The latest "missing link" has been found, studied, and cataloged. Officially it will be known as Darwinius masillae; however, it is being introduced to the general public by its nickname, Ida (after the six year-old daughter of Dr. Jorn Hurum, the paleontologist from Oslo University's National History Museum, who led the team that examined the fossil).

With a "cutesy" name in place to help us better relate to this fossil matter, (think of it like the family pet) what could be next for Ida? As with many of the numerous "missing links" that have been presented before her, next up is a clever marketing campaign, and in Ida's case, a promotional tour. All of which will mean huge dividends for those who are selling it...I mean, for the "advancement of science".

First, let's get the quick facts on "little Ida". At the heart of the discussion are the fossil remains of a small creature said to date back over 47 million years. Interestingly, the fossil remains are not a recent discovery but were found near Darmstadt, Germany in 1983 by an amateur fossil hunter. Some twenty years later it was sold to a German fossil dealer who brought it to Hurum's attention some two years ago. Convinced that it was the real thing, Hurum bought the fossil on behalf of the Museum, for an undisclosed amount. Since then, he and a team of experts have been secretly studying it; not making their findings known until a press release was issued on May 19, 2009.

Without question this roll out of the missing link has been carefully coordinated. As the curtain was pulled back on this "secret", we are informed that a book and film documentary about Ida, along with a cause-promoting website (www.revealingthelink.com) has been completed and is ready for release. Naturally, these promote, not only Ida, but foremost, the evolutionist cause. And, as is so often the case, the press releases and media reports are extolling the "scientific evidence" presented; as if the proof for evolution is a done deal - a fact of science and history - rather than a theory. But, is it?

The opening paragraph of the press release asserts such claims as: "...the fossil is twenty times older than most fossils that explain human evolution... [It] is a transitional species showing characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line...but she is more related to the human evolutionary line... [placing] Ida at the very root of anthropoid evolution when primates were first developing the features that would evolve into our own."

To read these statements one might conclude there is a tremendous amount of fossil evidence proving human evolution. Well, if the evidence is already in on humans evolving from lower primates, why all the concern to find a missing link?

A close reading of the claims being asserted indicate that to come to these conclusions, one would have to assume that there are, at least, two evolutionary lines. The first is the "very primitive non-human evolutionary line" - those that will never quite make it to human but branch off into something else that has some common traits, but is not human; and, the human evolutionary line - that line that somehow managed to divert from the non-human line to eventually become human.

So, basically, the claim is that Ida is "sort of" in the non-human line, but if we had to pick a line we would have to say she is more related to the human line. Are you following the logic here? Me neither.

Perhaps some of the expert quotes concerning Ida included in the press release will make things clearer. Following are a few to consider:

"This is the first link to all humans...truly a fossil that links world heritage." Dr. Hurum
"This fossil rewrites our understanding of the early evolution of primates." Dr. Jorg Habersetzer
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals." Sir David Attenborough
"The link they would have said until now is missing...it is no longer missing." Sir David Attenborough

Consider the claims made here: It is the first link to all humans, rewrites our understanding of the early evolution of primates, and shows our connection with all other mammals...it is the missing link. Don't these seem as if they are trying to say it, both, is and isn't the link to humans?

In reporting on this story the Guardian put it this way, "The researchers believe it comes from the time when the primate lineage, that diversified into monkeys, apes and ultimately humans, split from a separate group that went on to become lemurs and other less well known species.1

In their press release, the researchers refer to Ida as, "lemur-like". Commenting on this, Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist at George Washington University, said, "This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs to the group that includes us." He added, "But, there's a big gap in the fossil record from this time period..."[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree, but it's not the only branching point." 2

Again, not a very ringing endorsement that this is the missing link. I think it is safe to say that, while this may truly be a remarkable fossil find, as regards its preservation and presentation, it is being much over-hyped. The way it has been brought to the public's attention reminds me of the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" spectacle in 2007.

In that case, experts had supposedly uncovered the ossuary that contained the bones of Jesus and his family. As with Ida, the research findings were released in conjunction with a documentary and much media hype. Also, as with Ida, when it was all said and done it was mostly about speculation, not hard facts or scientific evidence.

Even those who believe in, or accept, evolution have some concerns about the claims surrounding Ida and the conclusions drawn by the researchers. Under the caption, "Are there any doubts about the significance of the find?" Steve Connor, of the British paper, The Independent writes:

"But one of the slightly suspicious aspects of the story is how it has emerged in a blaze of publicity coordinated by the television documentary company that was given access to the scientists, along with the involvement of a publisher with a book to sell on the subject. Usually, new discoveries of this significance is first published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature where the claims are meticulously analyzed by teams of experts." 3

Connor concludes, "[Ida] is not "the link" because there is never going to be one missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. Neither is Ida our direct ancestor. She belonged to a branch that evolved in parallel to the ancestral line of primates that eventually gave rise to humans.

Chris Beard, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, is another who questions the conclusions of Hurum and his team. Writing for New Science Magazine, he states, "The fact that she retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do. But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids - the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes - and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably. So, Ida is not a "missing link" - at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates...Instead, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen that promises to teach us a great deal about the biology of some of the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms." 4

Part of the concern among evolutionists, comes from their disagreement on the family origin of any so-called missing link. Anthropologists who embrace the theory of evolution believe that the larger primates and man had a common precursor. One group holds to the theory it is, what is called, the tarsidae, believed to be the ancestor of the present-day tarsier, found in Asia. The other group believes it is, what is called, the adapidae, believed to be the ancestor of the present-day lemur (that's right as in the animal tribe in Dreamworks' animated feature film, Madagascar, which is where Lemurs are found).

Madagascar lemurs

Being "lemur-like", Ida falls into the latter theory and should be hailed by all who believe in the adapidae theory. However, those of the tarsidae theory, naturally, will reject her. But even some of those in the adapidae camp, while recognizing this is a great find because of the almost pristine preservation of the fossil record, reject it as the missing link.

Perhaps Christopher Beard, of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, sums it up best when he said, ''I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people, I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate.' Rather than a long-ago aunt, 'I would say it's more like a third cousin twice removed." 5

Creationists, or those who argue for intelligent design, are also weighing in on this story. Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, dismisses the claims about Ida and includes on his website several important observations about this, and the fossil record in general, including the following that are worth consideration:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?" 6

Those who argue for intelligent design, as well as many who are in the evolutionist camp, clearly disagree with the findings of Hurum's team and the significance of these findings as regards any so-called missing link. In fact - at the risk of being too simplistic about all this - it seems that when it is all said and done, what everyone does agree on concerning Ida is that:

A fossil was found and has been purchased by the University of Oslo
The fossil is in an excellent state of preservation, with amazing detail for study
The fossil is of a lemur-like creature

After this, the facts are pretty much left up to speculation and the findings to debate. If one comes from a frame of reference that believes evolution is true, then one might tend to interpret these facts in such a way that they see a human in them there lemur-like bones. If one is coming from a creationist frame of reference then one will most likely see a lemur in the bones.

Concerning this find, David DeWitt of Creation Studies at Liberty University said, "They say 'we have proof' of the missing link. A few years later, they'll claim they have proof all over again. The important question is this: Where did the genetic information come from that produced that skeleton in the first place? It's not random chance." 7

It seems to me that it requires much more faith to believe that man originated from some goo that crawled out of the water and eventually became a monkey and then a man; rather than to believe man was created by God. Almost 2,000 years ago the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Rom 1:20 (NIV).

When we look at the world around us we would do well to recognize that everything in it cries out in support of intelligent design, a creator; rather than a world that came from mere happenstance. And I'm not "monkeying" around about that.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ ARTICLE CITED
1. The Guardian, May 19, 2009

2. National Geographic Online, May 19, 2009

3. The Independent, May 21, 2009
4. New Scientist, May 21, 2009
5. Miami Herald, May 20, 2009
6. Answers in Genesis
7. Washington Times, May 20, 2009