For all the headlines and proclamations, this
“missing link” story includes an amazing amount of hot
air.A story we first previewed on
May 16 has since rocketed to the heights of media
hype as a team of scientists reveals “Ida,” the latest
and greatest supposed missing link. But does Ida
actually support “the evolution of early primates, and,
ultimately, modern human beings,” as one news outlet
reported?1
Another reporter raved, “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.”2
Formally identified as Darwinius masillae (in
honor of Charles Darwin), the fossil originated in
Germany and is purportedly 47 million years old. One
scientist gave the find the nickname Ida (after his
daughter).
Atlantic Productions /
revealingthelink.com
Despite the hype, Ida looks
nothing like a transitional “apeman,” instead
looking quite like a modern lemur.
As for a more level-headed explanation of the
evolutionary excitement, the Wall Street Journal
reports:
Anthropologists have long believed that humans
evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50
million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the
Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of
the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives
in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a
precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one
big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae
group gave rise to monkeys, apes, and humans. The
latest discovery bolsters the less common position
that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid,
the believed precursor of lemurs.
Thus, rather than an apeman-like missing link that
some media sources have irresponsibly implied, the real
story is quite underwhelming and should in no way faze
creationists. Let’s first review the facts:
-
The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete,
including fossilized fur and more) is about the size
of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles
the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed,
tree-climbing primate). The fossil
does not resemble a human skeleton.
-
The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil
hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through
fossil dealers to the research team.
-
Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article
states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those
found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that
opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet
lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all
primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other
primates. And the talus bone is described as “the
same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that
there are other differences in the ankle structure.3
-
Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know),
Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a
fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more
similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences
easily explained by variation within a kind.
Haven’t heard the real story of this supposed
scientific breakthrough?
Read the criticisms other evolutionists have
made of the “missing link” claims and the science
behind them.
Given these facts, it may seem incredible that anyone
would hail this find as a “missing link.” Yet British
naturalist David Attenborough
claims:
“Now people can say, ‘Okay, you say we’re
primates . . . show us the link.’ The link, they
would have said until now, is missing. Well, it is
no longer missing.”
Unbelievably, Attenborough claims his interpretation
is “not a question of imagination.”
The Creationist Interpretation
The principles that inform creationists about Ida are
some of the same that allow creationists to interpret
fossil after fossil hailed as “transitional forms”:
-
Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything
other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its
appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone
“apeman” or human.
-
A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils
are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution
is an alleged process of change in live organisms.
Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes
evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to
interpret the fossil.
-
Similarities can never show evolution. If two
organisms have similar structures, the only thing it
proves is that the two have similar
structures. One must presuppose evolution to say
that the similarities are due to evolution rather
than design. Furthermore, when it comes to
“transitional forms,” the slightest similarities
often receive great attention while major
differences are ignored.
-
The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of
rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the
University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so
complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the
primate record at all. You have to get to human
burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even
the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While
the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a
lake and was buried, this preservation is more
consistent with a catastrophic flood.4
Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved
specimens.”5
-
If evolution were true, there would be real
transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing
links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly
similar to organisms we see today, usually with the
exception of minor, controversial, and inferred
anatomical differences.
-
Evolutionists only open up about the lack of
fossil missing links once a new one is found.
Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this
transitional species finally confirms Charles
Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough
commented that the missing link “is no longer
missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was
missing until now (supposedly)?
So it’s clear what Ida is not. As for our
conclusion on what Ida is, we wrote in News
to Note:
[B]ecause the fossil is similar to a modern lemur
(a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s
unlikely that creationists need any interpretation
of the “missing link” other than that it was a
small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now
extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of
Creation Week.
Much of the excitement over Ida appears to stem from
a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an
upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link.
The documentary will air on the History Channel in the
U.S. (as The Link) on May 25 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. It
will air on BBC One in the UK (as Uncovering Our
Earliest Ancestor: The Link) on Tuesday May 26th at
9 p.m. Filmmaker Atlantic Productions even launched a
website to promote the discovery,
revealingthelink.com.
Yet as Hurum commented, “This fossil will probably be
pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years.”
So while the media rush may at first be a bid to promote
the documentary and book, the ultimate result is one
more trumped-up “missing link” presented to future
generations as evidence of evolution.
Footnotes
-
Ned Potter, “Primate
Fossil Could Be Key Link in Evolution,” ABC
News, May 19, 2009.
-
Alex Watts,
Scientists Unveil Missing Link in Evolution,
Sky News Online, May 19, 2009.
-
J. L. Franzen, et al., “Complete Primate
Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in
Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology,” PLoS
One 4(5), 2009.
-
Because of the location of this fossil, it may
have been buried by a post-Flood period of
residual catastrophism amid an unstable climate.
-
“Fossils
from the Messel site,” The Guardian,
n.d.