Missing Links, Missing History and Missing Evidence

Another purported missing link has been exposed as a fraud. Ignoring two decades of research contrary to the evidence, a book was quickly published called Darwinius. Simultaneously, the History Channel rushed to make a documentary of it, the American Museum of Natural History exhibited it was announced with much hoopla at a news conference attended by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009.¹

Evolutionists unveiled the nine month old primate found in Messel, Germany, announcing it as concrete evidence of a missing link between humans and hominids. With it came two scientific papers hailed as conclusive evidence, from experts at the University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago. These experts claimed Darwinius maxillae was a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys. Interestingly, they completely ignored over two decades of fossil evidence that these are actually strepsirrhines, related to lemurs and lorises, which by the way are still living today.² So Darwinius maxillae are not related to humans, apes or monkeys.

Has the History Channel, the American Museum of Natural History New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or the authors of the book Darwinius reported that they were in error? No. They have been absolutely silent. The History Channel, or as I like to call them, the Miss-History Channel has its own history of never admitting that they are wrong.

"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin and that "there is no evidence that Darwinius shared these features with living haplorhines...and if you can't even make that case, you can forget about Darwinius being a close relative of humans or other anthropiods. 3

Another alleged "missing link" was announced in New York City amid much fanfare in 2009 also. It was dubbed Ida. But it has apparently been altered and even partially fabricated. In the first place, this is not a new discovery at all. Ida has actually been in human hands for over twenty-five years. It most certainly comes with great controversy. The Norwegian paleontologist Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum said at the 2009 New York Press conference, that it's not really an anthropoid, but he but still refers Ida as coming from the period that's called the Old World Monkeys. About the time that it is thought that humans split off from the gorillas and chimpanzees.

Ida has been the most recent claim as the new "missing link". A claim was made that was hailed as "changing everything". The History Channel produced a show in 2009 that boasted about Ida as "The Link: This Changes Everything". But what has really changed? Nothing, Ida has been tampered with by humans. And precious little is said about the fact that this fossil's been around for since 1983, so it is no new missing link. It's been held privately since that time and the fossil has been cut in half. The collector eventually sold both parts and from separate plates to different parties. But there are more issues. One of the parts was restored and "partly fabricated" so that it would look "more complete".⁴ Scientists wanted to know what was used to "fabricate" it and what was used in the process of it being restored? And, what substances have been added to it for displaying purposes?

Robert Bazell, [The Daily Nightly MSNBC.com 5/19/09] Chief Science Correspondent, quoted the renowned paleontologist Tim White [University of California, Berkeley]. Dr. White said it will take years to determine if this is the "Mother of all Monkeys".⁴ But if you take a look at the link you'll find that they don't really know yet.⁴ The report says that it will take years of scientific examination before any judgment can be made. But on the scientific report, no claim is made that it is a missing link or a fossil that is revolutionary in stature. Nor are there any sensational claims, like at Ida's press conference, that this fossil changes everything!

Read for yourself the report on the link below. Jenz L. Franzen, one of the scientists in the study, showed that some of the specimen is real, while substantial parts were faked to give an illusion of greater completeness. The report clearly says that "...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".⁵ It would be more accurate to say that, "these changes changed the fossil".

There are over 300 million species, and over 100 million fossils on record, yet not one single set of transitional fossils have ever been found for one specie evolving into another. Not one out of 300 million. Hello! The theory of evolution absolutely has no objective evidence. This theory is not rationale, is has no physical evidence or conclusive proof, and the theory is highly subjective in nature.

Just remember when the next time you hear about another new discovery of an alleged "missing link" that the track record for these missing links is embarrassingly inaccurate. Has the History Channel, the American Museum of Natural History, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or the authors of the book Darwinius ever reported that they were wrong? In short, no. They have been absolutely silent. The History Channel, or as I like to call them, the Miss-History Channel, has its own history of never admitting that they are wrong. Talking about a missing link just seems ridiculous when the entire chain is missing. And one link never establishes a chain.

　

An excerpt from Chapter Ten of "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies and the Bible" from Amazon.com.

1. http://www.utexas.edu/research/news/story.php?src=opa&item=14102

2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4YGHK8G-1&_user=108429&_coverDate=02%2F26%2F2010&_alid=1227598869&_rdoc=7&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6886&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=14&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=60dbc8ff0a7eea01d621e190db2a8618
　
3. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/anthropology/faculty/kirkec

4. http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/19/1937065.aspx

5. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723