The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public. One fossil does not represent a transitional species any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They're simply aberrations of nature.
You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.
There are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born deformed. In the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species.
There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.
Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.
Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms. Perhaps Ida was such a species. But evidence of evolution? There's absolutely nothing to indicate that.
Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.
Josh Greenberger, Yahoo! Voices 50 Comments
[3/11/2012 3:56:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 58
Look at that! Is it a bird? A plane?
No! It's the goal posts, being moved faster than the speed of sound!
3/11/2012 4:21:12 AM
Josh represents the fanciful speculations of a religious community determined to publicize its biased agenda.
3/11/2012 4:28:37 AM
So, life cycles evolved as much as final forms did. Did you notice how these creatures are viable through all their developmental stage? How they can transform entirely without being crippled freaks at any point? How that makes your previous notion that a transitional form would have be non-viable sound silly?
3/11/2012 4:59:46 AM
3/11/2012 5:12:06 AM
So, one fossil doesn't represent anything. But if some gullible guy in Texas sees Jesus in a tortilla, it's a miracle. Whatever.
3/11/2012 5:24:59 AM
This fellow has read just enough science to talk scientific-sounding gobbledegook. That means he at least knows that batrachians have evolved from salamander-like ancestors that retained their tails on metamorphosis and didn't hop, and that fully metamorphosing insects have developed from those who, like silverfish, had simpler structures and never metamorphosed at all, and that he learned his scientific-sounding gobbledegook expressly to lie about science.
3/11/2012 5:28:36 AM
3/11/2012 5:32:54 AM
Someone else who has no idea how evolution works.
I learnt this when I was 13. It's not exactly difficult. Unless you're wilfully misunderstanding it in order to cling to a creation myth, of course.
3/11/2012 5:42:24 AM
Everything alive (either that is now or was at some point in the past) is transitional between the previous and subsequent generations. That's the definition of transitional.
Don't you think scientists are aware of the possibility of deformities before making statements about which fossils are completely new species, and which ones should be categorized as the same species? More than once, there has been debate over whether a pair of dinosaur skulls belonged to different species or whether they were adult and child samples of the same species and some of them are still being debated hotly.
Of course, it's easy to attack the theory of evolution on the basis of missing fossils. But if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know that sufficient evidence exists for it, that we don't need a single fossil to "prove" it true.
3/11/2012 5:44:18 AM
So that's two fairly ridiculous explanations of why Ida doesn't represent a stage of human evolution in almost as many sentences. It's beginning to look slightly exactly like childish desperation. Just go full Luke Skywalker, its easier. "NOOOOOOO! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! WAAAAAAAH!"
3/11/2012 5:49:24 AM
Typical fundie: I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong. Praise Jeeezus!!!
3/11/2012 6:52:05 AM
"They're simply aberrations of nature."
And what happens when you find an entire archeological dig full of them? What, it was some sort of leper colony where all of us normal humans sent these "aberrations" to live?
"You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on."
We have those, generally.
"There are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born deformed. In the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species."
Usually because if they're "deformed" enough to not even appear biologically as a modern human they don't fucking live long enough to "change the course" of the species.
"There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa?"
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that how something looks determines whether or not it's a human or just an "aberration." There's more to it than just superficial characteristics, as you seem to think.
"Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis [...]"
Humans don't do this so this point is irrelevant.
"Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation ..."
Metamorphosis is not evolution.
"Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda."
Because scientists have absolutely nothing better to do.
3/11/2012 6:57:01 AM
And what happens when you find an entire archeological dig full of them?
I'd go find some palaeontologists. Archaeologists are shit at fossils.
3/11/2012 7:36:30 AM
Translation -- "I don't like where the evidence is leading so... there is no evidence."
3/11/2012 7:46:23 AM
There is more than just one fossil, idiot. (And technically, we have enough genetic evidence for evolution that fossils are just candy.)
3/11/2012 8:52:04 AM
This is what you get when your entire knowledge of biology was obtained from Answers in Genesis.
3/11/2012 8:56:09 AM
Someone could actually find 100 crocoducks, with a continuum from crocodile to duck, and guys like this would complain that they're just aberrations.
3/11/2012 9:00:57 AM
Creationist: If evolution is true, show me a transitional form.
Scientist: Okay, here's one.
Creationist: That's no transitional form, that's just a mutant!
Also, it's not said nearly enough... EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
3/11/2012 11:03:11 AM
You are obviously not qualified to have an opinion on this subject that is anything beyond biased speculation. Unfortunately, that does not stop you from foisting said opinion off as legitimate counterpoint to scientific evidence. In other words, show your work or shut the fuck up.
3/11/2012 11:05:55 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know what Ida is or how paleontology works. Here's the thing, Ida is not deformed, at all. I don't know what sort of monstrosity you're imagining, but Ida was a perfectly formed creature capable of living on its own and reproducing (it would have to be in order to be transitional). Once again creationists forget that evolution is a selective process, hence why we call it natural selection.
3/11/2012 11:16:58 AM
Josh hates it when people assault a gullible public.
3/11/2012 2:31:04 PM
"Are males evolving into females, or vise versa?"
We all started out female, Josh.
3/11/2012 5:29:16 PM
They said flat out what I had begun to suspect: They seriously believe evolution has to produce flipper babies with a 5 minute life expectancy before a practical adaptation manifests.
3/11/2012 5:56:30 PM
Actual evolution doesn't work like Pokemons, Josh...
3/11/2012 6:02:18 PM
Ok, take the David Duchovny "EVOLUTION" dvd out of the player.. and go read a freaking SCIENCE book! PLEASE!
3/11/2012 6:22:28 PM