2009.05.20
Another missing link
One oft-repeated criticism of the theory of evolution, at least oft-repeated by those who don't know what they're talking about, is that the fossil record doesn't show any transitional species. In fact, there are many fossils of in-between species. A recent discovery may be one of the earliest human ancestors ever found. Meet Ida.
RSS feed 
Uhh...yeah. That looks like a human alright. Especially that tail there.
Comment by Henry — May 20, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
GRandma..is that you?!
Comment by BUD — May 20, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
Henry, you do realize this is regarding "transitional" species and that this fossil is 47 million years old, right?
To quote from the above linked site: "She is not simply a fossil of a lemur as she lacks a toilet claw and a toothcomb, and has proto-anthropoid traits. Rather, she is from an early group of primates just prior to the time when primates diversified into two key groups: the anthropoids (monkeys, apes and humans) and the prosimians (lemurs, lorises and tarsiers)."
Comment by George — May 21, 2009 @ 6:25 am
George, Henry was just showing us an example of a "criticism of the theory of evolution... by those who don't know what they're talking about".
Comment by Rob Miles — May 21, 2009 @ 7:07 am
I think I dated that guy.
Comment by Kristen — May 21, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Kristen,
What did he look like before the date?
Comment by Blue John — May 21, 2009 @ 7:39 am
I heard a guy on the radio this morning who claims that this fossil is really only 4,300 years old and was killed by Noah's flood. He said all the dating techniques out there are totally bogus and flawed, and that this was a day 6 creation. He was also the same guy who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky, so he sort of has a vested financial interest in making sure people still have a reason to spend their money at his place, not to mention that he dismissed anything over 6000 years old as being falsely dated so it doesn;t contradict his religious beliefs.
Comment by Other John — May 21, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Rob
Maybe the people making the assertion have already reached a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to back their claim. Maybe that is why it seems so absurd
Comment by Henry — May 21, 2009 @ 8:09 am
It is nice to meet such a lovely specimen and I hope she reveals much, but seriously, this site alone is proof of evolution.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 21, 2009 @ 8:13 am
OJ, that is a perfect example of one of the problems with the news media. The media too often goes too far to give every viewpoint, no matter how irrational and unsupported by the facts, a voice, all in the name of 'balance'. Some views really are so ridiculous that they don't deserve coverage.
Comment by C. Trejbal — May 21, 2009 @ 9:21 am
CT, the guy was on a right-wing morning show (I assume right-wing because it's on the same station as Rush and Hannity). Now how my radio was set to that station, I don't know because I listen to music, NPR, or sports talk. I may have hit a button in my car last night, I don't know.
I certainly don't want someone such as that guy silenced, and I think he ought to have full ability to explain his opinions, even if they seem fairly ridiculous. In fairness, the radio show host had a paleontologist and a geologist on yesterday (according to what he said) to present their findings and evidence they feel supports the claims that the fossils are 47 million years old and represent a potential link in the development of the human species. So at least he was presenting both sides, and that I do give him credit for.
Comment by Other John — May 21, 2009 @ 9:50 am
I would never want this guy silenced either. He deserves the same right to free speech as anyone else. That doesn't mean, however, that the media needs to elevate the credibility of his view by putting it out there with informed views. In the same way that the media shouldn't feel a need to find a flat-earther every time it talks about the Earth going around the sun.
Comment by C. Trejbal — May 21, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Point taken CT, and it's a good one at that. I suppose in some ways the same could be said for various media outlets taking fairly small and insignificant stories or events and turning them in to much more than they ever should have been. Makes sense to me.
Comment by Other John — May 21, 2009 @ 10:20 am
You make a VERY valid point C. Trejbal (How DO you pronounce your last name?), I think the media does a disservice when they offer than same flat-earther, 6000 year dude, airtime or column inches. That type of disinformation belongs on blogs and opinion pages IMHO. I also think that in trying to be fair, very few really are. When you put Hannity up against Colmes, COME ON???? Rush against Olbermann, that's fair. Maddow against Ingraham, that's fair. There is very and precious little FAIR out there, because in an attempt at fair, idiocy gets involved. And since idiocy can sound right to some, it is a hard line to arbiter.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 21, 2009 @ 10:28 am
It's pronounced like 'table' but with an 'r' in there.
Comment by C. Trejbal — May 21, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Thanks Trable!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 21, 2009 @ 11:00 am
BlueJohn...he looked a couple hundred dollars richer!
Comment by Kristen — May 21, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
What the heck do you put in a "creation museum"? Talking snakes? Fig leaves and burning bushes?
On a similar note, I was assured once that carbon dating was a "communist plot". I am not making this up.
Comment by Kristen — May 21, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Also...we all have vestigial tails. They take the form of cysts at the bottom of our spine that people sometimes have to have removed due to infection. Polynidal? Something that sounds like polynidal cyst.
Comment by Kristen — May 21, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Kristen, I don't know what it's called, but it's the same thing that got Rush Limbaugh a deferment from the draft (according to his own book.)
Henry: that's a good point, even scientists sometimes get caught up in their pet theories and rush to publish something before it's been properly verified. The good thing about the scientific method is that it's designed to ferret out these occurrences. If this is such a case, it will be discovered as such, though it's my understanding that this skeleton has already been through rigorous testing to verify the age.
Anyway, as George pointed out, this is presented as an example of a (possible) transitional fossil, so we wouldn't expect it to look much like a modern human if it's 47 million years old. Still, as is explained on the site Dan linked to, the anatomy is "strikingly similar", because Ida is a primate.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 21, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
How can anyone refute evolution? Just look at the Duckbill Platypus for crying out loud. But seriously, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is overwhelming. Evolutionary theory and religious beliefs can coexist side by side. Humans just need to lose the "we are special" attitude and realize that we are just another animal species on this planet. So many seem ashamed of that fact and I don't really undrstand why.
Comment by Jim W. — May 22, 2009 @ 1:21 am