Evidence for God from Science

Grandma...??

"A discovery of a 47 million-year-old fossil primate that is said to be a human ancestor was announced and unveiled Tuesday at a press conference in New York City.

Known as "Ida," the nearly complete transitional fossil is 20 times older than most fossils that provide evidence for human evolution.

It 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), said Norwegian paleontologist Jí¸rn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum. However, she is not really an anthropoid either, he said."

Source: //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/?GT1=43001

cslewislover wrote:An article I skimmed today disagreed with that lineage.

Oh come now... Where is your sense of imagination?

Google today:

Carbon dating is flawed at best. The half life of carbon runs no more then ten cycles before carbon is all but depleted. These cycles suggest that any fossil containing carbon is less then ten thousand years. So far, all of the fossils documented show evidence of carbon. I would supect the same of the fossil of the new so called missing link.

Looks like a dinosaur to me.

I don't see the human resemblance....it looks like a monkey.

And I don't mean for any of this to sound angry or rude, but I've read things saying Christians are restraining science, and it just seems unfair to me. Evolutionists are allowed to call almost anything a "missing link." Even other scientists think that this new discovery was publicized too soon, and hadn't had time to be critiqued.

For_Narniaaa wrote:I don't see the human resemblance....it looks like a monkey.

It would look like a monkey. THeir claim is that it is a very early ancestor, similar in shape to the earliest primates and resembling the lemur, not the early hominds.

And I don't mean for any of this to sound angry or rude, but I've read things saying Christians are restraining science, and it just seems unfair to me. Evolutionists are allowed to call almost anything a "missing link." Even other scientists think that this new discovery was publicized too soon, and hadn't had time to be critiqued.

But to be fair to the scientists, the fact that this waspublicized and over blown probably lays withthe popular journalism more than the scientific journals. I would bet that if we examined the original scientific article it's language is much more tentative than the popular journal story. And that guiltlies with the mainstream media moreso than the scientist.

For_Narniaaa wrote:I don't see the human resemblance....it looks like a monkey.

And I don't mean for any of this to sound angry or rude, but I've read things saying Christians are restraining science, and it just seems unfair to me. Evolutionists are allowed to call almost anything a "missing link." Even other scientists think that this new discovery was publicized too soon, and hadn't had time to be critiqued.

You don't sound rude to me... There are a few scientists that are claiming that this fossil "is" a missing link to humans while others say the lemur. Even if they don't necessarily admit that this fossil is the "missing link," many evolutionists do believe that our modern day monkeys and humans did have a common ancestor. So they will go to great lengths to try and find any fossils that will justify this claim... And that means practically anything because of their bias..

zoegirl wrote:

For_Narniaaa wrote:I don't see the human resemblance....it looks like a monkey.

It would look like a monkey. THeir claim is that it is a very early ancestor, similar in shape to the earliest primates and resembling the lemur, not the early hominds.

And I don't mean for any of this to sound angry or rude, but I've read things saying Christians are restraining science, and it just seems unfair to me. Evolutionists are allowed to call almost anything a "missing link." Even other scientists think that this new discovery was publicized too soon, and hadn't had time to be critiqued.

But to be fair to the scientists, the fact that this waspublicized and over blown probably lays withthe popular journalism more than the scientific journals. I would bet that if we examined the original scientific article it's language is much more tentative than the popular journal story. And that guiltlies with the mainstream media moreso than the scientist.

That is a good point. It wouldn't be the first time the media blew things out of proportion.
And what I meant when I said "it looks like a monkey" is that it didn't look human enough to be called the missing link that "proves" we descended from apes (or that we and apes shared a common ancestor). I would think the missing link would look a lot closer to a human, or even a gorilla, than this new discovery does.

Ok guys, Zoe girl, I need your help. How come this is not simply a lemur fossil? From the research I have done, I don't see any strong "human" connection, rather, a lemur connection?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0005723

this is the oringinal article. You will notice througout that they do compare it to the lemur fossils but they discuss some subtl differences that provoke thoughts of it diverging. The idea is that there are enough differences to prompt some thinking that this represents a new direction.

Now, it is not clear whether or not these differences are enough to show them to be different species, that would be the difficulty in fossils in general.

Notice the difference in the sensationalism in the mainstream media and the journal article.

"and a foot bone called the talus bone links Ida directly to humans, Hurum said."

robyn hill wrote:Ok guys, Zoe girl, I need your help. How come this is not simply a lemur fossil? From the research I have done, I don't see any strong "human" connection, rather, a lemur connection?

It's missing attributes that would identify it as a lemur. There's very strong lemur connections by the sound, and look, of things. If it's a lemur we need to redefine what we mean by the word lemur, if it's not a lemur then we need to define a new thing that we've just found.

I find the idea of the missing link a little silly. If we were, for a moment, to accept primate evolution via natural selection then short of having a complete family tree back to the first primate, which is also a shaky idea, there will always be a missing link and every new find will will be declared the 'missing link' and will of course leave plenty room for doubt.

It was a long time ago that Eugí¨ne Dubois declared he had found the missing link and I don't see claims of new missing links drying up before I do.

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

Thanks for the answers. I have to admit, this is a confusing find for me. I guess I just see more similarities between different species. I guess I would be more convinced if there were many more fossils discovered in a linear fashion that could be pieced together leading to a human skeleton. If this were a true theory, it seems science could line fossils up like a puzzle until a human skeleton is formed. To me, there are still way too many "missing links"for any conclusive evidence that this theory is true. I mean where are they??? How does science explain the missing fossils that ultimately complete the final human skeleton? Ida looks far more like a kangaroo to me to say it is the missing link. Where are the "almost human skeletons"?