# "Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution" - May 20, 2009



## matthew11v25 (May 20, 2009)

I saw this when I opened Google and then saw the article on Tim Challie's website. Interesting...

_“The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. The discovery of the 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the ‘eighth wonder of the world.’”_

Missing Link

also: The Link - Welcome


----------



## christianyouth (May 20, 2009)

I just got done reading the news article. Why do they think it's the missing link? All I read was a bunch of quotations from different scientists saying "this is the missing link", not one of them really arguing for why it is.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 20, 2009)

Now they only have to come up with the other million missing links and they will have a decent argument for evolution. {Yawn}


----------



## Poimen (May 20, 2009)

From the first link:



> The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom *has taken 200 years* - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.





> Researchers say proof of this transitional species *finally* confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.





> "The link they would have said *up to now* is missing - well it's *no longer* missing."





> "When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species," said Prof Hurum
> 
> "...and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy *to live today* when we publish Ida."





> When Darwin famously told the Bishop of Worcester's wife about his theory of evolution, she remarked: "Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."
> 
> *Now*, it certainly is.



So if these statements are even half way accurate this means that there has been no definite proof for macro evolution up to this point, and if this fossil proves to be false or simply misleading, there is yet no evidence for Darwin's theory?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 20, 2009)

christianyouth said:


> I just got done reading the news article. Why do they think it's the missing link? All I read was a bunch of quotations from different scientists saying "this is the missing link", not one of them really arguing for why it is.



I read the article yesterday. It's because Ida is missing the all-significant grooming claw found on lemurs. This is taken to be evidence that she abandoned lemurdom and branched off in her own direction.

So, I take it we can conclude that lack of grooming is considered progress in evolution. It actually is starting to make sense. . . .


----------



## christianyouth (May 20, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> So, I take it we can conclude that lack of grooming is considered progress in evolution. It actually is starting to make sense. . . .



haha!


----------



## Denton Elliott (May 20, 2009)

I was listening to Hannity when he and Rich Lowry said that Evolution is compatible with "creation" and Rich said that Genesis is supposed to be understood poetically anyway.
I sent Mr. Hannity an email asking if he would invite on a Biblical expert and Creation Scientist to give our side instead of just taking this article as fact...we'll see.


----------



## matthew11v25 (May 20, 2009)

Joshua said:


> My faith is shaken to its core . . . no, wait, that's just what I had for breakfast.



The article gave me a burning in my bosom...indigestion. 


Its all media hype! Interesting but Scientists wanting to prove Evolution are going to say everything is the Missing Link! So an ape went and got her nails done...big deal! O my...Christianity hangs on a manicure! 

j/k I am sure there is more to it than that...


----------



## steven-nemes (May 20, 2009)

I like this response to any "argument from fossil evidence": the discover of a fossil with peculiar body shape, etc., proves nothing--you cannot prove that the thing reproduced, that any of its children lived to reproduce themselves, or that any of _their_ children lived to reproduce, or produced any offspring that were genetically different, etc. A fossil doesn't prove much of anything.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 20, 2009)




----------



## PresbyDane (May 20, 2009)




----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 20, 2009)

Poimen said:


> From the first link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Nothing new in this article...except the decided lack of confidence in Darwinism.


----------



## Peairtach (May 20, 2009)

Interesting that this oh so significant fossil was found/rediscovered on this 200/150 year anniversary. The Darwinian Circus rolls on.

If naturalism is accepted, of course evolution is true. It's the only game in town, although a pretty shoddy one, if you don't accept miracles.


----------



## EricP (May 20, 2009)

Boy, and they say we Christians have an agenda! A million bucks for something found hanging on a fella's wall for 20 years after cleaning and resin-embedding, transported to NY (was Darwin there?) for the hallowed 200th Darwin birthday, with accompanying home movies and docudramas, "dream teams" assembled...heck, they even know what it (sorry, "she") had for dinner and what NetFlix movie she was watching before she was squashed "flat as a beer mat" (that's the only interesting part of the article, BTW). Rather than "Ida", we need something that rhymes with "piltdown"!!!


----------



## Skyler (May 20, 2009)

I think that missing links are just the thing they need to keep looking for. The more they find, and the more embarrassing the revelation later on, well, it's all going to add up.

And, it'll provide bonus material for when someone suggests that science is on their side--"Oh, the science that cooked up the Piltdown Man, Ida... yeah, you can keep that science. We don't want it."


----------



## toddpedlar (May 20, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I like this response to any "argument from fossil evidence": the discover of a fossil with peculiar body shape, etc., proves nothing--you cannot prove that the thing reproduced, that any of its children lived to reproduce themselves, or that any of _their_ children lived to reproduce, or produced any offspring that were genetically different, etc. A fossil doesn't prove much of anything.



Especially since it's ONE fossil. 

Where are the other 1 million fossilized partially-developed lemurs missing the claw?


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

I tried to put myself in their shoes in order to understand the significance of this fossil to the evolutionists.



> The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line.



It appears that the evolutionists believe that this particular fossil, Ida, is not just a lemur but also a monkey. She is the supposed link between monkeys and lemurs. It also appears that the evolutionists have already assumed that humans are linked to monkeys. Thus, based on that assumption, their argument would be,

If humans are linked to monkeys
and monkeys are linked to lemurs
then humans are linked to lemurs (Conclusion) 

The first premise of this argument is already a huge problem because it is nothing but an assumption. The term "missing link" was often used by evolutionists to refer to the link that is missing between humans and monkeys but now it appears that they have disregarded that altogether and have just simply assumed that men are indeed monkeys (or linked to apes in the evolutionary chain).

The second premise is problematic as well because even, if their observations are right concerning this fossil, that is still not enough to establish that there were indeed lemur monkeys. The missing grooming claw is not proof of macro-evolution. I have seen chickens with three legs but we don't get a whole new set of three legged chickens from these aberrations!

I believe that they have already made their conclusion right from the start and they are simply looking for something to support their conclusion. This is clearly nothing but the suppression of truth in unrighteousness. They would hasten to prove evolution is right even when their evidence is lacking and their reasoning is faulty.


----------



## shackleton (May 20, 2009)

I find it interesting how scientists _always_ find what it is they are looking for.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (May 20, 2009)

if a spider monkey was extincted and we suddenly found it's fossils that would then be the missing link. 

the headline should have been replaced with: 

*TOP NEWS STORY: a monkey died ... and we found it later!!!!!* ***crazy news music***


----------



## Theognome (May 20, 2009)

The missing grooming claw can be easily explained- the pocket comb she was carrying to compensate didn't make the fossil record. So this fossil can simply be a lemur with 'special challenges'.

This theory is absolutely unassailable. Do not argue with me and try to make this some kind of religious thing. My science reigns supreme in the universe!

Theognome


----------



## kvanlaan (May 20, 2009)

Have hammer. Need nail. Kinda looks like nail. We hit with hammer and it pushed into wood. Yay! We found nail!

Whew. Now we can all put away our Bibles and recite: "There is no truth but evolution, and Darwin is its prophet." Mr. Dawkins, head Imam, must be thrilled.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 20, 2009)

Theognome said:


> The missing grooming claw can be easily explained- the pocket comb she was carrying to compensate didn't make the fossil record. So this fossil can simply be a lemur with 'special challenges'.
> 
> This theory is absolutely unassailable. Do not argue with me and try to make this some kind of religious thing. My science reigns supreme in the universe!
> 
> Theognome


----------



## EricP (May 21, 2009)

Sorry, I must protest. Having a wife and a daughter, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the missing grooming claw actually has to do with the missing cell phone. If we go back in Darwin's records, we can probably see what Ida was texting when she was beer-matted.


----------



## py3ak (May 21, 2009)

I wonder if there has been much skepticism from the punctuated evolution crowd.


----------



## OPC'n (May 21, 2009)

Joshua said:


> My faith is shaken to its core . . . no, wait, that's just what I had for breakfast.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (May 21, 2009)

Denton Elliott said:


> I was listening to Hannity when he and Rich Lowry said that Evolution is compatible with "creation" and Rich said that Genesis is supposed to be understood poetically anyway.
> I sent Mr. Hannity an email asking if he would invite on a Biblical expert and Creation Scientist to give our side instead of just taking this article as fact...we'll see.



Don't hold your breath. Hannity would never come out against his churches position.


----------



## Denton Elliott (May 21, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Don't hold your breath. Hannity would never come out against his churches position.



Sad so sad...yeah I am not gonna hold my breath, but at least my conscience is clear. I suggested Ken Ham, Al Mohler, and John Mac for a Christian response to Hannity.


----------

