Re: Why "Ida" is nothing but wishfull fantasy

[perspective]

The facts about Ida

"Thus, rather than an apeman-like missing link that some media sources have irresponsibly implied, the real story is quite underwhelming... Let’s first review the facts:

- The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.
- The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.
- Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.3
- Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind."

and now the proper conclusions:

"- Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.
- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
- Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
- The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”
- If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.
- Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?"
From an article by A.P. Galling.

It must also be noted that a book and a documentery are scheduled to come out soon about this find, which brings up the question of why a fossil discovered 20+ years ago is all of the sudden a media sensation and hailed as THE greatest find. Please don't be blind to this media hype and read the original scientific research about this fossil.

[curiosityandthecat]

Can we retitle this thread "Why 'Creationists' are quietly panicking?"

[perspective]

Can we retitle this thread "Why 'Creationists' are quietly panicking?"

You have not defended against anything I have said, so there is no need to panic. The only ones getting in a frenzy about this are the evolutionists that are sipping the Kool-Aid of the media. Yes...drink it all in.

[Will]

- The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

This isn't evidence against it being an ancestor. If you've studied evolution, you understand that the farther back you go on our evolutionary journey, the less like humans our ancestors look. If you go back a few billion years, our ancestors were single-celled organisms that truly don't resemble humans in any way.

- The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.

This is more a question of the process of archeology. I'm not an archeologist, but I am a bit of an archeology nerd, and because of my love of archeology I've had the pleasure of working with real archeologists. I'll start by saying this: archeologists often find tons and tons and tons of specimens. One dig can result in tens of thousands or more of fragments or nearly complete fossilized skeletal structures. Once you've taken the time to accurately organize these specimens correctly, taking painstaking steps to ensure that no mistakes are made, then you have to analyze each fragment one at a time. There are, right now, many many specimens from digs that are older than you or I that have not been processed yet. It takes a lot of time.

I know it seems like this is an old discovery, but in archeological terms it's still quite new.

- Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.3

Can you demonstrate that the opposable thumbs found on Ida are the same kind (there are many kinds of opposable thumbs) as the opposable thumbs found on modern modern lemurs?

- Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind."

Are they? Grooming claws represent many, many, many generations of mutation and adaptation in a specific environment. There's a lot that goes in to the development of a new trait like that, and I'm not sure how it can be considered minor.

- Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.

From a layman's perspective, perhaps. However, with only images to go on even an expert could not with any confidence make such a determination. I'm not sure why a layman could have any confidence making such a determination based on some grainy photographs.

- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Evolution isn't an alleged process, it's been confirmed. Fossils can demonstrate links between already established species, therefore providing evidence of evolutionary changes, but the use of transitional fossils isn't to prove evolution, it's to study it.

- Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

This has to ignore quite a bit about evolution. Transitional forms do not happen in a vacuum, they are used along with many, many other kinds of evidence for evolution in order not to demonstrate the validity of evolution but to demonstrate how specific parts of the process work. Transition fossils aren't used to prove evolution, but to explore it.

- The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”

Joen Hurum was not suggesting that the specimen was buried, but rather simply was making an observation about how remarkable the preservation was of the fossil. If he wanted to suggest that it was buried, he would have said, "This fossil was buried." He didn't say that at all, he was making an observation with descriptive language.

- If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.

Evolution is true, there's no "if". Baring new evidence that contradicts evolution (so far there is none), evolution is fact. Anyway, I don't think you understand what transition fossil means. Transmission fossils are not organisms in the middle of mutation, they are fossils of species that fit perfectly between two or more already established species. Because the process of fossilization requires so many unlikely things to happen, it's relatively quite rare. The odds of ever discovering the first organism to have mutated in a particular way are truly astronomical. As far as evidence goes, you're asking too much if you want to see the actual fossilized organism which was the first to mutate.

- Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?"

I think you misunderstand what they're saying. This is the first transitional fossil between certain species, in this case I believe it's humans and apes. We've had "transitional fossils" for generations now connection myriad species. This one is parciculkarly important because it's the evolutionary divergence that supplied basic societal structure and primitive thought on one side, and language, art, and civilization on the other. If this is the "missing link", it's the key to understanding a big part of where we as a species came from.

There's no such thing as an "evolutionist".

[curiosityandthecat]

Can we retitle this thread "Why 'Creationists' are quietly panicking?"

You have not defended against anything I have said, so there is no need to panic. The only ones getting in a frenzy about this are the evolutionists that are sipping the Kool-Aid of the media. Yes...drink it all in.

I didn't try to defend anything. Not everybody jumps when you say froggy, you know.

In any case, the scientists that have been examining Ida have been doing so for over two years, secretly. I wonder why they would do that...

[Will]

Illuminati?  

[curiosityandthecat]

Oh, and it's just now surfacing because it was in the hands of a private collector (using it as an interesting object d'art, nonetheless, having no idea what was actually hanging on his wall) for all that time.

[BadPoison]

I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link

Do you ever have an original thought?

Pathetic.

[Graham]

I took a look at the wikipedia page on Ida. I know it's not always reliable but it says that Ida wasn't reconstructed until 2006. Until that time there wasn't anything media friendly to look at. Plus the research that can lead to a story and usually science isn't a priority in news. Lately it's been the recession and "war on terror" hasn't it? I rarely watch the news so I don't know. Things don't just happen, it takes time.

[perspective]

I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link

Do you ever have an original thought?

Pathetic.

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

[curiosityandthecat]

Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

[rlrose328]

I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link

Do you ever have an original thought?

Pathetic.

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

Gee willikers... on your high horse much?

Speaking of buying everything everyone else says... you found that on a religious site, posted it here to rub it in our faces, and are taking credit for the thoughts contained therein.  We are BOTH guilty of reading what has been written by those in positions of authority fields we trust.  It's just that OURS has credibility, facts, and rational thought behind it.  Yours has religious science and wishful thinking behind it.

[Will]

*Puts on moderator hat for a second*:
BadPoison, you can call someone on what you perceive as dishonesty, we love free thinking here, but "pathetic" isn't necessary. This isn't an official warning or anything like that, just friendly refereeing.

Perceived, I think it would help if you were to give credit to internet sources by supplying a link. I know you're not writing a college paper or anything, but we do have to ensure that no one can accuse any of our members of plagiarism. Moreover, it supplies people the opportunity to do background research on the article more easily.

[Whitney]

If you will notice I gave credit to the author of the article. Further, you probably are only conviced about your beliefs because your professor at college or high school told you what you need to believe to be crediable in the secular world. Its hard to believe in Creation in this day, but it is you that does not have originality.

You can be a creationist while accepting evolution as true.  It requires some mental gymnastics if you also happen to be a Christian, but no more mental gymnastics than it takes to think there is any basis for young earth creationism.

Btw, some of us accept evolution because we found the evidence to be in support of it  being true.  Unlike many of the young earth creationists, we don't have a belief then try to make reality support it.   Honestly, it wouldn't affect my worldview one way or the other if we found out evolution were false tomorrow.  I also don't care what the "secular world' thinks of me.  After all, if I cared what a large body of people thought of my views I'd pretend to be a theist just to fit in better.

[perspective]

- The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

This isn't evidence against it being an ancestor. If you've studied evolution, you understand that the farther back you go on our evolutionary journey, the less like humans our ancestors look. If you go back a few billion years, our ancestors were single-celled organisms that truly don't resemble humans in any way.

The point was that this ancient fossil looks alot like a modern lemur, so maybe it's just an ancestor of modern lemurs.

- The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.

This is more a question of the process of archeology. I'm not an archeologist, but I am a bit of an archeology nerd, and because of my love of archeology I've had the pleasure of working with real archeologists. I'll start by saying this: archeologists often find tons and tons and tons of specimens. One dig can result in tens of thousands or more of fragments or nearly complete fossilized skeletal structures. Once you've taken the time to accurately organize these specimens correctly, taking painstaking steps to ensure that no mistakes are made, then you have to analyze each fragment one at a time. There are, right now, many many specimens from digs that are older than you or I that have not been processed yet. It takes a lot of time.

I will give you that. However, the amount of media hype along with the soon release of a book and documentry is a little fishy. I just don't think it is as big a deal as people are making out to be. It certainly it's THE missing link.

- Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.3

Can you demonstrate that the opposable thumbs found on Ida are the same kind (there are many kinds of opposable thumbs) as the opposable thumbs found on modern modern lemurs?

An opposable thumb is an opposable thumb. Even if it is slightly different, that can be accounted for by adaptablity to environment, not molecules-to-man evolution.

- Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind."

Are they? Grooming claws represent many, many, many generations of mutation and adaptation in a specific environment. There's a lot that goes in to the development of a new trait like that, and I'm not sure how it can be considered minor.

Again, minor changes within a "kind" (as defined by science) is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

- Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.

From a layman's perspective, perhaps. However, with only images to go on even an expert could not with any confidence make such a determination. I'm not sure why a layman could have any confidence making such a determination based on some grainy photographs.

This info came from an article as we have all concluded. However, even the photos clearly show something more in the family of small rodents, then ape-like. that is based on the long tail and short limps. It's not hard to see.

- A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Evolution isn't an alleged process, it's been confirmed. Fossils can demonstrate links between already established species, therefore providing evidence of evolutionary changes, but the use of transitional fossils isn't to prove evolution, it's to study it.

This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory. Dr. Menton Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University states in this article http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm that, "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator."

- Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

This has to ignore quite a bit about evolution. Transitional forms do not happen in a vacuum, they are used along with many, many other kinds of evidence for evolution in order not to demonstrate the validity of evolution but to demonstrate how specific parts of the process work. Transition fossils aren't used to prove evolution, but to explore it.

Despite any other "evidence" for evolution, the transitional forms are the most inportant aspect of "proving" evolution. There is a remarkable lack of such evidence, so I think that counts for alot.

- The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”

Joen Hurum was not suggesting that the specimen was buried, but rather simply was making an observation about how remarkable the preservation was of the fossil. If he wanted to suggest that it was buried, he would have said, "This fossil was buried." He didn't say that at all, he was making an observation with descriptive language.

He does think that this animal was buried.

- If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.

Evolution is true, there's no "if". Baring new evidence that contradicts evolution (so far there is none), evolution is fact. Anyway, I don't think you understand what transition fossil means. Transmission fossils are not organisms in the middle of mutation, they are fossils of species that fit perfectly between two or more already established species. Because the process of fossilization requires so many unlikely things to happen, it's relatively quite rare. The odds of ever discovering the first organism to have mutated in a particular way are truly astronomical. As far as evidence goes, you're asking too much if you want to see the actual fossilized organism which was the first to mutate.

Again, evolution has never been proven. You are not being intellectually honest to say that it is fact. Further, the burden of proof is on the scientists to find these forms. Rare or not the evidence is not there.

- Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?"

I think you misunderstand what they're saying. This is the first transitional fossil between certain species, in this case I believe it's humans and apes. We've had "transitional fossils" for generations now connection myriad species. This one is parciculkarly important because it's the evolutionary divergence that supplied basic societal structure and primitive thought on one side, and language, art, and civilization on the other. If this is the "missing link", it's the key to understanding a big part of where we as a species came from.


There's no such thing as an "evolutionist".

I don't understand this last statement.