Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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?

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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".

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "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...

Illuminati?  

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.

I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link (http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link)

Do you ever have an original thought?

Pathetic.

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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link (http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-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.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1497%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fshipment_of_fail-vi.jpg&hash=b85833f0362e74429dc0a3a752c8f062c62fcf0a)

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "BadPoison"I'm guessing you got your information directly from:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/20 ... ssing-link (http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-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.

*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.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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."

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "Will"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 (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."

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.”

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"- 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)?"

Quote from: "Will"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.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/28/swine-flu)

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

    perspective wrote:- 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.


    Will wrote: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 (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."

Well, why are we worried about virus and bacteria mutating then?  If evolution doesn't exist then the flu virus that can infect chickens won't ever be able to infect humans, right?

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/28/swine-flu)

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

Everything you just said is null and void. I could say santa told me. I am aruging my stance on the matter. If you don't agree then defend against the claims. Who wrote it, or what degree they have or do not have does not make it true or false. That is a fallacious argument. Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "perspective"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.

    perspective wrote:- 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.


    Will wrote: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 (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."

Well, why are we worried about virus and bacteria mutating then?  If evolution doesn't exist then the flu virus that can infect chickens won't ever be able to infect humans, right?

Mutation is not evolution, it is natural selection. Natural selection is change within kind. Natural selection has never changed one kind into another kind as supposed by evolution. Evolution has never taken place.

Quote from: "perspective"Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

If you had bothered to read the forum rules you'd know that we require all sources to be cited properly.

My 'refutation' is that stuff from AIG is a waste of my time and therefore I don't plan on providing a refutation.  Not to mention that I really don't care either way...if is is just another found 'missing link' then cool, it if isn't oh well; better luck next time.

Quote from: "perspective"Mutation is not evolution, it is natural selection. Natural selection is change within kind. Natural selection has never changed one kind into another kind as supposed by evolution. Evolution has never taken place.

Intelligent Design at it's best. Your arguments are no longer intelligently presented  or even interesting.

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

That's not scientific at all, though.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

You're saying that it's a fake because the media is freaking out about it? That's not strong evidence.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

No, all opposable thumbs are not alike and do not necessarily follow along the same evolutionary line.

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

You seem to be missing my point. Transitional fossils are not the end all be all of evidence for evolution. Their function in science is more about explaining how mutations occur and what effect those mutations have on an organism. They're something that becomes quite useful after you learn to understand and accept evolution. If you'd like me to list direct evidence of evolution, I can do that.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Primates came from something similar to rodents once upon a time, and we came from primates (well, we are primates, but you get the picture).

Quote from: "perspective"This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory.

If you're talking about one species giving way to another, yes that's been observed. And repeatedly tested. And confirmed. And evolution is not "classified as a theory", it's scientific fact. It just happens that when you're speaking in scientific terms, the term "theory" means fact. Like the theory of gravity.

Quote from: "perspective"Dr. Menton Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University states in this article http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm (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."

Thank you for providing a link. Dr. Menton is unfortunately incorrect in basically everything he says here. Evolution has been observed on the microscopic scale for decades. It's been repeated in a laboratory. It is a scientific fact and theory.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

No, transitional fossils are not the most important aspect in proving evolution. My opinion is that the strongest evidence for evolution would be DNA, but that's for another thread.

Quote from: "perspective"He does think that this animal was buried.

He didn't say so, at least not in the quote you provided.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Evolution has been proven. If you'd like I can direct you to about a dozen threads on this forum where the irrefutable evidence has been repeatedly posted.

Quote from: "perspective"I don't understand this last statement.

"Evolutionist" describes one dedicated to the doctrine of evolution, one that adheres to it like it was a religion. No one that believes in evolution is dedicated to a doctrine, therefore there are no "evolutionists".

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Really? You wrote at the bottom, "From an article by AP Galling."

You failed to cite the reference, or that you essentially copied and pasted it from Answers in Genesis.

Who is AP Galling? Is he A. Peter Galling? What gives you the belief that he has any clue what he's talking about? Why do you believe him?

My search for him showed 29 articles published...ALL of them in AIG. What qualifications does he have to write about biology, geology, archeology, or even Swine Flu (in which article, by the way, he completely misrepresents evolution/mutation)?  http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /swine-flu (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/28/swine-flu)

What has he ever published in any reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal? I can't find anything.

Help me understand why you are willing to base your argument on an article you copied from AIG, written by a man (I think, as he could very well be a fictitious pseudonym), without any knowledge yourself of the science behind anything that was proposed.

Everything you just said is null and void. I could say santa told me. I am aruging my stance on the matter. If you don't agree then defend against the claims. Who wrote it, or what degree they have or do not have does not make it true or false. That is a fallacious argument. Further, I was not aware that this was so important as stated by Will. I will from now on post a link.

Wow, when you decide to be wrong, you go big, I'll give you that. Nothing I wrote is null or void, especially in light of you presenting that article. Facts matter. Who tells you the so-called facts matters. Who does the primary research matters. It certainly seemed to matter to you when you pulled Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. out and cited him. By the way, my Ph.D. can beat up your Ph.D!  :D

...*sigh*...people like this give me a headache...go read the article itself instead of creationist websites:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

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

What is a "kind" as defined by science?

Quote from: "perspective"- 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.

As previously stated, evolution is not a process of change in live organisms.  It's a process of change in populations of organisms.

Quote from: "perspective"This statement is outright incorrect. From-kind-to-kind evolution has never been obsevred, and evolution is classified as a theory.
...
- 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.

One of the things you'd expect from a theory is that it can make verifiable predictions.  One prediction made by evolution is that there are "transitional species", or a species that exists as a transition state from one species in the past to a different species in the future.  These exist, and many fossils of them have been found.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

Firstly, why do you say that transitional forms are the most important aspect of proving it?  Secondly, why do you insist there is a lack of such evidence when there clearly isn't? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)

Quote from: "perspective"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.

That evolution happens is fact.  You can go out and observe it in a laboratory if you wish.  Influenza and the common cold are a very common example that I'm sure you've got first hand experience with.  The controlled evolution of wolves into dogs, and their various subspecies, is another example.  All of these are consistent with the theory of evolution.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.neowin.net%2Fforum%2Fpost-7103-1207043793_thumb.jpg&hash=9e589d57f4d6cf8108f6647d067499bea6c4598d)

Disproving evolution is easy. All you have tp do is make a load of rubbish, call it evolution, and then disprove that, while ascribing any evidence FOR evolution to a nebulous process called "adaptation".

I'm almost sorry I missed this thread.  Perspective, there are so many reasons that your source is wrong, but I'm not even sure you'll be back to look at this thread, so instead of posting anew, I'll just link to my post for Manof-God.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3172#p40620e

Your post represents flagrant ignorance in regards to evolution.  Ida is, indeed, not the missing link you think we should find.  Even if we found a half-monkey, half-man, by your own standards as stated in the article, it would not count to you, and the thing we find funny is that we don't predict such absurdities. and we don't find them, either!  So, while creationists are unhappy and trumpeting what this fossil is not, we're all concerned with what it is.

Ida is an early primate that serves as an excellent example of a transition from earlier prosimians to monkeys and apes.  We're taken aback by the completeness of the fossil, and it will tell us a lot about the evolutionary process that gave rise to us.  The more fossils we find, the more refined our understanding becomes, in much the same way that a telescope that captures more light gives us a more accurate view of the universe.  This is not some omni-proof, there is none that would put the creationists to bed, anyway.  I know I'm personally thrilled by what this fossil is, not because I think it's ammo to shoot down creationists.  I doubt I'll ever use it in an argument, I can't think of a place it'd be suitable.  "Oh, but you remember when we found Ida and all the scientists we're like 'Wow, that's really well preserved, we stand to gain from its study,' yeah, that settles it."

If you're curious about what evolution really is, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Perspective, you always make me laugh.  

Quote from: "perspective"The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

Oh no! And bacteria doesn't look like us either. How could we possibly have come from that? You have thrown my world upside down!