[count-your-change]

Then the statement in the article was accurate in its stating how OTHERS hailed the fossil, isn't it? After all Hurum was the spokesman/hypester for Ida idiot or not.
And he most certainly is part of the scientific community as are all the other missing link proclaimers.

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.

[allmendream]

Hurum didn't say this “proved” human-ape evolution.

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?