A Missing Link Without A Chain
Here we go again with another few scientists wishing to market the idea they have found ‘the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage,’ says Hurum. Dr Jorn Hurum’s claims are that ‘Ida’ is supposedly at 47 million-year-old fossil of a 9 month old female, with ‘a foot bone called the talus bone links Ida directly to humans.’ Not to mention her dental analysis (‘the lack of a "toothcomb" or a "grooming claw"’), and optometrist examination (‘forward-facing eyes’).So, surely if she had eyes, teeth, and feet similar to modern humans, she must be the ‘missing link’. I mean, she ‘shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans).’ There is even a marvelous redition of a ‘Death scenario’ to accompany the story also. And look at the above portrait, ‘how Ida might have looked.’ I am thinking that looks pretty close to humans for sure.
Of course, Dr Jens Franzen declares, 'She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line.' And ‘Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the use of the term 'missing link' was misleading.’ Along with ‘Dr Chris Beard, of America's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said: 'I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.'’
I realize that some people like Dr. Hurum may like to claim they have found their ancestry in the creatures of history, but the fact remains all so-called ‘missing links’ are without a chain to connect them to humans; who were directly created by God Himself, without evolution from the other animals He also created.
2 comments:
Tim:
Read the article carefully.
Beast FCD
Hi Tim,
I came across your blog again by chance. If you don't remember me, we had a brief discussion once about the veracity of Biblical accounts, in which we were utterly unreconciled but remained friendly throughout. (I think I was on a different blog then though; my current one is called Quarkscrew, on Wordpress.)
Anyway, I was pleased to see that you're still around, and I do hope you're well in person also. Moving on to the meat of the topic at hand:
I think you'll find many genuine evolutionary biologists also a bit aghast at the over-hyping this find has garnered.
It is the totality of evidence (the 'chain' if you will) which weighs in favor of the gradual evolution of some species into other species. The existence of that chain/process is no longer in doubt amongst scientists.
The precise details of which species were actually ancestral to others is still a matter of conjecture, understandably so given the paucity of the fossil record over geologic time.
Our own ancestry, in which we humans are of course inordinately interested, is among those whose details have not been definitively established.
That is the reason for the excitement over this find; the possibility exists that it will shed light on the details, the precise links. The chain itself is not in question.
Well, not to us science-based types anyway! Not unless someone comes up with countervailing evidence, which doesn't seem likely at this point.
Just a comment on the context!
Cheers, Brian
Post a Comment