Discovered: Missing Link Between Bull and Human

Update. See, I told you so. In an article about this new fossil...

Up until now, the most famous fossil primate in the world has been Lucy, a 3.18-million-year-old hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974. She was then our earliest known ancestor, and only 40% complete.

Big news from the paleontologists today:

The fossil of a young female, probably resembling a modern-day lemur, has been described as the "most complete primate fossil ever found" and could be the common ancestor of all monkeys and apes, including humans.

What a bunch of BS. There is absolutely no evidence that this creature is an ancestor of ours, or any existing monkey or ape. There never will be either. This is little more than hype by scientists trying to get famous. And they wonder why the creationists continue to get traction.

The discovery is not "the" missing link - the contentious theory that humans and chimpanzees share a common identity - but scientists involved still hailed it as the "most significant scientific discovery of recent times".

Of course they hailed it that way. And every research lab writes in their grants how tremendously important their research is.

It has been named Darwinius masillae and investigators claim it will finally confirm irrefutably Sir Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Give me a break. It is one fossil. It has no provable connection to any other species existing before or after it. Naming it after Darwin? How clever. These scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

She is not a direct ancestor of humans and monkeys but it provides a good indication of what such an animal may have looked like.

Note the contradiction with the paragraph quoted above. Color me unimpressed by "it provides a good indication of what such an animal may have looked like." How do they know it's a "good" indication? They don't know. They say it is "good" because it fits their preconcieved notion of what that ancestor might look like.

"Now people can say, 'OK, we are primates. Show us the link'. The link they would have said up to now is missing - well, it's no longer missing."

Provable? No. Science? No. Hype? Yes.

What purpose do these scientists think they are serving? Haven't we had enough of paleontologists' gross speculations? All they do is provide ammunition to the creationists. I have nothing against presenting the discovery. But don't go out there and present with certainty that which is not provable, don't pretend you have more evidence than you do.

Take Lucy, for example. Another very interesting specimen. But I have seen it presented countless times as "our oldest known ancestor" or something similar. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But from a science perspective, presenting it as such is BS.