InícioÚltimos assuntos
Tópicos mais visitados
Tópicos mais ativos
SEU IP
Darwinius masillae, mais um 'elo perdido' que vai pra lata de lixo da História da Ciência
Página 1 de 1
04032010
Darwinius masillae, mais um 'elo perdido' que vai pra lata de lixo da História da Ciência
'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say
ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010) — A fossil that was celebrated last year as a possible "missing link" between humans and early primates is actually a forebearer of modern-day lemurs and lorises, according to two papers by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago.
In 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.
Radiographs of the type specimen of Darwinius masillae, new genus and species, from Messel in Germany. (Credit: Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W, et al. Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4(5): e5723 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005723)
They also note that the article onDarwinius 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.
"Many lines of evidence indicate thatDarwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin. "Every year, scientists describe new fossils that contribute to our understanding of primate evolution. What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Science Daily
+++++
Darwinius masillae is a strepsirrhine—a reply to Franzen et al. (2009)
Blythe A. Williamsa, , , Richard F. Kaya, E. Christopher Kirkb andCallum F. Rossc
a Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
b Department of Anthropology University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA
c Department of Organismal Biology & Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Received 28 June 2009;
accepted 2 November 2009.
Available online 26 February 2010.
Keywords: Primate phylogeny; Anthropoid origins; Eocene
+++++
Professores, pesquisadores e alunos de universidades públicas e privadas com acesso ao site CAPES/Periódicos pode ler gratuitamente este artigo do Journal of Human Evolution e de mais 22.440 publicações científicas.
Darwinius masillae, mais um 'elo perdido' que vai pra lata de lixo da História da Ciência
Alegações criacionistas confirmadas: Ida não faz parte da família humana
O frenesim mediático à volta da apresentação da Ida (Darwinius masillae) como um parente distante dos humanos está totalmente refutado.
Muitas linhas de evidência indicam que Darwinius não tem nada a ver com a evolução humana.Isto foi afirmado por Chris Kirk (U de Texas) num artigo na Science Daily. Pesquisadores que apresentaram a sua análise no jornal científico Journal of Human Evolution acusaram a apresentação de ignorar décadas de pesquisas e um enorme corpo de literatura sobre a temática da evolução dos strepsirrines, um grupo primatas que inclui os lémures.
O descobridor da Ida alegou que o fóssil por si achado tinha características que sugeriam uma linhagem com os haplorines (macacos, humanos, etc). O artigo diz que:
(....) no entanto, Kirk, Williams e os seus colegas ressalvam que focinhos pequenos e mandíbulas profundas são reconhecidas como havendo evoluído várias vezes entre os primatas, incluindo várias vezes dentro da linhagem dos lémures...... Eles acrescentam ainda que Darwinius não tem os traços anatómicos chave que poderiam demonstrar uma relação evolutiva próxima com os haplorinis.Os anúncios à volta da Ida incluíram um livro, um documentário no Canal História e uma exibição no Museu de História Natural Americano. O Mayor Michael Bloomberg levantou o véu sobre o espécimen numa conferência de imprensa em Nova York.
O autor principal do artigo ressalva que "só porque é um fóssil completo e bem preservado não significa que vai destronar todas as nossas ideias."
É sempre bom quando evolucionistas criticam as alegações fantásticas de outros evolucionistas, mas de que serve substituir uma mentira por outra mentira? Ida nada tem a ver com a evolução do homem porque a evolução nada tem a ver com a realidade.
Um mamífero muito bem arquitectado viveu e morreu. Algumas variações existiram entre os tipos de primatas. Isto é o que um cientista que se restringe às observações diria.
Reparem como a equipa de reportagem fez uma alusão a "evolução convergente": "reconhecidas como havendo evoluído várias vezes entre os primatas". Reconhecidas?! A sério? Ou é mais um mito até que uma nova "Ida" apareça?
Da próxima vez que os nossos amigos ateus exibirem mais um fóssil como sendo "evidência" contra a Bíblia e a favor da evolução, não se esqueçam que os fósseis evolutivos tem prazo de validade. Hoje é verdade, mas amanhã já é mentira.
Carlstadt- Administrador
- Mensagens : 1031
Idade : 48
Inscrição : 19/04/2008
Compartilhar este artigo em:
Darwinius masillae, mais um 'elo perdido' que vai pra lata de lixo da História da Ciência :: Comentários
Qui Mar 04, 2010 9:56 pm por Carlstadt
Aconteceu outra vez. Sim. Aconteceu mais uma vez os darwinistas rejeitarem mais um fóssil que eles propagaram como sendo "o tal" no que toca à evolução humana. (Alguém está a tomar nota disto?)
De certo que todos nós nos lembramos da comoção e emoção com que o fóssil com o nome de "Ida" foi anunciado pelos darwinistas como sendo uma das peças que faltava na suposta evolução humana. Jornais, museus e todos os suspeitos do costume elevaram a Ida para o lugar que previamente pertencia ao fóssil com o nome de Lucy.
Mas, tal como todos os outros fósseis usados pelos darwinistas, a Ida nada mais foi que uma peça de publicidade.
Incrível a quantidade de falsa informação que a crença evolucionista levanta em torno de si. Existe algum outro ramo da ciência que sobreviva a tal dilúvio de informação falsa?
A lição que se aprende com mais este fiasco evolucionista é que as opiniões humanas são falíveis e inconstantes. Para quê basear o nosso futuro eterno em algo tão frágil? Não há necessidade de se acomodar a teoria da evolução com a Palavra de Deus, porque enquanto que uma tem sido empiricamente falsificada, a outra tem-se mostrado de acordo com as descobertas e com as observações.
Evolution: A Theory Headed for Extinction?
[url=http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427[/url]
[url=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-scientific-impossibility-of-evolution/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-scientific-impossibility-of-evolution/[/url]
DARWIN WAS WRONG
[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html[/url]
Read more here/Leia mais aqui
http://designinteligente.blogspot.com/2009/10/impossibilidade-cientifica-da-evolucao.html
De certo que todos nós nos lembramos da comoção e emoção com que o fóssil com o nome de "Ida" foi anunciado pelos darwinistas como sendo uma das peças que faltava na suposta evolução humana. Jornais, museus e todos os suspeitos do costume elevaram a Ida para o lugar que previamente pertencia ao fóssil com o nome de Lucy.
Mas, tal como todos os outros fósseis usados pelos darwinistas, a Ida nada mais foi que uma peça de publicidade.
Um grupo independente de cientistas analisou o fóssil de primata propagandeado em maio deste ano como "o elo perdido" da evolução humana e chegou a uma conclusão não muito empolgante: o bicho é provavelmente só um primo antigo e esquisito dos lêmures.E pronto. Este fóssil que os crentes evolucionistas anunciavam como um elo perdido provavelmente é só "um primo antigo" dos lemúres.
Incrível a quantidade de falsa informação que a crença evolucionista levanta em torno de si. Existe algum outro ramo da ciência que sobreviva a tal dilúvio de informação falsa?
Se eles estiverem corretos, o alarde midiático organizado em torno de "Ida, o elo perdido", ou Darwinius masillae, como o animal foi batizado oficialmente, pode se tornar um dos casos clássicos em que a vontade de chamar a atenção do público atropelou a ciênciaAtropelar a ciência é algo que a teoria da evolução tem feito desde o princípio, e como tal não devemos ficar surpreendidos quando isso acontece.
Afinal, a descrição científica de Ida foi coreografada com o lançamento de documentários, sites, livros e de um evento para a imprensa no qual os pesquisadores responsáveis por estudá-la compararam o fóssil com a Mona Lisa e com o Santo Graal, afirmando que ele mudava tudo o que se sabia sobre a evolução humanaEsqueçam tudo o que aprenderam! E vejam também 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, e 9.
A lição que se aprende com mais este fiasco evolucionista é que as opiniões humanas são falíveis e inconstantes. Para quê basear o nosso futuro eterno em algo tão frágil? Não há necessidade de se acomodar a teoria da evolução com a Palavra de Deus, porque enquanto que uma tem sido empiricamente falsificada, a outra tem-se mostrado de acordo com as descobertas e com as observações.
Evolution: A Theory Headed for Extinction?
[url=http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427[/url]
[url=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-scientific-impossibility-of-evolution/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-scientific-impossibility-of-evolution/[/url]
DARWIN WAS WRONG
[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html[/url]
Read more here/Leia mais aqui
http://designinteligente.blogspot.com/2009/10/impossibilidade-cientifica-da-evolucao.html
Qui Mar 04, 2010 9:57 pm por Carlstadt
A descrição científica de Ida foi coreografada com o lançamento de documentários, sites, livros e de um evento para a imprensa no qual os pesquisadores responsáveis por estudá-la compararam o fóssil com a Mona Lisa e com o Santo Graal, afirmando que ele mudava tudo o que se sabia sobre a evolução humana. Pela primeira vez na história dos doodles (pelo menos que eu me lembre), o Google não homenageia um evento passado, e sim uma notícia atual.
Leia também:
Time denuncia o SENSACIONALISMO DA MÍDIA em torno do Darwinius
O Lemur IDA e a manipulação dos meios de comunicação
Darwinius masillae (Ida) - Ciência ou Espectáculo Midiático ?
Darwinius masillae foi pro saco como elo transitivo da evolução humana
Vocês se lembram do Darwinius masillae que foi trombeteado como um elo transitivo na evolução humana? Ele foi pro saco! E foi rapidamente, nem deu tempo de gozar seus 15 minutos de fama evolutiva!
+++++
Nature Volume 461 Number 7267 pp1027-1162
(subscription needed)
Fossil primate challenges Ida's place
Controversial German specimen is related to lemurs, not humans, analysis of an Egyptian find suggests.
Rex Dalton
A 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today inNature1, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.
Teeth and ankle bones of the new Egyptian specimen show that the 47-million-year-old Ida, formally called Darwinius masillae, is not in the lineage of early apes and monkeys (haplorhines), but instead belongs to ancestors (adapiforms) of today's lemurs and lorises.
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Professores, pesquisadores e alunos de universidades públicas e privadas com acesso ao site CAPES/Periódicos podem ler gratuitamente este artigo da Nature e de muitas outras publicações científicas.
A boa ciência derrubou Darwinius masillae do pedestal transitivo da evolução humana
Bone Crunching Debunks ‘First Monkey’ Ida Fossil Hype
By Brandon Keim October 21, 2009 | 1:42 pm | Categories: Anthropology
Originally promoted as the stem of the primate family tree, it now appears that Darwinius masillae — better known as “Ida,” the fossil that “changes everything” — belonged to a fringe branch.
This is the conclusion of researchers who analyzed primate fossils to determine where their own discovery, dubbed Afradapis and closely related to Darwinius, belongs on the tree. Far from spawning the ancestors of humans, the 47 million-year-old Darwinius seems merely to have gone extinct, leaving no descendants.
“It’s the first phylogenetic analysis of this important animal,” said study co-author Jonathan Perry, a Midwestern University paleoanthropologist. “By our analysis, the taxon Darwinius does not appear to be” at the root of all simians, said Perry. “It’s on the opposite side of the tree.”
The analysis of Perry’s team, published Wednesday in Nature, would likely be of purely academic interest had Darwinius been introduced according to paleontological custom. That would have been in carefully written papers presented for review to the scientific community, who already had some informal familiarity with the research. But that’s precisely what didn’t happen.
Known from a single specimen purchased by the University of Oslo from a private fossil collector and studied in total secrecy, Darwinius was announced to the world at a May press conference featuring New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. The scientific article describing Darwinius, published in PLoS ONE, came after the TV special and book, both entitled The Link.
“This is the first link to all humans,” said Jørn Hurum, a member of the Darwinius team, at the press conference. His colleague Jens Franzen likened its scientific impact to “an asteroid falling down to Earth.” Hurum said the fossil, named “Ida” in honor of his daughter, would be a paleontological “Mona Lisa for the next 100 years.” Ida was front-page news; Google celebrated it with an iconic logo cartoon. The only people unimpressed by their conclusions were scientists.
As prominent paleontologists soon pointed out, Hurum’s team was pushing a theory that most researchers had already dismissed, that anthropoids — monkeys and apes, including ourselves — are descended from lemur-like members of a primate subfamily called adapids, of which Darwinius was one.
According to Hurum’s team, Darwinius possessed many of the physical traits expected in the earliest ancestral anthropoid, so it must be that ancestor. And since Darwinius was clearly an adapid, then adapids were at the root of the anthropoids. But their paper made no reference to extensive fossil and genetic evidence suggesting otherwise.
At the time, asked by The New York Times about his team’s promotion, Hurum said that “any pop band is doing the same thing,” and that “we have to start thinking the same way in science.” Contacted by e-mail about the Nature study, he said, “At last the scientific discussion starts!”
The Nature paper marks the debut of another adapiform, called Afradapis and known from a handful of fossil teeth and jawbone fragments gathered over the last several years in Egypt.
To better understand Afradapis’ place in the primate narrative, Perry’s team studied fossil measurements gathered from 117 living and extinct primate species. In what’s known as a cladistic analysis, they ran the measurements through a computer program that determined the most likely evolutionary configuration of the species.
No such analysis was performed by Hurum’s team on Darwinius. And according to Perry’s cladistics, both Darwinius and Afradapis are located where conventional wisdom expected them to be — on an early twig of the branch that produced lemurs, and far from the lineage that spawned monkeys and great apes.
The study “is spot-on in its interpretation of the phylogenetic position of Darwinius,” said Richard Kay, a Duke University evolutionary anthropologist whose review of The Link was entitled, “Much Hype and Many Errors.”
Christopher Beard, a Carnegie Museum of Natural History paleontologist who originally called Darwinius “a third cousin twice removed,” also agreed with the Nature results. Darwinius “is only very distantly related to living and fossil anthropoids,” said Beard.
Hurum retorted that “there’s a lot of ways to do cladistics,” and said the Nature authors used only some of their Darwinius measurements, ostensibly omitting those that might have provided a different evolutionary narrative.
Philip Gingerich, a University of Michigan paleontologist and member of the Darwinius team, said the Nature team’s explanation of Afradapis was “implausible,” given how much it looks like a monkey — and Darwinius looks even more monkey-like.
This back-and-forth is typical of science and especially paleoanthropology, a research field predicated on competing interpretations of tiny bone fragments. It’s also the sort of dialogue that was missing from Darwinius’ overhyped debut.
“Ultimately it’s about science, and how sound the science is,” said Perry.
Images:
1. Darwinius masillae, from PLoS ONE.
2. The adapiform branch of the primate family tree, from Nature. D. masillae is highlighted, and located beside Afradapis; the great apes, including humans, trace their origins to the stem and crown Anthropoidea.
+++++
Source/Fonte.
Leia também:
Time denuncia o SENSACIONALISMO DA MÍDIA em torno do Darwinius
O Lemur IDA e a manipulação dos meios de comunicação
Darwinius masillae (Ida) - Ciência ou Espectáculo Midiático ?
Darwinius masillae foi pro saco como elo transitivo da evolução humana
Vocês se lembram do Darwinius masillae que foi trombeteado como um elo transitivo na evolução humana? Ele foi pro saco! E foi rapidamente, nem deu tempo de gozar seus 15 minutos de fama evolutiva!
+++++
Nature Volume 461 Number 7267 pp1027-1162
(subscription needed)
Fossil primate challenges Ida's place
Controversial German specimen is related to lemurs, not humans, analysis of an Egyptian find suggests.
Rex Dalton
A 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today inNature1, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.
Teeth and ankle bones of the new Egyptian specimen show that the 47-million-year-old Ida, formally called Darwinius masillae, is not in the lineage of early apes and monkeys (haplorhines), but instead belongs to ancestors (adapiforms) of today's lemurs and lorises.
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Professores, pesquisadores e alunos de universidades públicas e privadas com acesso ao site CAPES/Periódicos podem ler gratuitamente este artigo da Nature e de muitas outras publicações científicas.
A boa ciência derrubou Darwinius masillae do pedestal transitivo da evolução humana
Bone Crunching Debunks ‘First Monkey’ Ida Fossil Hype
By Brandon Keim October 21, 2009 | 1:42 pm | Categories: Anthropology
Originally promoted as the stem of the primate family tree, it now appears that Darwinius masillae — better known as “Ida,” the fossil that “changes everything” — belonged to a fringe branch.
This is the conclusion of researchers who analyzed primate fossils to determine where their own discovery, dubbed Afradapis and closely related to Darwinius, belongs on the tree. Far from spawning the ancestors of humans, the 47 million-year-old Darwinius seems merely to have gone extinct, leaving no descendants.
“It’s the first phylogenetic analysis of this important animal,” said study co-author Jonathan Perry, a Midwestern University paleoanthropologist. “By our analysis, the taxon Darwinius does not appear to be” at the root of all simians, said Perry. “It’s on the opposite side of the tree.”
The analysis of Perry’s team, published Wednesday in Nature, would likely be of purely academic interest had Darwinius been introduced according to paleontological custom. That would have been in carefully written papers presented for review to the scientific community, who already had some informal familiarity with the research. But that’s precisely what didn’t happen.
Known from a single specimen purchased by the University of Oslo from a private fossil collector and studied in total secrecy, Darwinius was announced to the world at a May press conference featuring New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. The scientific article describing Darwinius, published in PLoS ONE, came after the TV special and book, both entitled The Link.
“This is the first link to all humans,” said Jørn Hurum, a member of the Darwinius team, at the press conference. His colleague Jens Franzen likened its scientific impact to “an asteroid falling down to Earth.” Hurum said the fossil, named “Ida” in honor of his daughter, would be a paleontological “Mona Lisa for the next 100 years.” Ida was front-page news; Google celebrated it with an iconic logo cartoon. The only people unimpressed by their conclusions were scientists.
As prominent paleontologists soon pointed out, Hurum’s team was pushing a theory that most researchers had already dismissed, that anthropoids — monkeys and apes, including ourselves — are descended from lemur-like members of a primate subfamily called adapids, of which Darwinius was one.
According to Hurum’s team, Darwinius possessed many of the physical traits expected in the earliest ancestral anthropoid, so it must be that ancestor. And since Darwinius was clearly an adapid, then adapids were at the root of the anthropoids. But their paper made no reference to extensive fossil and genetic evidence suggesting otherwise.
At the time, asked by The New York Times about his team’s promotion, Hurum said that “any pop band is doing the same thing,” and that “we have to start thinking the same way in science.” Contacted by e-mail about the Nature study, he said, “At last the scientific discussion starts!”
The Nature paper marks the debut of another adapiform, called Afradapis and known from a handful of fossil teeth and jawbone fragments gathered over the last several years in Egypt.
To better understand Afradapis’ place in the primate narrative, Perry’s team studied fossil measurements gathered from 117 living and extinct primate species. In what’s known as a cladistic analysis, they ran the measurements through a computer program that determined the most likely evolutionary configuration of the species.
No such analysis was performed by Hurum’s team on Darwinius. And according to Perry’s cladistics, both Darwinius and Afradapis are located where conventional wisdom expected them to be — on an early twig of the branch that produced lemurs, and far from the lineage that spawned monkeys and great apes.
The study “is spot-on in its interpretation of the phylogenetic position of Darwinius,” said Richard Kay, a Duke University evolutionary anthropologist whose review of The Link was entitled, “Much Hype and Many Errors.”
Christopher Beard, a Carnegie Museum of Natural History paleontologist who originally called Darwinius “a third cousin twice removed,” also agreed with the Nature results. Darwinius “is only very distantly related to living and fossil anthropoids,” said Beard.
Hurum retorted that “there’s a lot of ways to do cladistics,” and said the Nature authors used only some of their Darwinius measurements, ostensibly omitting those that might have provided a different evolutionary narrative.
Philip Gingerich, a University of Michigan paleontologist and member of the Darwinius team, said the Nature team’s explanation of Afradapis was “implausible,” given how much it looks like a monkey — and Darwinius looks even more monkey-like.
This back-and-forth is typical of science and especially paleoanthropology, a research field predicated on competing interpretations of tiny bone fragments. It’s also the sort of dialogue that was missing from Darwinius’ overhyped debut.
“Ultimately it’s about science, and how sound the science is,” said Perry.
Images:
1. Darwinius masillae, from PLoS ONE.
2. The adapiform branch of the primate family tree, from Nature. D. masillae is highlighted, and located beside Afradapis; the great apes, including humans, trace their origins to the stem and crown Anthropoidea.
+++++
Source/Fonte.
Qui Mar 04, 2010 9:59 pm por Carlstadt
Ida: o elo de transição evolutiva mais frágil
The Weakest Link
Chris Beard
THE LINK: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor. Colin Tudge, with Josh Young. x + 262 pp. Little, Brown and Company, 2009. $25.99.
Recent events cause me to wonder whether we are in the midst of an arms race being waged by various scientists and their marketing gurus over how best to communicate results to the lay public. A case in point is the commotion over the Eocene primate skeleton known as Ida. At roughly 47 million years old, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen of a juvenile female primate from the Messel Pit, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Germany, near Frankfurt. Variously hailed as “the Holy Grail of paleontology,” “the eighth wonder of the world” and a “Rosetta stone” for reconstructing our distant ancestry, the fossil made its public debut at a gala event at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on May 19, 2009. A press conference at the museum coincided precisely with the online publication of a technical paper describing the fossil in the journal PLoS One. By the time the press conference had ended, a glitzy Web site promoting the fossil had gone live, a television documentary was being advertised on the History Channel, and thousands of copies of The Link, a book describing the discovery, had been distributed to retail outlets worldwide.
The fossil Ida is paradoxical on several levels, and so is this book. Perhaps the most perplexing question is why any paleontologist fortunate enough to acquire such a fossil—which some have likened to the Mona Lisa and the Lost Ark—would refrain from writing his own book about it, opting instead to farm the project out to professional writers Colin Tudge and Josh Young. Back in 1981 Donald Johanson coauthored what still stands as the definitive book in this genre, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. During that bygone era before the Internet abbreviated our collective attention span, Johanson and his colleagues could afford to let precious years elapse between the publication of their initial technical analyses and the popular book. Apparently time was of the essence in writing and publishing The Link.
In many ways, this book stands as further testimony to the old adage that haste makes waste. It is riddled with errors. These range from the relatively trivial but geographically challenged claim that the monkey-eating eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi inhabits South America (these majestic birds are actually confined to the Philippines) to the more fundamental but no less mistaken contention that “Ida herself is the only nearly complete fossil primate ever found.” The latter assertion would no doubt surprise the legendary comparative anatomist William King Gregory, who described exquisitely complete skeletons of the closely related and equally ancient primate Notharctus in 1920. Much closer to us in terms of time and evolutionary position is the late Miocene ape Oreopithecus bambolii, which is also documented by a relatively complete skeleton, even if it—like Ida—is nearly two-dimensional.
The Link begins by painting a highly anthropomorphized portrait of Ida as a “petite being” no more than “two feet tall” bearing “opposable thumbs.” This depiction is intended to heighten the drama of poor Ida’s untimely demise (she was less than a year old). I doubt that many of us would describe our house cats as petite beings that stand two feet tall. Yet in terms of Ida’s general posture and brain size, she was clearly more catlike than humanlike. The exact circumstances surrounding Ida’s death approximately 47 million years ago remain unknown. The vivid speculative account provided in The Link agrees with what we know about the geologic history of the ancient lake that would later become the Messel oil shale pit: Magma from beneath the lake probably leaked carbon dioxide into the water, and Ida may have been killed by a cloud of carbon dioxide gas rising from the lake.
Ida’s fossilized remains came into the possession of Jørn Hurum, a paleontologist based at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo in Norway, through a circuitous path. The specimen was allegedly unearthed sometime in 1982 by an unidentified private collector. Whoever found Ida did so by splitting apart chunks of the Messel oil shale. This process typically divides fossils into a “part” and a “counterpart,” each of which contains a fraction of the original skeleton. The less photogenic slab was spruced up to make it appear more complete than it really was; it was then sold to a private museum in Wyoming. Its complement, containing most of Ida’s skeleton, was kept in a private collection until Hurum learned about it at a “fossil fair” in Hamburg, Germany, in 2006 and arranged for the University of Oslo to purchase it.
These commercial transactions expose the seedy underbelly of paleontology. Many academic paleontologists, myself included, disapprove of treating fossils like commodities. Paying large sums of money for fossils inevitably encourages nonscientific collecting. All too often, this results in the permanent loss of critical data, including information on the fossil’s exact age, its depositional context, associated fauna and flora, and so forth. Equally important, when academic paleontologists have to compete with collectors whose sole motivation is a financial incentive, the academics often lose access to important fossils or entire fossil sites. Among the most disheartening effects of the media campaign surrounding Ida is the widespread knowledge that extraordinary fossil primates can command a substantial premium on the open market.
The bulk of The Link is devoted to fleshing out Ida’s fossilized remains. To do so, Hurum assembled what he has referred to as a “dream team” of paleontologists. Their analyses suggest that Ida was a vegetarian (her stomach contents indicate that her last meal consisted of fruit and leaves), that she moved about her arboreal domain by making acrobatic leaps from tree to tree, and that she was already injured when she died. They interpret Ida as belonging to a new genus and species of adapiform primate, Darwinius masillae (awkwardly, this name never actually appears in the book, which was written and printed prior to the online technical publication in which the taxon was formally proposed).
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Eu tenho um amigo cientista que afirmou certa vez: "A cada seis meses, os paleoantropólogos anunciam a descoberta de mais um elo de transição evolutiva". Eu acho que ele tem razão. Depois do fiasco de Ida, eles anunciaram Ardi que, para mim, segundo a Lei de Standish (nome deste meu amigo cientista), será demovida do seu pedestal darwianiano de elos transitivos.
Quem viver, verá!!!
IDA Darwinius Masillae, mais uma mentira dos Darwinistas
LEIA AQUI
The Weakest Link
Chris Beard
THE LINK: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor. Colin Tudge, with Josh Young. x + 262 pp. Little, Brown and Company, 2009. $25.99.
Recent events cause me to wonder whether we are in the midst of an arms race being waged by various scientists and their marketing gurus over how best to communicate results to the lay public. A case in point is the commotion over the Eocene primate skeleton known as Ida. At roughly 47 million years old, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen of a juvenile female primate from the Messel Pit, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Germany, near Frankfurt. Variously hailed as “the Holy Grail of paleontology,” “the eighth wonder of the world” and a “Rosetta stone” for reconstructing our distant ancestry, the fossil made its public debut at a gala event at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on May 19, 2009. A press conference at the museum coincided precisely with the online publication of a technical paper describing the fossil in the journal PLoS One. By the time the press conference had ended, a glitzy Web site promoting the fossil had gone live, a television documentary was being advertised on the History Channel, and thousands of copies of The Link, a book describing the discovery, had been distributed to retail outlets worldwide.
The fossil Ida is paradoxical on several levels, and so is this book. Perhaps the most perplexing question is why any paleontologist fortunate enough to acquire such a fossil—which some have likened to the Mona Lisa and the Lost Ark—would refrain from writing his own book about it, opting instead to farm the project out to professional writers Colin Tudge and Josh Young. Back in 1981 Donald Johanson coauthored what still stands as the definitive book in this genre, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. During that bygone era before the Internet abbreviated our collective attention span, Johanson and his colleagues could afford to let precious years elapse between the publication of their initial technical analyses and the popular book. Apparently time was of the essence in writing and publishing The Link.
In many ways, this book stands as further testimony to the old adage that haste makes waste. It is riddled with errors. These range from the relatively trivial but geographically challenged claim that the monkey-eating eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi inhabits South America (these majestic birds are actually confined to the Philippines) to the more fundamental but no less mistaken contention that “Ida herself is the only nearly complete fossil primate ever found.” The latter assertion would no doubt surprise the legendary comparative anatomist William King Gregory, who described exquisitely complete skeletons of the closely related and equally ancient primate Notharctus in 1920. Much closer to us in terms of time and evolutionary position is the late Miocene ape Oreopithecus bambolii, which is also documented by a relatively complete skeleton, even if it—like Ida—is nearly two-dimensional.
The Link begins by painting a highly anthropomorphized portrait of Ida as a “petite being” no more than “two feet tall” bearing “opposable thumbs.” This depiction is intended to heighten the drama of poor Ida’s untimely demise (she was less than a year old). I doubt that many of us would describe our house cats as petite beings that stand two feet tall. Yet in terms of Ida’s general posture and brain size, she was clearly more catlike than humanlike. The exact circumstances surrounding Ida’s death approximately 47 million years ago remain unknown. The vivid speculative account provided in The Link agrees with what we know about the geologic history of the ancient lake that would later become the Messel oil shale pit: Magma from beneath the lake probably leaked carbon dioxide into the water, and Ida may have been killed by a cloud of carbon dioxide gas rising from the lake.
Ida’s fossilized remains came into the possession of Jørn Hurum, a paleontologist based at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo in Norway, through a circuitous path. The specimen was allegedly unearthed sometime in 1982 by an unidentified private collector. Whoever found Ida did so by splitting apart chunks of the Messel oil shale. This process typically divides fossils into a “part” and a “counterpart,” each of which contains a fraction of the original skeleton. The less photogenic slab was spruced up to make it appear more complete than it really was; it was then sold to a private museum in Wyoming. Its complement, containing most of Ida’s skeleton, was kept in a private collection until Hurum learned about it at a “fossil fair” in Hamburg, Germany, in 2006 and arranged for the University of Oslo to purchase it.
These commercial transactions expose the seedy underbelly of paleontology. Many academic paleontologists, myself included, disapprove of treating fossils like commodities. Paying large sums of money for fossils inevitably encourages nonscientific collecting. All too often, this results in the permanent loss of critical data, including information on the fossil’s exact age, its depositional context, associated fauna and flora, and so forth. Equally important, when academic paleontologists have to compete with collectors whose sole motivation is a financial incentive, the academics often lose access to important fossils or entire fossil sites. Among the most disheartening effects of the media campaign surrounding Ida is the widespread knowledge that extraordinary fossil primates can command a substantial premium on the open market.
The bulk of The Link is devoted to fleshing out Ida’s fossilized remains. To do so, Hurum assembled what he has referred to as a “dream team” of paleontologists. Their analyses suggest that Ida was a vegetarian (her stomach contents indicate that her last meal consisted of fruit and leaves), that she moved about her arboreal domain by making acrobatic leaps from tree to tree, and that she was already injured when she died. They interpret Ida as belonging to a new genus and species of adapiform primate, Darwinius masillae (awkwardly, this name never actually appears in the book, which was written and printed prior to the online technical publication in which the taxon was formally proposed).
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Eu tenho um amigo cientista que afirmou certa vez: "A cada seis meses, os paleoantropólogos anunciam a descoberta de mais um elo de transição evolutiva". Eu acho que ele tem razão. Depois do fiasco de Ida, eles anunciaram Ardi que, para mim, segundo a Lei de Standish (nome deste meu amigo cientista), será demovida do seu pedestal darwianiano de elos transitivos.
Quem viver, verá!!!
IDA Darwinius Masillae, mais uma mentira dos Darwinistas
LEIA AQUI
Qui Mar 04, 2010 9:59 pm por Carlstadt
O fóssil Darwinius masillae: mais uma mentira para provar o fato, Fato, FATO da evolução???
Fonte: Google
Plate B (Figs. 1,2), originally described by Franzen [18] as the sixth Messel primate (Table 1), had a curious history. It was purchased in 1991 by Dr. Burghard Pohl for the Wyoming Dinosaur Center at Thermopolis, Wyoming. This plate holds a partial skeleton viewed from the left side, embedded in a plate of polyester. Franzen [18] showed that some of the specimen is real, WHILE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS WERE FAKED TO GIVE AN ILLUSION OF GREATER COMPLETENESS [NOTA BENE: As partes foram forjadas para darem a ilusão de maior completude.]. Working from what was available, Franzen attributed the specimen to the species “Pronycticebus neglectus” (THALMANN, HAUBOLD & MARTIN, 1989) described from Geiseltal [22]. He first placed the species in Caenopithecus, and then assigned it to a new genus Godinotia [1].
Foto: Tama/Getty Fonte.
Plate A (Figs. 1,2) described here, became available for sale and was purchased in 2007 by the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). This plate, showing a skeleton from the right side, proves to be the hitherto unknown and much more complete counterpart of the Wyoming Plate B. Careful study and comparison of the new and more complete plate indicates that the specimen cannot belong to Godinotia neglectus (see below).
The Oslo specimen, plate A, clarifies exactly which parts of plate B were faked, including notably, hands and feet (where some proportions of constructions may have been based on reversed photos of A) and the tail vertebral column. Traces on the surrounding polyester resin background suggest that a cast of the tail of another mammal was inserted into plate B. Additional parts such as the vertebrae between sections 1 and 2 as well the nasal part of the skull on plate B were simply fabricated. [NOTA BENE 2: ALGUMAS PEÇAS FORAM FORJADAS!!! Que ciência é esta que forja partes dos fósseis PARA DAR A ILUSÃO de completude. O nome disso é mágica!]
The almost complete skeleton on plate A has been well prepared, and it also lies on a polyester resin background. Preservation is unique. The cranium is compressed, but a combination of plates A and B shows virtually the entire dentition. Plate A also shows almost the entire right side of the body and several parts of the left side of the body that are missing on plate B. Only the distal part of the left leg is missing on both plates. Thus the skeleton of Darwinius masillae is much more complete than any known for Notharctus Gregory 1920 [23], and in addition it is unique in exhibiting the entire soft body outline as well as contents of the digestive system [24].
Fonte: PlosOne
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Desde 1859 os discípulos de Darwin saíram adoidadamente atrás do elo perdido. Já forjaram alguns desses elos. Aqui neste caso, nós temos uma pesquisa científica com o aval de cientistas de renome. Louve-se a honestidade deles em reconhecer que parte do fóssil foi FORJADA para dar uma certa impressão.
Pobre Darwin...
Fonte: Google
Plate B (Figs. 1,2), originally described by Franzen [18] as the sixth Messel primate (Table 1), had a curious history. It was purchased in 1991 by Dr. Burghard Pohl for the Wyoming Dinosaur Center at Thermopolis, Wyoming. This plate holds a partial skeleton viewed from the left side, embedded in a plate of polyester. Franzen [18] showed that some of the specimen is real, WHILE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS WERE FAKED TO GIVE AN ILLUSION OF GREATER COMPLETENESS [NOTA BENE: As partes foram forjadas para darem a ilusão de maior completude.]. Working from what was available, Franzen attributed the specimen to the species “Pronycticebus neglectus” (THALMANN, HAUBOLD & MARTIN, 1989) described from Geiseltal [22]. He first placed the species in Caenopithecus, and then assigned it to a new genus Godinotia [1].
Foto: Tama/Getty Fonte.
Plate A (Figs. 1,2) described here, became available for sale and was purchased in 2007 by the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). This plate, showing a skeleton from the right side, proves to be the hitherto unknown and much more complete counterpart of the Wyoming Plate B. Careful study and comparison of the new and more complete plate indicates that the specimen cannot belong to Godinotia neglectus (see below).
The Oslo specimen, plate A, clarifies exactly which parts of plate B were faked, including notably, hands and feet (where some proportions of constructions may have been based on reversed photos of A) and the tail vertebral column. Traces on the surrounding polyester resin background suggest that a cast of the tail of another mammal was inserted into plate B. Additional parts such as the vertebrae between sections 1 and 2 as well the nasal part of the skull on plate B were simply fabricated. [NOTA BENE 2: ALGUMAS PEÇAS FORAM FORJADAS!!! Que ciência é esta que forja partes dos fósseis PARA DAR A ILUSÃO de completude. O nome disso é mágica!]
The almost complete skeleton on plate A has been well prepared, and it also lies on a polyester resin background. Preservation is unique. The cranium is compressed, but a combination of plates A and B shows virtually the entire dentition. Plate A also shows almost the entire right side of the body and several parts of the left side of the body that are missing on plate B. Only the distal part of the left leg is missing on both plates. Thus the skeleton of Darwinius masillae is much more complete than any known for Notharctus Gregory 1920 [23], and in addition it is unique in exhibiting the entire soft body outline as well as contents of the digestive system [24].
Fonte: PlosOne
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Desde 1859 os discípulos de Darwin saíram adoidadamente atrás do elo perdido. Já forjaram alguns desses elos. Aqui neste caso, nós temos uma pesquisa científica com o aval de cientistas de renome. Louve-se a honestidade deles em reconhecer que parte do fóssil foi FORJADA para dar uma certa impressão.
Pobre Darwin...
Sáb Mar 06, 2010 10:21 pm por Carlstadt
Darwiunius masillae (Ida) não era um ancestral humano
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302131719.htm
Já muito aqui se falou do Ida, o Darwinius masillae, um fóssil que foi o ano passado propalado pelos evolucionistas como uma grande ...
http://designinteligente.blogspot.com/2010/03/darwiunius-masillae-ida-nao-era-um.html#mais
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302131719.htm
Já muito aqui se falou do Ida, o Darwinius masillae, um fóssil que foi o ano passado propalado pelos evolucionistas como uma grande ...
http://designinteligente.blogspot.com/2010/03/darwiunius-masillae-ida-nao-era-um.html#mais
por Conteúdo patrocinado
Tópicos semelhantes» EXTRA! EXTRA! A 'sopa primordial' foi pra lata de lixo da História da Ciência
» A ciência não é mais o método mais confiável de se chegar à verdade sobre a realidade?
» Pais campeão mundial em educação em nível escolar médio joga o darwinismo na lata do lixo
» Mais que a História de um Peixe
» Video mais acessado da História do Youtube
» A ciência não é mais o método mais confiável de se chegar à verdade sobre a realidade?
» Pais campeão mundial em educação em nível escolar médio joga o darwinismo na lata do lixo
» Mais que a História de um Peixe
» Video mais acessado da História do Youtube
Permissões neste sub-fórum
Não podes responder a tópicos
Seja fã Forumeiros
» Acordem adventistas...
» O que Vestir Para Ir à Igreja?
» Ir para o céu?
» Chat do Forum
» TV Novo Tempo...
» Lutas de MMA são usadas como estratégia por Igreja Evangélica para atrair mais fiéis
» Lew Wallace, autor do célebre livro «Ben-Hur», converteu-se quando o escrevia
» Ex-pastor evangélico é batizado no Pará
» Citações de Ellen White sobre a Vida em Outros Planetas Não Caídos em Pecado
» Viagem ao Sobrenatural - Roger Morneau
» As aparições de Jesus após sua morte não poderiam ter sido alucinações?