IDA thought they'd found more intermediates by now!
Posted : 29 May, 2009 07:41 PM
Also from my last newsletter - and again, sorry for the lack of photos (referenced in the article) - but again, I'm sure everybody heard about this in the news, there's no lack of photos of IDA kicking around that you can look at. Enjoy!
4) IDA thought they'd found more intermediates by now (missing link #2)
I was on the road when "Ida" (shown right) was unveiled with much pomp and circumstance. But that wasn't a problem, seeing as how I got about ten emails, a youtube message and three phone calls in one evening regarding this fossil! Thanks to all of those who wrote in - I would rather be inundated by the same story than to miss it.
The find was made public, in time with the publication of the find in the PLoS One (Public Library of Science; an on-line, peer-reviewed journal), a book (entitled "The Link"), a live broadcast television press conference, and a History Channel two-hour special - with limited commercials, just on this fossil. The title of the History Channel documentary? "The Link." (Gee, I didn't see that one coming)
Even Google remade their logo in celebration of this "incredible find"
The PLoS one article is here.
Bold and Brazen Claims:
Named Darwinius masillae, (undoubtedly a nod to the year of Darwin) bold claims were made of course, so it's no wonder that so many people wrote in, asking me about this fossil.
Let's take a look at some of the initial claims made in the media:
One Fox News article ran the headliner "Ancient Primate Could Be Distant Ancestor of Humans," and said:
"In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans."
Oh really? But wait - it gets better! The first line in the Sky News report was
"Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution."
They went on to write:
"The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York....Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle." (Red text emphasis mine)
In fact, you really gotta read the entire Sky News article yourself. Here's some more quotes:
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.
"This is the one that connects us directly with them.
"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."
There's no getting around the claims that were being made here: They were claiming that this is proof of evolution, it is a transitional (or intermediate) fossil, the missing link.
The Missing Link
Actually - last I checked, we weren't looking for 'the missing link' - the entire chain was gone! They even admitted as such in the last quote!
Now, I agree - Ida is indeed a spectacular fossil - some 95% complete, but frankly, Ida thought the evidence would have been better, considering the claims that were made. As you will see, if anything, this is good evidence for Creation and Noah's flood.
Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is written that God created life to reproduce after its kind. Now before the skeptics get their underwear in a bunch, let me address what a "kind" is. I'll go with the blue letter bible's definition:
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved�not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".
The point being, within the Creationary paradigm, change is limited; dogs will always give rise to another kind of dog. Evolution requires major changes - changes in genetics, skeletal structure and internal organs, reproductive systems, cardiovascular systems, etc... These are major changes. And yet, what we see in the fossil record is not change, but stasis, or the lack of change.
For example, look at the fossil fish on the right. This is called Knightia, and is a common fossil in the Green River formation of Wyoming. This fossil fish is supposed to be 48 million years old, yet it is exactly like the modern day Herring. The only evolution that has taken place here is in the name!
Don't believe me? Compare for yourself - look at the photo on the right, then head on over to Wikipedia and look at the photos of herrings.
Now of course, some evolutionists will get hot under the collar and say that environmental changes are what drive evolution. This is a red herring (pun intended) as first of all, this is only one of many dozens of examples I could provide of stasis in the fossil record. Secondly, look at the major changes believed to have taken place in human evolution during the course of this supposed 48 million years.
Nonsense - there is no mechanism for evolution, I deal with this extensively in other newsletters and in my "Complete Creation" video series.
Ida thought there'd be more change!
So what of Ida? Is she really good evidence for change over time?
First, let us remind ourselves of just how good this fossil is.
Dr. Jorn Hurum, the project leader, in a preview interview for the History Channel's "The Link," said
"This skeleton is so complete, that we could actually date her, not only for how long ago she lived, but how old she is too; she's about nine months old when she died. That's comparable to a six-year old human."
Once the media hype had taken its course, some scientists and even the originally hyperactive media, took a more reserved stance. For example, in a later Fox news report, they wrote
"The small body represents a roughly 9-month-old female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs."
Indeed it does look a lot like a modern lemur. So is this evidence of evolution, or evidence of stasis, and "kinds" reproducing after their "kind?"
As is typical when evolutionists describe a "missing link," they focus on the similarities and/or the differences of a skeleton with other skeletons in order to bolster their case.
For example, with Ida, a couple of media reports pointed to Ida's opposable thumbs and the fact that it had nails instead of claws. Well, take a look at this photo of a ring-tailed lemur (from wikipedia, click here to see a larger image) and see for yourself that lemurs have opposable thumbs (like we do on our hands) and fingernails instead of claws.
Some of these articles focused on differences in the teeth, which again does not in any way rule it out as a lemur - this could be anything from a variation of a lemur, to a mutant. We have people all around us who were born "missing parts," and yet they are completely human.
Much to do was made about Ida's "talus bone" in her ankle; supposedly much like a human talus bone. And yet, the rest of the ankle looks a lot like a lemur's!
By the way - did you know that horses can have variations in vetebrae (spine bone) and rib count? Yup. These are the kind of variations we can see within organisms - and yet these horses are still very much horses. So the presence or absence of a supposed "talus bone" may or may not mean something. Certainly it is nothing over which to make the bold claims that have been made!
In a following Live Science article, other evolutionary scientists also express their opinions that the evidence is less-then-impressive in supporting the claims hurled around by the media:
"On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing," said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. "They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing."
"They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence," said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. "And they failed to cite a body of literature that's been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis."
"This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly I've got 10 more in my basement," said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
"It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Beard said.
Science, or propaganda?
This "unveiling" has been a well choreographed publicity stunt, sacrificing good science for the sake of promoting the fossil, and selling books and television programs! Even one of the authors of the article, Dr. Gingerich, said so, as noted by the Wall Street Journal:
"There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study. It's not how I like to do science".
In fact, take a close look at the photograph of Ida's "hand" provided to the media, shown right:
Notice the subtle propaganda here: They have spread the bones in such a way, and then placed the shadow of a human arm and hand in the background. There are many major structural differences between the human arm and hand compared to Ida's. So why did they do this? The same reason that evolutionists hire artists to create reconstructions of the supposed "intermediate" fossils - it's to convince the public of the supposed overwhelming evidence for evolution.
And once again, the evidence is underwhelming, even to the evolutionists!
This is indeed a fantastic fossil in that the preservation is remarkable - even the contents of its stomach as well as some fur was preserved. Gee - that seems like good evidence for rapid burial! Could it have been Noah's flood?
I will simply close off this article with some further reading from skeptical evolutionists. The claims made over this fossil have been exagerated to say the least. It is an excellent example of how so many "intermediate" fossils grab the spotlight, and are emblazened in the minds of the public, only to be very quietly removed from glory later on.... and yet everyone who saw it in the spotlight believe in evolution, in spite of the fact that it doesn't support the theory.
Further reading:
The Sydney Morning Herald
Fox News online
AIG has an excellent compilation of quotes from skeptical evolutionists here.
IDA thought they'd found more intermediates by now!
Posted : 1 Jul, 2011 01:27 AM
According to a 1991 Gallup Poll, of the scientists and engineers in the US, only about 5% were creationists. Considering only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
This was in 1991, way before the human genome project, after which evolution was basically established as a fact. No real scientist denies the fact of evolution anymore. The debate is over. Face it.
My question is, no one in this discussion (and I would venture to say on this site) is a scientist. I am not a science major but I took some hard sciences in college and even that was very challenging. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to get a PhD in science. Imagine all the writing, publishing work, thousands of pages and articles to read; it's ridiculously difficult.
What astonishes me is the sheer arrogance of certain religious people without any serious training in the sciences who dare stand up to the whole, world-wide academic institution of science, and who dare to say that scientists are wrong on evolution because of [insert creationist argument].
Seriously, don't you think scientists have thought of that objection? Just imagine, hundreds of thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world who devote their daily lives ONLY to the study of evolution--and they all come to the same basic consensus. Don't you think they've thought of your silly creationist objections? Seriously.
