Photo: Google takes sides.
After the orchestrated hype for the fossil “IDA”, including coordinated media announcements, scientific publication of the main article, a media rich website, timed press conferences, History Channel hype and the release of the BBC film; “The Link”, even some evolutionists were underwhelmed and unconvinced. Here’s a quote from the blog of one such unhappy evolutionary consumer:
“Having seen ‘The Link’ documentary on the BBC last night, about the fossil Ida, I’m surprised there aren’t a lot more creationists out there than there already are. If that is the best film the best brains can make on what is, whichever way you slice it, a milestone in palaeontology, archaeology, anthropology and a human understanding of our ancestral history, we’re doomed.
It was dumbed down and scant on the facts. Plenty of artistic interpretations and fancy computer modelling, but little by way of actual explanations. Based upon the available evidence, though I’m sure it was, it wasn’t explained in the film how we know what we know. It was exactly the kind of thin on the detail story telling which fuels the imagination of those who are already predisposed to fairy-tales to submit that there are two equally valid sides to the creation story, when we know that there is only one which carries any real weight of evidence.” Jim Gardner on May 27, 2009, How Good Is That? Blog
While it’s certainly true that “creationists” never bought into the hype on “Ida”, the most prominent detractors of the “missing link” hype have been other evolutionists. In an article we saw published in Science Daily, referring to an article published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the authors say that the hype around Ida is “hogwash” (our interpretation). They propose their own “missing link”.
Stand out of the way and let the evolutionists speak;…..s8int.com
A major focus of recent paleoanthropological research has been to establish the origin of anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes and humans) from earlier and more primitive primates known as prosimians (lemurs, tarsiers and their extinct relatives). Prior to recent discoveries in China, Thailand, and Myanmar, most scientists believed that anthropoids originated in Africa. Earlier this year, the discovery of the fossil primate skeleton known as “Ida” from the Messel oil shale pit in Germany led some scientists to suggest that anthropoid primates evolved from lemur-like ancestors known as adapiforms.
According to Dr. Chris Beard–– a paleontologist at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and a member of the international team of researchers behind the Myanmar anthropoid findings––the new primate, Ganlea megacanina, shows that early anthropoids originated in Asia rather than Africa. These early Asian anthropoids differed radically from adapiforms like Ida, indicating that Ida is more closely related to modern lemurs than it is to monkeys, apes and humans