This page has moved to a new address.

47-Million-Year-Old Darwinius Masillae Fossil the Missing Link?

Think Christianly: 47-Million-Year-Old Darwinius Masillae Fossil the Missing Link?

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

47-Million-Year-Old Darwinius Masillae Fossil the Missing Link?

You know a story is big when Google changes their search engine logo to resemble this fossil.

The basic headline?

"Scientists yesterday unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossil that they’re calling the "missing link" between primates and humans. Technically called a Darwinius masillae, but nicknamed "Ida," the juvenile female primate was discovered in Germany’s Messel Pit and is one of the most intact fossils ever found. In fact, scientists were even able to identify her last meal: fruit, seeds and leaves." (click for more)

National Geographic here...


But, not everyone is "dazzled"...

"Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists

So what does this mean? Has the missing link been found? Well here is an interview with Dr. Fuz Rana with one Christian perspective from Reasons to Believe.

This article from Evolution News.

Also, a blog post here at Uncommon Descent and another Christian perspective from Answers in Genesis.

This will become another icon like "Lucy." On a side note, this has been released with the PR blitz of a major movie (book, website, documentary) all without a lot of examination and peer review. Time will tell. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a retraction on page 26 sometime in the future clarifying the import of this fossil.

For a very helpful introduction to evolution, the fossil record, and intelligent design see the Design of Life.

Helpful thoughts from Stand to Reason

"One question that has to be raised with any fossil evidence is the presupposition and interpretation imposed on the evidence placing it in the fossil chain of evolution. Fossils don't come lined nicely in the strata in transitional order, as the pictures of fossils lined up in science books nicely illustrate. Fossils are dated, which gives us their historical place, but that doesn't prove transition. What is evident in the fossil evidence, and in Ida, is variation in species, which isn't at all remarkable. Claiming those variations are proof of one species evolving into a new one is an interpretation of those physical features already with the assumption of evolution, not objective proof.

A transition is only a transition only if it occupies the space in the historical development that it needs to occupy, and no fossil can provide that proof without the presumption of evolution imposed upon it placing it in the transitional chain. That's circular reasoning."

Labels: , , , , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Frank Dracman said...

Jonathan,

If any of your readers want to know the truth of how people of faith continually try to pull the wool over their eyes, read this excellent article on the Evolution of Creationism.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2004-06/reality-check.html

The essence, Jonathan, is that your pet "Intelligent Design Theory" is a lie perpetrated by people who deny legitimate science in favor of a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

The whole stupid idea was developed only after the Supreme Court trampled pure Creationism by preventing it from being taught in public schools. The EXACT SAME PEOPLE came up with "scientific Creationism." After that failed, too, they came up with "Intelligent Design. ID was trounced soundly at a trial in Dover, Pennsylvania but that has not stopped these people from trying to assert their version of fundamentalism into the public school.

These blatantly propagandist attempts to insert fundamentalism into public schools anti-intellectualism at its worst.

Your faith spews this ID rubbish as legitimate and you FORCE people,to choose either legitimate science or faith.

Then, in this modern, literate age, you wonder why people are leaving the faith in droves.


You, Jonathan, are too smart to not understand what's going on here. If you value your faith and your church, you should be fighting these morons -- not embracing them.

May 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home