Amazing Ida Proves Existence of God!

Amazingly Unlikely Fossil Proves God's Existence!

Amazingly Unlikely Fossil Proves God's Existence!

Let’s be honest.  Ida just sounds too good to be true. Even practical scientists are having a hard to trying to temper their enthusiasm

I mean,what are the chances that the best preserved fossil specimen in history also happens to be the vital missing transitional link between apes and humans, and that this discovery would occur just at the time when the Young Earth Creationists were gearing up for their next major battle. (Okay, I don’t know that the YECs are gearing up for their next major battle, but odds are pretty good, as they ALWAYS seem to be gearing up for their next major battle.)

Bone marrow? From a 47 million year old fossil? Particularly one of such spectacular importance? Fur samples? Actually being able to tell what the darn thing had to eat last?

Well, what can one say? It’s a freakin’ miracle !

It is such an amazingly unlikely miracle that it more or less goes to PROVE that God exists. I mean, what are the odds? Millions of fossil finds, and the best also happens to be the most important.

Well, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proofs. It certainly SOUNDS from the initial talk that this thing was examined for skulduggery for two years within an inch of it’s former life. I want to wait for a while before I start jumping up and down about the thing, because it SOUNDS too good to be true. My initial reaction is to believe it, however. If it’s a hoax, it’s going to get too much scrutiny for too long a time for it to survive as a hoax for long. I’ll let the scientists fight it out.

But, seriously, if true, the odds against such a perfect specimen have got to be astronomical. For it to exist, one is almost tempted to say that God preserved it for us. “Here, you morons. You want a transitional species? Here it is! Creationists and IDiots, forget your silly fight. I created the Universe, and life evolves through natural selection. Get a brain already people! This is HOW I WORK!!!”

Of course, Creationists and IDiots are doing nothing of the kind. This fossil find is no big deal to them. Certainly nothing that shows transitions between “Kinds”. Of course, they never give a clear, scientific definition of just what the hell a “kind” is, so it’s an impossible target to hit, as it can be moved at will.

So, provided this fossil does not turn out to be an incredibly elaborate hoax (which I kinda doubt), we finally have a nice link in our evolutionary family tree that seems to act as common ancestor to both humans and apes. It not only is an excellent transitional species, but an excellent example evolutionary process. Not only that, our finding proves that God exists.

(I say this tongue in cheek, of course. But, seriously! Damn! What are the odds!?)

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Amazing Ida Proves Existence of God!

  1. Ida has been seriously overhyped. It is a nice fossil, exceptionally well-preserved, but the publicity is way over the top. Many scientists are ashamed of how this is being handled. Most scientists cringe at the term “missing link.”

    we finally have a nice link in our evolutionary family tree that seems to act as common ancestor to both humans and apes.

    We already have fossil evidence of common ancestors to humans and apes, for example Dryopithecus, Proconsul and Pierolapithecus. The current find is much farther back in the tree, it is putatively a common ancestor to apes, monkeys and other primates like lemurs.

    I wouldn’t consider the discovery of this fossil to be any more miraculous than Tiktaalik showing up in 2006, right after the Dover trial, or Archaeopteryx showing up in 1861, just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species.

  2. Alphonsus, no disrespect intended, but, as I´ve attempted to move myself toward a more satirical writing style I just couldn´t resist pointing out your Freudian slip on behalf of “practical scientists” in observing “[e]ven [they] are having a hard to trying to temper their enthusiasm.”

    I´m also enjoying your posts about the writing classes. “Confusion” was great, in my opinion.

    Reginald (if that is your real name) – When, sir, are you going to legitimize yourself by pre-emptively stating your opinion in an open forum, instead of, for lack of better words, “trolling” the internet and “camping” in friendly forums, taking the far easier (cowardly?) routes of ad hominem, blindsided attacks to forward your cause? Just askin’.

    Exblogitate: Ida hoped for something better than this

  3. When, sir, are you going to…

    It will be shortly after you accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, and focus some of your overflowing skepticism on the follies of Young Earth Creationism. I.e. probably not any time soon.

    BTW, what would stating my opinion pre-empt, and how would it do so?

  4. what would stating my opinion pre-empt, and how would it do so?

    Well, it could 1) acquire for you actual credibility 2) seize upon, to the [possible] exclusion of others, a respectable identity worth paying attention to 3) replace cowardice with bravery 4) prevent from taking place the innevitable disregard you are often given for a) not having the credibility b) obtained through maintaining a respectable identity in an open forum instead of c) using your strategy of ad hominem, blindsided attacks to forward your cause.

    However, since I wasn´t using the verbpre-empt“, but the adverbpre-emptively,” which, according to Mirriam-Webster, means: marked by the seizing of the initiative, or, initiated by oneself, this is but another moot point.

    FTW!

  5. mike: I have not been reticent to state my opinions in open forums, this one for example. Since my opinions coincide with the current state of scientific knowledge, and are backed up by loads of evidence and citations, I have no use for personal credibility. No one should accept my statements just because they come from me. If you disregard my views and the data presented to support them, all the worse for you.

    Since you appear to have put some effort into checking out my Internet habits, it appears that you are more focused on some sort of revenge than in honestly discussing the available evidence. Bad dog.

    As for your being blind-sided by anything I have posted: from dictionary.com, definition 2: “to attack critically where a person is vulnerable, uninformed, etc.“, I don’t see how it can be my fault that you are not prepared.

    Accusing someone of cowardice in the same post in which you accuse them of making ad hominem attacks has considerable irony.

  6. R.S. – It is a far different thing to initiate and host an open forum than to simply comment, willie-nillie, in someone elses. If you ever try it you´ll see.

    I have no use for personal credibility” is only easily (and conveniently) stated by someone who has none.

    Revenge? No. I simply did a Google search, back (months ago?) when we were conversing on some of our host´s previous posts, to find out if you actually had a place of your own. Is that a “bad dog?” If so, guilty as charged. However, I check Alphonsus´ blog regularly, as I enjoy his writings (in the forum that he hosts), and happened on this post and your comment. Couldn´t help but think a guy like you should, with such strong opinions, have a blog or website or some other forum of his own. Googled again and came up with nothing. Too bad. All the worse for you.

    Oh, and don´t get me wrong, I don´t feel I was ever blind-sided by you. I was referring mainly to the other “dialogues” I found you had arrogantly barged into laying down accusations and insults been a part of.

    Here´s my ad hominem argument for my use of the word “cowardice:”

    a) ad hominem argument is a cowardly form of argumentation
    b) reginald likes to use argumentum ad hominem
    c) reginald uses a cowardly form of argumentation

  7. Thank you, mike, for taking time out of your busy science-denying life to tell me what a terrible person I am. I’m sure that’s just exactly What Jesus Would Do.

  8. Sorry mike, I’d love to stick around longer for your very Christian personal attacks on me, but there is yet another new fossil to get excited about:

    “Missing Link” Could Add Mediterranean Chapter to Story of Human Evolution

    (No! Not “missing link” again. Aiieeee!)

    By Brandon Keim
    June 4, 2009 | 10:22 am


    a 12 million-year-old skull recently unearthed in Spain

    The skull possesses a combination of primitive features previously unseen in a primate, along with a flat, anatomically modern face — the earliest such face in the fossil record. These characteristics qualified it as the founding member of a new genus and species, Anoiapithecus brevirostris.

    The findings, described Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    According to the Catalan Institute of Paleontology researchers who found the skull, A. brevirostris represents the last common ancestor of humans and the other great apes.

    Citation: “A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.” By Moya-Sola, S., Alba, D., Almecija, S., Casanovas-Vilar, I., Kohler, M., De Esteban-Trivigno, S., Robles, J., Galindo, J., & Fortuny, J. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 22, June 1, 2009.

  9. Oops. In your (Reginald) quote mining on Anoiapithecus brevirostris you forgot to include this gem. “Only more fossils and years of study will reveal if that bold statement is true.”

    And, re: the Hanksville-Burpee Dinosaur Quarry “stacked up like cordwood” statement – That´s so weird; almost like what one would expect to find when [catastrophic, global?] flood waters recede.

    Correct me if I´m wrong, but, so far you´re the only one in this (or any other we´ve had) conversation to drop the twin “J” and “C” bombs. That´s a little prejudicial for such an open-minded self-proclaimed scientific type such as yourself, isn´t it?

  10. you forgot to include this gem.

    And you included that qualifier without mentioning what they were qualifying. Apparently you once again want to stretch doubt about one particular aspect to cover the entire study. Here’s that line in context:

    According to the Catalan Institute of Paleontology researchers who found the skull, A. brevirostris represents the last common ancestor of humans and the other great apes.

    Only more fossils and years of study will reveal if that bold statement is true. If so, then our evolutionary history is rooted in a primate lineage that arose in Africa, wandered into Eurasia, and then went back to Africa before returning to Eurasia in modern human form.

    Whether that particular species was directly on the relevant line of ancestry, and whether it is the very last common ancestor before the various ape species diverged, would be difficult to establish. Maybe it was a related species instead, one for which no fossils have yet been found. Picking out one spot on a gradual timeline seems rather artificial any way.

    And, re: the Hanksville-Burpee Dinosaur Quarry “stacked up like cordwood” statement – That´s so weird; almost like what one would expect to find when [catastrophic, global?] flood waters recede.

    It’s not weird to anyone familiar with fossils. It is what one might expect to find at a bend in a river, or on a sand bar, as the article notes. Here’s that line again, in context:

    The site — called the Hanksville-Burpee Dinosaur Quarry — is a logjam of sorts, where dinosaur remains are believed to have been washed into place by an ancient stream. In some places, bones are “stacked up like cordwood,” said Jim Kirkland, Utah’s state paleontologist.

    Unarticulated bones being washed into one spot like that indicates time for the corpses to be decay and the skeletons to be separated, and flowing water unlike one would find in a worldwide flood, for which there is no evidence at all. Geologists have known about the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood for over a century and a half.

    This is going to limit the importance of the find. They may get many interesting bones, but most of them will be unarticulated, and the researchers are unlikely to find auxiliary information like impressions of skin or feathers, remnants of gut contents, details about the precise landscape in which the organism died. I.e. the sort of extra detail that came along with the “Ida” find.

    That´s a little prejudicial for such an open-minded self-proclaimed scientific type such as yourself, isn´t it?

    What, to presume that you are a Christian? Very little. There are no non-religious reasons for being a Young Earth Creationist. I can be certain that you were not led to that position by the available scientific data. Besides, being open-minded does not mean never reaching a conclusion until a state of absolute certainty can be achieved, it means being open to reinterpreting one’s conclusions when presented with new evidence.

    BTW, I have met a Hindu creationist. They have no interest in a short time scale.

    Well, I gotta go again, more fossils keep turning up:

    A million-year-old mammoth skeleton found in Serbia: report

    But Ida is just one of thousands of fossils recovered from the Messel pit.

    Fossil Teeth Hint at Animal Adaptation to Global Warming

  11. And you included that qualifier without mentioning what they were qualifying

    Silly guy. Just look up next time; no need to repeat yourself. My “qualifier” was only qualifying your previously mined quote.

    Whether that particular species was directly on the relevant line of ancestry, and whether it is the very last common ancestor before the various ape species diverged, would be difficult to establish

    Difficult? Umm, I´d have to say impossible, especially on its own. Thus my qualifier on that mined quote of yours I was qualifying.

    Unarticulated bones being washed into one spot like that indicates time for the corpses to be decay and the skeletons to be separated, and flowing water unlike one would find in a worldwide flood, for which there is no evidence at all

    Gosh Reg, as a student of the sciences I would think you´d have a better grasp of the fossil evidence provided from even localized catastrophic disasters. Don´t tell me you´re unfamiliar with the breakdown of natural reservoirs and the subsequent “bend in a river, or [snip] sand bar” (with fossils and everything!) that they often produce.

    As far as that “new evidence,” I´ll be much more willing to open my mind to it when the so-called “transitional” fossil evedince reaches a little closer to the millions, (billions now?) of fossils (without all the qualifying “maybe´s and “if so´s” attatched to ’em) unearthed in the last couple hundred years displaying clear and distinct species without even a respective trace of all the millions/billions of “links” that should be just as abundant in the fossil record – if they actually existed. I mean, damn man, those were some pretty lucky transitional creatures if we can only find a handful of suspects amongst all those fossils out there.

    You keep taking off as often as you need. Once you put together a whopping, oh, I dunno, let´s say dozen maybes, amidst the billions of clearly identifiables, I say you start that website you´re lacking and post them all there for posterity. Open it up to honest criticism and see how it feels to have to defend yourself when you actually have something to risk.

  12. My “qualifier” was only qualifying your previously mined quote.

    My point precisely. It should only have been qualifying one sentence, which contained another qualifier already (“According to the Catalan Institute of Paleontology researchers who found the skull”)

    Gosh Reg, as a student of the sciences I would think you´d have a better grasp of the fossil evidence provided from even localized catastrophic disasters. Don´t tell me you´re unfamiliar with the breakdown of natural reservoirs and the subsequent “bend in a river, or [snip] sand bar” (with fossils and everything!) that they often produce.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What does the “breakdown of natural reservoirs” have to do with your alleged global flood? No one denies local flooding. It is global flooding which geologists have rejected since before Darwin published his most famous book. You haven’t said anything that would cause me to think the discussed find resembled global flooding, as you suggested.

    As far as that “new evidence,” I´ll be much more willing to open my mind to it when the so-called “transitional” fossil evedince reaches a little closer to the millions, (billions now?) of fossils (without all the qualifying “maybe´s and “if so´s” attatched to ‘em) unearthed in the last couple hundred years displaying clear and distinct species without even a respective trace of all the millions/billions of “links” that should be just as abundant in the fossil record – if they actually existed. I mean, damn man, those were some pretty lucky transitional creatures if we can only find a handful of suspects amongst all those fossils out there.

    I recommend Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero (ISBN-13 978-0231139625) for a good summary of transitional fossils which have already been discovered and characterized.

    Meanwhile, I await your discovery of fossils of modern mammals in the same strata with prehistoric species which would be the solid blow to evolutionary theory which you have failed to land.

    Open it up to honest criticism

    When I’m looking for “honest,” I won’t look to you.

  13. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What does the “breakdown of natural reservoirs” have to do with your alleged global flood?

    Never built a sand castle Reg? If you had, you might have noticed that, even when the inevitable deluge came to ruin it, there were always reservoirs of water that resisted destruction for a time. So goes it with any flood, be it local or global. Often reservoirs last for a time, but, eventually the walls are eroded and water escapes. Hence your fossil bearing river bends and sand bars. This is geology 101, man. I assume you got at least that far in your studies(?).

    When I’m looking for “honest,” I won’t look to you

    Hey, Reg, you don´t have to look for me for honesty (actually, I prefer you don´t), but, by all means, lose the gullable bias and start looking for it.

  14. So goes it with any flood, be it local or global. Often reservoirs last for a time, but, eventually the walls are eroded and water escapes.

    Thank you for the Geology 101 instruction from a person who does not accept much of what geology teaches. But please tell me, when the entire surface of the planet is covered in water, to where does water in these reservoirs “escape”?

  15. to where does water in these reservoirs “escape”?

    Well, as I (and, I suspect, you either) am not corresponding with you from an underwater abode, i think it´s safe to say the planet did not continue to be completely covered in water permanently. And the geography of our planet´s surface is certainly not what it used to be even just a few thousand years ago now, is it? Just as mountains went up, oceanic trenches went down. As the only credible historic account of a global flood (other than the clear physical evidence) states that the flood waters slowly decreased over a period of 150 days; back from whence they came (oceans, seas, subterranean rivers and such – the earth is something like 2/3 covered with the stuff, isn´t it?), I´d assume. And in so doing leaving various temporary reservoirs along the way to eventually break down and give us those “quarrys” where there are “fossils stacked up like cordwood.”

  16. As the only credible historic account of a global flood

    What would that be, The Epic of Gilgamesh? I do not accept folklore as a “historical account.”

    states that the flood waters slowly decreased over a period of 150 days; back from whence they came (oceans, seas, subterranean rivers and such – the earth is something like 2/3 covered with the stuff, isn´t it?)

    Yes, roughly 2/3 of the Earth’s surface is covered with water. So where did the extra water come from, and where did it go?

    Since, as I have repeated several times already, and as is well documented in credible geology textbooks, geologists are quite clear that there never has been a global flood, it seems pointless to try to reconcile various observed realities with that discarded theory. One might as well put serious time into calculations as to how Santa Claus manages to visit all those chimneys in one night.

    And the geography of our planet´s surface is certainly not what it used to be even just a few thousand years ago now, is it?

    While credible geologists agree there has been some change in the last few thousand years, they have done a pretty good job of figuring out that other, larger, changes happened over the course of millions and billions of years in the ~ 4.5 billion history of planet Earth. And they have agreed that the available evidence is not consistent with a global flood.

    And in so doing leaving various temporary reservoirs along the way to eventually break down and give us those “quarrys”

    This is going to be very difficult to work into a 6000 year old earth and a global flood scenario. Because the flood phreaks tell is that all those layers of sedimentary rock were laid down by the flood. That means the streams would have to burrow through the sediment very rapidly to dig up the bones, and then lay down some more soil on top, since, like most fossils, these were embedded in sedimentary rock (which has been dated to millions of years old by reliable methods).

  17. Sorry, had to step away. My dog was having some serious cardio-pulmonary problems early last week. She´s still on the mend and I´m getting caught up after life on pause.

    Back at it soon.

  18. But wait, there’s more:
    Ancient primate sniffed out dinner in the trees
    WASHINGTON – One of the earliest primates lived in trees and relied more on smell than vision, a new study indicates. A tiny cousin of the earliest ancestors of humans lived 54 million years ago in what is now Wyoming, researchers report in Tuesday’s online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences… Ignacius graybullianus…

    Unusually good reporting for the mass media, no mention of “missing link.”

  19. Ida smackdown

    If you’ve been following the evolution blogs, you’ll know that the wonderful primate fossil Darwinius masillae was touted by its discoverers (and by the book The Link) as a key “transitional form” in human evolution: a link between the two major branches of primate evolution, the anthropoids on one hand and the lemurs and lorises on the other. Many bloggers who read the initial paper were dubious, asserting that the phylogenetic analysis was too sketchy to put Ida in this position (see here, here, here, and here). I’m not a paleontologist, but agreed with the criticism that Ida’s placement as a “missing link” was premature.

    Well, it looks as if the bloggers were right and the scientists who wrote up Ida were wrong. A paper in today’s Nature describes a new fossil (Afradapis) from Egypt that appears to be in the same clade (single-origin group of related species) as Darwinius…

    Erik R. Seiffert, Jonathan M. G. Perry, Elwyn L. Simons & Doug M. Boyer. 2009. Convergent evolution of anthropoid in Eocene adapiform primates. Nature 461:118-1122.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s