I LOVE The Radical Creationist Response To Ida

[WeDidIt]

I read rightwing sites. They're like driving by car wrecks, I simply have to look.

The creationists have gone even more batshit insane since Ida.

See, for decades the creationists have claimed there are no transitional fossils. None. Now that's not true, but that's their claim.

Now, a fossil shows up that is undeniably transitional and how do they handle it?

They're calling it a "hoax" and are citing "Piltdown man".

It makes me :rofl:.

[jgraz]

1. Sadly, the idiot media is helping them

I've read countless articles saying that Ida "may finally prove the theory of evolution". As if evolution hasn't been fully and conclusively proven for over 100 years...

[depakid]

2. Expecting science literacy from (or for) a largely illiterate and superstitious population

is about like expecting manna to drop down from heaven.

[jgraz]

4. Yet, I bet most of them could name the last three times Paris Hilton flashed her coochie

:banghead:

[muffin1]

15. Yeah, the jury's still out on that one.

:silly:

[donco6]

3. There is absolutely nothing that would prove evolution to them.

It wouldn't matter if God once again took human form, healed the sick, made the blind see, and held a news conference to say, "That evolution thing? All true, dudes." They'd just stone him to death and stick to their guns. The literal ones.

[jgraz]

But really, what has evolution ever done for them?

Think about it...

[SkyDaddy7]

17. Good One!!

[Occam Bandage]

5. I don't get the fuss over Ida.

There have been thousands and thousands of fossils found, and they can all be arranged into one enormous tree with a fair degree of certainty (though of course with some guesswork in a few places). Finding one more fossil that's a bit closer to one particular branching is cool, but it isn't OMG WE FOUND THE LAST PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.

[jgraz]

6. How many times have you seen the Ida scientists on TV in the past week?

Maybe that would hold a clue as to why this discovery is being pushed to hard to the media. There are dozens of post docs who will build entire careers on this single fossil. Calling it "a missing link" (let alone "the missing link" :eyes:) is a good way to boost your case for tenure.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Congratulations to them for their canny careerism, then. nt

[the other one]

7. Darwin himself didn't think there would be "transistional" species.

When a better-adapted species appears it will replace its previous competitor very quickly, instantly in geological terms. If there is any fossil evidence, it should appear that one species replaced another species instantly. Also, the geological record is so sparse as to make it extremely unlikely that a transitional species would last long enough to leave any fossils.

Maybe the creationists should invoke Darwin's own theories to contradict the new findings. Why not? They have no sense of irony.

[jgraz]

8. Evolution is a case of "anything that can happen, will happen"

Most of the errors in evolution have come when scientists postulated that one or more predicted methods of evolution could not occur. We now have examples of quick evolution (saltations), gradual speciation and everything in between.

[hayu_lol]

10. There are transitional animals...

already identified, not from the primate family, but from the animal/mammal family.

There once was a large aquatic animal that lived near the shores. It gradually developed legs and managed to crawl out of the water. It was apparently successful for a long time. Something happened which made this specimen decide to return to the water. The legs atrophied and eventually disappeared.

This mammal is known to us today as the WHALE. There is still a sort of hip joint at the pelvic girdle--back at the start of the very large tail flukes.

We needn't worry about transitional animals. DNA tells the whole story.

They(creationists)have wisely decided not to attempt attacks on DNA results. DNA of course, is not mentioned in the bible.

Even more difficult for them is to accept Lucy and the Family from 3-4 million years ago...on a 6000 year old planet.

[jgraz]

11. I think creationists are transitional animals...

The question is, what are they transitioning into?

[Greyhound]

12. They're the obsolete/inferior model heading into extinction?

The genetic dead end.

[jgraz]

14. See, can we really blame them for hating evolution?

After they've been fucked over so badly by it?

[Ikonoklast]

13. De-evolving.

They are a shrinking sub-species that lacks the intellectual capacity to think critically in a world of an ever-expanding knowledge base.

As with their primate forebears that couldn't compete with the smarter iterations of the specie they will be an evolutionary dead-end.

[pscot]

19. I've been thinking about that

The exaggerated fear response was probably an important adaptive characteristic in the past. It kept the tribe alive. AS we've domesticated ourselves over the last 10,000 yars or so, it's become more and more an atavistic holdover; not so effective as a group survival trait, but rather one that leaves us vulnerable to social manipulation. Cheney and his groupies are probably as frightened as they say they are. They really do believe that there may be a terrorist around every corner. But that isn't a very effective response in a world of 7 billion people, where we all need to learn to get along.

[SkyDaddy7]

18. Sludge?

[dorkulon]

16. Check out the "Answers in Genesis" response.

I particularly loved this part, after all the whinging about "gaps in the fossil record" for all these years:

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.

So now, no matter how much evidence there is, it's not evidence!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link