Skip to comments.Hyped fossil 'link' just a big boner (another disappointing missing link)
Posted on 10/23/2009 10:55:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary?
A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says an expert at Stony Brook University on Long Island.
Professor Erik Seiffert and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in today's issue of the journal Nature.
Ida is a skeleton of a 47-million- year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, "The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor," and a TV documentary narrated by David Attenborough.
Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.
The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans.
Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Doesn’t look like a boner to me......
Every discovery seems to be an attempt to bang that square into the round hole.
I’m not disputing evolution because I am not educated enough in it to dispute anything. However it seems a little odd that instead of discovering things, they try to make a theory hypothosized (sp?) centuries ago to fit now.
Most people just don’t have enough Faith to believe in Darwinism. God is a more logical explanation.
Pray for America and Our Troops
Anyone can Dispute ‘A Lie’ like Evolution,
Answer Me This;
If Evolution is True,then Show Me One Example,,,,,NOW.
a bird with Scales?
Dolphin with Lungs?
See what I Mean?
When a Creature ‘Changes’ or Evolves it is Terminal, it Fails.
Tell me How this approach is Flawed,
Lemurs are primates.
..Which make the author "not very bright"
Did you have a point?
Last I knew, Dolphins had lungs, and um (most) Birds have scales on their legs.
Also I'm sure your "Dolphins with lungs" question was a typo. All dolphins have lungs.
...errr.... I suppose you wrote this as a gibe? If not, I give you ::facepalm::.
When a Creature Changes or Evolves it is Terminal, it Fails
False statement. SOME mutations cause a positive heritable change, some cause a negative heritable change, some cause a neutral heritable change, some mutations do nothing other than get passed on........some cause a terminal change.
Why Does This Creature Have to Have Come FROM something Else?
Could it not have Been Created as ‘Itself’ and Then Die Out?
Rather Than a Missing Link, a Quirk ?
So would we call that a "soft-tissue fossil" or not?
never had a real discussion, huh.
So Name a Positive Change.....
It was created as itself. But it no longer exists.
However, the fossil record for the time after this organism exists has other organisms similar to it in some ways.
It doesn’t exist in the fossil record proceeding it, but other organisms exist that were similar to it in some ways.
Unless you think the earth is only a few thousand years old, this leads to the idea that it’s a link between these other organisms.
Otherwise it’s just another rock that fell from the moon.
But you didn’t say what you thought it was. Which is what I thought you asked in your post.
A good ice breaker for you to start a real discussion would be something like:
"Why are there still monkeys?"
In his book, "Angels and Ages", Adam Gopnik introduces a concept by way of his introduction:
The middleweight champion [of the early twentieth century, Stanley Ketchel] was stunned by [Wilson] Mizner's recitation of the Langdon Smith classic that starts "When you were a tadpole and I was a fish, In the Palaeozoic time" and follows the romance of two lovers from one geological age to another, until they wind up in Delmonico's.
Ketchel had a thousand questions about the tadpole and the fish, and Mizner, a pedagogue at heart, took immense pleasure in wedging the whole theory of evolution into the fighter's untutored head.
Ketchel became silent and thoughtful. He declined an invitation to see the town that night with Mizner and [Willus] Britt. When they rolled in at 5 a.m., Ketchel was sitting up with his eyes glued on a bowl of goldfish.
"That evolution is all the bunk!" he shouted angrily, "I've been watching those fish nine hours and they haven't changed a bit."
Mizner had to talk fast; one thing Ketchel couldn't bear was to have anybody cross him.
-Alva Johnston, The Legendary Mizners
Since evolution, if it is to occur at all, has to occur from one generation to the next, or across many, many generations, if you want to be able to observe it happening in your lifetime, then you will have to either have a very long lifetime, or observe creatures with very short lifetimes.
This is why many evolutionary studies follow the development of simple, short-lived lifeforms, such as bacteria or fruit flies, (Drosophila melanogaster).
Some bacterial strains have been followed for twenty years!
If you are interested in human evolution, you can read the reports that humans have made in describing others of their species, as well as examinations of skeletal remains from individuals of known histories.
Arguably, examining skeletons of less-certain histories may introduce errors in computing the rates of change, but changes are easier to observe in them.
One thing that is clearly changing in humans is our teeth. We have been shedding the larger and more aggressive or useful teeth of our predecessors because we have been benefiting from processing our foods more. Such things as cooking make food easier to eat, as well as to digest.
These changes are not happening to groups at the same rate. It is an interesting study. Some families have variations in the number of teeth, or the number of cusps on teeth, that would indicate they are changing either at a different rate or along a different path.
Thanks. I’ve got one about Ida in a file, but haven’t done anything online tonight, or so it seems. :’)
Not here to make Friends,
I Want an Answer.
Evolution claims things Change, and Nothing,
I Mean NOTHING is Changeing!
Not Fruit Flies.
Gold Fish in a Bowl,Asinine.
Because there are some who simply refuse to accept evolution.
Monkey to Man is Your Contention..?
Or Vice Versa ,makes no Difference,Why did it Stop?
We Should have at Least onething, Something , Anything Changeing.
If it all started from Some Primordial Slime and a Spark then why is it Still Not Happening?
What makes you think it isn’t changing?
Ever hear of time-lapse photography?
Have a Nice Day.
Some Can’t Comprehend Creation.
Some can do both.
Here's an interesting link that talks about ongoing human evolution, such as the development of lactose tolerance, allowing humans to digest milk from other species.
"We" (as in, all living things) ARE evolving right now, so long as we are procreating. You still have a genetic mutation rate....that rate still changes proteins, one at a time. Any change that gives you a benefit still gets passed on to your kids and increases its prevalence in a population. Humans HAVE been able to counteract much of natural selection unlilke any other animal, but we are still changing......check back in 10 million years and see what humans look like.
Just posing this question shows your understanding of theoretical evolution to be lacking.
There are known specific mutations on chromosome 2 that allow adults to digest lactose....genes that allow adult production of lactase. That is a beneficial change in a world of domestic dairy products, but to understand that, you have to think about the past and how there weren’t supermarkets on every corner.
Theoretical is The Operative Word,......
You Aint Said Nuthin’ and You Ain’t Evolvin’
You’ve FINALLY said something that is factual.
You’re 100% correct.....I am not evolving.
However, that is just another statement that reveals ignorance concerning the process of evolution.
I was Hopeing to Keep It Nice , But
Blow a Goat!
I was Hopeing to Keep It Nice , But
Blow a Goat!
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.