Why is this automatically assume to be a primate? It looks like a dinosaur fossil. Human ancestor, there needs to be a new word invented for that level of guessing. What a joke.
Posted on 07/21/2009 8:37:13 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
On May 19 the world met a most unlikely celebrity: the fossilized carcass of a housecat-size primate that lived 47 million years ago in a rain forest in what is now Germany. The specimen, a juvenile female, represents a genus and species new to science, Darwinius masillae, although the media-savvy researchers who unveiled her were quick to give her a user-friendly nickname, Ida. And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”
If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Thier judgement is clouded to begin with. When you ask an evolutionist about "missing links", he'll say there are no such things, because all fossils are transitionals. And then he'll go back to organizing public-relation campaigns and TV shows about the latest missing link.
Hurum’s hokum.
An article also framed pictures of the daughter and fossil in similar poses to show how the fossil was a young female and make the suggestion both Ida’s were somehow related.
And considering the abuse rec'd, understandable.
You seem very eager to associate Ida with Piltdown Man. Piltdown man was a hoax, a forgery. Do you have any reason to believe Ida is a hoax, or is this just generic anti-evolution mudslinging?
Really? Creation and ID scientists knew right away that instead of a 47-million-year-old fossil of an adapiform primate on the anthropoid line, Ida was a 47-million-year-old fossile of an adapiform primate but not on the anthropoid line? My, that is impressive. And where did they publish those assertions?
A bit of artistic license?
Oh, it took me a second to get it. I’m so dumb.
The daughter is a ‘female’, and the fossil is a ‘female’, therefore they are related.
Makes sense.
>>>But this is all fine science in the tradition of Bathybius and Piltdown.
So carrying forth this fine line of thought, I guess when we have a Tony Alamo and his underage girls, a Jim Bakker with his waterslide and his real-estate frauds, monasteries with enough splinters of the True Cross to build a frontier fort, yadda yadda yadda x 2000 years, then these invalidate Christianity. Or maybe not, after all “this is all fine religion in the tradition of sideshow carneys and false prophets.”
For myself I like the open minded skepticism of genuine science. It is more reliably self-correcting.
Well this is a new twist. An evolutionist who claims evolutionists do not exist. Did you ever hear this before, Fichori?
But I wasn't talking about "a tail".
I think you have the true cross artifacts confounded in your mind with the "hairs of the prophet".
See the nails?
History.
I'm trying to think of one *missing link* earth shaking discovery which has turned out to be as significant as initially claimed and am coming up short.
Discoveries like that should be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism instead naively accepting anything anyone says just because evos want it to be true so bad. It should be treated as a potential hoax, or at the very least, a misidentification until it has been thoroughly and rigorously studied and classified. This bickering among scientists over what to classify it as indicates too much eagerness and not enough caution in labeling it and making the final determination of what it is and where it goes in the evolutionary tree.
It makes the scientific community look like a bunch of gullible fools and destroys their credibility every time they have to backpedal because they over reacted.
For all the evos worry about science's reputation, they do it to themselves. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
You hit the nail on the head - that fossil could be a lizard, a dinosaur, a big rodent, or just about anything with 4 legs and a tail.
Yet, we're supposed to believe "scientists" (read: ivory tower-indoctrinated overedumacated trust-fund-babies) have some special ability to see more in that "fossil" than we FReepers do.
The sheer arrogance is astounding.
No, it can’t be a lizard, or dino, or rodent - not if the words have any meaning.
Why would it be sheer arrogance for someone who has studied bones of various animals all their life to believe that they have more knowledge than most of what the bones of certain animals look like? Wouldn’t the sheer arrogance belong to someone who hasn’t done any such study and yet believes that they know as much as people who have?
It would hardly be astounding arrogance for a plumber with years of experience to believe that he knows more about plumbing than most. It would be astounding arrogance for me who hasn’t spent a second on plumbing work to think I know as much as plumbers.
Yes. In looking at the picture I also notice something else.
It looks like a caveman took his club and bashed Ida's head in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.