Ida Made a Monkey Out of Sierra

* Evolutionists Say Missing Link Still Missing: (Ho-hum, did you know that they discovered another soft-tissue dinosaur? But, that's not worth reporting, is it? After all, we have missing link Ida to talk about? Don't we?) Definitive quotes compiled by Ken Ham's researchers show that the BBC's famous Darwinist Richard Attenborough was wrong about monkey fossil Ida, and that KGOV's fundamentalist Christians Bob Enyart, Doug McBurney, and Fred Williams are correct! See for yourself...

New York Times: [D]espite a television teaser campaign with the slogan "This changes everything" and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be [a human ancestor] "but we are not advocating this." NYT

Wall Street Journal: 
Ida coauthor University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, said, "There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study. It's not how I like to do science." WSJ

The Australian: [About Gingerich's admission] University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown remains skeptical... "That rings all sorts of warning bells," Professor Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was... ancestral... "It's nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates... but they've cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they've been criticized..." TA

LiveScience: Yale University paleoanthropologist Chris Gilbert: "On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing. They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing." LS

Duke University anthropologist Matt Cartmill: "The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself. It's a very beautiful fossil, but I didn't see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new." LS

Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris Beard: "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys..." LS

ScienceNow: Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out [about] Hurum and Gingerich's analysis... "There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked," says paleontologist Richard Kay... of Duke University. SN

University of Chicago paleontologist Callum Ross: "Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine [even remotely in a human tree] is unsupportable..." SN

Carnegie Museum of Natural History's curator Dr Chris Beard said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil. But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans." BBC

Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown's In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You'll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendousCreation magazine!