More news about Ida (is she “sweet as apple cider?) from Answers in Genesis

     Q: Ida: the Missing Link at Last? A: For all the headlines and proclamations, this "missing link" story includes an amazing amount of hot air. A story we first previewed on May 16 has since rocketed to the heights of media hype as a team of scientists reveals "Ida," the latest and greatest supposed missing link. But does Ida actually support "the evolution of early primates, and, ultimately, modern human beings," as one news outlet reported? Another reporter raved, "The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York." Formally identified as Darwinius masillae (in honor of Charles Darwin), the fossil originated in Germany and is purportedly 47 million years old. One scientist gave the find the nickname Ida (after his daughter). As for a more level-headed explanation of the evolutionary excitement, the Wall Street Journal reports: Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar. Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes, and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs. You can continue reading Answers in Genesis’s response to the news at Ida: the Missing Link at Last? and Ida: the Real Story of this "Scientific Breakthrough". . .

There is also a related item in News to Note,–9/05/23/news-to-note-05232009#one . By the way, to answer my previous question, the "scientists" know that the fossil is 47 million years old because it was found in 47 million year old rock. Then, when you ask them how they know the rock is 47 million years old, the answer is often that it has to be because it contains a 47 million year old fossil!

Missing link found?

     Recently, every mainstream news outlet that is carried by the various home pages that I use on my computer was heralding the fact that scientists had just unveiled the fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae, as the final missing link to prove evolution, and you have probably heard about it by now. Many carried a story by Samantha Strong and Rich Schapiro, New York Daily News writers, which began, "A team of researchers Tuesday unveiled an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes. Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws. Scientists say the cat-sized animal’s hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright – a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution." Of course, no one explains how they know beyond doubt that it is 47 million years old. One scientist said, "It is the scientific equivalent of the Holy Grail. This fossil will probably be the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next 100 years." Yea, like the Piltdown Man? Well, not everyone is blinded by all the hype. Drew Zahn of WorldNetDaily reported that Jonathan Wells, author and biologist at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, helped WND take a closer look at the science vs. hype debate. "I have in front of me the technical paper published about the specimen, a fossil primate that looks a lot like a lemur," Wells told WND. "Some of the people who analyzed this also claim [Ida] is not in the subgroup that includes lemurs, but is in the subgroup from which humans theoretically evolved. There are many primatologists who already disagree with that interpretation and see this as a lemur," Wells explained to WND. "That’s a controversy within the scientific community that has nothing to do with evolution, simply classification of the specimen." When WND asked Wells if this creature could have traits of both lemurs and apes, the biologist explained that even a combination of the two groups’ anatomy doesn’t necessarily mean that evolution used the animal as a "bridge" to cross from one to other. Similarity in animal traits, he explained, even in a theoretical "missing link," doesn’t prove evolution. And Allie Martin of OneNewsNow reported that Ken Ham, president of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, finds it ironic that the same scientists who initially unveiled the fossil, in a research paper detailing their findings, toned down their pronouncements after pressure from colleagues in the scientific community. "One of those reviewers said that…whether nor not it’s going to be a transitional form, or missing link, is a judgment for the scientific community," Ham states. "And he’s quoted as saying that [issue] will be sorted out, or at least debated extensively in the community for years, once the paper is published." Ham says the fossil is similar to a modern lemur, and in no way resembles a human skeleton. The ministry has stated: "Because 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." In fact, other news reports, citing Britain’s nature television star Sir David Attenborough’s announcement that "Ida," a lemur-like fossil that has been studied in secret for years, "is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them," say that the scientific report on the Ida findings – published in the online journal Public Library of Science One – countered the bold claims made by Attenborough and others in the news. "[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans]," states the report, "but we are not advocating this here." The British newspaper Guardian also reports that scientific reviewers of the research asked that others "tone down" claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line. So, don’t believe everything you hear in the mainstream media!

three quick items

     Something you may be interested in: I received the following e-mail notice on Tue., 5/19/09. "Hello, is a PreK through Grade 5 educational site for children. Please visit when you have a chance to see if it can help in your classroom. Thanks, ." I did check out the site, and those with younger children may find it useful.

     And something that you may want your public school officials to see: In an item headlined "Abstinence ed ‘outperforms’ comprehensive sex ed," Pete Chagnon of OneNewsNow reported on 5/19/2009 that according to a research analyst, comprehensive sex education does not outperform abstinence education. Irene Ericksen of the Institute for Research and Evaluation says that media reports continually claim that abstinence education is a failure and that comprehensive sex ed is the only way to reduce teen pregnancies and promote safe-sex practices. She adds that they continually site a federal study that is riddled with myths and did not find abstinence education effective. "These same people aren’t aware that there are 16 studies of comprehensive sex education programs in the schools," Ericksen points out. "Actually 64 percent of the studies that have been done of comprehensive sex ed in the schools have found that they have not been effective at increasing teen condom use." Ericksen notes that promoting condom use has not only proved to be ineffective, it also has adverse health effects. "Even when teens use condoms consistently and correctly, they don’t provide complete protection from STDs," she adds. "And there also is evidence that there is emotional harm that is occurring with teens when they’re having sex at this young age — that it’s not developmentally healthy for them." According to Ericksen, sexual activity is not appropriate for teenagers and they should be told in very strong terms to avoid such activity.

     Be careful with your children at the library: A Tuesday, Apr. 24, item headlined "Teenage Boys Discover Sex Book in Library," reported that a father in Bentonville, Arkansas, wants the city to pay him $20,000 after his two teenage sons stumbled onto a copy of Felice Newman’s The Whole Lesbian Sex Book and "looked at the book while the 14-year-old was browsing for material on military academies." As the father told Bentonville’s mayor, "My sons were greatly disturbed by viewing this material and this matter has caused many sleepless nights in our house."  The library’s advisory board has voted to "remove the book from circulation and find a similar resource book, if possible"—hoping to find what one board member describes as "a more sensitive, more clinical approach to the same material." So what does Newman have to say for all the sleepless nights she’s caused? "Boys have been poring over sexually explicit materials in libraries since—well, since there have been libraries," she says. "Why was a copy of my book in the military section? Well, sometimes young people browsing the library shelves will tuck away a favorite book where they can find it later. These two young guys are the very reason libraries must be uncensored, and librarians must be free to order the books they feel will benefit the public." My response to Newman–you’ve got to be kidding! "These two young guys are the very reason" that parents must be careful with their children at the library (except, perhaps, to a mind that’s already been perverted by sinful lust). At least the library seemed somewhat responsible in their actions.

Allow me to be completely political for just a moment

      According to an Associated Press item headlined "Obama to announce auto mileage, emissions standards" on Tue., 5/19/09 by Ken Thomas and Philip Elliot, "President Barack Obama’s new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016." Yes, you can mark it down as a universal truth that when the Democrats are in control, WATCH YOUR POCKETBOOK because you will be paying more and more and more through the nose for their projects.

How old does the earth look?

     Insisting that the earth and the universe are young, only 6,000 years old or so, does not make the biblical view popular in today’s enlightened "scientific" culture. It would be so easy just to go along with the view believed and followed by the overwhelming majority of scientists—and taught in nearly all universities and museums around the world—that the universe is 13–14 billion years old and the earth 4.5 billion years old. After all, many Christians and most scientists who are Christians believe in such a vast antiquity for the earth and universe. Consequently, they even insist the days in Genesis 1 were not literal days, but were countless millions of years long. Also, they claim the Genesis account of creation by God is just poetic and/or figurative, so it is not meant to be read as history. Of course, the reason for insisting on a young earth and universe is because other biblical authors took Genesis as literal history and an eyewitness account provided and guaranteed accurate by the Creator Himself (2 Timothy 3:16a; 2 Peter 1:21). Jesus also took Genesis as literal history (Mark 10:6–9; Matthew 19:4–5; Luke 17:27). So, the outcome of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is a young earth and universe. (You can continue reading expert geologist Andrew Snelling’s review in How Old Does the Earth Look? at .)

Now another reason to keep your child out of public school KINDERGARTEN!

     In an item headlined "Parents fight homosexual indoctrination of kindergarteners" Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow on 5/16/2009 reported that a California school district seems intent on teaching pre-school children to accept the homosexual lifestyle. The Alameda Unified School District announced it was considering a supplemental curriculum to eradicate "homophobia" in kindergarten children. Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), said the meeting room for the public session earlier this week was overcrowded with angry parents. "Nowhere at anytime did it give any protection for children being bullied because of their faith, their religion, their size, their race, ethnicity," he points out. "It is only going to give this special anti-bullying protection for homosexuals and transsexuals." Dacus said an attorney from PJI spoke before the board meeting. "And [the attorney] made it very clear that this is an abridgement and an affront to the neutral role that school districts are supposed to play in respecting the rights of parents and not to engage in such overt and open indoctrination and mandatory acceptance of such controversial, immoral lifestyles," he concludes. Parents cannot opt out their children from the curriculum. Dacus says it is important to remember that the children are kindergarten age, and many cannot even write their names — yet they are being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.  And if they try it in California, they will probably try it elsewhere too.

Home schoolers get ‘A’ from marketing exec

      Pete Chagnon of OneNewsNow reported the following on 5/14/2009. The chief operating officer of a marketing and networking firm is lauding the achievements of home schoolers. Josephine Nicholas is the CEO of Published Daily, a firm started by her brother and run with the help of two other siblings. All four were home-schooled. Josephine says, according to research, home schoolers typically score higher and are more ambitious than their peers. "Once they’re graduating — and many of them are actually graduating younger than their peers — and as they graduate they’re moving into society in general," she notes. "Whether it’s going and getting a job and really being productive in the work force, or actually many of them are creating their own jobs and creating jobs for others by starting their own businesses." Another area Josephine says home schoolers are very well-respected is in the area of public service. "…[T]hey are very interested in actively contributing to community service activities," she points out. "So rather than being very self[-focused] — you know, looking at themselves and finding what they can do for themselves — they’re actually giving back to their communities." She adds that their peers who are not home-schooled tend to be more complacent in this area.