[metmom]

That’s what I was thinking.

They’re too eager to make their assessment about where this fossil fits in the evolutionary scheme of things and too eager to announce it.

Likely, they’ll just end up with egg on their faces, as they have with so many other fossils, like the *Hobbit* fossil.

[UCANSEE2]

They’re too eager to make their assessment about where this fossil fits

I question these fossil 'finds' as well.

Usually, what I find upon investigation is that when they say they found the fossil of creature 'x', they are usually talking about a piece of jawbone, or a tooth, or a hipbone. From that they 'reconstruct' the whole creature.

So, I wonder how much of the 'fossil' there is, in this case?

[UCANSEE2]

Looks like they had the skull, jawbone, and at least one limb, possibly the full skeleton. According to the article.

Also, according to the article, this creature may not even be on the same limb as simians and humans.

[UCANSEE2]

Here is a link to a better article written about Ida.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

[goat granny]

Being quite old (70) I have heard of so many missing links that when I read that, I think someone is talking about a necklace...They have all proved false...There is no missing link...Those that want to believe they are descended from apes, well, let them...Darwins theory takes more faith than I can muster...I'll just go with creation from God..