Bone Crunching Debunks ‘First Monkey’ Ida Fossil Hype

By Brandon Keim October 21, 2009
Originally promoted as the stem of the primate family tree, it now appears that Darwinius masillae — better known as “Ida,” the fossil that “changes everything” — belonged to a fringe branch.

This is the conclusion of researchers who analyzed primate fossils to determine where their own discovery, dubbed Afradapis and closely related to Darwinius, belongs on the tree. Far from spawning the ancestors of humans, the 47 million-year-old Darwinius seems merely to have gone extinct, leaving no descendants.

“It’s the first phylogenetic analysis of this important animal,” said study co-author Jonathan Perry, a Midwestern University paleoanthropologist. “By our analysis, the taxon Darwinius does not appear to be” at the root of all simians, said Perry. “It’s on the opposite side of the tree.”

www.archaeologynews.org...“First%20Monkey”%20Fossil%20Hype

As prominent paleontologists soon pointed out, Hurum’s team was pushing a theory that most researchers had already dismissed, that anthropoids — monkeys and apes, including ourselves — are descended from lemur-like members of a primate subfamily called adapids, of which Darwinius was one.

See Also:

Hobbits May Belong on New Branch of Our Family Tree

Lucy 2.0: Famous Fossil Homind Goes Digital

Humanity Has New 4.4 Million Year Old Baby Mama

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/35f7394e6709.jpg[/atsimg]

Further proof that Darwin and followers are full of crap.
Good post.

reply to post by buds84


Those are my thoughts exactly, but would like to see the movie on Darwin's life, hope it gets distributed in the U.S., don't get why religious institutions are so threatened by it, think we are adult enough to make up our own minds.

reply to post by buds84


Did you read the article?

As prominent paleontologists soon pointed out, Hurum’s team was pushing a theory that most researchers had already dismissed, that anthropoids — monkeys and apes, including ourselves — are descended from lemur-like members of a primate subfamily called adapids, of which Darwinius was one.

According to Hurum’s team, Darwinius possessed many of the physical traits expected in the earliest ancestral anthropoid, so it must be that ancestor. And since Darwinius was clearly an adapid, then adapids were at the root of the anthropoids. But their paper made no reference to extensive fossil and genetic evidence suggesting otherwise.

Further evidence that there's a serious lack of understanding about what science, Darwin, and "his followers" are actually all about.

The fossil was showcased like a PR stunt to grab attention and wasn't the subject of peer review by these crap-filled Darwinian followers you speak of.

Now that it is the study of peer review, it's clear to the scientific community at large that it isn't some smoking gun of human evolution but another branch of the evolutionary tree.

I wish people would understand that science isn't about pushing an ideology. It's not like politics or religion where everything is dealt in moral absolutes and we're on an "us vs. them" mentality. Science readily, and happily, accepts changes to known theory because it expands our horizons that much more.

This doesn't mean much. The fellow who made this claim was going against evidence that showed what's stated in the article.

It's very close to being a hoax.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


"I wish people would understand that science isn't about pushing an ideology. It's not like politics or religion where everything is dealt in moral absolutes and we're on an "us vs. them" mentality."

OK, I have to firmly disagree with this statement. First to seperate politics and science is impossible, since a large portion of money for scientific research is from the govt. Second, when said money is used to prove a predetermined theory, even if the facts don't support said theory. i.e. global warming.

Science is pushed as an ideology through schools across the world. Add to that money and supplies contributed to schools via the scientific community to advance said ideology. Also one can't say science doesn't take a us vs. them mentality, when scientists and scientific institutes consitently take pot shots at creationists and other religous beliefs.

reply to post by jdl79


Actually. I wouldn't blame all of science and scientists on the antics of certain atheists who want the rest of the world to believe science supports them when science at it's purest form is inherently agnostic.

reply to post by jdl79


Politics clings to science as a way to push an agenda, not the other way around. True scientific theory is about testing a hypothesis in order to form a valid theory.

Not to turn this in to a global warming debate, but the planet is warming, and there is far more evidence that humans are contributing to or accelerating this warming than there is saying we have no effect.

Science isn't pushed as an ideology. It's pushed as a scientific method of hypothesis > experiment > results > conclusion. People who don't agree with the conclusions often do so because it goes against their personal beliefs. Science readily accepts change. It does not, however readily accept changes that can't be repeated, aren't supported, or are outweight by much greater evidence.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by buds84

 

Those are my thoughts exactly, but would like to see the movie on Darwin's life, hope it gets distributed in the U.S., don't get why religious institutions are so threatened by it, think we are adult enough to make up our own minds.

I must clarify something before I comment on your excellent thread:

There is no documentation or proof that religious instituations have had anything to do with the Darwin movie not being shown here. It was a business decision made by the distribution companies. I doubt that they considered religious Americans, since many movies are distributed that offends Christians much more than this Darwin movie does.

As for your OP....great job!
I have personally seen enough nails in the evolution coffin over the last year that I didn't really need another one....but what the hey....

I'm starring and flagging love...keep at it.

reply to post by John Matrix


John I know that it not religion directly, but I believe that there is much pressure from Christan investors that we don't hear about. Thanks for your comment, I should have been more clear.
Thanks also, glad you liked my OP, am learning since becoming active on this board which is only recently...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Aquarius1]

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Science may not be about pushing an ideology, but evolution is!!
Let's not forget.....evolution is not science.
Likewise, science is not evolution.

If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker than following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.


[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix

If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker that following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.

That would be to easy, what amazes me is how long this has been going on, don't think I know anyone who embraces Evolution.

reply to post by Aquarius1


LOL...you will meet the usual defenders of the evolution faith soon enough, and then you will know some.

They should be arriving for their usual beatings soon.

I must agree that the entire scientific community does not push their ideology on others, however one must admit that a large section does. Which is far from the statement that the scientific community does not. Evolutionists are a good example as has been pointed out. Yet no one has touched on the fact that there is a agenda among some in the scientific community and government to push unverified theories as fact among our youth. The agenda can be shown through the endless amounts of money that have been thrown at certain sectors within the scientific community, these seem to be the same sectors whos theories are pushed in schools.

I also agree that we probably shouldn't get into the subject of global warming. We can save that discussion for another thread, since I am certain that with our polar opposite views on the science behind it the discussion would derail the current one.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6802405d4745.jpg[/atsimg]
Artist's reconstruction of the lower jaw of a 37 million-year-old Egyptian primate, Afradapis. Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation

Lead researcher Erik Seiffert of New York's Stony Brook University and his colleagues say their find has the potential to clear up a portion of the human evolutionary tree by resolving the location of a misplaced species.

Video at link:

www.physorg.com...

reply to post by buds84


Hey know chief, Darwin only talked about evolution, the act of change for an organism over generations. Those finches he first explored are still evolving.

Evolution however cannot explain the multitudes of life on this planet.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

Science may not be about pushing an ideology, but evolution is!!
Let's not forget.....evolution is not science.
Likewise, science is not evolution.

If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker than following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.


[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]

Well, evolution is science, actually.

There's hypothesis that's observable, testable, and repeatable that draws a conclusion that fits the available evidence Therefore, it is a scientific theory. No one in science claims that our view of evolution is complete and we know everything, and only an avowed atheist scientist will say that there is no God with a hand in creation of everything around us...but that is belief and not science.

It's perfectly possible that ID is accurate and there is a God(s), but it's completely impossible to test for such a thing right now, therefore scientists can not account for it in any kind of testing, and it falls out of the realm of science.

I personally don't believe evolution is a wild goose chase. There's mountains of actual evidence done by scientists who run the spectrum of militant Atheist to conservative Christian that shows evolution exists. It's not a law because we don't know if it's true 100% of the time for everything, but a scientific theory is pretty darn close.

Evolution will remain accepted truth (as I believe it should) until something else comes along and can scientifically displace it.