longer lives on the Earth.
Of course none of this matters to someone that believes Man walked with T-rex.
If they think this thing proves some part of Evolution, yet blood in dinosaur bones does not prove a young earth, then I’m ready to just right them off as loony and have them taken away to a rubber room. These people would believe anything over God creating universe and this is further proof of it.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. cr/evo threads: To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||