Skip to comments.Ida Missed Her Link to Humans (science confirms yet another creationist prediction!)
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.
ICR News also predicted what has now occurred with Idas popularity campaign, stating, After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded. 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”.
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.’
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!
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
or even give the scientific community time to debate the issue.
The time reserved for criticism for any given theory is unlimited (except global warming but that is politics not science). There is almost as much prestige in disproving a theory as there is in coming up with one.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! And LOL again!!!
But who knows? Maybe Ida can be rehabilitated if another fossil of same kind can be found with just the right “missing link” features. But it's more likely that Ida will end up in a museum's dusty basement drawer.
An evolutionary link between lemurs and monkeys WOULD be the ancestor of all monkeys (and thus all apes, including humans); just as a evolutionary link between amphibians and reptiles would be the ancestor of all reptiles (and thus all dinosaurs and birds).
The “missing link” the paleontologist is talking about is a link between lemurs and monkeys; NOT between apes and humans.
The transitional fossil was never heralded as a link between apes and people; as your ignorant source maintains, it was heralded as a link between lemurs and monkeys.
As I said, saying this was “proof” of ape to human evolution is as ignorant and/or dishonest as claiming a transition between amphibians and reptiles was “proof” that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Apparently you are too ignorant to understand the distinction between the two, I mean heck, only a few million years separated the two events.
Bagged any heretics yet today?
“...one that includes scientists...” !!! Well said. :)
The valid point is that the find was hyped as something it was not. Of course people make mistakes, but hyping the find before validation was not an accident, it was a political ploy. Trumpeting a find as more than it is and later quietly retracting the claim is a tactic that belongs to the NY Times, not the scientific community. That is, unless there are similarities by necessity.
Regardless of what side a person holds to, intellectual dishonesty is pathetic and suggests either self centered arrogance, a lack of faith in the validity of ones own framework or both.
Thanks for the link.
That is a problem with science today in general. Lots of “peer reviewed journals” a complete joke.
Ida who? What transitional fossil that establishes human evolution?
Here we go again.
Scientists are the heroes because now science demonstrates what creationists knew all along.
Well? Who was initially right about the fossil?
The creationists who didn't believe that it would prove anything about human evolution? Or the *scientists* who wrongly proclaimed it with great fanfare as evidence of primate evolution, just like the other false alarms before it, like Lucy, the Hobbit fossil, etc.
*Mistake* in classifying fossils number 1,938,283,498,392.
Who called them heroes?
If *scientists* actually performed to those standards, this sort of *mistake* wouldn't be occurring nearly so often.
What a massive avoidance of the issue.
It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths evos will go to take the topic off track and deflect the attention from their total fail on this issue.
Try to be civil. I asked you a simple question.
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.”
(From the Guardian May 19, 2009 James Randerson)
“Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.”
Jens L. Franzen1,2, Philip D. Gingerich3, Jörg Habersetzer1, Jørn H. Hurum4*, Wighart von Koenigswald5, B. Holly Smith6
“our connection” “our evolution” “haplorhine” (apes, monkeys, tarsiers)
Ida wasn't hailed as a “missing link”? Not proving? Really?
Whenever the scientific community blows it, as in this case, and creationists point out that they didn’t believe it to begin with, as also with the Piltdown Man, the typical evo knee jerk reaction is to point out that scientists were the ones to disprove the fossil (or whatever), something that evos then go on to say no creationist would be capable of doing because they don’t possess adequate scientific skills to do so.
So instead of the scientific community looking like fools, again, for jumping the gun, they are portrayed as the heroes for demonstrating that the fossil was not genuine, quite ignoring the fact that it was the scientific community that labeled the thing wrong in the first place.
The scientific community has egg on its face, again, for doing what it has a tendency to do, again, and no amount of trumpeting that scientists finally corrected the misinterpretation of the fossil is going to change the fact that creationists didn’t believe that it was going to “prove” what the scientific community wanted it to prove and that scientists mislabeled, again.
Creationists maybe don’t have what scientists consider a *scientific* reason for their conclusions, but they were proved right, again.
Creationists simply don’t believe that archaeologists are ever going to find that missing link that evos are sure exists because we don’t believe that man evolved because the Bible states that man was created. Evos may not like our reason, but until they can produce those fossils they’re looking for, it puts creationists in the position of being correct.
Interesting, is it not GGG, that whenever evos end up having to eat their words because they blew it, it becomes a *creationist lie*?
Just like when it was taught in schools across the country that most mutations are harmful and it's repeated later, it's labeled a *creationist lie*.
Seems that most things labeled *creationist lie*, had their origin in what was once *scientific truth*.
amd, you'd gain a whole lot more respect and credibility if you'd quit denying what is patently obvious to everyone else. Your continual defending of stuff like this, makes it hard to take you seriously.
Watching you twist and squirm and do ANYTHING rather than admit a creationist was or is right about something scientific is amusing, and pathetic.
I can imagine it's hard to admit that someone else is right, especially when you don't approve of their reasons for being right, but it would be so much easier on you, and the rest of the evos, to learn to do that.
“The scientists at ICR not only predicted the Evos made a HUGE mistake...”
—What mistake? No one in the science community was saying it was an ape-man intermediate. I did see a news story or two saying that, but that was because of an idiot in the media who didn’t understand what scientists were saying - no scientists were actually saying such a thing.
As for whether it’s a lemur/monkey (pro-simian/simian) link, that’s still being debated.
“they also predicted how the Evos would handle it (by sweeping it under the rug). In other words, ICR nailed it!”
—Swept under the rug how? Because it’s not in the news as much anymore? I predict that Patrick Swayze’s death will be swept under the rug - several months from now you’ll barely hear a thing about it.
Did you get as far as posts 15, 18, and 41 yet?
‘Hailed as link between humans and apes, it is really a lemur’ is an absolute lie.
This was not EVER represented by a credible scientist as a link between apes and humans. It is no more a link between apes and humans than my great great great great grandfather is a link between my grandfather and me.
Do you realize how stupid one must be to represent what was thought to be a link between lemurs and monkeys as if it were thought to be a link between apes and humans?
Creationist level stupidity.
It was represented as a “missing link”, but between lemurs and monkeys - NOT between apes and humans. And I also never saw anyone in those quotes claiming that this was “proof” of anything.
My great great great great great grandfather is not a “missing link” between my grandfather and me and it is a ridiculous lie to suggest so.
A lemur as the missing link?
That seems bit of stretch.
“MISSING LINK” FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
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.”
May 19, 2009Meet “Ida,” the small “missing link” found in Germany that's created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who ...
What is ridiculous is your misreading, deliberate or otherwise, of a rather simple paragraph.