Missing Link Connects Humans With ... Lemurs?!

1. dutchboy
   May 20th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

   We are being told to find this exiting and interesting.

2. zav
   May 20th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

   We are all related to The Original King Julian, Self Proclaimed King of All the Lemurs!

   OKJ: "The feet! The feet! Mort, what did I tell you about the feet?"

   Maurice: "He did tell you about the feet."

3. Crash_171
   May 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   thats really cool. I love when they discover new possibilities of our history.

   That skeleton does look like a small child with a tail, an odd head and feet.

4. Gauldar
   May 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

   dutchboy wrote:

   "Evolution satisfies your need for linear thinking."

   What need does beleiving in a talking snake, a burning bush, and dead guys comming back to life sate for you? Believe what you will, nobody is forcing you to find this interesting.

5. JuliaH
   May 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

   I think this story is being hyped up - from what I've read, in no real sense could Ida be called a 'missing link'.

   See very interesting critique of the whole story at
   http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a .php

6. thinked
   May 20th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

   I agree with #5.
   Making mountains out of mole hills is the status quo for so called science these days. The whole of evolutionary thinking is a metaphysical research program. You can only know that this animal is a lemur and died. BUT NO, these researchers in there religious zeal jump to astronomical conclusions and state that this is a missing link with no proof.
   What a joke.

7. Onyxium
   May 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

   Two words: bull crap

8. Sid
   May 20th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

   #5 & #6.

   The only ones making baseless assumptions here are you guys. You clearly do not understand the difference between what you refer to as "the missing link" and a transitional species.

   No one is proposing that this is the "missing link" between apes and humans, that has already been found.
   This is what basically amounts to the apes "missing link".

   As far as scientists jumping of the deep end and asserting something as fact with no proof to back up their conclusions..... scientists don't do that, they leave that to religion.

9. seekshelter
   May 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

   ive always wanted a lemur tail... knowing i was so close just makes me sad...

10. Kathy
    May 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    “We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid*, but the adapoid primates it represents deserve more careful comparison with higher primates than they have received in the past.”

    From the actual scientific journal report:

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

11. gambit
    May 20th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    again, evolution is just a bunch of made up crap.

12. Gauldar
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    @gambit

    Compaired to?

13. fnord
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Gambit & dutchboy: your very existence is a compelling argument against intelligent design.

14. ted
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    He's got Jazz hands!

15. Key
    May 21st, 2009 at 12:54 am

    Whilst a fantastic find I don't think it deserves the hype it's receiving - the whole missing link concept is flawed.

    & the people dismissing evolution really should go back to school.

16. Skipweasel
    May 21st, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Key:- Would that be a school where they're required to teach Inelegant Design?

    You can teach at these people all day, but they just won't see the light, 'cos they're fairly convinced they've already seen the light.

17. D Bozko
    May 21st, 2009 at 6:26 am

    The problem I have with evolution is where all those transitional fossils are hiding. I mean we are always told that so and so evolved from such and such yet we are not provided with the series of transitional fossils as proof. Not even one example. I'm reminded of the cartoon where this scientist is standing in front of a blackboard with all these mathmatical equations written there and about two thirds of the way down the board he's written, "and then something unexplainable happened". That's how I feel about the theory of evolution. It actually takes as much faith to accept evolution as it does intelligent design.
    As for this fossil, it's a previously unknown species that scientists have given a back story to. Kind of like the tooth they built an elaborate story around having to do with a previously unknown "human" species. Turned out to be a pig's tooth.

18. GQ
    May 21st, 2009 at 6:40 am

    And yet there's still tons more actual proof for evolution than there is for magic-beardy-hand-waving creation.

19. GQ
    May 21st, 2009 at 6:42 am

    Also, from Wikipedia:
    "It is commonly claimed by creationists that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[5] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favourite lie" of creationists.[3]

    A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features.[7] Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[8] Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.

    Although transitional fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition of one species to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. Creationists have often claimed that this analysis of the fossil record is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.[5] Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as being bush-like in appearance, not as the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion."

20. Gauldar
    May 21st, 2009 at 9:25 am

    @D Bozko

    Here's the information you requested.

    http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html

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

    Here's just a couple of links that I expect you to ignore because your thoughts on evolution are the same as my thoughts on an invisible space god... yeah, not very convincing I know.

    I think your referring to the Nebraska Man argument with the pigs tooth? The thing about this is that the science community disproved that, and was glad to disprove it. They guy that made the discovery himself said he made the mistake, how many times in the religious community does that happen? Never, they just say everyone else is wrong and start their own church. But then again, I wasn't raised as a child to believe that if I don't believe I am going to suffer, so there’s no skin off my back.

    http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html

21. Morris
    May 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    I am amazed at this hostility to evolution. There is no reason you can't be a Christian (or any religion) and beleive in evolution.

    I have always lived by the idea that "Science is the study of how God did things". If you can believe that God magically zapped us into existance, why couldn't he simply have used evolution to make us instead?

    The Bible only says God created Man. It does not go into details of how he did it.

22. Ajan
    May 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Nice research all you guys..
    Wonderful articles from everyone who commeneted

23. shadow raven starfire
    May 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    Scientists and archaeologists are not idiots.
    They know more about evolution than all of us put together.
    So there is no need to diss them and say they're wrong when you don't know any better.

24. Brian F
    May 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    The problem with evolution scientists is they start with the premise that evolution is true and then go about proving it. There is no objectivity.

    Here is an analogy; I hold a baby picture of a two-year old. I tell you that one of the kids within a room of thirty 10 year olds is the owner of that picture. I ask you to match the picture with the right child. As you examine everyone in the room you find one child that looks like the child in the picture. You declare that this is the child of that baby picture because they look a like.

    I then reveal that the picture is not of any of those kids in that room. You are irritated and say, “They have to be! You said that one of kids in that room was of this picture. They must be related!” Sorry there is no relation. Just because I said so did not make it true and just because they may look a like does not make them related.

    What happened? You never questioned my premise that one of these kids is the owner of that picture. You blindly accepted my premise. A good objective investigator would not have.

    Evolutionists accept the premise that evolution exists and when they see similarities between a monkey and a human they then postulate that they are related and that one evolved into the other. Sorry there is no relation and just because they may look a like does not make them related that one evolved into the other. Evolution remains unproven.

25. ted
    May 27th, 2009 at 6:09 am

    Wow, Brian F. Your logic is impeccable, and could in no way be applied to creationism just by changing a few words around.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT