Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign

[moonglow]

Ida: Separating the Science from the Media Campaign
by Brian Thomas, M.S., and Frank Sherwin, M.A.*


Ida is the nickname of the stunningly well-preserved fossil that is currently being hailed as "our connection with the rest of all the mammals."1 A massive publicity campaign, including books, videos, a website, and public unveilings, coincided with the publication of a scientific study conducted on the fossil.2 But published statements from many scientists, both evolutionist and creationist alike, indicate that Ida's accolades as the long-sought-after "missing link" are thoroughly undeserved.

University of Oslo paleontologist Jørn Hurum, co-author of the PLoS report detailing the fossil, claimed, "This fossil is part of our evolution."3 Although Ida—which bears the technical name Darwinius masillae—is very lemur-like, Hurum considers her transitional to haplorhines, a broad grouping of primates that is thought to exclude lemurs but include monkeys and apes. However, University of Chicago paleontologist Callum Ross told ScienceNOW, "Their [Hurum and his team's] claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification."4

Other than a few different teeth, a single ankle bone that is unlike that of modern lemurs, and the absence of modern lemurs' "toilet claw," Ida is very lemur-like. To be a link in the chain of an evolutionary development toward apes, "Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably," Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History wrote in New Scientist. He also said that "Ida is not a ‘missing link'—at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates."5 Duke University paleontologist Richard Kay stated that there is no "analysis to support the claims" that Ida is a missing link.4 Likewise, Duke paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons stated that Ida is "not telling us too much that we didn't know before."6(read the rest at the link)

God bless

[Ryan R]

I couldn't believe that this was being hailed as an evolutionary triumph. Oh no, they found a monkey in the ground! I guess evolution is right, since there's no way that a catastrophic global flood could possibly trap a monkey in the mud. Wait a minute...

I like to tell people that Bible believers are not surprised by a monkey in the ground. Nor are we surprised when they found a dinosaur in a dog-sized mammal's stomach, soft tissue in T-Rex and a duck billed dinosaur bones, polystrat fossils, etc. The more we find the more it contradicts the naturalist model and supports our own.

[Philemon9]

I couldn't believe that this was being hailed as an evolutionary triumph. Oh no, they found a monkey in the ground! I guess evolution is right, since there's no way that a catastrophic global flood could possibly trap a monkey in the mud. Wait a minute...

I like to tell people that Bible believers are not surprised by a monkey in the ground. Nor are we surprised when they found a dinosaur in a dog-sized mammal's stomach, soft tissue in T-Rex and a duck billed dinosaur bones, polystrat fossils, etc. The more we find the more it contradicts the naturalist model and supports our own.

If only this was scientifically substantiated =/

[chisel]

Darwin fossil hyper-hype

by Don Batten
Published: 23 May 2009(GMT+10)

The orchestrated multimedia blitz over this fossil is almost unbelievable. The paleontologists even got Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, to officiate at the public “launch” of Ida (the cute nickname for the fossil), when it was unveiled—like a new sculpture by a famous artist—to the assembled journalists.
Within days of the publication of the science journal paper, they have announced a book (The Link), a special website (The Link) devoted to the story and a feature-length documentary by Atlantic Productions (The Link). Sir David Attenborough wrote and narrated a special version for the BBC.1
They scheduled all these for broadcast/release within days of the publication of the paper. And it is all aimed at laymen; the general public.
Attenborough said, “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all mammals. The link they would have said until now is missing … it is no longer missing.”2 But note his careful wording. The layman, including most reporters, hears “they have found the link between humans and apes”, but Attenborough meant a possible link between primates and the rest of the animal kingdom. This duplicitous approach seems to be rather deliberate, and not just with Attenborough. The repeated emphasis on “The Link”, in all the marketing hoopla, reinforces this. This is the same sort of deceitful debating tactic as saying evolution means change, change occurs in organisms (example of loss of eyes in a cave fish, for example), therefore evolution (molecules to mankind) is a fact—see Don’t fall for the bait and switch.
And just to cap it off, in this “year of Darwin”, they named the creature after the atheists’ hero, Charles Darwin: Darwinius masillae. (One wonders what Charles Darwin would say now, if only he could (cf. Luke 16:26–31).) As Richard Dawkins said, Darwin enabled him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. That is the reason for all the hoopla over Darwin, which seems to be at fever pitch in this “Year of Darwin”.

The above is an excerpt from http://creation.com/darwin-fossil-ida-hype

"The claim that Darwinius ‘could finally confirm Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution’ tacitly admits that it has not yet been confirmed"

[EarlyCall]

Well, we were told man would increase in knowledge and become fools. We see it happening at ever greater intensity and momentum with each passing year now.

But the greatest single leap of knowledge and understanding every individual will ever take occurs not in this lifetime but at the very moment of death.

[Ryan R]

If only this was scientifically substantiated =/

I don't follow your point. Are you asking for me to cite my sources and demonstrate their reliability? If so, please clarify and I'd be happy to, because the simple fact is they are scientifically substantiated. They did find a dinosaur in the stomach of a dog-size mammal, as reported here by the BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4165973.stm, the soft tissue was originally found in the t-rex http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html and skepticism of its authenticity was put to rest when they found similar samples in the duck billed dinosaur http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1010_021010_dinomummy.html, and polystrate fossils are an unchallenged reality.

If you disagree with me on any topic at any time I will gladly debate it with you, but please clarify your issue so I understand what you position is and exactly what you are challenging with mine.

Thank you.

[Itinerant Lurker]

I don't follow your point. Are you asking for me to cite my sources and demonstrate their reliability? If so, please clarify and I'd be happy to, because the simple fact is they are scientifically substantiated. They did find a dinosaur in the stomach of a dog-size mammal, as reported here by the BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4165973.stm,

We already knew that mammals and small dinosaurs overlapped during the Cretaceous, the novelty of this find involves their predator-prey relationship, not their simultaneous existence.

the soft tissue was originally found in the t-rex http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html and skepticism of its authenticity was put to rest when they found similar samples in the duck billed dinosaur http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1010_021010_dinomummy.html,

I don't see how this is a blow against evolution, especially since the extracted collagen conforms to the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution. From the National Geographic article:

"In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005])."

and polystrate fossils are an unchallenged reality.

Also, not actually evidence against evolution.

[Ryan R]

Hello Itinerant Lurker, and welcome to the discussion!

It seems to me I did not make the purpose of my post clear, so please allow me to clarify before I response to your post.

I was not trying to demonstrate how evolution is false. If all of the natural laws that God has put in place don’t do that, then I sincerely doubt that I will be able to: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

What I was trying to show is that, as the naturalists jump for joy at the novelty of each of the above stated finds and work to incorporate these new evidences into their model, creations are in no wise required to do so. These things fit our assumptions so well that we aren't required to work them in.

But, since you have some responses to my citations of these interesting findings, I am more than happy to continue with the discussion!

You said in your post that, "We already knew that mammals and small dinosaurs overlapped during the Cretaceous, the novelty of this find involves their predator-prey relationship, not their simultaneous existence."

This is not accurate. The long-age assumption was that all the mammals at this period were tiny, like mice or squirrels. That assumption is clearly outlined in the passage I have quoted below regarding this same find.

"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6817636/)

Please notice the word "contradicts". This was not a creationist edit, that's how this finding has been reported since the publications were released. Evolutionists were required to update the assumptions made about this period, just as I mentioned.

On your next point, "I don't see how [the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue] is a blow against evolution, especially since the extracted collagen conforms to the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution."

I am surprised every time someone says they don't see how this is a blow against evolution. This blasé attitude was completely contradicted by the astonishment that surrounded the discovery, followed by the disbelief of experts who said that it wasn't even possible.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

Please not the term "changes the way we think", in relation to my original point on adjusting models.

Further, you say it “confirms the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution”? The argument that the results of studying the soft tissue found in a fossilized bone which is at least several thousand years old (easily long enough to deteriorate the collagen to an almost unreadable state) could provide any confirmation for the theory that dinosaurs evolved from birds or vise versa is weak, at best. First, the validity of this link is controversial even among evolutionists, and some of the leading naturalist experts on bird evolution deny it outright. The link ignores the incompatibility of the dinosaur bone structure with flight, and the complete and irreducible difference in their respiratory and circulatory systems, not to mention the impossibility of evolving feathers for any constructive purpose, given their complexity. For further reading I would highly recommend Dr. Andrew McIntosh. His writing is, in my opinion, a treat to read and he’s an energetic and engaging speaker who can be seen online.

Second, the very framework upon which the theory of evolution is based revolves entirely around the striking commonality of all living things. Therefore, of course the collagen resembles bird collagen, it resembles any kind of collagen you may be thinking about at the time you are running your analysis. Geneticist cannot clone a mammoth because they have never tested a sample that leaves enough of the genome in tact, despite the fact that the some mammoths are so well preserved that people have thawed them and eaten their meat. But, tack a couple supposed dozen million years and no refrigeration onto that and you can prove a link to a modern cell? Please.

As for polystrate fossils, I have yet to even hear how a tree striking through supposed millions of years of strata could possibly be explained. I’ve read similar responses to yours, reassuring that it’s all OK from an evolutionary perspective, but you’ll have to forgive me if I remain unconvinced when there is just no possible way that a tree could stand for millions of years while strata is laid around it. Even if it were petrified, it would erode and spike upward. I just don’t see what explanation there could be, and I’ve yet to hear or read anything that even made a suggestion.

Thanks for taking the time to pose these objections and I look forward to your response, as this is a topic I greatly enjoy discussing.

Let me conclude on a Scriptural encouragement: When you next read through the book of Hebrews please notice the way in which the Holy Spirit juxtaposes Jesus’ sacrifice that liberates us from the sinful nature with Adam’s sin that was its introduction. I submit that literal interpretation of the Genesis account is crucial in understanding God’s sacrifice, which is the pivotal point of our faith. If you start with the assumption that evolution or an old universe is true then all evidence will be interpreted as such. I used to be an evolutionist, so I know how that is. However, there is no evidence that necessarily points to evolution or an old universe, and there is every reason to accept God at his Word.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians2:8.

[crawfish]

This is not accurate. The long-age assumption was that all the mammals at this period were tiny, like mice or squirrels. That assumption is clearly outlined in the passage I have quoted below regarding this same find.

"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6817636/)

Please notice the word "contradicts". This was not a creationist edit, that's how this finding has been reported since the publications were released. Evolutionists were required to update the assumptions made about this period, just as I mentioned.

A blow to evolution would be something that forced a fundamental change to the tree; swapping timelines by a few million years is only to be expected. This is because there is a fundamental difference in scientiic methods between Creationism and the existing scientific method; the former works from the final solution backwards, using evidence to prove what it already "knows". The Scientific method can only work forwards, building the ideas from evidence without having a clear view of where it's going. As an example, Creationism is like assembling puzzle pieces using the cover to a box as a guide; the scientific method is assembling those same pieces without the cover. As long as the cover matches the pieces, then we are all heading in the right direction.

Let me conclude on a Scriptural encouragement: When you next read through the book of Hebrews please notice the way in which the Holy Spirit juxtaposes Jesus’ sacrifice that liberates us from the sinful nature with Adam’s sin that was its introduction. I submit that literal interpretation of the Genesis account is crucial in understanding God’s sacrifice, which is the pivotal point of our faith. If you start with the assumption that evolution or an old universe is true then all evidence will be interpreted as such. I used to be an evolutionist, so I know how that is. However, there is no evidence that necessarily points to evolution or an old universe, and there is every reason to accept God at his Word.

My problem is that, even though we can't prove each and every step down the evolutionary tree or the absolute age of the universe, there is simply enough evidence to tell me that a literal Genesis cannot possibly be true. Study tells me that an allegorical Genesis is a more accurate and faithful reading of scripture. Much like your points above: you assume a literal Genesis, and thus, your theology flows from that. The unbending nature of that conviction makes any other view impossible for you. When you see Genesis as allegorical, other avenues open up that are stronger.

On another point, this is the second time Hebrews has been brought up in this context today. I wish someone would start a post professing that particular theology with respect to a literal Genesis so we could discuss it on-topic. If anyone wants to.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Now this is something I don't appreciate - that verse and many like it are used to criticize people for accepting scientific principles that go against their view of scripture. The problem is, such scriptures are always taken out of context when applied to this issue; for instance, the verse above is applied to those who were holding others to the strictures of their own personal faiths.

[losthorizon]

Much like your points above: you assume a literal Genesis, and thus, your theology flows from that. The unbending nature of that conviction makes any other view impossible for you. When you see Genesis as allegorical, other avenues open up that are stronger.

Correct me if I am wrong, Crawfish but can’t the same be said about your own worldview that is based on Darwinism? Don’t you simply *assume* an allegorical Genesis as a matter of faith simply because it fits your secular worldview better? Isn’t your non-scientific notion just as “unbending” as the one you criticize in your post? isn't your own *unbending nature* and your peculiar conviction hindrances that make any other view impossible for you? Does the “pot calling the kettle black” ring a bell here?

When you see Genesis as allegorical, other avenues open up that are stronger

LOL - what does this mean, exactly? What 'stronger avenues' are you referring to?

[losthorizon]

I don't see how this is a blow against evolution, especially since the extracted collagen conforms to the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution. From the National Geographic article:

But didn’t the National Geographic get into deep manure when they came out with their silly feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds? Who were those over zealous scientists who were acting in concert with National Geographic and what faith are they the proselytizers of?

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode." -- Letter from Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution to National Geographic after their infamous article on feathered dinosaurs.

[Philemon9]

LOL - what does this mean, exactly? What 'stronger avenues' are you referring to?

Shot in the dark: Avenues based on the reality of the world we live in?

Can you cite me *one* example where the folk-science you advocate has added something pertinent to our scientific understanding of the physical world?

[losthorizon]

Can you cite me *one* example where the folk-science you advocate has added something pertinent to our scientific understanding of the physical world?

What "folk-science" are you referring to, partner?

[CoffeeCat]

Guys, official warning here: no personal comments. Discuss the issues only, so the thread can stay open. Thanks.

[Itinerant Lurker]

You said in your post that, "We already knew that mammals and small dinosaurs overlapped during the Cretaceous, the novelty of this find involves their predator-prey relationship, not their simultaneous existence."

This is not accurate. The long-age assumption was that all the mammals at this period were tiny, like mice or squirrels. That assumption is clearly outlined in the passage I have quoted below regarding this same find.

"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6817636/)

Please notice the word "contradicts". This was not a creationist edit, that's how this finding has been reported since the publications were released. Evolutionists were required to update the assumptions made about this period, just as I mentioned.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing it but my description remains accurate; notice the words "all mammals of this period", the point of the article isn't the novelty of finding mammals during this period but in the assumed predator-prey relationships between dinosaurs and mammals during the Cretaceous. Scientists update their findings all the time. . .based on evidence.

On your next point, "I don't see how [the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue] is a blow against evolution, especially since the extracted collagen conforms to the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution."

I am surprised every time someone says they don't see how this is a blow against evolution. This blasé attitude was completely contradicted by the astonishment that surrounded the discovery, followed by the disbelief of experts who said that it wasn't even possible.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

Please not the term "changes the way we think", in relation to my original point on adjusting models.

Again, scientists change the way they think all the time. . .based on evidence. In this case we figured out that large bones can protect the inner parts from complete fossilization for a really long time.

Further, you say it “confirms the dominant trend of thought concerning bird evolution”? The argument that the results of studying the soft tissue found in a fossilized bone which is at least several thousand years old (easily long enough to deteriorate the collagen to an almost unreadable state) could provide any confirmation for the theory that dinosaurs evolved from birds or vise versa is weak, at best.

The fossil in question is around sixty million years old; we don't date fossils by their state of preservation we date them by the rocks they appear in. In this case that would be the base of the Hell Creek formation which has been exhaustively tested using a wide range of radiometric dating methods.

tektites 40Ar/39Ar total fusion 28 64.8±0.1 tektites 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum 1 66.0±0.5 tektite 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum 1 64.7±0.1 tektites 40Ar/39Ar total fussion 17 64.8±0.2 biotite, sanidine K-Ar 12 64.6±1.0 biotite, sanidine Rb-Sr isochron, (26 data points) 1 63.7±0.6 zircon U-Pb concordia (16 data points) 1 63.9±0.8http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

First, the validity of this link is controversial even among evolutionists, and some of the leading naturalist experts on bird evolution deny it outright. The link ignores the incompatibility of the dinosaur bone structure with flight, and the complete and irreducible difference in their respiratory and circulatory systems, not to mention the impossibility of evolving feathers for any constructive purpose, given their complexity.

Only an extreme minority of scientists oppose the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds and they merely offer up some unknown archosaur in its stead. Additionally, the findings in the article are, in my opinion, extremely preliminary and will have to be sorted through for a while before we're sure about their soundness.

As for polystrate fossils, I have yet to even hear how a tree striking through supposed millions of years of strata could possibly be explained.

Deposition can occur fast, decomposition can take a long time. It's really not much more complicated than that - we can actually see this taking place now without the need for global floods or any other exotic explanations.