New missing link primate? (Ida)

[godslanguage]

Not that I care to "dig deep" into this fossil but the fossil record to me is more discrete in nature as opposed to continuous or linear. A discrete fossil record indicates rapid emergent process of lifeforms. Abrupt appearance is very strange in a Darwinian world, this is where inconsistency and complication comes into effect. A theory that needs to readjust itself and re adapt itself to a point where it no longer holds to the basic principles it did before is not a theory at all, it shouldn't have been given theory status from point A. This is why this fossil is so important because desperate times call for desperate measures, and you can sure bet that the Darwinists are becoming very desperate in this technological era where papers such as these appear almost every other week: article

As for fossils in general, here is a relevant excerpt that might be of interest:

Figure 1 Schindewolf presented pictures of the skulls of the marsupial Thylacosmilus atrox opposite that of the placental Eusmilus sicarius, the former from the Pleistocene of Patagonia, the latter from the Oligocene of South Dakota. The two forms are separated by thousands of miles spatially and millions of years temporally. Schindewolf's legend beneath the figure is of special significance as it bears, not only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design with which those questions are clearly related.

“The skulls of carnivorous marsupials and of true carnivores show an extremely surprising similarity in overall habitus and, in particular, in the unusual overspecialization of the upper pair of canines. The similarities of form are present even in such details as the structure of the large flange on the lower jaw, designed to guide and protect the upper canines.” (Schindewolf, page 261, my emphasis).

It should also be obvious that if specific information was preformed in the evolving genome there would be no need for gradual transformations from one form to another, which remains in accord with the conspicuous absence of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. Furthermore, since such transitional forms are also absent in the contemporary biota, there seems to be no compelling reason to postulate their existence during their evolutionary emergence. In short, evolution may have proceeded by a series of instantaneous transformation (saltations) asindependently proposed by both Schindewolf [1993], Goldschmidt [1940] and more recently by the present author [2004]. Such a mechanism represents the very antithesis of the gradualist Darwinian paradigm. The Darwinian model would explain these phenomena as resulting from the gradual accumulation of mutations. Pierre Grasse commented on the Darwinian view as follows.

Anyways, it is amazing at how this fossil is presented in the media, it really does show the true colors of the media in that Darwinism "reigns supreme". If the scientists who published the work don't agree with the media, they should criticize it in some manner, otherwise they remain "guilty as charged".

[godslanguage]

It gets worse. Each new "missing link" that is found would create two new gaps in its place.

My opinion is that its probably in the millions, not merely external missing links, but internal. In software development a change in some "direction" can mean (depending on the project size and complexity) hundreds, thousands or millions of lines of code. If we look at "direction" from XP to Vista (estimated at 50 million lines of code), XP is offset by about 10 million lines of code. You can bet that not only did they add functionality, but they also probably had to go back and change another 10 million lines of code to make those added 10 million lines work. It will come to a point where it cannot be manageable any longer.

The Darwinists like to discuss changes in very simplistic terms, how an eye turns into another eye etc...giving examples for how eyes emerge but they leave out all the other more important details which include the brain, nervous system, skull etc... all these changes must occur almost simultaneously as they are linked to some degree in parallel to dependent and independent structurs else the change occuring "independent of the whole" could be rendered destructive to the organism.

[jlay]

Man,

This has to be the biggest yawner yet. There is nothing in this fossil that would indicate anything revolutionary. In fact, if we saw this creature alive today in a zoo, I doubt anyone would give it anymore thought than they would a lemur. Exactly what is transitional?


It only took 47 million years to go from this


to:
A modern lemur

When you compare this to a modern lemur, it only demonstrates that either evolution is stuck in slow gear and too slow to produce modern man. (47 million years and there is hardly any significant difference.) Or, that the whole thing is the product of desperate people ripe with imagination. In other words, ignorant fraud.

[zoegirl]

Jlay,

On the surface and in the pictures it may seem that they are similar, but close examination of experts can reveal a lot about the morpholigical differences between the two. ENough to show, perhaps that these could be different species (even if they aren't evolutioanry steps)

On the subject of gradualism, many scientists hold to punctuated equilibrium because there isn't the evidence for the multiple steps required for gradualism. Stephen Jay Gould was the main proponent of punc eek. This model proposes that there were long periods of very minor changes punctuated by relatively short periods of large changes, usually influenced by or prompted by large environmental or climate changes supporting a diffeerent morphology.

Of course, absence of evidence could simply mean the absence of the process...just bringing up that many scientists don't ascribe to the original model of gradualism as promoted by Darwin.

[jlay]

Zoe,

It really doesn't matter if they are different species. The point is that there is nothing there that would indicate this is anymore a link than a lemur is a link, other than the fact that they claim it is old.

Plus, if something has been compressed for that long, is it possible the bones are flattened out? Could it be even more similar than what we are seeing?

This is even a slap in the face of punctuated equil. If rapid changes occured, was it before or after this. Because if it was after, then why is a lemur still so similar? We are talking a proposed 47 million years here.

[zoegirl]

Zoe,

It really doesn't matter if they are different species. The point is that there is nothing there that would indicate this is anymore a link than a lemur is a link, other than the fact that they claim it is old.

But your point was that they were so similar, my point is that there are enough differences that a primate expert can tell.

Plus, if something has been compressed for that long, is it possible the bones are flattened out? Could it be even more similar than what we are seeing?

I'm willing to give them enough credit as experts in the field to either account for that or to point that out (as they did in the article).

This is even a slap in the face of punctuated equil. If rapid changes occured, was it before or after this. Because if it was after, then why is a lemur still so similar? We are talking a proposed 47 million years here.

No, it isn't. THe lemur is still a lemur because their niche, their environment, still suits them .
This argument is remarkably like "if we came from apes, why are there still apes" .

Accoding to evoltuionary models, the ancestors can diverge to create the two different species and the one can remain close to the ancestor's morphology while the other diverges to fit another niche.

I'm not, by the way, saying that this actually happened, just making sure we understand what the model says so that we can successfully critique it. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't require that thiswhole process happens fast, only that the *changes* happen fast (relatively speaking) and that there were not the multiple links between the steps.

[Gman]

When you compare this to a modern lemur, it only demonstrates that either evolution is stuck in slow gear and too slow to produce modern man. (47 million years and there is hardly any significant difference.) Or, that the whole thing is the product of desperate people ripe with imagination. In other words, ignorant fraud.

I totally agree with you jlay... Thanks for sharing those pictures... People are becoming desparate becuase their thinking has been spot welded into one cause. Any other explanation would automatically be considered religious. I think this scientist guy "Hurum" was silly enough to pay a million dollars for it when he could have got a lemur skeleton at his local zoo for a couple of bucks...

[Gman]

If we are seeing any differences here between modern lemurs here and ancient ones is because of microevolution... Not macroevolution...

[jlay]

Exactly Gman. I am not sure what Zoe is trying to argue.

We are talking 47 million years? (i'd like to see how they arrived at that number) Come on. Call a spade a spade.

Imagine if lemurs had gone extinct and someone dug up a lemur. Great googlelymooglely.

Why anyone would jump to conclusions that this has any human significance is beyond me.

[Gman]

For all we know, it could be a raccoon too..

[Gman]

Why anyone would jump to conclusions that this has any human significance is beyond me.

Brainwashing probably.. Any other explanation CANNOT exist.. There is only one logical explanation for it. Everything else is considered religion... Period.

[Gman]

Or a kitty cat...

[zoegirl]

Does it occur to anybody that those invovled in the examination have a lot more experience than either of you?!?!

Good grief, I've seen teenage boys get more offended if I make a mistake over the difference between cars!! (and even different years and makes of the same model). The response I get from them is similar to "hm....isnt' it obvious? Of course the '82 mustang is different than the"

With all due respect, guys, neither of you are experts in skeletal morphology. If they notice a difference, then shoot, there is a difference. These are scientists who have studied these skeletons and poured over them and compared them. Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn't mean that their OBSERVATIONS are wrong.

My POINT is simply to argue things knowledgably. The existence of lemurs does NOT negate their model, simply because their model does not demand that the lemur disappear in human evolutionary schemes.

I DON"T disagree with you guys with regard to the significance (or lack of significance) to this fossil, merely that there ARE differences.

Throwing up pictures of lemur and cat and raccoon skeletons seems to be rather ridiculous. YOU might not be able to tell the difference between the skeletons...they can.

[Gman]

Does it occur to anybody that those invovled in the examination have a lot more experience than either of you?!?!

Zoe, I was not directing my posts toward your posts so don't take my words personally... I'm directing them to certain scientists that think that this skeleton is somehow related to humans... I don't think it takes much effort to say that it isn't. In this case, their experience goes out the door, IMO. What we are dealing with here are largely are people's bias.. Just like the bias that is found in politics or philosophy, it is also clearly found in science..

So what is this skeleton? Actually we don't really know.. Could it be a lemur? Possibly... Could it be an extinct monkey? Possibly... These are the type of questions that need to be addressed. I think people are too quick to react and don't take the time to consider other alternatives.. In this case, I don't think they did.

[zoegirl]

I agree, Gman, that the conclusions are limited.

I was objecting, I think, mostly, to thecomparisions to the racoon, cat, or to a lemur and insisting that the skeleton would be similar. I think we hve to be careful not to invalidate their observations (or, not to oversimplify their observations) and focus on the conclusions.

Thanks for clarifying....