[GodGunsGuts]

LOL! Needless to say, Creation and ID scientists had this one pegged RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[count-your-change]

Gloating isn't kind (but sure is a lota fun, isn't it!)

And considering the abuse rec'd, understandable.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Needless to say, Creation and ID scientists had this one pegged RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!!

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?

[RFEngineer]

“LOL! Needless to say, Creation and ID scientists had this one pegged RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!!”

“LOL” is right. You “creation science” types have nothing correct. If course, before you have the predictable hissy-fit, neither does real science - but real science is much much closer than the laughable “creation science” group.

Actual science simply dispassionately takes the data, lets the peer review process (by actual experts) extract the best information that can be gleaned by each discovery.

In this case, the find got a due review, and if this article is correct, it’s significance is much less than what the media reported (who is surprised?). This is how scientific discovery works, and is why one must wait for conclusions and review when a news reporter spins the significance of any scientific discovery.