There is some criticism of exactly where this fossil fits on the evolutionary tree with respect to man, but as one report put it, if this species isn’t our great, great… grandmother, it’s definitely a great, great… aunt. One thing isn’t disputed: this and other fossils found at the ancient lake site in Germany are some of the best ever found from the period.
Meet “Ida,” the small “missing link” fossil that’s created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins.
In a new book, documentary, and promotional Web site, paleontologist Jorn Hurum, who led the team that analyzed the 47-million-year-old fossil seen above, suggests Ida is a critical “missing link” species in primate evolution.
The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.
“This is the first link to all humans,” Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.”
Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.
#145, Bubba,
Please realize you’re trying to argue with someone who doesn’t even know how to spell Occam’s razor, much less how it works.
Isn’t that some new fangled shaving system? Patent pending, of course.
😉
#147: Yes! Frank Zappa, who said:
“If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine — but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good — and CARES about any of it — to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
“The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. “You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that.””
“Children are naïve — they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you’re asking for trouble.”
#148, Uncle,
Dang!!! I’ve got to start handing out awards, that deserves one. Excellent addition.
We know now that Alfred1 is a coward and will not and cannot address the most basic questions asked of him. Coward!
Ya know alfred1, it’s so sad that there people like you using religion as something that is scientific. Sad indeed.
You have no answers,
You have no results,
You have no proof (Damn, Been Trying To Get Proof For Weeks!!),
You will not answer any logical question
You are a sad human being Alfred1. I hope your nurses take care of you properly.
#151
You have to present anything that is remotely tangible. Every argument you have present has been utterly trounced. Worse that being ignorant of logic and science, you think you understand them.
The evidence that species evolve is an observable fact. Forget the how they evolve or how fast they evolve or the triggers that cause them to evolve, you have yet to acknowledge this fundamental, observable phenomena. It is akin to you arguing that the world is flat without acknowledging that the sun rises and falls each day.
#152, Ayatollah1,
Put this under your hat…you’ve got lots of room there…if the scientific method bit you in the ass…you would think its Mr. Fusion…
WOW, now that was a classic comeback. Gee, you sure got one on #150, “right”. He must surely be hiding under his bed. Probably hiding under the bed with a bunch of commies. Hiding under his bed with a bunch of commies and humiliated right out of his undies.
Yup. Ya sure got him with that line. I’ll bet all you old time carnies used to use that line on the rubes.
(/sarcasm)
I’m a moonbat loon and proud of it.
Getting excited over 1 fossil as evidence of “A” missing link for an evolutionary period spanning millions of years only shows how lopsided the evidence is, John.
Did you ever see Dumb and Dumber?
“So what are my odds of ever getting a girl like you? One in ten? One in a hundred? … More like 1 in a million. Long pause. So you’re saying there’s a chance! YES!
Alfie. I’m asking you for almost the last time, “Prove to us there is a god or a builder”.
Alfie, if you do not answer these requests with provable facts you are relegated to the kids dinner table, right where you belong. Can you do us all a favour and get that Rapture thing happening? You do believe in that, correct?
I’d love it if all of you were Raptured so the rest of us could live our normal lives without the likes of you infecting our children and society.
Alfred = Troll
Yes, Alfie is a sad troll. He cannot spell IQ properly.
Alfie, friends of yours??
“DUBLIN — After a nine-year investigation, a commission published a damning report Wednesday on decades of rapes, humiliation and beatings at Catholic Church-run reform schools for Ireland’s castaway children.”
#155, #156
Not one; one of many. It is ANOTHER nail in a coffin with so many nails it is entirely lead.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC200
#156
> In complete contrast, Creationists
> have intelligent design, creation
> itself, everything in it, manifests
> God is…
And children have Harry Potter all of which proves what exactly? What is this “god” thing of which you describe? How do I verify said thing exists and is not a figment of your superstitious imagination?
> Creation is our overwhelming
> mass of irrefutable evidence God is.
This is a classic “beg the question” fallacy. You are assuming that it is accepted that this “god” thing exists in addition to being the one and only one entity responsible for “creation.” Here’s another example:
“Horseshit is our overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence that Pink Dragons exist.”
We accept your defeat yet again. Would you like to spin again?
right: “Come up with one argument that God exists”
Alfred: “My hovercraft is full of eels.”
Thomas: “Please read this scientific research”
Alfred: “Do you want to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy?”
Olo: “God is playing Parcheesi with your brain”
Alfred: “Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait until lunchtime!”
Mr Fusion: “You truly are a loon”
Alfred: “My nipples explode with delight!”
jesscott418,
There is a lot more faith in science than people like to admit.
For example, most people are “faith based” evolutionists. They tell themselves they are rational, fact-based but they are not.
I mean, how many “evolutionists” have personally studied the evidence? I certainly haven’t, yet I believe in evolution. I just take it on faith that science has it right.
Auntie! There you are! What have you been up to?
#164, Greg Allen,
There is a lot more faith in science than people like to admit.
If you wish to stretch the word “faith”, then yes, the great unwashed have faith in science. It is true we do not know the exact truth in science as there is still so much, much more we don’t know than there is we do know. Yet with that little we do know we have been able to fit enough of the pieces together into a picture we can recognize.
No, I am not a scientist, I spent most of my life in engineering. I like solid facts. I do have to recognize though, that there are still holes in what I can ever know about a certain situation. In biology, evolution, genetics, and archeology I trust to the experts, recognizing that they are doing the best they can with the evidence they have.
Having faith in a Supreme Being requires no evidence. All it requires is someone be gullible enough to accept what they are told without question or accept enough of that to fit with the facts they do know.
I don’t believe my wife is cheating as I know her well enough to have faith in her fidelity. Only a fool would not recognize my belief is fallible. That faith though is based upon the evidence I perceive through all the small things we do.
Faith in a Supreme Being though offers no evidence. The “miracle” of birth is well explained by biology. The cancerous tumor is explained by medicine. The beauty of a sunset is explained by meteorology. The depths of the heavens are explained by cosmology. We don’t know everything, but science has explained these examples, imperfect as they might be, no religion ever has.
#163, qb,
Thank you very much. As accurate as that post is, it still gave me a great laugh this morning.
#169 – Alfred1,
#162 Its common sense, where there is intelligent design, there is an intelligent designer.
What about all of the examples I keep giving about unintelligent design? Must not your god actually be an unintelligent designer?
Eyes (backward), testicles (dropping and leaving room for hernia), male nipples (‘nuf said), panda’s thumb (really a wrist bone), broken backs and knees (from making a quadruped walk on two legs), and many many others.
What about those items? Do they not prove to you that your god is a hack who kluged his way through history?
You have never answered a single example about this. Why? Do you refuse to admit our flaws?
As for your watchmaker argument, the classic counter to it is:
I’m walking along a beach littered with watch parts. The huge waves are constantly churning them again and again. As they get close to making a watch, they can reproduce and improve over generations. After some millions of years, I would expect a beach littered with watches of many varieties as well as grandfather clocks, wall clocks, and an assortment of other time pieces … all without any deliberate creator.
You simply have no concept of time.
#172 – Alfrred,
That “monkey” wasn’t. It is in the family of lemurs and shows that we evolved from the lemur line rather than the tarsier line, hence the term missing link.
As for your latest scripture quote, I’m quite shocked by it.
I thought your god was benevolent. I guess not. That wrath shit sounds like a mean vindictive vengeful son of a bitch. If you ever succeed in convincing me that such a sick bastard really exists, I will do my best to punch him in the nose. Certainly that sick fuck is not worthy of worship.
#169
However, since there is ZERO evidence of intelligent design or a designer, your “common sense” is nothing of the sort. Without evidence, your claims are empty.
#172
One more time, no one has said or is saying that this fossil is human. No one. Are childish strawmen arguments all you have? Have you no ability to assemble a logical argument?
Again, we ask, do you at least acknowledge the observable fact that species evolve without the aid of a designer? Even the more sensible creationists acknowledge this observable phenomena.
#172
As #174, so much for the God of Love.
Even when I considered myself religious (many, many moons ago), I never understood the need for worship. The being as described in the Bible is supposedly of infinite power and yet it requires some of the smallest of its creations to “worship” it. Why? I guess the being of infinite power is also of infinite ego.
You have to be careful with some of these claims. Even the great great aunt claim is disputed. I did some research and discovered in the published and peer reviewed paper on the find, the scientists were specifically asked to “tone down the claims” that it is in the human evolutionary line.
The published paper actually says “[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.”
Even the Times has an article about how the whole thing is being promoted as “the” missing link with little to no evidence to back it up.
More details here: http://commonsenserepublic.com/2009/05/20/uncommonsense-the-missing-link-or-marketing-ploy/
#172, Ayatollah1,
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
And what did you claim your IQ to be again?
“They found the missing link”…again… That phrase is becoming quiet annoying.
#49, Nimby, actually, you’re very predictable.
So, you want to rely on “[b]iological processes we can observe and measure and even influence if we try, [that] are and have been taking place for millennia,” that have “been repeated,” or that have been “replicated” and “documented by . . . first hand reports?”
Let’s see. Exactly when has any of the above mentioned criteria been applied to abiogenesis even once? Welcome to the pretend “science” of the origin of life (not to be confused with the origin of species); where philosophy in a lab coat and mere (SUPER WEAK) arguments regarding the plausibility of abiogenesis passes for actual science. Has any scientist successfully replicated agiogenesis yet? Oh, wait. In order to replicate something (i.e. abiogenesis), you have to accomplish it the first time. Last time I checked, scientists BELIEVED they were really close to accomplishing it for the first time (yea, right). Then, by that standard, if I really believe hard enough that God will appear so that I can prove he exists, and if I really believe that the time is close (I promise), then does my theory that God exists similarly qualify as “science?”
See TalkOrigins.org
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
All of your arguments about abiogensis have been answered.
> Last time I checked,
> scientists BELIEVED they
> were really close to
> accomplishing it for the
> first time (yea, right)
This is a perversion of the reality. Scientists hypothesized that they were able to reproduce the conditions and results that might have occurred on Earth to create life. That is not the equivalent “belief” as say a religious person that blindly believes that there is some guy in the sky watching all they do.
(Along the lines of my reply to #49) #59, atmusky, you said:
“For something to be considered a scientific theory there are specific requirements that have to be met.
Evolution has met those requirements and is considered a scientific theory.”
Really? When you say “[e]volution” you are referring to the theory of evolution, correct? And, your precious theory requires abiogenesis, right? And, exactly when has abiogenesis ever been observed?
By the by, it is easy to state the “specific requirments that have to be met” in order for abiogenesis to satisfy your criteria. Really, for the mere belief in abiogenesis to qualify as scientific theory there is only one requirement, which is that it just needs to be believed by a lot of scientists who (in their own minds) are simply smarter than everyone else. Obviously, the evidence is overwhelnming that so many brilliant, smug scientists wouldn’t believe in it if it wasn’t “science.”
Get it straight you backwards rednecks. When you believe in God without any observable evidence, it is not scientific. This is because you are not brilliant scientists. But, when we genius scientists believe in abiogenesis without observable evidence, it IS scientific. It is just so simple you cretin! We know that life exists (fact), and we know that the only way life can be in existence is through abiogenesis. Therefore, (the logic is inescapably compelling) life began through abiogenesis. What do yo mean that sounds like mere belief? We shocked some water and came up with some -blank-ing amino acids, you moron!
Note to #59, atmusky: at least you don’t claim that the theory of evolution is “fact” like others who have commented on the article. It is very much a theory.
Evolutionists who were desperate to promote the re-release of Darwin’s Origin of Species book this year publicly unveiled yet another “False Association” which is now turning into a scandal within the science community. Battered by 150 years of elaborate hoaxes and imaginative reconstructions which were fallaciously substituted as evidence, this is yet another attempt by evolutionists to market fraudulent claims to the highest bidder.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
#182
Do you accept the observable fact that species evolve? If you do, then working backwards, it is logical to assume that a serendipitous event occurred that allowed the first fundamental molecules to form.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html for more.
#183
Your post is ridiculous. It is akin to me posting to Dilbert to prove that dogs can talk. If you want to actually shoot holes in the theories of evolution you must provide links to real evidence that actually refutes evolution. Links to blogs with other opinions will not support your position.