Posted on 05/20/2009 6:42:42 AM PDT by steve-b
A discovery of a 47 million-year-old fossil primate that is said to be a human ancestor was announced and unveiled Tuesday at a press conference in New York City.
Known as "Ida," the nearly complete transitional fossil is 20 times older than most fossils that provide evidence for human evolution....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
“Here is some context for the age of the new primate fossil: Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) first emerged about 200,000 years ago, but early humans such as Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus anamensis reach back 3 million to 4 million years ago or even earlier. Humans are thought to have split off from a group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas about 6 million years ago.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/
The only “missing link” that anyone is going to find (of those who are out looking for it...) — is the missing link in one of their own brain’s synapses... LOL...
That excerpt I posted was from the same article posted at top.
OH right. Another missing link. But a link from what to what? Doesn’t matter, as long as it’s been found a place will be made for it along the Highway of Hype.
Dogs came from wolves. Why are there still wolves?
It’s amazing that this nonsense is what passes for “science” these days.
Unsubstantiated assumptions, guesses, and wishful thinking.
Lovely.
Talk about far-fetched.
Yawn.
And had man (an 'intelligent' dog 'designer') not intervened, just how many pugs, poodles and chihuahuas would have evolved?
My ancestors didn’t look like iguanas. God is laughing at our science gurus.
remember, it’s a missing link, CAUSE THEY NEED TO HAVE ONE, to prop up the liar’s paradigm...
what a bunch of maroons....
If the fossil is 47 million years old and humans didnt split off from apes until 6 million years ago, wouldn't this fossil be totally ape, not a "missing link" which is generally considered to be a transitional species showing distinct characteristics of both the ancestor and the descendant, in other words a link between the two?
We need a missing link and dang it we are going to keep looking until we invent.... er uh, find one.
Right, it certainly would be the “missing link” between man and apes.
Make that “would NOT...”.
"However, in the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil he is more circumspect. "Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past," the authors wrote.
"[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."
The paper's scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line."
So in other words....the media has overblown this story as usual in their zeal to prove evolution.
The response by creationists.
LOL!!! So, the evidence of evolution is the absence of a grooming claw?????
Wow, there’s no other way that could happen!!! Evolution has to be true!
To all who wonder why there are still wolves if dogs descended from wolves, why there are still apes if humans descended from apes, etc...
Let’s say there’s a large population of wolves. Humans can extract a small subpopulation and, through artificial selection, begin breeding the domestic dog. The subpopulation goes on to become what we think of a “dog,” while members of the original population either remain or contine becoming what we think of as “wolves.”
You can apply the same logic to humans and our primate ancestors.
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.