Well, if it does, doesn’t that mean that evolution wasn’t proved before?
But I digress. Whenever you have questions about evolution and culture, there is only one blog that you really need to read, and that’s Denyse O’Leary’s Post-Darwinist. She has written no less than THREE stories on the Ida fossil, so let’s take a look at see what she’s found.
First, on May 19th, she noted that the lemur-like fossil contradicted the current best naturalistic theory of human origins.
[The] fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture. The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.
Second, on May 21st, she added:
This recent Messil Pit find bolsters the case of the lemur supporters against the previously dominant tarsier supporters.
That only creates more confusion about origins, it seems to me, rather than resolving anything.
Where you have opposing histories, evidence that strengthens one history must weaken the other.
It does not necessarily add up to a gain in information.
What if the tarsier advocates find a fossil that bolsters their case in, say, 2012?
And who’s to say that won’t happen – as it has happened already?
Everything gets so complicated, once you look past the “missing link” sound-bites. But many people looking for validation for their atheist lifestyle will never bother – so long as the cultural authorities can offer them some Piltdown Man or Archaeoraptor or Haeckel’s embryos or Peppered Moths, etc., to justify their atheistic faith.
Denyse also points to a round-up of links from Access Research Network, as well as a New Scientist story that is skeptical of Ida’s status as *the* missing link.
Third, on May 25th, she linked to this story from the UK Times Online:
… in the research paper detailing the discovery, the scientists had painted a rather different picture. Ida, they said, “could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates (including humans) evolved but we are not advocating this here”.
And more:
Robert Foley, professor of human evolution at Cambridge University, believes many people misunderstand the huge timescales involved in assessing fossils.
“This animal lived around 47m years ago but human-like creatures only appeared in the last 2m years,” he said. “That’s a gap of around 45m years with many other species lying between us and that era. Any one of them could be called a missing link. Really, the term is meaningless.”
Now I know what my many atheist readers are saying: “we’re only skeptical of your beliefs! Not our beliefs!”. Well, I’m sorry, true believers, to throw cold water on you.
WINTERY KNIGHT 