New "Missing Link" Ida is Nothing but Extinct Primate

[Mike Griffith]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida." Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur. Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media. Indeed, the History Channel has already produced a "special" on Ida as the new missing link, even though serious peer review of the sensational claims about Ida has only just barely begun.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has published an article, titled "Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link," in which he discusses some of the reasons that Ida "fails miserably" to qualify as a missing link, and he, too, notes that Ida very closely resembles a modern lemur.

Why Ida is Not the Missing Link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

It should be pointed out that the evolutionist community has a long track record of making sensational claims about this or that fossil that (1) later turned out to be false, and (2) were made about fossils that had either been doctored or erroneously identified. Such infamous cases as Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man come to mind. The last four cases were later exposed as outright hoaxes.

"Ida" an Extinct Primate -- And That's All
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html

Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4642/

[ltravisjr]

Aww shoot, now you tell me after I had already gone and thrown away my bible and crucifix in despair.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Origin of the Specious (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece)

Ida the fossil was hailed as the ‘missing link’ in our evolution. Don’t believe the hype


...
“This animal lived around 47m years ago but human-like creatures only appeared in the last 2m years,” (Robert Foley, professor of human evolution at Cambridge University) said. “That’s a gap of around 45m years with many other species lying between us and that era. Any one of them could be called a missing link. Really, the term is meaningless.” ...

[TCUFan]

It's just peer-reviewed science, people. This is what a responsible scientific community does.

TCUFan

[Mike Griffith]

It's just peer-reviewed science, people. This is what a responsible scientific community does.

What is "just peer-reviewed science," the sensational claims being made by Ida's proponents, which are being blindly repeated by the media? Or are you talking about the critiques of those claims penned by skeptical evolutionists and creationists alike?

The "scientific community" has a long track record of swallowing and defending erroneous claims and outright hoaxes for years and even decades.

Where is the "scientific community's" serious peer review of the nonsensical claims being broadcast about man-made global warming?

[opsyscw]

I thought we found the missing link when Obam was elected.

[goeagles]

What is "just peer-reviewed science," the sensational claims being made by Ida's proponents, which are being blindly repeated by the media?
Every media account from the start has made it quite clear that there is heated debate among scientists as to the significance of Ida.
And the History Channel special will fully report the arguments on all sides as well.
Spare us the fundie paranoia.

[Creefer]

Is there some magical definition to the term "missing link", like some 48 point specification with a checklist that needs to be completed to verify the claim, or is it just some term thrown around willy-nilly used to hype up a fossil find?



Yeah...I thought so. Ida is just another piece of the evolutionary puzzle, maybe really significant, maybe just a really nice find of an extinct primate (which of course any "missing link" would have to be. Either way, the theory of evolution just keeps marching on, getting more complete every day.

[curtis123]

It's just peer-reviewed science, people. This is what a responsible scientific community does.

TCUFan

I know marketing hype when I see it.

P.T. Barnum couldn't have done it better.

[CrusaderFrank]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle

[goeagles]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle
Or great-great-grand nephew.

[curtis123]

Or great-great-grand nephew.


I already thought my relatives were bad enough.

[FidelisAdMortem]

I fail to see how this is a missing link.

And I did some research of my own and ALOT of those in the know agree, that this is being overhyped and doesn't proof a missing link.

But have it.

[fava]

Ida is a old Lemur. Nothing more, nothing less.
To claim otherwise is not very scientific.

[muhadeeb99]

Origin of the Specious (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece)

Ida the fossil was hailed as the ‘missing link’ in our evolution. Don’t believe the hype

I am tempering the so-called hype because the extinction of species is well documented. 99 % of all species that have existed are now extinct. That's not hype, that is irrefutible fact.
The fossil "Ida" is that just a fossil. "Ida" can be connected as a "missing link" for the reason of the unique fossel makeup and substance. It has been noted that the fossel has revealed that the joints in the area have exhibited an opposible thumb and/or toe and Ida did have the appearance of fingernails and not claws.:clap:

[fava]

I am tempering the so-called hype because the extiction of species is well documented. 99 % of all species that have existed are now extinct. That's not hype, that is irrefutible fact.
The fossil "Ida" is that just a fossil. "Ida" can be connected as a "missing link" for the reason of the unique fossel makeup and substance. It has been noted that the fossel has revealed that the joints in the area have exhibited an opposible thumb and/or toe and Ida did have the appearance of fingernails and not claws.:clap:

Extintion of species proves no philosophy.
Lemurs have opp thumbs and fingernails.

[muhadeeb99]

Extintion of species proves no philosophy.
Lemurs have opp thumbs and fingernails.

It wasn't meant to prove a philosphy, but only to point out the sub hype of "Ida" is somehow related to evolution of the human species.
There is quite a long distance and time to connect Ida to the present. It is a start none the less. It would not be considered heresy to evaluate the evidence and come to some conclusion, not immediately though.

[psyko kat]

Ida is a old Lemur. Nothing more, nothing less.
To claim otherwise is not very scientific.

Lemurs are cute,

[muhadeeb99]

As the OP title infers, "Ida is nothing but an extinct primate". The argument put forth was "Don't believe the hype" My stance was that there should be some temperance of the "Hype" .:whistle:

[jprin]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida."

Odd. The very first article I read (and pretty much every article since) on the subject in the horrible MSM included quotes by those who think it's a "link" and those who don't. Even the uber-liberal NPR report I heard the other day spent more time with scientists who challenged the idea that Ida was in man's evolutionary tree.

If that's what you mean by "in their usual fashion," I agree. But you seem to think there is a one-sided promotion of one theory. Are you getting all of your news from News Max and the other lopsided purveyors of conservative right wing religious misreprentation of the truth? What I've heard, consistently, in MSM is a lot different from what you heard.

Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur.

Either you got that from MSM or you got that from your conservative right wing religious source(s) - which is it?

Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media.

Not true -as I already wrote. I have no idea how you conclude what you're writing, but if you're going to somehow trash The Media like you're doing, maybe you should be more accurate. You accurately point out that there is a scientific debate going on about the significance of the fossil, as reported in MSM, then declare MSM is "ignoring" that there is a debate. :))

[worldklas]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida." Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur. Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media. Indeed, the History Channel has already produced a "special" on Ida as the new missing link, even though serious peer review of the sensational claims about Ida has only just barely begun.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has published an article, titled "Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link," in which he discusses some of the reasons that Ida "fails miserably" to qualify as a missing link, and he, too, notes that Ida very closely resembles a modern lemur.

Why Ida is Not the Missing Link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

It should be pointed out that the evolutionist community has a long track record of making sensational claims about this or that fossil that (1) later turned out to be false, and (2) were made about fossils that had either been doctored or erroneously identified. Such infamous cases as Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man come to mind. The last four cases were later exposed as outright hoaxes.

"Ida" an Extinct Primate -- And That's All
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html

Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4642/

I can only see giving creedence to these views if you can prove to me that forcing the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is not a violation of the non-establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

[blackcatrun]

Not any thing to do with humans. It's bunk. Nice fossel find thou.


Carbon dating is a bogus science by the way.

[less right]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida."

Why is this in "Washington Politics"?

Is this debate going on in Congress?

[Hellsbane]

I can only see giving creedence to these views if you can prove to me that forcing the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is not a violation of the non-establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Its not a violation when Congress has made no law. Havn't you read the Constitution? Couldn't it also be said that the government should not force upon the people a theory or philosophy that morally conflicts with their accepted beleifs?

[brouski]

Not any thing to do with humans. It's bunk. Nice fossel find thou.


Carbon dating is a bogus science by the way.

Oh it is? Boy, don't they look foolish now!

[dad49er]

Aww shoot, now you tell me after I had already gone and thrown away my bible and crucifix in despair.

Why would you do that?
I think I detect sarcasm,
but many Christian churches accept the concept of evolution.

[goeagles]

Not any thing to do with humans. It's bunk. Nice fossel find thou.


Carbon dating is a bogus science by the way.
No kidding!
Holy cow, are the scientists going to be surprised.

[fava]

No kidding!
Holy cow, are the scientists going to be surprised.

Carbon dating rocks? I think scientists would not be impressed.

[dad49er]

As the OP title infers, "Ida is nothing but an extinct primate". The argument put forth was "Don't believe the hype" My stance was that there should be some temperance of the "Hype" .:whistle:

I can go along with that.
But both sides have been well represented.
And as some others have pointed out I have seen more doubt expressed on the issue than positive acceptance.

[Mike Griffith]

Some day evolution will be recognized as the greatest, silliest hoax in the history of mankind. It's based on the ridiculous assumption that life somehow sprang from inanimate matter. This abiogenesis scenario, the very foundation stone of atheistic evolution, has never been duplicated in a scientific experiment, despite numerous attempts. Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The fossil record, especially the Cambrian Explosion, screams against it. Mutation experiements have shown over and over again that DNA simply will not allow the kinds of mutations required by evolutionary theory. And, evolution has been destroyed with the discovery of the staggering complexity of life at the biochemical level.

[avergbear]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida." Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur. Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media. Indeed, the History Channel has already produced a "special" on Ida as the new missing link, even though serious peer review of the sensational claims about Ida has only just barely begun.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has published an article, titled "Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link," in which he discusses some of the reasons that Ida "fails miserably" to qualify as a missing link, and he, too, notes that Ida very closely resembles a modern lemur.

Why Ida is Not the Missing Link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

It should be pointed out that the evolutionist community has a long track record of making sensational claims about this or that fossil that (1) later turned out to be false, and (2) were made about fossils that had either been doctored or erroneously identified. Such infamous cases as Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man come to mind. The last four cases were later exposed as outright hoaxes.

"Ida" an Extinct Primate -- And That's All
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html

Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4642/

Amazing that this “discovery” was announced just as Christianity is under attack and Obama just took office.

I’m more than a little bored with these Liberals that think they know it all.

[goeagles]

Some day evolution will be recognized as the greatest, silliest hoax in the history of mankind. It's based on the ridiculous assumption that life somehow sprang from inanimate matter. This abiogenesis scenario, the very foundation stone of atheistic evolution, has never been duplicated in a scientific experiment, despite numerous attempts. Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The fossil record, especially the Cambrian Explosion, screams against it. Mutation experiements have shown over and over again that DNA simply will not allow the kinds of mutations required by evolutionary theory. And, evolution has been destroyed with the discovery of the staggering complexity of life at the biochemical level.
Sorry, but ignorance and superstition are not going to triumph over scientific knowledge and discovery.
That train has long since left the station.

[Gengar]

Not this... the links in the OP definitely aren't biased. Just check them out. lol

Evolution is fact. Ida is just another example. You know. Actual proof.

Discoveries like this happen once in a lifetime. We should all be celebrating it. Instead, the creationist fools are doing their best to disparage this great discovery.

[avergbear]

Sorry, but ignorance and superstition are not going to triumph over scientific knowledge and discovery.
That train has long since left the station.

When you believe some 80 million year old pile of bones in a rock is your ancestor, you really should be careful when taking about trains not being fully on the tracks.

[asda1]

My fiance asked me what the bid deal with the primate was... I have no idea.

So it is a common ancestor to lemurs and monkeys, linking primates to other mammals, what's the big deal?

And this has to do with human evolution how again? We can already trace human evolution back through fossil and genetic records. They are just making a stink about this to dredge up the evolution debate.

One of the things I've noticed as I have become more partisan is how partisan the scientific community is, half of the human evolution debate is done with creationists in mind. Heck my old college even had a group "the darwinists club" that got together to mock Christian science museums. I went to a meeting or two and lost interest after that.

Anyway, all you evolution deniers are a huge joke and part of the reason we have a marxist president right now. You idiots don't even know how you have been used in a culture war to pass through socialist programs.

Who needs to argue the proper size of government when you can just associate free market ideas with creationists. Who wants to be mixed up with one of those guys, Obama 2012!!!

[Gengar]

Christian Science. Now that's a hilarious oxymoron.

Anyway, all you evolution deniers are a huge joke and part of the reason we have a marxist president right now. You idiots don't even know how you have been used in a culture war to pass through socialist programs.

Agreed.

[fava]

Sorry, but ignorance and superstition are not going to triumph over scientific knowledge and discovery.
That train has long since left the station.

This from the genius who thinks you can carbon date millions year old rocks.

[dad49er]

Some day evolution will be recognized as the greatest, silliest hoax in the history of mankind. It's based on the ridiculous assumption that life somehow sprang from inanimate matter. This abiogenesis scenario, the very foundation stone of atheistic evolution, has never been duplicated in a scientific experiment, despite numerous attempts. Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The fossil record, especially the Cambrian Explosion, screams against it. Mutation experiements have shown over and over again that DNA simply will not allow the kinds of mutations required by evolutionary theory. And, evolution has been destroyed with the discovery of the staggering complexity of life at the biochemical level.

That will be tough to do while it is still occurring today. Some even say at an accelerated rate.

[James Juno]

That will be tough to do while it is still occurring today. Some even say at an accelerated rate.

We can only hope that intelligence, at least, is on a fast-track.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

And, evolution has been destroyed with the discovery of the staggering complexity of life at the biochemical level.

Wrong on many levels. Evolution actually has evidence backing it up rather than archaic superstitions of some master creator. Unlike creationism, evolution has been observed both on a micro level (Bacteria) and on a larger level (white-eye birds) in our lifetimes alone. This is excluding any bone findings. If you choose to ignore something that is happening right in front of your eyes, well then I don't know what to say.

Also, abiogenesis takes millions of years, its a long process of building upon basic chemicals into forming complex polymers. Recently, there has been a breakthrough by Dr. Sutherland where he created RNA which was able to self replicate from basic chemicals. Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out. “It’s related chemistry,” Sutherland says. “That’s how it must have been in the very beginning — a series of fundamental reactions that could make all four types of RNA molecule.”

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43723/title/How_RNA_got_started
RNA is the basis for life, as it creates protein, and we all know what happens after that.

[dad49er]

We can only hope that intelligence, at least, is on a fast-track.

Amen.

[avergbear]

We can only hope that intelligence, at least, is on a fast-track.

Some people don’t believe that having a Hive Mentality is a sign of intelligence.

Just look at how Liberals treat people that don’t immediately accept their rather remarkable claim without question. I don’t call that having an “open mind” as liberals claim they do.

[7ranz]

Biologist PZ Myers' take on the fossil

People have been using remarkable hyperbole when discussing Darwinius. She's going to affect paleontology "like an asteroid falling down to earth"; she's the "Mona Lisa" of fossils; she answers all of Darwin's questions about transitional fossils; she's "something that the world has never seen before"; "a revolutionary scientific find that will change everything". Well, OK. I was impressed enough that I immediately made Ida my desktop wallpaper, so I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the find. But let's not forget that there are lots of transitional forms found all the time. She's unique as a representative of a new species, but she isn't at all unique as a representative of the complex history of life on earth.

When Laelaps says, "I have the feeling that this fossil, while spectacular, is being oversold," I think he's being spectacularly understated. Wilkins also knocks down the whole "missing link" label. The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimportant, but because it detracts from the larger body of the fossil record — I doubt that the media will be able to muster as much excitement from whatever new fossil gets published in Nature or Science next week, no matter how significant it may be.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php

[James Juno]

Biologist's PZ Myer's take on the fossil


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php

I think he's right on the money.

[TCUFan]

I know marketing hype when I see it.

P.T. Barnum couldn't have done it better.

I generally try to wait and see what responsible scientific journals have to say on the matter.

Let me give you a hint. Only the dumbest dreck that wouldn't get past the doctoral candidate peer review board at a third-tier college makes it into Popular Science.

TCUFan

[Greyclouds]

Biologist PZ Myers' take on the fossil


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php

Excellent find, and excellent summation on Dr. Myer's part :clap:

I don't share his excitement on the find, but I think that's because unless it has recoverable DNA, I'm not all that interested.

[Greyclouds]

I generally try to wait and see what responsible scientific journals have to say on the matter.

Let me give you a hint. Only the dumbest dreck that wouldn't get past the doctoral candidate peer review board at a third-tier college makes it into Popular Science.

TCUFan

This will probably be either a Nature or Science paper, but only because of the hype surrounding the discovery. Sadly, Impact Factor is significantly aided by media hype, so those two journals would be insane for not accepting a substantive paper on the topic.

But what can I say? I'm just jealous I haven't published a Nature or Science article... yet :)

[TCUFan]

This will probably be either a Nature or Science paper, but only because of the hype surrounding the discovery. Sadly, Impact Factor is significantly aided by media hype, so those two journals would be insane for not accepting a substantive paper on the topic.

But what can I say? I'm just jealous I haven't published a Nature or Science article... yet :)

Oh, good Lord. Go for the AJS. If you're gonna shoot, aim high.

TCUFan

[Greyclouds]

Oh, good Lord. Go for the AJS. If you're gonna shoot, aim high.

TCUFan

You don't get much higher than Nature or Science... :confused:

Are you thinking of the same journals? I know of PhD theses that were made off of ONE publication in one of those two journals. Normally, you have to have at least three primary publications (at least in prep) to be considered prepared to defend.

[TCUFan]

You don't get much higher than Nature or Science... :confused:

Are you thinking of the same journals? I know of PhD theses that were made off of ONE publication in one of those two journals. Normally, you have to have at least three primary publications (at least in prep) to be considered prepared to defend.

Oh, Lord, Science Magazine is where bad doctoral dissertation proposals go when they mercifully die.

I'm talking about this:

http://www.ajsonline.org/

TCUFan

[Greyclouds]

Oh, Lord, Science Magazine is where bad doctoral dissertation proposals go when they mercifully die.

Wha!?

Science has one of the highest readerships of any Scientific Journal outside of Nature! Also the impact factor shows that it has a high citation index in nascent papers. Publication in Science is a BIG deal!


I'm talking about this:

http://www.ajsonline.org/

TCUFan

Nature and Science each have a far higher impact factor than that journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

It is also an Earth Science journal, so while it is quite reputable in that division, it would be far less prestigious than J.Bacteriol. is to me. But anyone outside of those fields would have a hard time recognizing either journal! Science and Nature are readily accessible to anyone in the sciences.

[captusa]

Ida is a old Lemur. Nothing more, nothing less.
To claim otherwise is not very scientific.

I assume that she is an important find in the search to identify where and when the evolutionary branch that produced humans seperated from the branch that produced apes.
It is unfortunate that even the science channels are using the word link to hype their programs about "Ida".

[gosling2Lindy]

The program on the History Channel called "The Link" (I believe) is about to start. It is advertised as having limited commercials.

We'll see what is presented. The Hype got old fast!!

[sgdp]

This documentary is nice.

[gosling2Lindy]

This was the first time I've heard of the Messel pit in Germany.

I thought at first it was going to have a bad start. A fossil bought from a dealer, in a back room meeting at a fossil show, raises a few question marks.

Looks at this point like Ida has characteristics of both monkeys and lemurs, and may be a transitional species.

[gosling2Lindy]

Way, way, way too much stretching in that last half hour to try to link Ida as a human ancestor. Trying far to hard in the attempt to make that point.

A 47 million year old 95% intact fossil is interesting on its own, without all the human ancestor hype nonsense.

That makes me one of those identified at the end as not accepting the premise. Others who believe in God will be in the same group. I have a lot of company.

[highroller]

Well, I'm glad that people are smart enough to realize that it's not the "missing link". I swear that when I saw an article on Yahoo about it being that, I almost threw my computer across the room.

[sgdp]

It is a missing link...what makes people think it's not? That's weird.

[biggles53]

Way, way, way too much stretching in that last half hour to try to link Ida as a human ancestor. Trying far to hard in the attempt to make that point.

A 47 million year old 95% intact fossil is interesting on its own, without all the human ancestor hype nonsense.

That makes me one of those identified at the end as not accepting the premise. Others who believe in God will be in the same group. I have a lot of company.

Can I suggest examining the evidence, rather than whose company you're in....?

[Marleysdaddy]

It is a missing link...

well, technically now it is a found link :razz:

[Marleysdaddy]

Not any thing to do with humans.
The fossil is a primate...humans are primates.

[Marleysdaddy]

Its not a violation when Congress has made no law.

Congress hasn't made a law, but a legal precedent has been established...Cf. Kitzmiller v. Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)
* For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

* A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

* The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

* The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

* Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

* After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

* [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

* ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

* Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

[Marleysdaddy]

Some day evolution will be recognized as the greatest, silliest hoax in the history of mankind.
It is always possible that we will find evidence which forces us to discard the current theory of evolution, but I think it's very unlikely.
It's based on the ridiculous assumption that life somehow sprang from inanimate matter. No, that is abiogenesis, an idea which has not yet reached the level of 'theory'

This abiogenesis scenario, the very foundation stone of atheistic evolution, has never been duplicated in a scientific experiment, despite numerous attempts.It is not the "foundation stone" of anything other than abiogenesis.

Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Please explain how you think it does
The fossil record, especially the Cambrian Explosion, screams against it.
Please explain how you think it does
Mutation experiements [sic] have shown over and over again that DNA simply will not allow the kinds of mutations required by evolutionary theory.
1) Which experiments? Please provide at least one link..
2) What "kinds of mutations" do you think are "required by evolutionary theory"?
And, evolution has been destroyed with the discovery of the staggering complexity of life at the biochemical level.
That is totally untrue... genetics has provided some of the best evidence for the theory of evolution...google 'modern synthesis'

[JudasGoat]

look at the great displays of hope in faith put into Ida being a missing link...:whistle:

[NascarGirl2448]

I can only see giving creedence to these views if you can prove to me that forcing the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is not a violation of the non-establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

If the schools want to teach intelligent design, they ought to be able to. Just DON'T teach it as science! Teach it in a world religion class, or in a philosophy class, somewhere it will fit in. Unfortunately, some of those on the radical right just won't be happy until they have forced their views on everyone about the origin of the universe, scientific or not.

[Marleysdaddy]

look at the great displays of hope in faith put into Ida being a missing link...:whistle:

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55005341&postcount=62

:D

[JudasGoat]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=55005341&postcount=62

:D

*snicker*

[JudasGoat]

Unfortunately, some of those on the radical right just won't be happy until they have forced their views on everyone about the origin of the universe, scientific or not.

right, because the THEORY of evolution is hard, proven fact...and that's why it should be forced on everyone about the origin of the universe, scientific or not.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Mike Griffith
Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I will keep repeating the obvious.
The fact that groups like the Discovery Institute who might well contain educated officers promote the idea that "Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics" demonstrates the total distain they must have for the intelligence of their audience.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with THERMODYNAMICS.
Explain how the theory of evolution contradicts the fact that heat cannot pass from a colder body to a warmer body (an accurate short expression of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

[Marleysdaddy]

right, because the THEORY of evolution is hard, proven fact...

1) Nothing in science can be "proven"
2) Evolution is a fact...we can observe it.
3) The THEORY of Evolution uses those observations (and other data) as evidence and makes predictions based upon those data

[Alaric]

Such infamous cases as Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man come to mind. The last four cases were later exposed as outright hoaxes.

This is a despicalbe and intellectually dishonest strawman. Lucy is a genuine Australopithecus fossil. There is no hoax involved. The association of that fossil with the others is disingenuous to the extreme. You are so far off track on that one that I can't take any of the rest of your post seriously. If you want to have an honest intellectual discussion then you are going to have to step up and be both. Your OP has neither. You mention that the four were hoaxes, yet you list a fully vetted fossil find with them. Drop the guilt by association fallacy.

[JudasGoat]

1) Nothing in science can be "proven"
2) Evolution is a fact...we can observe it.
3) The THEORY of Evolution uses those observations (and other data) as evidence and makes predictions based upon those data

if 1 is true then how can you state 2?

how many big bangs have been observed? How many missing link transitional animals have been observed?
Here's a good one, how many "missing links" have been proven to be nothing more than either an ape, a man, or outright hoaxes? Or is it with Ida that "we really, really mean it's the real thing this time, we promise!" ?

[Marleysdaddy]

if 1 is true then how can you state 2?

I can't "prove" that my cat has 4 legs...does that mean that I can't state the the observation "my cat has 4 legs" as a fact?

how many big bangs have been observed?
None to my knowledge
How many missing link transitional animals have been observed? Once they're observed, they're not missing - but millions of transitional animals have been/are observed. I am a transitional animal between my parents and Marley.
Here's a good one, how many "missing links" have been proven to be nothing more than either an ape, a man, or outright hoaxes?
To my knowledge, just a few...out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transitional fossils we have unearthed.
Or is it with Ida that "we really, really mean it's the real thing this time, we promise!" ?
Ida exhibits features of lemurs and apes, but the thing that makes the fossil really exciting is how well preserved it is.

[Buffalo]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida." Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur. Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media. Indeed, the History Channel has already produced a "special" on Ida as the new missing link, even though serious peer review of the sensational claims about Ida has only just barely begun.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has published an article, titled "Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link," in which he discusses some of the reasons that Ida "fails miserably" to qualify as a missing link, and he, too, notes that Ida very closely resembles a modern lemur.

Why Ida is Not the Missing Link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

It should be pointed out that the evolutionist community has a long track record of making sensational claims about this or that fossil that (1) later turned out to be false, and (2) were made about fossils that had either been doctored or erroneously identified. Such infamous cases as Lucy, Java Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man come to mind. The last four cases were later exposed as outright hoaxes.

"Ida" an Extinct Primate -- And That's All
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html

Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4642/
I don't know if this specimen is a transitional species. It may be, it may not be. Just wanted to clarify, "Lucy", "Java Man", and "Peking man" are not outright hoaxes. I won't bore you with an explanation, pick up a book on human evolution or just use der Google.

[Buffalo]

This is a despicalbe and intellectually dishonest strawman. Lucy is an a genuine Australopithecus fossil. There is no hoax involved. The association of that fossil with the others is disingenuous to the extreme. You are so far off track on that one that I can't take any of the rest of your post seriously. If you wan't to have an honest intellectual discussion then you are going to have to step up and be both. Your OP has neither. You mention that the four were hoaxes, yet you list a fully vetted fossil find with them. Drop the guilt by association fallacy.
Good points, but Nebraska man and Piltdown man are the only hoaxes he listed. In fact Nebraska man is not even a hoax, but a mistaken classification, possibly on purpose.

[JeffR]

I like how this is being brought out as being a "new" discovery, when in actually, it was found back in 1983.

[Buffalo]

I like how this is being brought out as being a "new" discovery, when in actually, it was found back in 1983.
It's just being made available for study.

[Marleysdaddy]

I like how this is being brought out as being a "new" discovery, when in actually [sic], it was found back in 1983.

Scientists were not able to study it until 2 years ago

Ida was originally discovered by an amateur fossil hunter in the summer of 1983 at Messel pit, a world renowned fossil site near Darmstadt in Germany. He kept it under wraps for over 20 years before deciding to sell it via a German fossil dealer called Thomas Perner. It was Perner who approached Hurum two years ago.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link

ETA - Buffalo is too fast for me :D

[Alaric]

Good points, but Nebraska man and Piltdown man are the only hoaxes he listed. In fact Nebraska man is not even a hoax, but a mistaken classification, possibly on purpose.

What most irked me though was the OP's fallacious classification of Lucy by association, so I homed in on it. Few people appreciate the significance of Lucy. The Lucy find was revolutionary and it changed the way anthropologists thought about human evolution. It filled in several holes in the puzzle. Prior to Lucy it was widely believed that cranial development came before upright walking. Lucy showed us that upright walking came first, leading to the ability to carry food and tools, which led to improved nutrition that led to cranial development. As we came to understand the Australopithecus we refined the idea of monotonic evolution (see my sig pic) to the model we have today - one of many branches from a common ancestor.

Everyone should keep an open mind about Ida - for now it appears to be a link between mammals and primates. Take it at that and don't feel threatened by it. People feeling threatened by discovery is why it took European humans an extra century to have a correct understanding of the position of the Earth in the solar system.

The only record ever actually personally written by the hand of a creator is in the layers of rock in the Earth (and light from the universe), and it is wide open for us to read, if only we can pull our heads out of superstition and look without flinching.

[captusa]

I can't "prove" that my cat has 4 legs...does that mean that I can't state the the observation "my cat has 4 legs" as a fact?


None to my knowledge
Once they're observed, they're not missing - but millions of transitional animals have been/are observed. I am a transitional animal between my parents and Marley.

To my knowledge, just a few...out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transitional fossils we have unearthed.

Ida exhibits features of lemurs and apes, but the thing that makes the fossil really exciting is how well preserved it is.

To my knowledge the seperation of the evolutionary branch that produced ape and man seperated around the tarsier (a lemur).
The stucture of the tarsier's hands indicate a trend towards a human hand rather than an ape.
Ida may supply science with more information.

[BrittleBullet]

I don't know if this specimen is a transitional species. It may be, it may not be. Just wanted to clarify, "Lucy", "Java Man", and "Peking man" are not outright hoaxes. I won't bore you with an explanation, pick up a book on human evolution or just use der Google.

Thanks Buff.
I remember someone else claim that those same fossils were all hoaxes...
I think it was convicted fraudster Ken Hovind.

[gosling2Lindy]

Can I suggest examining the evidence, rather than whose company you're in....?

I see what you mean. My last sentence isn't as clear as it could be. Let me try again.

Those who believe in God and are in some of the more traditional Christian faiths will not accept that Ida could be a human ancestor. The belief in creation and not evolution is what I was referring to.

The presenters of the program were trying very hard to make the point that this was a human ancestor. Ida is 47 million years old. With no other specimen in between Ida and Lucy, the link can't be made. There isn't enough information. Ida could be a branch of the primate tree that hasn't been identified yet, and may not be on the path that contains Lucy.

One of the points used to indicate that Ida was not a Lemur was the fact that Ida has no grooming teeth. Do they know conclusively when Lemurs developed grooming teeth, or is the when just speculation? Could Ida be from before Lemurs had them?

I don't accept that the scientists are anywhere near the answer, and I don't mind being in the company of other skeptics. Ida is a fascinating find worthy of true study, and not a shove into a human ancestor label where it may not belong.

[Marleysdaddy]

One of the points used to indicate that Ida was not a Lemur was the fact that Ida has no grooming teeth. Do they know conclusively when Lemurs developed grooming teeth, or is the when just speculation? Could Ida be from before Lemurs had them?


If Ida were "from before Lemurs had them" then she wouldn't be classified as a lemur...because the presence of a toothcomb is one of the characteristics used to place an organism in the suborder Strepsirrhini (which contains lemurs)...

No toothcomb = not a member of Strepsirrhini
and
not a member of Strepsirrhini = not a lemur

(all lemurs also have a toilet claw, which Ida lacks)

[Kelzan]

Whether or not this is a missing link in Human evolution, it may fill in some gaps in primate evolution in general.
I love how no matter how many times creationists are thoroughly refuted they just ignore the march of science and keep repeating the same old discredited arguments.

[texan_rep]

I see what you mean. My last sentence isn't as clear as it could be. Let me try again.

Those who believe in God and are in some of the more traditional Christian faiths will not accept that Ida could be a human ancestor. The belief in creation and not evolution is what I was referring to.

The presenters of the program were trying very hard to make the point that this was a human ancestor. Ida is 47 million years old. With no other specimen in between Ida and Lucy, the link can't be made. There isn't enough information. Ida could be a branch of the primate tree that hasn't been identified yet, and may not be on the path that contains Lucy.

One of the points used to indicate that Ida was not a Lemur was the fact that Ida has no grooming teeth. Do they know conclusively when Lemurs developed grooming teeth, or is the when just speculation? Could Ida be from before Lemurs had them?

I don't accept that the scientists are anywhere near the answer, and I don't mind being in the company of other skeptics. Ida is a fascinating find worthy of true study, and not a shove into a human ancestor label where it may not belong.

Ummm....pardon me, but the Catholic Church is as "traditional Christian" as you can get...

Evolution says nothing about God. Not positive, not negative, not anything. Evolution does NOT preclude a Creator.

I need to start carrying a tape-recorder...:rolleyes:

[Alaric]

Ummm....pardon me, but the Catholic Church is as "traditional Christian" as you can get...


The same thought crossed my mind. The phrase "traditional Christian" may not have been well chosen, but I think we still got idea to whom he/she was referring. Even "fundamental Christian" wouldn't have been technically correct.

Perhaps "dogmatic" would work.

One thing I have always admired about the modern Catholic church is its more open-minded approach to the sciences than that taken by certain protestant sects. Perhaps its was a lesson learned the hard way.

[Thor]

Evolution says nothing about God. Not positive, not negative, not anything. Evolution does NOT preclude a Creator.


Absolutely correct! A creator may have have stood by and let evolution take over, or evolution may be part of the creator's plan. (I highly doubt there is a creator, but these are possibilities.)

This is why I don't understand why why some people react to evolutionary theory the way teenage girls react to a masked man carrying a chainsaw...

[Alaric]

...I don't understand why why some people react to evolutionary theory the way teenage girls react to a masked man carrying a chainsaw...

One word:

FEAR

[Thor]

One word:

FEAR

I think you're right. I just don't understand what they have to be afraid of. Knowledge?

[Greyclouds]

I think you're right. I just don't understand what they have to be afraid of. Knowledge?

I cannot speak for all, but one of the reasons why some fear the theory of Evolution is because it calls the rest of the Bible's veracity into doubt.

I do not find that to be true at all... but to some, it might seem to refute the divine origins of the Bible as a whole.

[Marleysdaddy]

I cannot speak for all, but one of the reasons why some fear the theory of Evolution is because it calls the rest of the Bible's veracity into doubt.

I do not find that to be true at all... but to some, it might seem to refute the divine origins of the Bible as a whole.

Of course that would be the fallacy of composition.

Whether or not the first few chapters of Genesis is a myth doesn't even have any bearing on whether the rest of the book of Genesis is a myth, much less on whether the rest of the entire Bible is one.

[Alaric]

Of course that would be the fallacy of composition.

Whether or not the first few chapters of Genesis is a myth doesn't even have any bearing on whether the rest of the book of Genesis is a myth, much less on whether the rest of the entire Bible is one.

However fear of torment by burning forever in a never ending hell is a powerful de-motivator, and if you believe that you must believe in God's infallible word in its entirety, and that the Bible is that word, complete and without error, then its difficult to stare truth in the face and not flinch. Its much easier to pretend a fossil doesn't exist or that its a fraud.

What I don't understand is the dogmatic adherence to a particular interpretation of creation as the only interpretation, especially given the track record of Bible interpretations -vs- simple observations of the Earth and sky over the last four centuries.

[dittoheadAZ]

In their usual fashion, some evolutionists and the media are making sensational claims about a fossil they have named "Ida." Skeptical scientists who have studied the matter are already saying "Ida" is nothing but an extinct primate and merely resembles a modern lemur. Even other evolutionists have cautioned that it's too early to call Ida a missing link. But that warning has been ignored by Ida's proponenets and, of course, by the media. Indeed, the History Channel has already produced a "special" on Ida as the new missing link, even though serious peer review of the sensational claims about Ida has only just barely begun.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, has published an article, titled "Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link," in which he discusses some of the reasons that Ida "fails miserably" to qualify as a missing link, and he, too, notes that Ida very closely resembles a modern lemur.


Sometimes the Atheo-Evolutionists are almost as laughable in their hysteria as the Young-Earth-Creationists.

It's why I'm glad to be an Old-Earth-Creationists - we don't have any such issues. :D

[captusa]

........
It's why I'm glad to be an Old-Earth-Creationists - we don't have any such issues. :D

Like dealing with reality ?????