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has now occurred with Ida’s popularity campaign, stating, “After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded.”[2] Ida has been surreptitiously...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 ...
There is a point, the point is that the Cretarded cannot even correctly and accurately state the data they seek to refute, they must first misrepresent it out of equal measures of malice and ignorance.
A supposed transitional form between a lemur and a monkey cannot possibly provide evidence to support the notion that apes descended from monkeys, or that humans descended from apes. To misrepresent the argument is a lie, even if you disagree with it. Surely even YOU can see that?
Apparently you're attempting to knock down a strawman that doesn't exist, swinging wildly at your own shadow,
“Thus the “heralded by the (sic) scientific community as the long sought after “missing link” that supposedly proved ape-to-human evolution” is a LIE.”
“Some morons must like being lied to. The target audience for this piece of propaganda.”
Well, that's how it is in the Temple of Darwin.
Hurum didn't say this provided evidence of human-ape evolution.
Hurum said that this was exciting because it would be a common ancestor to humans.
According to common descent we are all descendants of the first amphibians to become reptiles; so finding a transition would be exciting because it would be an ancestor to all terrestrial mammals.
But nobody said Tiktaalik shed any particularly keen insight onto the reptile to mammal transition (or “proved” it); because it didn't.
Similarly, nobody reputable said Ida shed any particularly keen insight onto the monkey to ape transition or the ape to human transition (or “proved” it); because it didn't.
It is incapable of even addressing an issue (let alone proving it) which would not take place until some millions of years later. Capiche?
Your devotion to the Temple of Darwin has broken your connection with reality, dreamer. Your evo co-religionist Ida proprietors claimed that Ida “represents an early haplorhine – the ‘dry nosed’ primates that include old world monkeys and apes, including humans.” The ICR News article claims that they used this bogus evo-religious claim to “supposedly prove ape-to-human evolution.” Where does the ICR author say that Ida was claimed by your evo co-religionists to be between apes and humans? The answer is that the good scientists over at ICR never made any such claim. You inserted that claim into their mouths in order to set up a straw man to distract attention away from the embarrassment Ida is causing to your evo-religious creation myth that masquerades as science. The reason this bogus fossil supposedly proved ape-to-human evolution was because of the bogus claim that it linked apes and humans to the rest of the animal kingdom, a link that your fellow evo co-religionists thought was missing until they fell for the Ida hoax. Of course the link is still missing, and it will always be missing because God's Word is clear that humans were created fully formed and fully functional, with no evolutionary connection to apes or any other mystical evo-connections to the greater animal kingdom.
It is a proposed transitional between lemurs and monkeys, not between anything and apes.
That came much later.
Nobody reputable said it “proved” the ape-human transition.
The scientific argument is over if it represents a lemur to monkey transition.
A lemur to monkey transition can shed no light on the ape to human transition that wouldn't take place until millions of years later.
To suggest that this was proposed as evidence of the ape-human transition is based upon IGNORANCE.
But that is all Creationists have really, the ignorant.
The more one knows, especially about science, the less likely they are to be a Creationist.
No wonder so many of your cohorts have anti science messages in their taglines and are appalled at the thought that someone might think a scientist was heroic.
It is an unrelenting campaign because the Temple of Darwin devotees on FR can’t come to terms with the fact that Creationists and IDers are permitted to post their articles and papers on FR. The evos want to do to FR what their ACLU co-religionists have done to our public schools. It’s time for Christians and conservatives generally to wake up and realize that the Temple of Darwin is an intolerant, anti-science religion that seeks kill all dissent, and to eradicate Christianity from the public square...and I think it is high time we expose it as such.
“Hurum said that this was exciting because it would be a common ancestor to humans.”
And presumably he views apes as a common ancestor of humans?
Hurum also didn't say he thought humans evolved from lower forms so I guess that means something, maybe not though.
But this is completely irrelevant since this wasn't the point of the article posted but rather all the hype laid on Ida:
“It is incapable of even addressing an issue (let alone proving it) which would not take place until some millions of years later. Capiche?”
"Capiche"? I once owned a Chevy Capiche, pretty good car for while.
Harum said this was exciting because (if it is) a transitional between lemurs and monkeys it would be an ancestor to all monkeys humans and apes.
He didn't say it provided evidence for (or “proved”) the ape to human transition.
It would be impossible for it to “prove” something that would not happen for millions of years.
That is like saying Tiktaalik “proved” reptile to mammal evolution. A little hard for it to do, seeings as how it was neither a reptile or a mammal.
Similarly, it would be impossible for Ida to “prove” ape to human evolution as a possible transitional form between a lemur and a monkey is neither an ape or a human.
So are you really still not getting this?
Do I have to keep explaining it to you?
Would a timeline help?
Have you gone completely daffy, dreamer? The ICR News article never said that Ida represents an intermediate between the ape-human transition. The article pointed out that this bogus “find” was used to complete the primate line that supposedly connected humans to the rest of the animal kingdom. Indeed, the same author co-wrote an earlier ICR News article in which he stated that Ida is “currently being hailed as ‘our connection with the rest of all the mammals.’” Obviously, the ICR scientist is well aware that the evos were not trying to place Ida between apes and humans. Duh!
GGG ~ here is another chance for you to enter the temple of Darwin and demonstrate how you can utterly destroy it. Should be simple since you claim there is no scientific evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence to refute it.
Go ahead show us that you are not just the big man in the echo chamber venture outside and send the evo’s away crying…
Personally I doubt you last more than 2 or 3 post as best without being exposed.
But go ahead and sign up, defend your position outside of this echo chamber without your cheerleaders.
You talk and good game here, but talk his cheap go ahead show how easy it is.
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4638818
I didn't say that ICR said Ida represented an ape-human transitional, they don't even believe in transitional species.
I said that what ICR said about it being “hailed” as “proof” of human ape evolution is a lie.
Something that happened millions of years before an event cannot “prove” an event, or even give you evidence of what happened.
They wanted to lead the reader around by the nose by setting up a strawman, and you apparently applaud their masterful use of deception which can only prey upon the ignorant.... the target audience of Creationism.
Because the more you know, especially about science, the less likely you are to be a Creationist.
Thus they know and appeal to their target audience.
==Listen up again gutless.
Listen up even closer, Mr. Darwin-drone.
==I didn’t say that ICR said Ida represented an ape-human transitional, they don’t even believe in transitional species.
I didn’t say that, Mr. Darwin-drone. I said that ICR never claimed that the evos believe that. Big difference. But I can see how you evo-anger over the Temple of Darwin being exposed might cause you to jump the gun.
==I said that what ICR said about it being “hailed” as “proof” of human ape evolution is a lie.
LOL! OK, dreamer...see if you can glean what your fellow Temple of Darwin co-religionists are trying to say in the following:
‘It shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans), said Norwegian paleontologist Jørn Hurum of University of Oslo Natural History Museum. However, she is not really an anthropoid either, he said.
The fossil, called Darwinius masillae and said to be a female, provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of any primate so far discovered from the Eocene Epoch, Hurum said. An analysis of the fossil mammal is detailed today in the journal PLoS ONE.
“This is the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage,” Hurum said.’
http://www.livescience.com/history/090519-fossil-primate.html
Well stated and worse still is the kind of back-peddaling one sees what with all the myriad liberal projections from the Dawkinses we see illustrated in post #6.
Can you feel the religious fervor?! Can you sense that the Temple of Darwin was right on the verge of religious revival?! LOLOLOL!!!!!
National Geographic:
“This is the first link to all humans,” Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.”
Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.
“This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs to the group that includes us,” said Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study, published this week in the journal PLoS ONE.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
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.
Very astute analysis, telling still is the fact that normal well adjusted people instantly recognize your summarizations, while the liberals steeply indoctrinated in a godless cult are simply incapable of such recognition.
If it were a transitional between a lemur and a monkey it would be of a species that was a common ancestor to all monkeys apes and humans; according to the theory of common descent.
Similarly, a fish to amphibian transitional would be a common ancestor to all amphibians and reptiles.
And a reptile to mammal transitional would be a common ancestor to all mammals.
A lemur to monkey transitional would be a common ancestor to all monkeys apes and humans.
A monkey to ape transitional would be a common ancestor to all apes and humans.
A ape to human transitional would be a common ancestor to all humans.
The scientific argument about Ida is over if it is indeed a lemur to monkey transitional.
It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the specifics (let alone “proof”) of ape to human evolution.
To represent the argument as being over ape to human evolution is to lie.
Ahhhh...the Guardian! Haven’t seen that one linked on FR in some time.
So far, it appears we have an old fossil of an old lemur that has since become extinct. Nothing out there as of yet in terms of fossils that one can compare this to, (no other lemurs like this one that I know of anyway) and certainly none around like this today.
That’s about all we can say with any certainty.
But the claims that this was the early “missing link” as it were...
well...
FAIL.
(How’s the hospice business on your end coming along?)
You want me to go over to an evo-loser site that won’t even let me start my own Creation/ID threads? LOL!
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.