First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Ida: Missing Link in Human Evolution?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/20/09



Tuesday the American Museum of Natural History unveiled a 47 million year old fossilized creature suspected to be an ancestor of the “Rosetta stone of fossils," "the missing link," and the mother of all monkies. However, as Norwegian paleontologist Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum points out, Ida is not an anthropoid. Actually, she shows more signs of being related to lemurs than the anthropoid family from which humans descend. Never the less some scientists insist that she is in fact the missing link. This is doubtless to spark a heated debate within the scientific community. What're your thoughts?


Ida is thought to have died at eight years old, her demise triggered by a broken wrist. She would've been roughly two pounds and similar in size to a small cat at about two-three feet.


Assuming that she is an ancestor of the human species that makes her the earliest we've ever found at roughly twenty times older than most evidence of human evolution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30833464#30833464 -video: Robert Bazell seperates history from hype

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/#storyContinued-article, ‘Missing link’ primate likely to stir debate
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
Yes she is part of the missing link
they have done dna test aswell
but i dont htink they have released thier results















Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
You know, you don't have to be some insane hick to be religious, I think people that interpret the bible entirely as a literal document really need to go back to school. Or just get back to that manual labor to which they are suited rather than thinking too hard.

Really there aren't any "Missing links" anymore, want to see proof of evolution read a case study on fruit flies. Does this in any way disprove a god... no.

Seriously these Religion VS Science threads are quite infantile.
54331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Under your skin.
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
i dont know. maybe? well..only one scientist are against so many right? maybe the rest of the scientists are correct.

well, if you really wanna know the answer, watch monsters vs aliens. you'll find the "missing link" there
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
im not sure,she seems to be TOO old,and i heard it on the radio today and they say their not going to jump to conclusions too fast.
And to me personlly it seems to small and fragile to have evolved into us.....
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
From wikipedia :


The scientists who published the initial paper on Darwinius described it as a significant transitional form (a so-called "missing link") between early primitive primates and the later prosimian and simian lineages. The creature appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur. The fossil is classified as lying near the separation of two major primate clades : one leading to the prosimians, the other to the anthropoid monkeys and, eventually, to the great apes, including Homo sapiens



So basically it connects the gap between early primates and the later ones who eventually evolved into Australopithecus, then the Homo(human) lineage.


Some more details on Ida :


The fossil is placed within the primate family tree along with other fossil primates. Ida was originally thought to be a primitive lemur, but comparative tests revealed her to have anthropoid features. This indicates that she is a transitional fossil between primitive primates and the human lineage. Two of the key anatomical features found in lemurs, a grooming claw on the foot; and a fused row of teeth, a toothcomb, in the bottom jaw, are not present on the fossil. Instead, she has a short face with forward facing eyes like humans as opposed to the long face of a lemur, nails instead of claws, and teeth similar to those of monkeys. The fossil's hands have five fingers and exhibit human-like opposable thumbs. These would have provided a "precision grip" which, for Ida, was useful for climbing and gathering fruit. Ida also had flexible arms and relatively short limbs.


What it would have looked like :


4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/20/09

digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.


Seriously dude, take an anthropology class in college. You can believe in God and at least most of evolution and be sane. The only official fake fossil is actual "Piltdown Man". Lucy is legit and they've pretty much got 90% of her complete.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/20/09 , edited 5/20/09

crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.


Seriously dude, take an anthropology class in college. You can believe in God and at least most of evolution and be sane. The only official fake fossil is actual "Piltdown Man". Lucy is legit and they've pretty much got 90% of her complete.


I will take anthropology, but so far I have taken cell and genetics and those things defeat evolution. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I personally believe in Biblical Creationism. There is science to back intelligent design both biologically and astronomically. And Lucy doesn't prove a missing link. Just because something looks similar to an ape or human doesn't mean that was the missing link, they can't prove it. Only through speculation can they claim that. We haven't found missing links to many animals, and in my mind if life has been around for millions of years, we should be finding millions and billions of fossilized missing links.
36147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
Heh, these silly threads are funny. You guys honestly hate science that much to spread this much bullshit around? Really.. Creationism is a horrible excuse for evolution not being able to explain the first living organism. Just because some designs in nature are to hard to explain doesn't mean that God created it. If you think that we should be finding millions and billions of fossilized missing links you're a fucking retard. Oh hey, i'll dig right here, i know there must be a fossil here!! Pfft, come on man, use some common sense. I honestly don't believe it's the missing link until science proves it. All they have done is looked at the fossil and said "Oh it's the missing link." Which is absolute bullshit, until they come up with concrete evidence (Unlike creationism and Intelligent Design) then i will not believe in this being the missing link.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/20/09 , edited 5/20/09

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.


Seriously dude, take an anthropology class in college. You can believe in God and at least most of evolution and be sane. The only official fake fossil is actual "Piltdown Man". Lucy is legit and they've pretty much got 90% of her complete.


I will take anthropology, but so far I have taken cell and genetics and those things defeat evolution. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I personally believe in Biblical Creationism. There is science to back intelligent design both biologically and astronomically. And Lucy doesn't prove a missing link. Just because something looks similar to an ape or human doesn't mean that was the missing link, they can't prove it. Only through speculation can they claim that. We haven't found missing links to many animals, and in my mind if life has been around for millions of years, we should be finding millions and billions of fossilized missing links.


Actually, genetics (along with Medelian genetics) helped make evolution theory. That and various other things that you'll learn at the beginning of an introductory anthropology class. If you really read Genesis correctly you'll see that the only thing that can be taken as true is the order of what happened in Creation. The actual processes are never explained. The Catholic church itself has no problem with evolution except when it comes to the creation of man since man was created differently than from all the other animals. The hard evidence anthropology gives is hard to ignore and it still puzzles me on what the bible means when it talks about how man was created different from animals since man in anthropology was created all the same much like all the other animals.

EDIT:
Okay so I took a closer look and it seems in the first chapter of Genesis man was created after animals. So in this sense it is possible for man to have evolved from the primate tree. Actually the order of how a lot of things happened in Creation was odd in accordance to the current trend of belief. Birds were made before land creatures, the stars were formed after water became present on earth, and other things I kindly dismissed because I figured the description of how the earth was made was from a Ancient Greek-like mind. It also explains this passage from Genesis 2:7
"And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
Basically man was made from mud (earth). The Ancient Greeks believed that everything on the earth was made of four elements: earth, wind, fire, water. The mud is earth and water, and God's breath was probably wind and fire. So how seriously we can take that, I don't know. If that same writer had the scientific knowledge that we have now he might have wrote Genesis differently.
The only thing that actually matters faithwise is the morals of the story. The actual processes of these are of less importance when it comes to Christian faith. Quarrelling about these things as if they were of utmost importance is foolish, otherwise it's fine to talk about so long as there is no deep resentment from either side.
Posted 5/21/09

digs wrote:
I will take anthropology, but so far I have taken cell and genetics and those things defeat evolution. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I personally believe in Biblical Creationism. There is science to back intelligent design both biologically and astronomically. And Lucy doesn't prove a missing link. Just because something looks similar to an ape or human doesn't mean that was the missing link, they can't prove it. Only through speculation can they claim that. We haven't found missing links to many animals, and in my mind if life has been around for millions of years, we should be finding millions and billions of fossilized missing links.


- certain organisms, and particular elements of those organisms, are more likely to be preserved than others

- in addition certain environments are more suitable for fossilization than others, and some environments will yield no fossil remains through time

- even hard parts, as bones, teeth, calcified shells, are normally prone to destruction

- fossilization is much more common in marine environments

- etc.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilization


So, no, there CAN'T be millions and billions of fossilized missing links be especially when it comes to non-marine environments. It's very unlikely to find a fossilised smaller animal that was living in the forest ages ago.

Well, the provided link will explain this pretty thoroughly to you.
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/21/09

digs wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

This link explains how that fossil is not a "missing link." Evolutionary scientists like to jump to conclusions (IE. Lucy and other fake fossils). There are no missing links because they don't exist, evolution is a model for how life might have come to be, a false model at that.



answers in genesis is a non-sciewntific anti-evolution wesbite most of the creationist crowd have no background in science and twist up words and quotes to promote creatiionism where is the physical evidents of a creator? can you and you buddies over at answers in genesis identify one shred of evidence of a god creating heavens and the earth WITHOUT using the bible ?
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/21/09
and creationists where is the evidence that man was created from mud/soil/dirt?
31644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/21/09
i guess the people who found it must be glad to find the missing link
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.