Sir David Attenborough on the Significance of Ida

[benthemiester]

Another supposed missing link and failed prediction gone down the Darwinian drain. What a difference two years make.

[Chuichupachichi]

Your video has 666 views because Evolutionary theory is Satanic in its origins. Evo theory shares a common origins with Satanism in the Sumerian culture. But now its going to have 667 views. My refutation of evolution videos skip from 665 to 667 views because they're not evil... they're "good" for you. They even cure baldness of the va-jay-jay. They bring back the beautiful look of 1980's Playboy centerfolds. View my video "Evolutions Transitional Species Don't Exist" and you'll see

[ericinnit1]

Epic fail David.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

If you misinterpreted what he said, that's not HIS failure, it's yours.

[AA32m7io1]

This video is from "Revealing The Link," the official video for Ida. It's not a misinterpretation, but a blatant denial on your part. Just admit that he was as wrong about this as Comfort was about bananas. LOL

We can see exactly what he is saying. It's like when Obama bowed down to Saudi King King Abdullah and his staff insisted he did not. We have the video evidence! But then he bowed again to the Japan's Emperor.

This video of Attenborough's own words are hard to defend.

[somecomputergeek]

OK, so you support the idea that Ida evolved into modern lemurs, then?

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

Yes, I see that Attenborough obviously thought that ida was closer to the human family tree than it turned out to be.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek

Thank you.

And yes, I believe Ida "evolved" into modern lemurs. I have no problem with microevolution (species get bigger and bumpier, but don't change - Gould); but I disagree that macroevolution occurs (amoebas-to-man).

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

So Ida evolved in modern lemurs, but you don't believe in "macro" evolution? The teeth are completely different, there's no claw. That's what all the controversy is about. The skull had monkey-like jaws and teeth, fingernails, and other features that are not seen in the line to lemurs.

By the way, I'm looking through these articles, and it looks like it is far from resolved. It's a group of scientists from New York that are challenging it, but they have yet to reach a consensus.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek

"By the way, I'm looking through these articles, and it looks like it is far from resolved."

You are right.

"'Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed' by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. 'The debate will persist.'" (WSJ, May 2009)

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

The debate is about certain features of the fossil. Ida has traits that are not found in the lemur line, though it has some traits that are. The traits that are not in the lemur line are also found in the monkey/ape line. The explanation the "lemur advocates" have is convergent evolution (the evolution of similar traits in two distinct lineages).

At this point, I'd put my money on option #3 - not a direct descendant, but closer to monkeys than the pro-lemur people suggest.

[somecomputergeek]

@somecomputergeek

when I say "than it turned out to be", I mean "than the group for New York claims it to be".

[ericinnit1]

@somecomputergeek

I didn't misinterpret what he said. He has misinterpreted the bones. It has since been confirmed as just a lemur, nothing more and therefore is nothing of great significance, just as creationists had said all along.

Conclusion: The "link" is still missing.

[somecomputergeek]

"it has since been confirmed"?

It has? The claim is that Ida was an ancestor of modern lemurs, NOT "just a lemur", and it is NOT "confirmed". The jawbone, hands, and feet are closer to monkeys than lemurs which is why they believed Ida to be in the monkey/ape side of the tree in the first place. There is hardly a consensus, and NEITHER OF THESE POSITIONS supports creationism in any way, and BOTH positions still maintain that this find IS "of great significance".

[ericinnit1]

@somecomputergeek

Ancestors of modern lemurs are what? There are LEMURS.

David said "his little creature is going to show us our connection wtih the rest of all the mammals". Which of course it does not.

He said we are primates like monkeys and apes and that we are desperate to know where we came from. Neither of these are true. We already know where we came from and we are not primates like monkeys or apes.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

"There are LEMURS."

No, they aren't. That's the point. They are primates, they are vertebrates, they are mammals, and even though they may be the ancestor of modern lemurs, they are NOT lemurs. Lemurs have different jaws. Lemurs have claws. Ida doesn't, as it is not a lemur.

"Which of course it does not."

Many highly qualified paleontologists disagree with you.

Yes, we ARE primates. The term "primate" is a parent classification of species, and WE ARE IN THAT CLASSIFICATION.

[ericinnit1]

@somecomputergeek

Modern classification adheres to a protected unproven theory and bares no regard for what we actually are. Sure, of course lemurs of today are different to what they used to be, this is what I expect. Not all dogs are the same, not all horses are the same, but we don't call them a different kind of animal. I know many are in disagreement with me, frankly majority doesn't win arguments, truth does.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

"Modern classification adheres to a protected unproven theory and bares no regard for what we actually are."

No, actually, the classification system predates the theory of evolution, and it is impossible to group all the ape species into one category by common traits without including humans in the same group.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

"If all we are is primates, then why are apes treated differently?"

You mean "OTHER apes", but how is that even relevant? Why do we treat domesticated animals differently than wild animals? Why do we treat pets differently than we treat cows? Each species treats it's own differently than they treat other species. We're no different.

However, humans HAVE been used as "livestock" throughout history. It's called slavery. The Bible talks all about it, and how wonderful it is.

[ericinnit1]

@somecomputergeek

The Bible doesn't say how wonderful slavery is and it was totally different to how we understand slavery today. Atheists continually bring this argument up because they don't understand what they're talking about. This is getting off topic.

If apes are lesser animals than the intermediates between us, why did they survive and not their more advanced species? What is the ancestor of the bat, the t-rex, the pterosaur or the apatosaurus?

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

"If apes are lesser animals than the intermediates between us, why did they survive and not their more advanced species?"

"lesser" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the ability to survive in the environment, which include competitors in their niche, such as humans. Most species that have ever existed are now extinct, including most ape species. The apes that exist now exist because they found a niche in their environment, not because they are "superior" to other species.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

"What is the ancestor of the bat, the t-rex, the pterosaur or the apatosaurus?"

The ancestor of all of these species most likely lived in the Silurian period. Tiktaalik or a close relative is the likely candidate.

[ericinnit1]

@somecomputergeek

In other words you have no clue. Nor do the experts. As far as they're concerned, there are no ancestors.

[Vire70]

@ericinnit1 Absolutist fail.

[somecomputergeek]

@ericinnit1

Having a good understanding of the question is the first step in answering it, and with every question answered, more questions arise. Of course there are still things we're not sure about, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what we ARE sure about. You don't have to know your great grandfather's name or even know what he looks like in order to know that he's French.

We have a lot of data about chimp and human DNA. That data points to evidence that is admissible in court.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek

"It's called slavery. The Bible talks all about it, and how wonderful it is."

What chapter and verse? Surely you are not talking about Exodus 21:16 which says, "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."

And don't forget Leviticus 25:38-42.

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

"What chapter and verse?"

Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6 , Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48.

These verses clearly show that the institution of slavery is to be accepted, and even sets the rules for how far you can go in abusing your slaves.

Funny how you mention Leviticus 25:38-42, which talks about how you shouldn't make "one of your countrymen" work as a slave. That job is reserved for foreigners.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek

Again, what does Exodus 21:16 say?

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

It says that local people (God's people) have a statute of limitations of six years on slavery. This doesn't apply to slaves acquired through the bloody warfare that the Israelites were involved in.

It also says that the slave's children belong to the master. It the master "gives him a wife", that wife is owne by the master, not the slave, so if the slave wants to leave after the statute of limitations, his wife and children are still owned by the master.

Why do you bring this up?

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

Sorry, wrong verse. Exodus 21:16 says that you can't "kidnap" a man.

Funny how this law doesn't apply when you're slaughtering thousands of people and keeping the little girls "alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:17-18)

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek 4 of 4

As for the allegation of rape, the custom of the time was to marry at a young age. So girls who had not "known man by lying with him" would indicate that they were young, likely under twelve. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah and were allowed to live.

It's more logical to assume they wanted these girls for servants because it would have been sinful to rape these girls. Rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God!!

[somecomputergeek]

"As for the allegation of rape"

Uh, no I didn't say "rape" at all. I quoted the verse, which IMPLIES rape so strongly that you assumed I said that.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek 3 of 4

As a result, God instructed the Israelites to "Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi..." (Numbers 25:17-18).

In Numbers 31, when the army brought the women back, it was in direct violation to Gods order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy.

[somecomputergeek]

Ahh, so they shouldn't have kept them as slaves, they should have killed them all. Nice God you have there.

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek 2 of 4

It helps to understand Numbers 25 is the "PREQUEL" to the events in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lords anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women directly violated Gods commands.

[somecomputergeek]

Oh NOOOES! They got the people to worship other gods, therefor EVERYBODY should be killed, including the little boys and babies.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[AA32m7io1]

You should really stick with homology... which IMPLIES evolution, right?

Now I may not know much about evolution (except for homology), but you are way, way out of your league when it comes to the Bible!

[somecomputergeek]

It's like arguing with a pigeon. You crap all over the board, knock over all the pieces, and then fly back to your nest to claim victory.

I don't care what the Bible says. I've read enough to understand that it is a collection of books written by animal-sacrificing, slave-owning, genocidal bronze-age primitives.

[flyingscience]

@somecomputergeek You left out homo phobic flat earthers !

[somecomputergeek]

@flyingscience

You're right. My apologies.

[TheShoreBroadcasting]

@somecomputergeek Listen to Attenborough's last comment, then go research how quickly the scientific community rejected this 20-30 year old find that happens to be brought out to commemorate the death of Darwin. Ida is old news because it is irrelevant already.

Uh, looks like it's STILL missing. Like Lucy, a joke. If it has the skull of a lemur, the hands and feet of a lemur, the body ratio of a lemur, the forward facing eyes of a lemur and the tail of the lemur... is probably a lemur.

[somecomputergeek]

@TheShoreBroadcasting

Look at the comments and you will see a very large conversation going in great detail about this find. Then you can see the context of this statement.

If you're interested in the reality of this find, check out AronRa's video:

watch?v=Ri20shBEsls

[somecomputergeek]

Homology doesn't "imply" evolution. Evolution EXPLAINS homology. There ARE homologous genes, and there ARE homologous structures. Just because there is not an direct relationship between homologous genes and structures (which can be explained by genetic drift) doesn't make the homology of either go away, and saying "Same genes, same designer" doesn't explain it:

watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE

[AA32m7io1]

@somecomputergeek 1 of 4

First, what does Deuteronomy 22:23 - 28 say about rape? Specifically, verse 25, "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man FORCES her and lies with her [rape], then only the man who lay with her SHALL DIE."

Now considering how utterly wrong you were about homology, and since you don't know how to read the Bible in context, it's certainly no surprise you are completely wrong about the passage in Numbers 31! Here's the context...

[somecomputergeek]

Ahh, "the context". I can't wait to see what kind of context justifies the slaughter of thousands of children.

[AA32m7io1]

Sir Attenborough is wrong!

"Primate fossil 'NOT an ancestor'" (BBC, October, 21 2009)

"Dr Erik Seiffert says that Ida belonged to a group more closely linked to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us... [Dr Seiffert continues] "They are more closely related to lemurs and lorises than they are to tarsirs or monkeys, apes and humans. This study would effectively REMOVE Ida from our ancestry."

See: "Convergent evolution of anthropoid-like adaptations in Eocene adapiform primates" (Nature)

[somecomputergeek]

@AA32m7io1

It might not be our ancestor, no. And your uncle is also not your ancestor.

[misericordiamihi]

Go Evolution!