It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Missing Link' Primate Fossil Debunked

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

'Missing Link' Primate Fossil Debunked


dsc.discovery.com

Oct. 21, 2009 -- Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   


Remember Ida? That's here in the image above. Not long ago this was "the talk of the town". The History (yeah right) Channel hyped this thing like it was the cure for cancer. Now it has come out that, in fact this whole charade was just short of a HOAX. My initial reaction when I saw "Ida" was that it looked much like a lemur. Well:



The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.


Turns out that Ida IS closely related to lemurs. Just wanted to pass this along...

Enjoy!

dsc.discovery.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
oh thanks man
I always knew it was croc

So who was the fool that posted the thread about the missing link anyhow?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
oh thanks man
I always knew it was croc

So who was the fool that posted the thread about the missing link anyhow?


Hmmm, dunno...hopefully not me
There were several discussions that were going on about this when the story first broke.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 
Hiya Aggie,

I read about the fossil being identified by a team as part of the lemur family. It highlights the wonder of science.

An argument is made by various experts based on available evidence and what it indicates. If contentious or open for debate, it earns a challenge. In this case, it was always going to attract a fair amount of discussion. The timing raised concerns immediately due to the fossil being identified a long time before it generated media interest.

It isn't undermining the process of science. Despite some detractors, it's a topical example of how informed interests are able to present a consensus. Timelines of fossils aren't precise. Evolution isn't ever going to reflect the exact increments of a metric tape measure. Evolution is an ongoing process that happens at different rates concurrently.

Some guys are going to use the possible misidentification as a stick to bang the creationist drum. Pffft. What else could they do? Others will seize on some 'scientists are bad, m'kay?' kind of schtick. Screw 'em all. The story shows that science is personified by the loud-mouthed 'know-all' with an ability to admit when he or she is wrong and change their mind.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Some guys are going to use the possible misidentification as a stick to bang the creationist drum. Pffft. What else could they do? Others will seize on some 'scientists are bad, m'kay?' kind of schtick. Screw 'em all. The story shows that science is personified by the loud-mouthed 'know-all' with an ability to admit when he or she is wrong and change their mind.


Yes, I see this as a BIG (misguided) opportunity for the creationists...almost didn't post this because of that reason. But, like you said, at least scientists admit when they are wrong...we'll never see a creationist do that.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The media's immediate reaction to any primate fossil is always "missing link!"

This is because the media is full of non-scientific chuickleheads who are out to make a sensationalist buck.

Of course Ida isn't a "missing link" just as the new ape Ardi isn't. Anyone with a passing interest in the subject could tell that. Ida is a neat lemur. Ardi is a neat hominid. Neither one are part of the branch that we're on, though.

I wish the morons and stupids would hurry up and ditch the whole "missing link" crap anyway. There's no such thing!



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think this is the important part here:

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.


It was a glory seeking publication by the scientist.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
I think this is the important part here:

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.


It was a glory seeking publication by the scientist.


I think it was more of glory seeking on behalf of the History Channel...the same channel that has brought us UFO Hunters
Monsterquest
Mysterquest
I know What I saw
....shall I keep going? Maybe History Channel got duped and invested too much in the documentary...so they fudged a little...nah, they are sensationalists that lost the integrity that went along with the History Channel name. Rarely do you see dedicated research scientists seeking glory.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
In lack of true evidence anything is welcome to keep the warmth...

Don't blame the press, press is exactly the way it is supposed to be. It isn't going to evolve, that's for sure.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

I always knew it was croc

So who was the fool that posted the thread about the missing link anyhow?



Come-On-Now..... 'who was the fool'?? ...
that's Harsh !
the poster/thread starter thought that MSM, the peer community of anthropologists & other pertinent Scientists...did not have misgivings about the 'ancestory'

I'd mark it up to a Premature assumption by the discoverer and the blind rush by the news media to publish...unfounded conclusions (i.e. fluff)
the OP had nothing but 'Good Intentions'...IMHO


yo,



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
No it is not a hoax. That is your interpretation. This is a really bad habit ATSers are developing, taking stories and spinning them.

They thought this was an ancestor, and others said it isn't. Plain and simple.

First of all, this story will probably change another five times, as they have to study the fossil. They study these fossils mm by mm. And compare and discuss and x-ray. Five months is not even remotely enough time to decide anything yet. So both camps could end up being wrong. Or one could be right. Not enough time has passed for either to decide.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
No it is not a hoax. That is your interpretation. This is a really bad habit ATSers are developing, taking stories and spinning them.

They thought this was an ancestor, and others said it isn't. Plain and simple.

First of all, this story will probably change another five times, as they have to study the fossil. They study these fossils mm by mm. And compare and discuss and x-ray. Five months is not even remotely enough time to decide anything yet. So both camps could end up being wrong. Or one could be right. Not enough time has passed for either to decide.


It's a good thing I said it was just short of a hoax. A hoax it was not, but the way The History Channel promoted it was deceitful nonetheless.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
We are not decendant from monkeys.


Satanic science aka mainstream indocrination program will you tell you that of course.


You all will never know the truth. The ones that don't will not be able to live in the coming shift in consciousness. Anyone who craves on the system, materials, physical proof, money etc. Will die out or will find it impossible to live amongst the awaken.


I repeat. You are not decendant from apes or monkeys. If you were there would be no primates still around. We were genetically sped up when the Annunaki came. they mixed their reptilian/humanoized genetics into homo erectus and created several prototypes of "man" aka beast. It also explains why within one species we are so genetically different. With at least 30 different blood types. We also have reptilian or blue blood. Don't expect that to be heard on the news. Nor the people who are born with tails.

In other words we are all so quick to believe in the bull# the media and the system indocrinates us into believing. But we are all willing to dimiss the obvious truth. Why is this? Because the education system teaches us to only accept the truth from authority. "Yes master, we agree master, we believe you master." Obama says so master. CIA says so. CNN says so. FOX news says so. Yes sir."

There were men like giants in those days. And human beings back then lived far longer lives due to less gravity and more oxgyen etc. Human beings had the ability to do create miracles. The people back then were lighter in density. Meaning they didn't rely heavily on the physical to survive. There is plenty of evidence and proof. But the satanic matrix you live in classfiy the real truth you really need to know. So everyone goes to school and the bull# indocrination begins.

If your going to sit here and demand proof from me or the governments were wasting your time. Just like every part of the government who lie to you all the time. They don't need to tell you the truth either. I wouldn't waste my time to people who are so lost anyway.

During Atlantean times many of our parent races WHO WE ARE DECENDANT FROM) came here openly with our society. We are not decendant from APES. They werent' shut in the dark like we are today.

If you think you are, your living a brainwashed life



We are shut in the dark thats exactly why we believe we are monkeys


[edit on 21-10-2009 by Mind1universe]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I won't argue with it there. First thing I thought when I read the post was, what is the History channel going to show? They don't know anything about it yet.

But your thread can be misconstrued as you calling the whole thing a hoax. But I don't think that is the scientists intent. Sorry, didn't mean to come off sounding snarky.

But I am with you on HC jumping the gun.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mind1universe
 


Can't talk about evolution without the creationists coming in.

So, you don't think it is feasible that we are decended from apes or primates. But it is even more feasible that we are decended from giants from Atlantis?

*looks around for a camera*



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You depend on the system of bull#.


Is it any wonder your so lost.



You should try find out who runs the world, before you get so cocky. Yeah I'll give a hint. They were the survivors of Atlantis. Arrogance and ignorance is a trait that seems to blind us, it's blinding you right well.


Well you can call yourself an ape. However I know I'm not.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Sorry, didn't mean to come off sounding snarky.


No worries


BTW, LOL @ snarky...the obscure word made famous by DC!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mind1universe
You depend on the system of bull#.


Is it any wonder your so lost.



You should try find out who runs the world, before you get so cocky. Yeah I'll give a hint. They were the survivors of Atlantis. Arrogance and ignorance is a trait that seems to blind us, it's blinding you right well.


Well you can call yourself an ape. However I know I'm not.


You're the cockiest person in this thread.

You spout off with absolutely NO EVIDENCE.

At least evolution is a thought out theory, with evidence, scientists, and OH YEAH, science!

What do you bring to the table?

Absolutely nothing but a bunch of tall tales.

Unless you have some proof?

I bet you don't.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
You know what irks me the most about this article? Not the fact that the previous findings were supposedly debunked, but this:




In fact, it confirms what most scientists think, said David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto.


Emphasis mine

That, right there, just smacks of preconceived notions. Like they set out to deliberately debunk the findings instead of going in with an unbiased eye. This is typical of humanity in general, and what's wrong with most so-called scientists today IMO.

Chrono




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join