Posted on 09/15/2009 12:50:19 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
This past May, a fossil nicknamed Ida was loudly heralded by the evolutionary scientific community as the long-sought-after “missing link” that supposedly proved ape-to-human evolution. Directly following the unveiling, ICR News reported reasons why Ida, in fact, linked nothing, being merely an extinct variety of lemur.[1]
ICR News also predicted what has now occurred with Ida’s popularity campaign, stating, “After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded.”[2] Ida has been surreptitiously...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
For some reason I just love drawing attention to every new twist and turn of this story :o)
All the best—GGG
What, creationists predict that people will make mistakes? I predict people will use the bathroom today.
Of course we make mistakes, they hold us to much higher standards than their ultimate answer - “Because He did it that way.”
The scientists at ICR not only predicted the Evos made a HUGE mistake, but they also predicted how the Evos would handle it (by sweeping it under the rug). In other words, ICR nailed it!
Typical Creationist lie.
First, nothing in science is “proof” of anything; it is either evidence that does or does not support a theory.
And they cannot even get the basic science correct, typical of creationist ignorance and/or willingness to lie.
Ida was heralded as a link between pro-simians (lemurs and such) and simians.
How could a transitional fossil between lemurs and monkeys possibly be “proof” or even evidence of the evolutionary link between apes and humans?
One may as well claim that a transitional fossil between an amphibian and a reptile “proves” that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
What the debacle illustrates is that Darwinist true believers are so quick to jump on “discoveries” proving their talking points, that they often end up with egg on their faces when the data is given a second look. This is not to besmerch the serious scientists working in the field but rather a criticism aimed at the would be Dawkinses who tend to bash creationists before the the data has been fully vetted.
I find it odd that the acronym “ICR” should be followed by the word “News”.
As usual.
Same source, same propagana.
It’s never about the data.
It’s about the insane interpretations of said data.
You sum it up well. Thank you.
Actually, the thrust of the articles (and arguments) about IDA is not that they merely made a mistake.
It is that they took the finding of just ONE set of fossilized remains, and then went crazy setting up websites, magazine articles, etc., (all in very short period of time) all proclaiming this find WAS the TRUE ANCESTOR of man.
I.E. In their haste to make this claim, they didn’t find it pertinent to spend any time trying to actually find any real proof, or even give the scientific community time to debate the issue.
At least they stayed away from the topic of what age the fossil is, they never slip up there.
==Ida was heralded as a link between pro-simians (lemurs and such) and simians.
As usual, you don’t have a firm enough grasp on the facts to know what your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics were actually trying to claim:
‘A BEAUTIFULLY preserved 47-million-year-old fossil from a German shale pit is the “missing link”, the earliest ancestor of all living monkeys, apes and people...”This is the first link to all humans”, said paleontologist Jorn Hurum of Norway’s University of Oslo.’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25515021-2702,00.html
Either that or you are trying to sweep this evo-scandal under the rug as well. Nice try (whatever it is you were trying to accomplish), but no dice!
I will grant that the find was sensationalized. Those who jump to any conclusion like this that fast are not acting professional imho, and usually get well deserved egg on their face for it.
And in an unmarked grave no less...LOL!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
Just by way of reminiscing, that is a link to one of the original press releases/news stories.....
Here are some of the quotes from that story:
“This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters,” said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. “The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo.”
“This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years,” said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University’s Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. “It tells a part of our evolution that’s been hidden so far. It’s been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there’s nothing almost to study.” The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin’s 200th birthday year.
With respect to that first paragrap, ICR, did, in fact make a mistake.
Ida wasn’t heralded as the missing link showing that man evolved from ape...no no no! The claims were MUCH larger than that. Ida is going to show us “our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters”.
So shame on ICR for not reporting the Evos own words! Without ICR toning it down, they would look even worse!
This is the fault of the ego of man, not an invalidation of a theory.
This can be seen in ANY OTHER scientific discipline and community. They’re constantly re-evaluating the true age of this universe (hint: They’re pretty sure it’s greater than 6000 years). Hawking had to revise his cosmological constant and admit that he was wrong. Even Newton was wrong in his observations and calculations (but NOT his theory)>
Nobody wants to delay while other people publish from their work. That’s a fault of MAN, not science.
Ida is obviously a primate because she has nails on her digits rather than claws and she has opposable thumbs and big toes.
• Ida is female because she doesn’t have a baculum, or penis bone.
• She dates from around the time that our branch of the primates (the haplorhines) which includes monkeys and apes split from a second group including the lemurs, lorises, pottos and bush babies (the strepsirrhines).
• Key features of her skeleton suggest she is not an ancient lemur. She has no “grooming claw” on her second toe, a feature that all lemurs share. She also does not have a set of fused teeth in the middle of her bottom jaw called a “tooth comb”. Finally, the tarsus bone in her ankle is shaped like our ancestors. So it is likely that she is a very early haplorhine primate.
• Ida’s left wrist was broken, but had partly healed. The researchers believe this injury would have hampered her climbing and may have contributed to her death.
• Ida’s large eye holes in her skull suggest she was probably adapted for night vision and so was nocturnal.
• Her milk teeth are in place with adult teeth forming behind, indicating that she was still a juvenile – probably six to nine months old.
• Ida’s last meal is visible in her preserved stomach contents. It contained fruit and leaves, but no insects.
From the Guardian. May 2009
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.