We‚Äôre beginning to feel just a bit sorry for ‚ÄúIda‚ÄĚ the much bally-hooed fossil that less than a year ago was going to ‚Äúchange everything‚ÄĚ. Sure Ida wasn‚Äôt actually a human ancestor as a book, a TV special and a Museum of Natural History exhibit claimed (along with a passel of excited evolutionists)‚Äďbut in all fairness-there are no ancestors to humans. Even those millionaires over at Google were taken in, choosing to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Ida, however wasn’t two OO’s either.
How much dirt can you kick on someone‚Äôs grave/burial location? We‚Äôve already dealt with the Ida fallout and how evolutionists were interrupted in the middle of their joyful ‚Äútake that creationists‚ÄĚ dance in our Top 12 Science Stories for Creationists in 2009 posting, but what we did find interesting here is that in ScienceDaily‚Äôs continued burying of the fossil, they could not bring themselves to use that famous Ida name in the entire piece; preferring the more scientific name, “Darwinius” only‚Ä¶.s8int.com
‚ÄėMissing Link‚Äô Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say
ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)
‚ÄúIn an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.
‚Ä¶Last spring‚Äôs much-publicized article on Darwinius was released in conjunction with a book, a History Channel documentary, and an exhibit in the American Museum of Natural History. At a news conference attended by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the authors unveiled the nearly complete fossil of a nine-month-old female primate that had been found at the site of Messel in Germany.
..They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúMany lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution,‚ÄĚ says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin