Skip to comments.What 'Ida' give for a missing link
Posted on 06/09/2009 9:22:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
What 'Ida' give for a missing link
By: Casey Luskin, OpEd Contributor
As a follower of the evolution debate, I love it when new missing links are found.
Not only does the media plunge headfirst into a crusade for Darwin, but suspiciously, it is only after unveiling the breakthrough that evolutionary biologists admit how precious little evidence they previously held for the evolutionary transition in question.
Take the recent media coverage of a fossil primate named Ida, hailed as the eighth wonder of the world, whose impact on the world of palaeontology is being compared to an asteroid falling down to Earth.
Google.com changed its home page to pay homage to the fossil. Famed BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough is making a documentary to proselytize for Ida, the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom.
According to Idas PR team, this hype is acceptable. Any pop band is doing the same. We have to start thinking the same way in science, said one of the lead scientists studying Ida to The New York Times.
Yet accompanying this marketing and evangelism are the customary retroactive admissions of ignorance about our prior knowledge of evolution. Attenborough said that when Darwin-skeptics previously demanded a link to prove human evolution, the link they would have said until now was missing.
Similarly, Idas website (every missing link has a personalized website these days) admits that, before Lucy, the famous australopithecine hominid fossil, there are massive gaps in the fossil record, and scientists have only had fragments of fossils to study.
So there you have it. Before this fossil, the link was missing. There were massive gaps, and scientists only had fragments upon which to base their evolutionary hypotheses.
Why didnt we hear about these gaps before? If you believe the preaching, Ida solves all our problems; as National Geographic reported, she is the critical missing link species. As is too-often the case, this is media hype.
If one bothers to delve into the actual scientific paper, one sees the admission that Ida could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here....
Moreover, 12 of the 16 primate traits which the scientists were able to study classified Ida with monkeys. Idas website boasts of her monkey-like opposable toes and thumbs, monkey-like foot-bones, monkeylike face, and monkey-like binocular vision.
By now you should be getting the picture: Ida was a young, small-brained, monkey-like primate, whose evolutionary importance is anything but clear.
Forgive me for being skeptical of the medias claims that proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (Skynews) or that Ida is a 47-million year old human ancestor (ScienceDaily).
She may be an exceptionally well-preserved fossil, but shes hardly cause for apocalyptic comparisons to running for asteroid shelters.
Weve seen this kind of ancestor worship in the media before. In 2006, paleontologists reported bones from the hominid species Australopithecus anamensis.
After finding a couple of teeth of intermediate size and declaring the fossil a missing link, MSNBC called it the most complete chain of human evolution so far. In another retroactive confession of ignorance, biologists finally admitted that before the fossil, the origins of Australopithecus were obscured.
If a couple 4 million year old teeth of intermediate size make the most complete chain of human evolution so far then I feel quite comfortable being a scientific skeptic of Darwinian evolution.
Even the late evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr conceded that the earliest fossils of our genus Homo are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap, without fossils that can serve as missing links.
Whether conscious or unplanned, Darwinian confessions of retroactive ignorance make the reasonable observer wonder, How strong is the evidence for Darwinism today?
The lesson is simple: keep a healthy skepticism of media hype over missing links. Anyone who believes the hype that we've found the missing link has either forgotten history or isn't looking very carefully at the evidence.
Casey Luskin is an attorney with a B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California at San Diego. He writes at evolutionnews.org.
Thanks for the ping!
“Little red wagon,
Little red bike,
I aint no monkey,
but I know what I like.......”
Missing link, or missing laugh?
That they are grasping at straws like this is an indication of the extreme vacuousness of the faith of evolution.
So, Ya want a “missing link”, do Ya?
Ever gone to Washington, DC?
Myself, I always liked Lucy as a missing link since so many of her (his) links were missing. Though missing hands and feet Lucy was determined to both a walker and climber and the crushed pelvis was reconstructed to allow her to stand upright, at least in the illustrations.
Ida just seems a little cold and stiff by comparison.
“According to Idas PR team, this hype is acceptable. Any pop band is doing the same. We have to start thinking the same way in science, said one of the lead scientists studying Ida to The New York Times”.
For all the liberal ramblings about religion poisoning science, libs have no problems with the atheist religion poisoning the science, along with pop culture, algore’s maniacal carbon footprints to pay for his own jet fuel, bizarre theories about multiverses...none of those things seem to endanger science at all and get a complete free pass and here’s yet another example: cultish-Ida-hype!
When a liberal starts posturing and preening about the purity of science, you can 100% of the time rest assured it has nothing to do with science but rather his/her insecurities about God.
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.