The Missing Link? Only In Their Minds

Let's take a brief break from politics.

You may have seen the latest attempt to prove that humans are nothing more than animals - the denigration has been splashed around the headlines quite a bit.  Here's the story from that oh-so-unbiased National Geographic:
 

 

Meet "Ida," the small "missing link" found in Germany that's created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins.

In a new book, documentary, and promotional Web site, paleontologist Jorn Hurum, who led the team that analyzed the 47-million-year-old fossil seen above, suggests Ida is a critical missing-link species in primate evolution (interactive guide to human evolution from National Geographic magazine).

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.

Before you succumb to the urge to pick mites out of your best friend's hair, let's slow down and think a bit about the progression here:
1. They found a fossil.
2. The fossil looks like a lemur-ish monkey.
3. The fossil is not exactly the same as a lemur or monkey is today.
Conclusion: Therefore, it must be a direct ancestor for all of humanity.

That's quite a leap of logic!

Since you won't hear any qualified rebuttals in any mainstream media outlet, let me present you with two.  First, the Institute for Creation Research:

...despite the hype, a whirlwind of questions still surrounds the discovery. First, the environment in which the fossil was kept for 20 years is unclear. Ida, who bears the technical name Darwinius masillae in honor of this year's 200^th anniversary of British naturalist Charles Darwin's birth, was found in 1983 by an amateur fossil hunter at Germany's Messel Pit. He kept it in unknown conditions before deciding to sell it through a dealer two years ago.

Second, the purchaser's stated motivation for obtaining the fossil seemed to emphasize business over research. University of Oslo paleontologist Jørn Hurum nicknamed the fossil "Ida" after his own small daughter and told UK news outlet The Guardian, "You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in…this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years."¹ Hurum purchased the fossil for an undisclosed sum from the dealer based on seeing only three photographs and not the actual fossil, a "huge gamble" that suggests pressure to make some kind of return on the university's investment.

Third, the fossil was hailed as humanity's missing evolutionary link before the technical details of the find were published. This strategy effectively prevented the scientific community from evaluating the data and possibly calling a halt to the campaign on account of the fact that Ida has no transitional features and is therefore irrelevant to the evolutionary hypothesis of human development. Paleontologists are speaking out, but their voices are thus far being drowned out by the hype. Richard Kay from Duke University told Science that "the data is cherry-picked."²

Their conclusion:

Ida, though an amazingly well-preserved fossil, will prove to be another Lucy, Java Man, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Pakicetus, and Eosimias. It will undoubtedly join the growing collection of fossils that were once thought to be missing links, but that upon further study turned out to be extinct creatures with no transitional features.

Cincinnati-based Answers in Genesis has a similar analysis:

...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.

Given these facts, it may seem incredible that anyone would hail this find as a "missing link."

AiG also provides an in-depth analysis of a creationist's viewpoint:

The principles that inform creationists about Ida are some of the same that allow creationists to interpret fossil after fossil hailed as "transitional forms":

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
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.
6. 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.

AiG, like the ICR, also points out that the amazing revelation of this 'missing link' comes at the pinnacle of a big PR campaign for a new book and TV show.  Remember the old truism: follow the money...

Sorry, I guess we strayed into politics after all.

But, at least we were talking about lemurs and monkeys rather than professional politi...oh, wait...

There's my two cents.