Politics | 05/20/2009 7:35 am

47-Million-Year-Old Darwinius Masillae Fossil the Missing Link?

Darwinius masillae could be missing link between apes and humans.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Scientists yesterday unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossil that they’re calling the "missing link" between primates and humans.

Technically called a Darwinius masillae, but nicknamed "Ida," the juvenile female primate was discovered in Germany’s Messel Pit and is one of the most intact fossils ever found. In fact, scientists were even able to identify her last meal: fruit, seeds and leaves.

Considering Ida’s remarkable physical characteristics — and estimated lifetime — researchers are convinced she proves human evolution. Jorn Hurum of Oslo’s Natural History Museum remarked, "This is the first link to all humans … The closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Of course, we can’t be sure Ida’s the missing link, as Washington University’s Brian Richmond points out in National Geographic: "[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree, but it’s not the only branching point."

© Getty Images

Read more about: Darwinius masillae, Evolution, Fossil, Germany, Ida, News, Science

229 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Try this one Kathleen, the other went to something I don’t recognize. One used to be able to type that in but i guess it has changed.

http://www.shepherdschapel.com/index.cfm

By HA BIBI on 05/25/2009 3:58 pm

e-mail alert

When you copy and paste scripture with the implication that said scripture remains as such, this leaves the reader to interpret what you post as being all there is to that scripture, you are attempting to state that that scripture means just what is written, when in fact, that is NOT what that scripture means at all. AND, when you do that YOU ARE are indeed attempting to interpret it. In other words, you are leaving that scripture with the intent for people to read it and take from it, exactly what it says, as verbatim. That is Not what that scripture means, Period.

I am fascinated with this description; it goes a long way toward making the point that I struggled to make over here [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/151079 ]. I am grateful for your support.

However, in quoting a passage from an English Bible verbatim, it is not so much I representing that this is what the Bible says as it is the Bible translators themselves who are representing what they think the Bible says (when presented in English). If a passage in an English Bible actually means something thoroughly different than what it appears to say, then I don’t know how we can avoid concluding that the biblical translators have done a pretty lousy job (or that the edition is, at least, woefully outdated).

As you will already know by now, I have written in painstaking detail about the overwhelming difficulties involved in translating texts. These difficulties include the fact that if we, for instance, translate from Greek into English, any possible choice of English rendering will necessarily lock out [i.e., lock away from, hide from the English reader] some of the meanings inherent in the Greek text and will also introduce to the English reader a range of meanings pertaining to English words which are utterly foreign to the source text.
Working exclusively with the original texts does not solve all interpretive problems, either (as I have already noted elsewhere).

The great lesson to take away from this is, I think, that there is scarcely a greater absurdity than to be dogmatic about one’s biblical interpretations.
You, on the other hand, may think that if people only went about it the right way, they would invariably reach the same conclusions that you do. Is that correct? If so, just what is “the right way”, and where would people who want to learn to do this the way you do it be advised to go?

That is Not what that scripture means, Period.

Have you been able to find any English translation which actually says what it means and means what it says? If so, which? If not, why do you think that would be the case?
If you know people who are infallible at being able to determine what the Bible means who can also speak English, have you encouraged such a person or group to prepare a translation for the benefit of the rest of us?

Elaine, do you really have no other observation to make about my original post [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/303814 ] than to comment on one Bible verse?

By Kathleen Oliver on 05/25/2009 11:52 am

e-mail alert

Kathleen,

That one Bible verse caught my attention! Thus the response to it. The rest of your post, I did not feel it necessary to comment further. Kathleen, I’m not in the buisness of arguing the Bible with anyone and I certainly don’t mind discussing it but when reading your postings, it seems as if you have trouble deciding what to believe and for that, I can’t make those distinctions for you. I’m studying on a regular daily basis and I’m not having any trouble in my spirit accepting what it is I am learning. I cross check everything to ensure that it is in line with God’s word so as I’m not feeling that I’m being decieved. I don’t find God’s word difficult to grasp, I mean what purpose would it benefit God to want his children to know what he has to say if it were to darned difficut to understand……That would make no sense. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, if people really wanted, they could argue Jesus Christ off the cross, but that’s not where it’s at for me. I have been to a gazillion churches and studied many faiths and It all comes down for me, to be about My Savior Jesus Christ. I’m absolutely convinced that he is who he states he is and I’m thrilled that he is! I have seen the works and miricales that our Heavenly Father has done, not only my own life, but in those around me! I guess that if the Bible say’s it, I believe it and that settles it for me. And in the end of the day, God is not asking for a must of perfection, he counts an honest attempt with deligence to learn, as perfect!

By HA BIBI on 05/25/2009 12:58 pm

e-mail alert

When you copy and paste scripture with the implication that said scripture remains as such, this leaves the reader to interpret what you post as being all there is to that scripture, you are attempting to state that that scripture means just what is written, when in fact, that is NOT what that scripture means at all. AND, when you do that YOU ARE are indeed attempting to interpret it. In other words, you are leaving that scripture with the intent for people to read it and take from it, exactly what it says, as verbatim. That is Not what that scripture means, Period.

If you want to assert that the Bible does not mean anything like what it seems to literally say on the face of it, and indicate that there is a reliable method for discovering what it genuinely means, then it only seems reasonable to inquire into what that method might be.

I don’t find God’s word difficult to grasp, I mean what purpose would it benefit God to want his children to know what he has to say if it were to darned difficut to understand …

But your posts indicate that one cannot go by the literal meaning; one must do a great deal of technical study (and ‘cross checking’ … and needs to resort to Greek and Hebrew … and requires “original manuscripts”) in order to determine what it really means. How can you then turn around and suggest that it is easy to do?

—————————————
Returning to the subject of this thread … Peter posted a satire of science, noting that it is laughable that scientific theory changes over time. I replied that Christianity is laughable for the very same reasons. [It is a little difficult to grasp how it comes to be that there are some periods in which burning other Christians alive by the church is deemed to be a good sort of thing while in other periods it is deemed not to be such a goodly thing.]

Science, for its part, wouldn’t be science at all if it failed to refine its positions. Thus the changeableness and development of science would be an utterly absurd basis for seriously criticizing it. (It makes about as much sense as criticizing a fish for swimming.)

Do you have no comment to make about this?

By Kathleen Oliver on 05/25/2009 2:26 pm

e-mail alert

Wonderful Peter Wonderful! God also clearly states that "They choose to believe the lie, therefore I shall send them strong delusions"!

By HA BIBI on 05/22/2009 6:05 pm

e-mail alert

Creationism doens’t need to be killed. It’s already dead. Evolution is a science. Science means "to know". There is no room for any god anymore. The buybull is just an old myth that we’ve written and slapped together. People should really abandon their gods and their religions and go for what matters - the truth.

I love finding out about early fossils and early life.

I love science; I love astronomy. The universe is awesome.

By Ted Peterson on 05/24/2009 2:54 pm

e-mail alert

Oh please, she has a backbone…she must be one of us girls!

By central coast cabin home on 05/25/2009 11:20 pm

e-mail alert

Don’t believe in creationism and not real big on evolution - somebody give me something new. I’m bored.

By Sandbee (FB) 54 on 05/26/2009 9:34 am

e-mail alert

2.6 billion years ago the great and furious Rexcore created the dinosaurs in his image, but they were all dicks, so he had them killed. A bit later he made mankind, building them from the genetic construct of banana’s. After he created mankind, he populated the world with animals, so that mankind could hunt and feel as powerful as the dinosaurs before them, but he remembered how the dinosaurs were dicks (especially the Tyrranosaurus, who was most like the image of Rexcore) so he made dumb animals that could eat a man, to show man fear.

As time passed and man learned to use tools, Rexcore found that man was getting kind of douchey, so he invented the afterlife. Everyone who wasn’t a douche went to Rexcore’s space station, where there’s lots of disco lights and UV activated drinks, everyone who was a douche was sent to a planet full of tree’s, where they were forced to be a lumberjack for eternity.

Rexcore wields a guntar (half-guitar, half-gun) made out of darkmatter. The end.

By Matt L on 07/16/2009 10:44 pm

e-mail alert

"I’m A Believer"

By Sandbee (FB) 54 on 07/17/2009 6:40 am

e-mail alert

It’s not the Flying Spagetti Monster, but it will do. ;)

I can’t remember the last Itime I enjoyed reading the comments to an article as much I have this evening. RGB, Kathy, I love your arguments—you said all the things I was thinking, only much better than I could do at the end of a long day. Likewise, I have greatly enjoyed the circular reasoning, closed minds, and tinge of hysteria added to the mix by Ha Bibi, Peter, and a couple of others. It amazes me that some people will spend so much of their time studying their bible, but so little time studying anything else.

Ha Bibi, I suggest you go take a few university-level biology classes—with an open mind—then think about what they teach. Seriousy, try thinking about it for a change, instead of shouting your spurious and hysterical diatribes about "flesh man" and "true science". You never did explain what you meant by "true" science, and I would really love to know what you mean by "flesh man".

Peter—for a man who makes snide comments about scientists allegedly needing to preach loudly to get their points across (or words to that effect), you sure do like to paste in a lot of sourceless cherry-picked dribble, using bold font, no less. Tell me, Peter, who is the one preaching loudly here? Like typing in all caps, typing in bold font is a ploy used by people who feel the need to scream down dissenters. It’s a sign of insecurity, I believe.

I will bet everything I have that neither of you have so much as cracked open Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Go ahead, read it—I doubt God will smite you for it.

By Allison Carver on 07/20/2009 10:45 pm