OpEd Contributor

[Print]  [Email]        

What 'Ida' give for a missing link

By: Casey Luskin, OpEd Contributor
-
June 8, 2009

As a follower of the evolution debate, I love it when new “missing links” are found.
 
Not only does the media plunge headfirst into a crusade for Darwin, but suspiciously, it is only after unveiling the breakthrough that evolutionary biologists admit how precious little evidence they previously held for the evolutionary transition in question.
 
Take the recent media coverage of a fossil primate named “Ida,” hailed as the “eighth wonder of the world,” whose “impact on the world of palaeontology” is being compared to “an asteroid falling down to Earth.”
 
Google.com changed its home page to pay homage to the fossil. Famed BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough is making a documentary to proselytize for Ida, “the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom.”
 
According to Ida’s PR team, this hype is acceptable. “Any pop band is doing the same. We have to start thinking the same way in science,” said one of the lead scientists studying Ida to The New York Times.
 
Yet accompanying this marketing and evangelism are the customary retroactive admissions of ignorance about our prior knowledge of evolution. Attenborough said that when Darwin-skeptics previously demanded a link to prove human evolution, “the link they would have said until now was missing.”
 
Similarly, Ida’s website (every missing link has a personalized website these days) admits that, “before Lucy,” the famous australopithecine hominid fossil, “there are massive gaps in the fossil record, and scientists have only had fragments of fossils to study.” 
 
So there you have it. Before this fossil, “the link … was missing.”  There were “massive gaps,” and scientists “only had fragments” upon which to base their evolutionary hypotheses.
 
Why didn’t we hear about these gaps before? If you believe the preaching, Ida solves all our problems; as National Geographic reported, she is the “critical ‘missing link’ species.” As is too-often the case, this is media hype.
 
If one bothers to delve into the actual scientific paper, one sees the admission that Ida “could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here....” 
 
Moreover, 12 of the 16 primate traits which the scientists were able to study classified Ida with monkeys. Ida’s website boasts of her monkey-like opposable toes and thumbs, monkey-like foot-bones, monkeylike face, and monkey-like binocular vision.
 
By now you should be getting the picture: Ida was a young, small-brained, monkey-like primate, whose evolutionary importance is anything but clear. 
 
Forgive me for being skeptical of the media’s claims that “proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution” (Skynews) or that Ida is “a 47-million year old human ancestor” (ScienceDaily).
 
She may be an exceptionally well-preserved fossil, but she’s hardly cause for apocalyptic comparisons to running for asteroid shelters.
 
We’ve seen this kind of ancestor worship in the media before.  In 2006, paleontologists reported bones from the hominid species Australopithecus anamensis.
 
After finding a couple of teeth of “intermediate” size and declaring the fossil a “missing link,” MSNBC called it “the most complete chain of human evolution so far.”  In another retroactive confession of ignorance, biologists finally admitted that before the fossil, “the origins of Australopithecus were obscured.”
 
If a couple 4 million year old teeth of “intermediate size” make “the most complete chain of human evolution so far” then I feel quite comfortable being a scientific skeptic of Darwinian evolution.
 
Even the late evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr conceded that the earliest fossils of our genus Homo “are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap,” without “fossils that can serve as missing links.”
 
Whether conscious or unplanned, Darwinian confessions of retroactive ignorance make the reasonable observer wonder, How strong is the evidence for Darwinism today?
 
The lesson is simple: keep a healthy skepticism of media hype over “missing links.” Anyone who believes the hype that we've found the “missing link” has either forgotten history or isn't looking very carefully at the evidence.
 
Casey Luskin is an attorney with a B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California at San Diego.  He writes at evolutionnews.org.



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines



 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Evolved Argument Needed

Jun 8, 2009

I accept the author's skepticism. Ask for more evidence. Does he have any alternative explanations of mankind's origin? Does Casey accept a hypothesis of human creation that is supported by a better body of evidence, or he merely an agnostic on the issue? If this gets published in a peer-reviewed anthropology journal, I would love to see the reaction. It's easy to be an evolution skeptic in The Examiner; try making these claims to people who make a living in this field, and can address his claims.

 

Evolved Argument Needed

Jun 8, 2009

Sorry. I forgot to ask if this is Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute, the anti-evolution creationists. So much for evidence, peer review, and a helathy agnostic approach to science.

 

Edd Doerr

Jun 8, 2009

Casey Luskin asks "How strong is the evidence for Darwinism today?" The answer is simple: The overwhelming majority of scientists support the modern evolutionary synthesis. There is no other view that has any credibility among scientists. Luskin mentions biologist Ernst Mayr. Maybe Luskin should actually read the many books that Mayr wrote before he opens his mouth.

 

History repeats itself ......... again

Jun 8, 2009

It's good to see that someone in the media is thinking critically and not swallowing the hype. These 'missing-links' always get debunked somewhere down the line, which is what will happen to Ida in the end.

 

Aaron

Jun 9, 2009

I love the "have you got a better idea?" argument. LOL Evolutionists are making fools of themselves. The ignorant, unread public eats whatever these "scientists" feed them, so the standards and rigor for discovery sink lower and lower. The quest for fame and tenure has seriously damaged their scientific integrity.

 

waiting on real evidence

Jun 10, 2009

search the internet for the Ida announcement. What you will see is a lemur. nothing more and nothing less. There is no more of a 'link' in this find than if you found a dead Lemur in Africa on the side of the road. Its a beautiful fossil. The murky world of Fossil Trading leads to hype that isnt warranted so that sellers get higher prices. If common ancestory was debunked then the bottom would fall out of the fossil market and perhaps even the govt funding for searching would dry up. Follow the money and you will see why science has no interest in finding the truth or allowing genuine debate.

 

Evolved Argument Needed

Jun 12, 2009

Arguments should be accepted from evolution skeptics, but not Creationists. Why demand a high standard from evolutionaly biologists, but a significantly lower standard from Creation advocates? People like Casey (at the Discovery Institute) are notorious for rejecting the IDEA of evolution, while presenting even more specious evidence to support their own ideology.

 

DK

Jun 12, 2009

No, Casey: You creationists continually whine about "... “the link … was missing.” There were “massive gaps,” and scientists “only had fragments” upon which to base their evolutionary hypotheses." This is merely in response to your egotistical, childish demands for immediate answers. Perhaps you should really study science and throw away those wallpaper degrees you wear on your chest; maybe you should do some real research rather than inflate your vitae with op-eds, letters to the editors, and worthless column articles that rely on your (and your Dishonesty Institute's) absolutely inane creationist drivel.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

American Phil Mickelson watches the flight of the ball he hit at the 7th tee during the third round of the 2009 HSBC Champions golf tournament at Shanghai Sheshan International Golf Club Saturday, Nov...

Mickelson stages late rally to beat Els in HSBC Champions, as Woods falters

Phil Mickelson won the HSBC Champions on Sunday by rallying against a familiar foe. Full story

Politics

Demonstrators chant on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009, during a Republican health Care reform rally. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

House Democrats clear impasse over abortion holding up vote on health care legislation

Capping months of months of struggle, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote on sweeping health care legislation late Friday and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. Full story

Entertainment

'Golden Girls' star McClanahan has bypass surgery

Rue McClanahan, who played sexy Southern belle Blanche Devereaux on "The Golden Girls," was recovering Thursday from heart bypass surgery at a New York City hospital. Full story