Comments

Such missing links have been proclaimed from the scientific housetops before--which doesn't mean that this one isn't true. See my column, "Living with the Darwin Fish" (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/37.74.html).

Actually to clarify, the private collector made those quotes about the find being the "holy grail." The science community is looking at it not as the "holy grail" but as an interesting discovery. At best they have speculated that it would be more like our Great, Great, Great, Great, Great,...etc. Aunt.

*How should Bible-believing Christians respond to announcements from the scientific community such as these?*

Well, it all depends on whether or not my fellow Bible-believing Christians wish to continue living in a constant state of delusion. How long is our Christian community going to approach science and evolution with feelings of denial and skepticism? It's about time we realize that our Holy Bible was written in a time when, plain and simple, scientific knowledge was limited. Does that mean the core message of our faith is changed by science? NO! Let's embrace all of God's creation, and that includes the SCIENCES!

P.S. The evidence for Fossil Ida being connected to our own evolutionary path is greater than the evidence showing that it is not...what benefit is there as a christian from remaining on a skeptical side out of fear for an original Jewish creation metaphor?

In an ideal world, we would celebrate with the scientists their discovery, as it sheds more light on the origins of God's present creation.

Unfortunately, we don't yet live in that world. Many of our deeply held theological traditions force a great number of Christians to react negatively to discoveries like this. Not with wonder and awe at God's handiwork, but unwarranted skepticism, fear, and hostility. It reminds me of the time when the church fought against scientists for believing the earth rotated around the sun because it offended their reading of the Bible. That fight didn't turn out very well for the church, and I don't think this current one will either.

Based on the initial reports, I think this is a great discovery, highlighting a point in mammalian evolution where primates diverged from lemurs. Several features in "Ida" seem to represent early versions of various anatomical parts that are found in humans today. This will help us to fill in the gaps of mammalian evolution as the data from this find makes its way through the scientific community.

The problem with new scientific discovery is that the media all around the world is acting as if this is indeed a Holy Grail of scientific discovery. This new discovery is merely a tiny fragment of already immense body of fossils that has been discovered over the past century. All these media hype doesn't do justice as it imbues this discovery as the only "missing link" that has been found ignoring previous discovery of plesiadapids, parapithecus, propliopithecus, proconsul, dryopithecus, australopithecus (ramidus, afarensis, africanus), homo habilis and homo erectus that all mark the complete evolution of primate evolution. And yes, the fossilized remains of these specimens have been found, not just fraction of remains but complete skeletons of multiple individuals in most cases.

The Youtube link below details our history with an idea of god that would preclude happy reception of the "Ida" discovery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oevbpz9YLco

I am looking forward to the documentaries which will follow this discovery. If enough people are touting its significance I feel that this could be a legitimate missing link.

The Bible suggests the world is about 6000 years old and that God can do anything. And we know modern scientists suggest these fossils are millions of years old. With that all in mind, then would it not be possible for God to create a world that is already millions of years old with fossils that old too? Sure he could and maybe he even did.

On the flip side, we also know there was a terrible flood 4000 years ago, which covered the entire planet and buried all sorts of objects and animals in layers of sediment hundred, maybe even thousands of feet deep. However the scientific community does not believe there was a flood and bases their findings on the depth where fossils are found along with potentially erroneous carbon dating. Therefore it is not surprising they say these fossils are millions of years old.

Back to the Bible, again.... It says the righteous will live by faith and not lean to their own understanding of things. This is not to say science is to be completely discounted, but rather science should be approached more with the understanding of it being a discovery process for the laws that God set into place.

That said, I am a creationist and do not need to stay awake at night concerning myself with fossils such as IDA.

Someone described christians' faith as delusion. I find that funny. When I finished reading three articles about the Ida thing, I had to ask myself this sincere question: Are there really people who believe in these silly stories? It takes quite a lot of faith believe in evolution as an alternative to creation. Can opposable thumbs, talus an nails convince that it was not God who created the world. Only people who want to believe in it would belieeve in it.

Well, it is as it is, they are still looking, but the will never find that link. lol

Yes, I remember when the 10th planet in our solar system was found, when they discovered that eating carrots and peanut butter causes cancer, etc., etc. These were big science news items, then you never heard about them again. Remember the snake with the leg? Turned out to be an extra-large sexual organ. This was even published in an article in National Geographic. The next month, they had to include a letter in the issue to explain that they were wrong to publish the previous findings.

Science changes all the time. Theology should consider the data from science, but we surely have learned that you can't be dogmatic about much in science. You can be about certain things in theology.

We are all on a journey of discovery - both about God and about our surrounding world. Our understanding changes - God does not. Let's humbly honor Him no matter what fads or trends develope in the ever-changing culture of science!

The bottom line is, do these clues, improve our understanding of truth really or our arrogance in that we actually think we know something. Can an ant contemplate the Empire State building ? Doubtful, but if it had a blueprint... it might get interesting... enter the Bible.

@ Attract Prosperity:
What proof do you think you have that says the earth was covered in water by a flood 4000 years ago. That is incorrect. It did not cover the entire earth, But a very small portion of it. Ancient Mesopotamia.

I think that Ida is in fact a great find with potential to expand our knowledge of our planet and the way it has developed, as all NEW discoveries are. The missing link. I think not.

Edit:
I just wanted to educate some who may not understand.
Fossils are not "carbon dated" to be million of years old. Carbon dating is not accurate later than 10,000 years ago.
They use radioisotope dating, Which is acurate to millions of years.

Question.

Why does this have to kill your God? Why cant your god have had an active role in the undeniable evolution of species on this planet?

You all believe that he is an active role in your lives and the world.... Yet, You think that he created the heavens earth humans and animals... and then what.. Just sat there to watch us destroy it?

It isnt possible for your God to manipulate the DNA of creatures to change them in a slow and time consuming process? ie.. Evolution.

Why does it have to be one way or another, black and white. Christians hold so tightly to their beliefs that they ignorantly refuse to see truth when it is handed to them in an undisputable way.
They make up rediculous, ludicris alternatives so that their faith is flawed " God put 10 million year old fossils there for us to find!" Thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

FYI- The earth was never covered in water from a flood. ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE supporting that claim;No human in the history of living creatures on this planet lived to be 900 years old. That is physically impossible. No creatures cells can regenerate themselves that many times.

I do believe in "God". I also KNOW that the bible is riddled with inacuarcies and exagerations. The underlying message is not changed. People who swallow idiocy without even giving it an objective thought do not deserve respect in my opinion, Only Pity.

Scientists are not calling this a 'missing link', journalists are.

The fossil appears to represent a step between primitive primates and monkeys.

Since humans are apes, and apes are monkeys, and monkeys are primates, one could say this fossil species is a previously unknown step in the evolution of humans.

Scientists are not calling this a 'missing link', journalists are.

The fossil appears to represent a step between primitive primates and monkeys.

Since humans are apes, and apes are monkeys, and monkeys are primates, one could say this fossil species is a previously unknown step in the evolution of humans.

Agreed.

The underlying message of Christ and Christianity DOES NOT CHANGE when the Holy Bible's inaccuracies/fallacies are exposed by science.

And why is that?

BECAUSE LOVE WILL ALWAYS APPLY.

GOD'S 10 LAWS WILL ALWAYS APPLY.

Enlighten our faith!

It is unfortunate that many of the comments above repeat assumptions in the guise of facts and thereby continue to mislead readers about what the facts actually are. Some examples:
1. radioisotope dating is accurate to millions of years. This is not a fact; it is an assumption, because the dating methods themselves are based on unprovable assumptions. And, in fact, those very assumptions have been shown to be at least sometimes wrong by ICR's RATE studies.
2. there is absolutely no evidence that the earth was covered in water from a flood. This is false; it is not a fact but is an assumption. There is plenty of evidence. You can read about it at answersingenesis.com.
3. Humans are apes. This also is an assumption that is based on other assumptions. For example, dna correlations between humans and other kinds of creatures can be interpreted as showing descent or as showing similarity in design. Various dna correlations are facts; what they mean are assumptions.
4. The Bible's inaccuracies and fallacies are exposed by science. More non-facts. In every case that I am aware of, and I have studied hundreds of alleged inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, there has never been a proven inaccuracy. All such charges have been reasonably explained.
Much more can be said. Christians do not need to stay awake at night worrying about this, and other, alleged missing links, or about how they might allegedly refute the historical accuracy of the Bible. God, and His revealed written word, will remain while these anti-God assumptions will fall.

Michael sez: "... in the guise of facts ... Humans are apes."

You can pretend as much as you want but Humans are apes taxonomically no matter if you define similarity by skeletons, full fleshy bodies, or genetically.

One reason that scientists (but not journalists) are reluctant to call 'Ida' a missing link is while such a fossil seems to be a transition between a primitive primate and a primitive monkey, there is no reason to assume that 'Ida' was an ancestor species of monkeys. 99.999999% of species die out during evolution. 'Ida' might be the best near monkey skeleton found but she may have had 50 sisters species only 1 of which founded the monkey species.

Dear Gabriel,

Have you actually been exposed to formal scientific training? What is your authority on the several fields related with the denials of scientific knowledge that you just did?

You seem to be concerned about responsibility, I like that thought. But let me share my humble opinion about this.

I am not a scientist, I would love to be! I am not either a believer (thank God for that ;-)
But I was exposed to scientific knowledge at my university and I can tell you something: learning science is not easy, is actually very complex. The researchers spend their whole youths in their education, which starts from the accumulated human knowledge of thousands of years. After those very intense early years, they still keep on with formal education and application of what they learned, basically until the day they die.

Please forgive my different point of view but, do you really think that normal people, having as preparation little reading on Internet and a few general-culture books (like the Bible), can compete with scientists who dedicate their whole life to formal study?

Do you dare to think we can actually understand what scientists do or say?

Oh, my dear naive friends ... englightment is not for free! And the price is very high: your life indeed. Unless you dedicate your whole life to study something deep enough, you will never get it. I would die happily if at least I could understand pretty well, a very very small portion of this vast and brutally complex universe.

But sadly science and arts, those truly human activities, are not available for everyone ... is not only about money, social status or random luck. Is about courage. Very few have the courage to enter into those paths, because they are really hard (not to mention that is not guaranteed you will succeed and get enough money to eat).

Nobody will remember this chat in 100 or 1000 years but the names of several of the scientists will remain; their contributions will get into the books and will be transmitted to future generations. That increased knowledge will help to predict better nature's response and make a bit easier this futile and violent experience we call life.

Let us show some respect to those who have dedicated their lives to understand the universe ... in the end, they are everything ... they are immortals!

Ups, sorry Gabriel, my message was rather directed to
"Michael at May 21, 2009" and similar posts. Let me fix myself:

--------

Dear "Michael at May 21, 2009" and similar folks,

Have you actually been exposed to formal scientific training? What is your authority on the several fields related with the denials of scientific knowledge that you just did?

You seem to be concerned about responsibility, I like that thought. But let me share my humble opinion about this.

I am not a scientist, I would love to be! I am not either a believer (thank God for that ;-)
But I was exposed to scientific knowledge at my university and I can tell you something: learning science is not easy, is actually very complex. The researchers spend their whole youths in their education, which starts from the accumulated human knowledge of thousands of years. After those very intense early years, they still keep on with formal education and application of what they learned, basically until the day they die.

Please forgive my different point of view but, do you really think that normal people, having as preparation little reading on Internet and a few general-culture books (like the Bible), can compete with scientists who dedicate their whole life to formal study?

Do you dare to think we can actually understand what scientists do or say?

Oh, my dear naive friends ... englightment is not for free! And the price is very high: your life indeed. Unless you dedicate your whole life to study something deep enough, you will never get it. I would die happily if at least I could understand pretty well, a very very small portion of this vast and brutally complex universe.

But sadly science and arts, those truly human activities, are not available for everyone ... is not only about money, social status or random luck. Is about courage. Very few have the courage to enter into those paths, because they are really hard (not to mention that is not guaranteed you will succeed and get enough money to eat).

Nobody will remember this chat in 100 or 1000 years but the names of several of the scientists will remain; their contributions will get into the books and will be transmitted to future generations. That increased knowledge will help to predict better nature's response and make a bit easier this futile and violent experience we call life.

Let us show some respect to those who have dedicated their lives to understand the universe ... in the end, they are everything ... they are immortals!
-----

When I first set eyes on dear ida, I realised the poor pet was in for quite a ride, surely the investor must promote her as a missing link. It is very obvious that this poor creature is very far removed from any common linkage to humans. You would do better to visit the monkey exhibit at your local Zoo!

This does not proove evolution, this does not disprove Jesus in any way. Please watch these series it will explain a lot.

firstly the universe in NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. I will give a few stronomical reasons. firstly, the sun if shrinking 5 feet in size every hour, meaning that if the earth was even close to a million years old then our earth would be frizzled. another point, the earth is constantly loosing speed in rotation, if the earth were millions of years old then the earth would be spinning so fast that... well you can figure out that one. and many other reasons.

There have been THOUSANDS of GIANT human fossils, going above 20 feet big, that are never mentioned in the press, well because it disprooves evolution dosnt it!. It goes on and on, these videos are quite long, because they have to cram in a lot of information, but if christ might have an effect on your eternity then watch, there facinating.

Also all the dating methods are ridiculously bad, even scientists know that carbon dating only works in a range of 5000 years, other wise it goes crazy. The videos explain it.

Billy crones series, a young creation,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTJo7IHuzQA&feature=related

and a section of a dr.hovind seminar, there amazizing, he has devoted his life towards prooving creation. This one gets really interesting as you get into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mni-SRtG7xY&feature=channel_page

thanks, and please watch them,

God bless,

One wonders why some Christians are so eager to wallow in ignorance. What is the appeal of that? Why do they so eagerly restrict and narrow their view of the universe?

Willful ignorance is shocking to those who think, but apparently comforting to those who refuse to, who find the universe too big, too confusing and too overwhelming to learn the truth about how it came about.

Many of the posts above from Christians are stunningly uninformed and egregiously error-ridden. These people know nothing about science, yet make pronouncements on evolution that are spectacularly wrong and uninformed. Why? They, like all fundamentalists, whether they are Christian or Muslim, need desperately to grasp to a simple creationist myth. The real world, the truth, is too scary and big and frightening for them to contemplate, and their vision of God is comfortingly tiny, narrow and mythical. It is sad, but there is no changing them, whether they reside in Indiana or Iran.

This is in response to the belief that one could consider the Bible to be scientifically based on fact and not a moral lesson.

If we assume carbon and radioactive dating are guesses at an approximate age of a fossil and conclude dinosaurs are approximately 65 million years old give or take 30 million years for the sake of error and the true extinction period is only 6,000 years ago according to the Bible then the scientific dating is off by 5000% at least. If we assume hypothetically that fossils are only 6,000 years old and we assume animals and humans were created on the sixth day by God then where did the dinosaurs go? Does anyone believe that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time? Assuming dinosaurs and man existed at the same time then we can only assume that dinosaurs were a mistake by God or would we need to assume that a geologic or cosmic event considered to be a global killer would wipe out the dinosaur and not man?

Let’s take the good things from the Bible and apply them to life and not try to make this into something more than it is.

ICR tried to show radiometric dating is inaccurate in a study they called RATE. They start with the assumption that radiometric dating is wrong, and then they try to prove that the assumptions behind radiometric dating method are wrong. They fail, then still assert they are sure they will be able to refute radiometric dating eventually. Then they claim their findings support a young earth. Not good science.

See
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

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

Interesting blog, thanks to all the creationists for their good points. One does not have to be a credentialed scientist to apply good logic to an argument.

I applaude scientific research because "Truth" will not be contradicted by good science and good theology. They both exist to explain the phenomenon. After reading a book about the 1928 Scopes trial I was able to understand why some in the church abandoned their faith in the Bible as being "God breathed" and true. There was so much more evidence for evolution in 1928 than there is today. Now we are witnessing a "reverse Scopes" mentality by the secular scientists as their precious dogma of evolution slowly crumbles under its own weight.

Advances in the science that uncovers the truth about genes and the wonderful creative complexity our God designed in them will, I predict, be the final nail in the coffin to evolution.

Go Science...celebrate Truth!

Open your mind to putting the Bible in historical and cultural context--a local expression of humanities desire for spiritual understanding equivalent to spiritual quests originating from other cultures.

Next read "Thank God for Evolution" by Michael Dowd or go to www.thankgodforevolution.com

This controversy is over for thinking people. Everyone won.

Bonnie (UU)

Oh yes the old 'flood was responsible for everything argument'

The article asks how we should respond to this find.

Well..

Use our own minds.
understand that the term 'missing link' is misleading. There will always be missing links.
Examine the evidence in detail with a critical eye
Understand that many highly respected experts have studied this fossil in detail.
Research the implications of the talus bone in the foot.
If convinced that this is a serious and important fine, ask how it affects your views.
Be honest and do not backtrack and make the evidence fit any previously held views.

I have a science BSc and MBBS.
I have A level Chemistry and Biology.

I have read enough articles on these controversial areas to know that most of this is hype. The hype lasts long enough for the evolutionist argument to be put forward. The counter arguments are never aired and so people continue bringing faulty evidence as part of evolution - e.g. Lucy = ape, Java man = man and so on.

Ida is a lemur.

I would like to see the dating evidence.

They rely on dating the rock. And they often date rocks by the fossils they find in them. Such circular arguing means that things are as old as they want them to be.

This is the nature of the debate. The dating of the fossil is the most important issue in the very real debate between creationists (I sit in this camp) and evolutionists (I used to sit in this camp). There is a lot of great evidence out there on the creationist websites.

I know that the majority of people will ignore it as "faith based arguing" rather than science. But that clearly is evidence that they have not read through the decent articles that are out there. There are some rubbish articles but there are some very good ones.

I just wish that Christians today would approach this topic with an open mind and question things in a more godly way (humble and God-fearing).

Yours sincerely,
Andrew

Andrew,

I am an artist with common sense.

I have read enough science, history, comparative religion to point out some weaknesses in your post.

According to the History Channel presentation I saw about Ida (I was looking for it when I came upon this website) she is NOT a lemur. Lemurs have characteristics Ida does not have and Ida has characteristics lemurs don’t have such as an ankle bone found only in humans and fingernails, not claws.

Degrees notwithstanding you tellingly place yourself outside the scientific community with your use of “they” not “we.” “They” (I presume you mean scientists) do indeed date the rocks. In addition scientists use carbon dating to determine the age of bone. My brother, who is a scientist, helped develop the process. These determinations are not circular at all. The idea is to examine all material evidence from every available and relevant source then determine what happened and when like a forensics expert. Science (unlike faith) does not have a vested interest in any outcome.

You have framed a debate between “creation” and “evolution” in a way that perpetuates a dichotomy. That truly is circular thinking. It is every bit as true to say that “creation” occurs every moment through natural processes wrapped inside divine mystery (the “why” of it all) manifesting through time. This IS evolution. No faith necessary since God is continually and perpetually present within all that is and one cannot deny one’s own existence.

Your final sentence is the most perplexing. How is creating a controversy where none is necessary “humble” and “god-fearing?” “Christians” could be more favorably defined as followers of Jesus who strive for peace and love. Bibliolotry (worshipping the Bible itself) and literalism are an unfortunate sideshow that has driven many to reject the label.

transcend and include, Bonnie (UU)

Thank you Lord! As a freshman whose major is in science, and follower of Christ-- I have been searching for a form like this. I haven't questioned the existence of God, but I have had moments of confusion and panic. I have viewed my biology courses as learning more about the mind of God, but my professors seems to want to take God out of my mind. Then they ask for personal opinions on course study assignments... nothing like hanging myself in the process. I am relieved to find a site that can apply biblical perspective towards new and old discoveries for rookies like myself. I can rest tonight knowing that what I felt from the beginning still holds true: “The teachings of science are an extension to the understanding of God." Anyone know a good Christian University?

Bonnie,
While I enjoyed reading your impressive debate with Andrew, your common sense failed you in two areas....
If you sincerely feel that, “Science (unlike faith) does not have a vested interest in any outcome." Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Richard Dawkins. He and many scientists like him are obsessed with disproving a creator. As far as, “Christians could be more favorably defined as followers of Jesus who strive for peace and love." while true, we also are allowed to think and ponder about things of this world during our breaks at the soup kitchen.

Dear previous poster,

I stumbled upon this website without intending to stay. We’re busy over here on the religious left. I have my own spiritual growth to attend to but will stop a moment to help you with yours.

Debating Andrew is not my intension. My hope is to awaken him on his own spiritual journey. Reading “Don’t Think of an Elephant” by George Lakehoff, it became clear that the “answers” people get are already present in the way they “frame” the premise.

The “scientific method” is the attempt to discover what is so by verifying or eliminating possible explanations. Through science we now know that the act of observation affects conclusions even with the best intensions to be objective. The scientific method however presupposes that finding truth is an endless quest.

Using the opinion of a single individual to make your case (I’m already familiar with Dawkins) is a non sequitur. Dawkins is however a good example of someone who rejects religion and spirituality when it is based on supernatural premises.

I ended my original post with “everyone won.” What I meant by that is that there is way out of dilemma. Many people have found it. Individuals, all the world’s religious traditions (including Christianity) and the scientific method are literally contained within a Great Story—the story of the universe. You don’t need to attend a Christian University. All you have to do to find God is wake up. To quote a UU song “the doors always open at the church of what is.” The resolution I am describing is called “panentheism.”

Guess you thought we’ve been twiddling our thumbs over here on the religious left.

“transcend and include” (from Ken Wilber and spiral dynamics)
Bonnie (UU)

Bonnie: "I don't know how anyone with eyes, ears and neuron activity can deny evolution."

Would you be interested in an evolutionist who doesn't believe in evolution? Try to find a copy of Roger Lewin's "Bones of Contention." While remaining an evolutionist, Lewin demonstrates the lack of science in evolution. For example, he shows the paucity of fossil evidence and the silly circular reasoning involved in dating fossils and rocks. Lewin was an editor of a major British science journal.

I must confess something: I am an addict of these discussions ! I can never get enough of them ;-1

I think I can understand why the primitive man needed to invent super-natural thinking, in order to improve social cooperation and thus, to survive. The curious can take a look at this very interesting article (as usual with scientific publications, it has plenty of serious references):

http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/Supernaturalizing.pdf

Going back to my previous thread of thinking, I can also understand how a person who had no access to any other option (specially scientific knowledge), became a believer. I deal with those people all the time, I am 33, so basically, my parents' generation fall into that category. My girlfriend's mother is a very good example indeed (wait until she knows her future son-in-law is an atheist!).

The category that really makes me scratch my head, is the one containing people who actually had access to a good education, and who possess indeed a high cultural level (as can be appreciated by some posts in this thread).

I am not trying to change your minds, actually I respect your point (dating a believer woman made me more moderate about my comments, hehe). But I really struggle when trying to understand how your mind works. Is a real challenge. Please explain me how come the explanations of religion can satisfy you? specially the dogmatic literal interpretations of the Bible. How is that possible? Is it because our reality is so miserable, so bitter and cruel that we need a refuge? It would be too hard to walk around the world without a God to justify all the non sense and suffering right?
(last two sentences are my best explanation about the modern believer ... but please, help me to improve!).

Regards from the lost paradise

Evolution is fact based science and Auntie Ida is a pretty spectacular intact specimen of one of the earliest ancestors of monkeys with opposable thumbs. Like us it one of the distinguishing features of primates.

All these attempts to ridicule science for having any relation to faith is nonsense and just highlights the insecure humans who are embarrassed to admit belonging to the Ape family, just like like many of us are embarrassed to admit the same denying fundamentalist belong to the Christian family, considering their rabid religious illiteracy and intolerance.

Leave science to the the scientists, they're doing a good job in developing modern medicine that benefits all of us - and yes, based on evolutionary-based biological sciences.

It would be great if people better understood the first two or three hundred years of the evolution of Christianity - as well as scientists have been able to learn about two or three million years of evolutionary science.

It is in fact possible to believe in God, creation and evolution. It relies on special, theoretical properties of the human brain.

http://www.atotalawareness.com (very, very long)

D J Wray

Evolution is fact. Ida is not the missing link. There is no missing link.

Henry Gee, a senior editor at Nature, said the term "missing link" was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance.

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said he "would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."[

“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,” Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris Beard said.

Ann Gibbons in “Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists” and published in ScienceNOW noted, “Many paleontologists are unconvinced.”

Robert Roy Britt writing “Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far” in LiveScience noted, “Problem is, most of the coverage is done, and the public could be left with the impression that Ida is a rock-solid missing link in the human evolutionary chain.”

Ida’s unveiling was highly scripted with some “Barnum and Bailey aspects,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. Britt continued, “More important, it can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won’t know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed.”

Science is about discovery towards truth, people get excited, people are proved right and wrong and the search for truth continues.....because the truth is out there.

I find the assertion that we are but playthings on a guided goose chase a tad insulting. Whether IDA, beautiful creature that she is, is a missing link or not, is not the point for me. It is her role in raising the debate of our true origins that has made her so important.

Goodnight, don't forget to say your prayers :)

As a rational seeker, I am impressed by the civility I find in these comments. The usual crossfire between the bible thumpers and the athiests gets old quickly for me. I'm not learned, just learning. To me the issue is divided between those who believe that all that is necessary to understand and explain the natural universe, is found in the natural universe, and those who believe that something beyond is required. Not much ammunition for a war, when you say it like that. Even more refreshing is finding participants who realize that neither side is open to proof (or disproof). You assume one, or the other. As for ultimate origins, take your pick. No one in either camp will ever know the answer to that one. Now, if we could just keep science class for science alone...

Ok, I see a lot of posts acting as if any of us know what's going on. There are real "scientists" who will chop a fosilized dinosaur footprint to pieces just because it has a human footprint in it, because it challenges their beliefs. To many, evolution is an atheistic principle, and to others it is another scientific endeavor into the what if territory. I don't believe in evolution personally, and I never will. It is all theory, as is creationism. Both have supporting evidence, and we will believe what we will. My problem is when people act as if they actually KNOW something because it's stated by a string of theories that seem to fit together. Thyis whole Ida fling shouldn't last much longer than the Archaeoraptor, which National Geographic stated was a compilation of 2 other skeletons put together so they would sell for more. If we want evidence against evolution, we need look no further than the common crocodile. It's just something that's so common that we feel somehow in our minds that we can write it off without paying it any mind. Biochemistry doesn't match the current evolutionary tree, carbon dating techniques are innacurate if you go by common dating meathods when compared to how Williard Libby said they were to be used, dinosaurs are found in the wrong layers of rock all the time, and carbon dating when used correctly and compared to a similarly created isotope change drastically in comparrison, revealing a dramatic shift in the global ecosystem, AKA a flood. Plesiosaur siting all over the world are written off because their protein make-up is CLOSE to that of a Basking Shark. The pepper moth example has been known to be explained incorrectly for years, and still hasn't been changed just so evolutionists don't have to recant anything and lose credibility. And, I'm sorry, but I wouldn't just rough it out, waiting on evolution to develop a kidney for me while my blood dissolves me from the inside out. Believe what you want, but stop stating evolution as FACT; it takes just as much faith to believe in a dissproven Big Bang creation and shaky evolutionary theory as it does any religion.

Having read many books that address the glaring weaknesses of Darwinian evolution written by Christian scientist such as Dr, Michael Behe and others, The real possibility of macroevolution is maybe 1 in 100 trillion billion on a good day. It makes me wonder why highly intelligent scientist go to such great lenghts to prove macroevolution when there is far greater proof against Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately many highly intelligent scientists cannot bring themselves to believe in an intelligent designer. It was inspirational to see probably one of, if not the greatest atheist scientist of out time, to finally come to the conclusion that an intelligent designer was responsible for the creation of earth. Dr. Anthony Flew, in his eighties, realized the impossibility of human kind evolving through a vast number of mindless random chances over billions of years.