Behold "Ida" . . . the long awaited "transitional life form" to humans AKA the "missing link" . . .

It cannot be the "missing link". It has only got three limbs.

What? David Artenborough said it was a "missing link" (not a missing limb) . . . so he must be right no?

what are you trying to promote here? Evolution?

AjaraEwuro:

what are you trying to promote here? Evolution?

sure. We all "evolved" from some lemur-like animal with a long long tail no?

davidylan:

sure. We all "evolved" from some lemur-like animal with a long long tail no?

Maybe not all of us, but some nairalanders make me believe that a good proportion (especially Nigerians) evolved from lemurs.

debosky:

Maybe not all of us, but some nairalanders make me believe that a good proportion (especially Nigerians) evolved from lemurs.

lol . . . that no one can argue with

davidylan:

What? David Artenborough said it was a "missing link" (not a missing limb) . . . so he must be right no?

It is not wat Attenborough says that matter. It is wat the evidence says that counts. For my money, the evidence show that this beast had 3 limbs, so it cannot be a missing link.

huxley2:

It is not wat Attenborough says that matter. It is wat the evidence says that counts. For my money, the evidence show that this beast had 3 limbs, so it cannot be a missing link.

Why shld a lack of evidence be a problem to evolutionists?
A missing link is a missing link . . . until we find another "missing link" of course.

debosky:

Maybe not all of us, but some nairalanders make me believe that a good proportion (especially Nigerians) evolved from lemurs.

on behalf of lemurs everywhere, I am suing you for defamation of character

Those who are interested in reading the actual paper should look at the link below. I posted it earlier today on another thread. See below:

Reporting in the journal PLoS ONE, a team of international scientists describe the morphology and paleobiology of a 47-million-year old fossil of a primate known as Darwinius masillae ("Ida". The fossil is 95% complete and provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of Eocene primate till date. Analysis of this fossil suggests that it is a transitional species between primititive non-human evolutionary primates like the Lemurs and human evolutionary primates (anthropoids) such as monkeys and apes. This article is published in May 19, 2009 issue of PLoS ONE. See below:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723

The principles that inform creationists about Ida are some of the same that allow creationists to interpret fossil after fossil hailed as “transitional forms”:

[list]
[li]Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.” [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)? [/li]
[/list]

So it’s clear what Ida is not. As for our conclusion on what Ida is, we wrote in News to Note:

[B]ecause the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

Much of the excitement over Ida appears to stem from a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link. The documentary will air on the History Channel in the U.S. (as The Link) on May 25 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. It will air on BBC One in the UK (as Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link) on Tuesday May 26th at 9 p.m. Filmmaker Atlantic Productions even launched a website to promote the discovery, revealingthelink.com.

Yet as Hurum commented, “This fossil will probably be pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years.” So while the media rush may at first be a bid to promote the documentary and book, the ultimate result is one more trumped-up “missing link” presented to future generations as evidence of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

@m_nwankwo,

What happened to all the evidence of the missing links (transitional forms) that you and your bedfellows (evolutionists and theist evolutionists) claimed to have found before now?

davidylan:

Behold "Ida" . . . the long awaited "transitional life form" to humans AKA the "missing link" . . .

I recognise this  fossil, nicknamed Christianus Religius it is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher Christians primates , monkeys, apes and humans  and more distant christians relatives.

Evolutionist at least are providing evidence for their theory. where are the evidence for creationism? . I have noticed that no body wants to provide any evidence or try to defend creationism. all the arguments are against evolution with NO evidence or scientific backing for creationism. very funny people.

toneyb:

Evolutionist at least are providing evidence for their theory. where are the evidence for creationism? . I have noticed that no body wants to provide any evidence or try to defend creationism. all the arguments are against evolution with NO evidence or scientific backing for creationism. very funny people.

where is the "evidence"? The Lemur-like skeleton found in 1983?

@m_nwankwo,

What happened to all the evidence of the missing links (transitional forms) that you and your bedfellows (evolutionists and theist evolutionists) claimed to have found before now?

Go to the thread on peer reviewed articles and you will see a plethora of scientific articles which I have posted on biological evolution including transtional forms. Read them if you can. The present finding of which I have posted the link to the scientific paper itself is just a wheel in the chain of discoveries on biological evolution. I post the scientific articles or the links to the articles because press reports of which most human beings can understand distort and sensationalise scientific findings. Thus by reading the scientific paper, one can see what the paper says and what it does not say. Sensationalism has no bearing in science and often distorts scientific information because the press and the public are often not equipped to grasp the fundamentals of scientific papers. In addition, science has not much to do with debates and arguments on public forum, newspapers and the likes. Science deals with raw, reproducible experimental data. Scientific arguments are carried out on the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. Peer review works and any  scientists who can not publish in peer reviewewed journals should go and find another job. Thus if you creationists or scientists among you are passionate about their beliefs, let them articulate it, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis through robust experimental design and experiments, generate scientific data and publish their evidence in peer reviewed biomedical journals. Then I will be the first to look at that publication and post the link to it. Until this is done, I have no reason to engage in meaninless disputations and arguments. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Go to the thread on peer reviewed articles and you will see a plethora of scientific articles which I have posted on biological evolution including transtional forms. Read them if you can. The present finding of which I have posted the link to the scientific paper itself is just a wheel in the chain of discoveries on biological evolution. I post the scientific articles or the links to the articles because press reports of which most human beings can understand distort and sensationalise scientific findings. Thus by reading the scientific paper, one can see what the paper says and what it does not say. Sensationalism has no bearing in science and often distorts scientific information because the press and the public are often not equipped to grasp the fundamentals of scientific papers. In addition, science has not much to do with debates and arguments on public forum, newspapers and the likes. Science deals with raw, reproducible experimental data. Scientific arguments are carried out on the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. Peer review works and any  scientists who can not publish in peer reviewewed journals should go and find another job. Thus if you creationists or scientists among you are passionate about their beliefs, let them articulate it, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis through robust experimental design and experiments, generate scientific data and publish their evidence in peer reviewed biomedical journals. Then I will be the first to look at that publication and post the link to it. Until this is done, I have no reason to engage in meaninless disputations and arguments. Stay blessed.

I'll give you 2 reasons no one bothers with your "plethora of peer-reviewed articles" . . .

1. You simply post but do not understand them neither can you articulate them in light of hard data. What those papers show are basically scientific jargon meant to confuse.

2. We know (at least those of us with experience writing peer-reviewed papers) that a good majority of these papers turn out to be false later.

m_nwankwo:

Sensationalism has no bearing in science and often distorts scientific information because the press and the public are often not equipped to grasp the fundamentals of scientific papers.

this is arrogant BS . . . most of the papers you see today are based solely on sensationalism. Many times you see screaming paper titles that have nothing to do with the meat of the article. More often than not the public are not equipped to grab fundamentals of science papers BECAUSE the papers are DELIBERATELY written to be confusing to everyone else!

m_nwankwo:

Science deals with raw, reproducible experimental data.

the Ida "missing link" is a very good example of the fact that more often than not science is more about speculation and forcefully re-interpreting data to line up with existing bias.

The skeleton is being touted as a "transitional life form" to man . . . what the paper DECEITFULLY refused to tell us is that at the site the Ida fossil was found, fully formed complex life forms like fishes, hands of a monkey, snake, small birds and freshwater turtles (just as they exist today) were also present. How come all these organisms were fully developed 49 million yrs ago when man was still so far away from evolving?

m_nwankwo:

Scientific arguments are carried out on the pages of peer reviewed scientific journals. Peer review works and any  scientists who can not publish in peer reviewewed journals should go and find another job. Thus if you creationists or scientists among you are passionate about their beliefs, let them articulate it, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis through robust experimental design and experiments, generate scientific data and publish their evidence in peer reviewed biomedical journals. Then I will be the first to look at that publication and post the link to it. Until this is done, I have no reason to engage in meaninless disputations and arguments. Stay blessed.

Just more of the same arrogant but ignorant noise making.

davidylan:

I'll give you 2 reasons no one bothers with your "plethora of peer-reviewed articles" . . .

1. You simply post but do not understand them neither can you articulate them in light of hard data. What those papers show are basically scientific jargon meant to confuse.

2. We know (at least those of us with experience writing peer-reviewed papers) that a good majority of these papers turn out to be false later.

David, you do not know me and that is probably why you make your number one assertion. I am a molecular biologist and excellent one for that matter. Having published extensively in molecular biology, it is an irony that you will say that I do not understand the papers that I post. But anyway you are entiltled to your view.

Sure peer reviewed articles can turn out to be false and the papers are retracted. Many have been retracted even from very leading investigators and that is a sign that peer review works. If a new findings renders a previous scientific dogma invalid, then the new finding holds sway until a new evidence contradict it. Science is a working progress. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

David, you do not know me and that is probably why you make your number one assertion. I am a molecular biologist and excellent one for that matter. Having published extensively in molecular biology, it is an irony that you will say that I do not understand the papers that I post. But anyway you are entiltled to your view.

Sure peer reviewed articles can turn out to be false and the papers are retracted. Many have been retracted even from very leading investigators and that is a sign that peer review works. If a new findings renders a previous scientific dogma invalid, then the new finding holds sway until a new evidence contradict it. Science is a working progress. Stay blessed.

Which is exactly why a lot of us are very skeptical about these "missing links". We've had how many missing links now? Based on my count it must be 3-4. Why are these "missing links" NEVER found in a group? You basically find one skeleton and then build a mountain of baseless speculation.

davidylan:

Which is exactly why a lot of us are very skeptical about these "missing links". We've had how many missing links now? Based on my count it must be 3-4. Why are these "missing links" NEVER found in a group? You basically find one skeleton and then build a mountain of baseless speculation.

Articulate the mountain of "baseless speculation", devise experiments to expose those "baseless speculation" and publish your data in a peer reviewed journal. Besides many of the journals especially those from Biomed Central are open access with a menu for comments on each published paper. The paper on "Ida" has such option and you can go there and offer your ciritisms and the authors will answer your comments. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Articulate the mountain of "baseless speculation", devise experiments to expose those "baseless speculation" and publish your data in a peer reviewed journal. Besides many of the journals  especially those from Biomed Central are open access with a menu for comments on each published paper. The paper on "Ida" has such option and you can go there and offer your ciritisms and the authors will answer your comments. Stay blessed.

More nonsense . . . i raised this point and you have wilfully tried to avoid tackling it in favour of more nebulous hubris.

[size=14pt]The skeleton is being touted as a "transitional life form" to man . . . what the paper DECEITFULLY refused to tell us is that at the site the Ida fossil was found, fully formed complex life forms like fishes, hands of a monkey, snake, small birds and freshwater turtles (just as they exist today) were also present. How come all these organisms were fully developed 49 million yrs ago when man was still so far away from evolving?[/size]

The problem is NOT the paper, it is the hype that a mere fossil is getting. Is this fossil the "missing link" to man? NO!

davidylan:

More nonsense . . . i raised this point and you have wilfully tried to avoid tackling it in favour of more nebulous hubris.

[size=14pt]The skeleton is being touted as a "transitional life form" to man . . . what the paper DECEITFULLY refused to tell us is that at the site the Ida fossil was found, fully formed complex life forms like fishes, hands of a monkey, snake, small birds and freshwater turtles (just as they exist today) were also present. How come all these organisms were fully developed 49 million yrs ago when man was still so far away from evolving?[/size]

The problem is NOT the paper, it is the hype that a mere fossil is getting. Is this fossil the "missing link" to man? NO!

It is ok if you conclude that I am avoiding the issue you raised. Besides there is no where in the paper that it says that ida is the "missing link" to man. The paper simply provide data showing that ida has lemur like characteristics as well as monkey/ape like characteristics. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

It is ok if you conclude that I am avoiding the issue you raised. Besides there is no where in the paper that it says that ida is the "missing link" to man. The paper simply provide data showing that ida has lemur like characteristics as well as monkey/ape like characteristics. Stay blessed.

Avoiding such critical questions is the reason many of us thumb our noses at those who come here telling us how science is all about "facts". Why is this skeleton, discovered in 1983, suddenly a "missing link"? Where we not aware for the last 26 yrs?

We are told that man evolved from the African rift valleys . . . how did this "transition fossil" end up in Germany?

this is what the paper said - [size=13pt]"[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here."[/size]

why then is everyone hyperventilating about finding a "missing link"? Below is the artist's reconstruction of Ida . . . does she look anything like modern man?

It is not enough posting bogus scientific peer-reviewed papers if you cant go through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb urself. I dont need a degree in molecular biology to know when the wool is being pulled over my eyes.

davidylan:

More nonsense . . . i raised this point and you have wilfully tried to avoid tackling it in favour of more nebulous hubris.

[size=14pt]The skeleton is being touted as a "transitional life form" to man . . . what the paper DECEITFULLY refused to tell us is that at the site the Ida fossil was found, fully formed complex life forms like fishes, hands of a monkey, snake, small birds and freshwater turtles (just as they exist today) were also present. How come all these organisms were fully developed 49 million yrs ago when man was still so far away from evolving?[/size]

The problem is NOT the paper, it is the hype that a mere fossil is getting. Is this fossil the "missing link" to man? NO!

How does that refute the fact that this might be a common ancestors to the ape/primate?   The notion of common descent does not imply organism at some point in time would be partially formed.  At every point in an organism life, it is fully formed with all the features that it needs to function in its particular ecosystem.  If it were not so, the organism could not survive.

So every organism living today is the transitional form of all organism in 250 million years in the future.   Some of todays organism will have living descendants in 250 MY times, some will have descendants that will all die out in 100 MY time, or 50 MY time, or 200 MY time.   In fact, some of todays animals could survive with little or no modification in 250 MY time.  But at no point would today's organism be considered as "partially" formed.

davidylan:

Avoiding such critical questions is the reason many of us thumb our noses at those who come here telling us how science is all about "facts".

this is what the paper said - [size=13pt]"[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here."[/size]

why then is everyone hyperventilating about finding a "missing link"? Below is the artist's reconstruction of Ida . . . does she look anything like modern man?

Those who call it the missing link to man are ignorant of evolutionary biology or they just want to be sensational. "Ida" based on the evidence on the paper is not an ancestor to humans. The science is that it shares characteristics of primitive primates as well as that ofmonkey/apes. Any other deduction apart from this is sensationalism and has nothing to do with the scientific paper.

m_nwankwo:

Those who call it the missing link to man are ignorant of evolutionary biology or they just want to be sensational. "Ida" based on the evidence on the paper is not an ancestor to humans. The science is that it shares characteristics of primitive primates as well as that ofmonkey/apes. Any other deduction apart from this is sensationalism and has nothing to do with the scientific paper.

On this rests my own point. thanks a lot.

Huxley . . . you ignorant loon would do well to read the above from Nwankwo.

davidylan:

On this rests my own point. thanks a lot.

Huxley . . . you ignorant loon would do well to read the above from Nwankwo.

Can you show me anywhere in my SERIOUS posts I have used the phrase "missing link". This is a phrase I particularly detest and I don't use it in serious conversation. So my latest post is largely in agreement with m_nwankwo's.

You are simply hard-of-comprehension, hence the depth of your delusion.

davidylan:

It is not enough posting bogus scientific peer-reviewed papers if you cant go through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb urself. I dont need a degree in molecular biology to know when the wool is being pulled over my eyes.

Hahahahahaaaaa David. It is interesting that with a PhD in Molecular Biology, these "bogus scientific peer-reviewed papers" are pulling a wool over my eyes. Pray that I will not be your examiner during the defence of your PhD, just kidding. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Hahahahahaaaaa David. It is interesting that with a PhD in Molecular Biology, these "bogus scientific peer-reviewed papers" are pulling a wool over my eyes. Pray that I will not be your examiner during the defence of your PhD, just kidding. Stay blessed.

I already know my examiners . . . none is black.

Davidylan,

Why do we NOT find such fossils in pre-cambrian and cambrians rocks?