There is some criticism of exactly where this fossil fits on the evolutionary tree with respect to man, but as one report put it, if this species isn’t our great, great… grandmother, it’s definitely a great, great… aunt. One thing isn’t disputed: this and other fossils found at the ancient lake site in Germany are some of the best ever found from the period.

Meet “Ida,” the small “missing link” fossil that’s created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins.

In a new book, documentary, and promotional Web site, paleontologist Jorn Hurum, who led the team that analyzed the 47-million-year-old fossil seen above, suggests Ida is a critical “missing link” species in primate evolution.

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

“This is the first link to all humans,” Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.”

Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.

  1. treasure says:

    To #181, Thomas:

    Oh, I get it. If it’s a “hypothesis,” its not an unverifiable belief (were still waiting for confirmation on the “hypothesis”).

    I followed your link. All of the abiogenesis arguments HAVE been answered. Very badly and unsatisfactorily.

    Is this really the argument you would want someone to discover was made on behalf of the theory of evolution (rather than try to hide it or distance yourself from it)?

    I found this: “The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.”

    That’s perhaps one of the stupidest, most illogical statements I’ve ever read. Of course abiogenesis is relevant to the theory of evolution. The whole theory absolutely hangs on it. It may be true that “evolution,” referring strategically to that part of the theory of evolution that narrowly deals with the change of organisms over time, does not depend on abiogenesis. But, let’s be real. Reliance on some compartmentalized, ambigous use of the term “evolution” to mean something other than the theory of evolution as a whole (when the context of the discussion is about the theory as a whole) is a predictable cop-out that has been used by evolutionary biologists for ages to dodge inherently problematic abiogenesis issues (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!)

    I also found this: “There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis.”

    Let’s see, “As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific.” Do I even have to add anything? So, if scientists try really hard to test something, then it is “scientific” (but only if they’re really smart scientists, right)? In fairness, I should point out that I omitted information found at the website following the part quoted, although the information I left out only serves to highlight the utter lack of substance supporting the theory of evolution when it comes to abiogenesis. There really isn’t A LOT MORE? Also, the statement quoted above in support of the theory of evolution self-contradicts the notion, stated so often by so many evolutionists, that the theory is “fact.” The statement basically admits that, when it comes to abiogenesis, the theory remains in the realm of “speculation,” not “fact.”

    I also found this: “Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.”

    First, the statement is not intellectually honest in that the writer pretends not to realize that in context of the theory of evolution, use of “abiogenesis” is a term of art referring to abiogenesis according to, or as explained by, the theory of evolution. Second, in any sense of the word, how do you know abiogenesis is a “fact”? Because you believe in it? As a matter of pure logic, it does not follow that the existence of life on Earth can only be the result of abiogenesis (although that is obviously the most prevalent, longstanding view of evolutionary theory by far and the part that I am attacking). Do I need to draw a Venn diagram? I’m not arguing that this is the case (or that the position is any stronger or weaker), but if life existed elsewhere first and subsequently arrived on Earth (by whatever means), then, abiogenesis is not NECESSARILY the reason for life on Earth (in the purely logical sense). Nice try. But, abiogenesis is certainly not an established, logical “fact.”

    Note: neither does it follow, in the purely logical sense, that abiogenesis (according to, or as described by, the theory of evolution), necessarily ocurred either on Earth or elsewhere. In fact, millions of people believe that just as matter (in some form) has ALWAYS existed throughout the infinite universe (as the belief goes), so has life (in some form or sense). I should note here that I’m utilizing the term “matter” (for lack of a better word) in the broadest sense of the English language. You can call it matter, energy, a singularity, or whatever you want. Regardless of whether or not you can get your head around it, the idea is that something has always existed–ALWAYS. And, again, I’m not arguing here for or against the particular belief, but the belief is that, in a similar fashion, “life” has also always existed–ALWAYS. Inerestingly, at least to me, this belief pre-dates Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” (yes, I know Darwin wasn’t trying to explain the origin of LIFE).

    Before someone goes there, don’t bother chiming in about, “This is just an argument from incredulity.” claims that such an argument “is behind all arguments against abiogenesis” (which is stupid). As if it is not a valid criticism to point out how laughably weak the theory of evolution is when it comes to abiogenesis. Merely pointing out the weakness of a particular position is not an argument from incredulity. I never stated or meant to imply that my criticism of the theory of evolution proved God exists or that God is behind the creation of life. My only point is that the theory of evolution remains pathetically weak (it can only be as strong as its weakest link). The statement, “There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown,” is a gigantic understatement. The jury is still very much out on whether or not the theory of evolution is “fact.”

  2. treasure says:

    #184, Thomas:

    Yes, I have no problem accepting certain parts of the theory of evolution (referring to the most common or prevalent views as the “theory of evolution”) as long as these are supported abundantly by REAL scientific evidence. However, many aspects of the theory are backed up only by naturalistic philosophy and biased reasoning.

    I really only take umbrage when individuals claim that certain, wholly unproven aspects of the theory are “scientific” or “fact” merely because he or she has reasoned that the philosophy supporting the particular viewpoint is so compelling it must be true. The reality is that many aspects of the theory of evolution are impossible to scientifically test with present technology, yet even those untestable aspects are accepted by many as scientific truth, merely because the reasoning appears so compelling. I have no problem if an individual wants to form an opinion based on philosophy or reasoning (however compelling), but just don’t try to pass the particular viewpoint off as scientific fact (even though the viewpoint can’t actually be scientifically tested using present technology).

    It may seem logical, even compellingly logical, to work backwards from known evolutionary processes toward the conclusion that life originated by similar, evolutionary processes (i.e. abiogenesis). However, based on available, genuine science (rather than based merely on what many evolutionists like to treat as science), ideas as to the very origin of life are still in the realm of philosophy and logic. Further, in my view, abiogenesis is CLEARLY NOT a “fact.” In other words, the evidence is not sufficiently strong that any reasonable person, as a matter of sound logic, must necessarily accept the viewpoint as fact. Not even close.

    One thing we can probably both agree on: Fundamentalist Christians are mistaken as to a great many things. They make it too easy. However, what we may not agree on is that even though Fundamentalist Christians are mistaken about a great many things, it’s still possible that God exists, that He created us, that there is a very good reason we are here, that there is a reason and need for a Savior, and that Christ is that Savior. I know it’s only a belief and/or an opinion, but I believe it, and I have very good reasons for so doing.

    One final note, of course God didn’t create us to worship him. Of course Fundamentalist Christians don’t know what they’re talking about. But don’t make the mistake Carl Sagan did in Broca’s Brain, which is to smugly conclude that God does not exist in reliance on a very clever argument that effectively refutes what is essentially only a straw-man religion.

    Don’t assume that (A) the truth about God is not available anywhere merely because you have not discovered it yet; that (B) the truth about God would be just as easy to refute as is Fundamentalistic Christianity; that (C) God ceases to exist because you refuse to believe in Him, that (D) Pascal’s Wager does not put you on “inquiry notice” (look it up), or that (E) if God wanted you to follow his rules, he already would have provided more proof of his existence to you (see (A) and (D) again). Otherwise, one day, you will find out that God, who is literally your Father-in-Heaven, can easily refute every one of the ingenious arguments. Trust me, it’s better to spend a little time right now discovering how pathetic the arguments against the existence of God actually are.

  3. Thomas says:

    Not all creationists are complete loons. Many creationists accept evolution but believe that their deity is the one responsible for the first proteins on Earth that started the evolutionary process. That’s fine as a belief however to science it is useless as there is no way to verify such claim nor even phrase in a way that is falsifiable.

    > I really only take umbrage when
    > individuals claim that certain,
    > wholly unproven aspects of the theory
    > are “scientific” or “fact” merely
    > because he or she has reasoned
    > that the philosophy supporting
    > the particular viewpoint is
    > so compelling it must be true.

    The issue here is that you are confusing the vernacular meaning of “fact” with the scientific one. To science, a fact is something that is a objective verifiable observation. The sun rises and falls every 24 hours is a fact. That objects fall when you drop them is a fact. That objects of smaller mass are attracted to objects of larger mass is a fact. A falsifiable hypothesis is then formulated that might explain those facts. If there is evidence to reject the hypothesis, then it is discard. If there sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis, then it is accepted and it becomes a theory.

    RE: Abiogenesis

    Abiogenesis is a fact if you accept that species evolve. The current scientific theories state that abiogenesis occurred naturally with no input from another being or entity. However, that life began and evolved to where it is now is indisputable.

    RE: it’s still possible that God exists

    If we are switching to philosophy now, it is possible to reconcile a belief in the supernatural with science if you accept the “light switch” deity. In that philosophy, the deity created the universe and its laws, started it in motion and then let it go on its own. However, that philosophy contracts many fundamental tenements of Christian mythology such as the idea that the deity created man in his own image.

    RE: Proof of God

    > the truth about God is not available
    > anywhere merely because you have
    > not discovered it yet

    RE: A
    This is an argument from silence and it is used regularly in analyzing historical evidence. For example, suppose we hypothesize that John Adams loved pink elephants. How would we prove such a hypothesis? If there is nothing in his memoirs about it, nothing in his formal documents about it, and nothing in any memoirs or diaries of anyone else he knew about his love for pink elephants, we can tentatively conclude that he did not have any special love for pink elephants. However, that conclusion is predicated on us not finding the “smoking gun” evidence of some missing chapter in his diary where he emphatically states his love of pink elephants and that he hid his love from everyone.

    Right now, there is no evidence to support the claim that a deity exists. (Even defining what is meant by “supernatural” is problematic. If we can verify its existence, then it is natural by definition.) However, it is possible, albeit improbable, that some evidence of said being’s existence might be found. An argument from silence gets stronger as more evidence is found that does not contradict the premise. As we discover more about the physical world, the claim that a deity might exist gets weaker.

    RE: B
    Not sure what you are stating here.

    RE: C
    Proof of your deity’s existence must be an objective, verifiable fact in the scientific sense for it to exist outside of one’s belief that it exists. Currently, it does not.

    RE: D
    Ah, Pascal’s Wager. It is more like Pascal’s Hedge Bet. The problem with believing “just in case” is that you have no idea whether that is a better bet or not. Suppose the deity does exist but finds “just in case” belief more blasphemous than non-belief. Suppose you bet on the wrong religion and Hindu was the “right” religion. Pascal’s Wager can get you into all kinds of trouble here on Earth. You do not know whether giving me all your money will be good or bad, so you should do it “just in case.”

    RE: E:
    Frankly, this is the most damning (no pun intended) argument against an omnipotent being that angrily punishes non-believers. If said being wanted everyone to believe, it should be able to make its existence irrefutably accepted. If said being is as powerful as claimed, why the cloak-and-dagger approach to establishing its existence? Why not provide clear and irrefutable evidence of its existence? Said being supposedly gave people the ability to think logically, but then created massive contradictions and inconsistencies in its teachings. Why? If when I die I do meet said being, I will feel no remorse for “not believing.” It would be like meeting Santa Claus and finding out he really did fly all over the world in one night. I did not (and do not) believe because there was no valid evidence to support the claim. If he wanted me to believe he should have provided clear and irrefutable evidence.

    Clearly, you are immersed in your belief. However, I would suggest you study more on the scientific method and logical arguments. Sagan was an excellent author and I highly recommend Demon Haunted World if you want to know more.

  4. treasure says:

    First, abiogenesis is not a fact. It’s the prevalent explanation (which for the time being still has little evidentiary support) for the origin of life on Earth held by evolutionists. By definition, it is a very specific term. From the link you provided, note that abiogenesis deals with “how life on Earth could have arisen FROM INANIMATE MATTER.” (Emphasis added). Believe it or not, I recall learning the word “inanimate” in kindergarten when the lesson was the difference between living things and inanimate objects.

    –Please forgive me for the many phrases in all capitalized letters. I wanted to emphasize certain phrases, but the comment box doesn’t appear to technologically allow lesser forms of emphasis such as bold typeface and/or underlining.–

    The applicable statement from (that I previously quoted) asserted incorrectly that it was a logical certainty that regardless of the viewpoint, life began with abiogenesis. You appear to assert the same thing when you say, “That it started on its own, that a supernatural deity was the cause, or that aliens from space were the cause are all speculations (but not necessarily scientific hypotheses) about what could have caused abiogenesis.” Your apparent implication is the same, which implication is that regardless of the viewpoint, life necessarily began with abiogenesis. Not logically true.

    Previously, I explained that millions of known people hold the viewpoint that “LIFE” NEVER AROSE FROM INANIMATE MATTER. In other words, the viewpoint is that there is no such thing as natural abiogenesis. That life on Earth arose from matter that was already alive, NOT FROM INANIMATE MATTER. This does NOT include the notion that “life” first arose through abiogenesis elsewhere before it was somehow transported to Earth. Again, the idea is that “LIFE” HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (in some form), and that the correct explanation for how “life” exists anywhere now, including on Earth, is that it arose from “life” already in existence (again, NOT from inanimate matter).

    My point was that considering this view, then, as a matter of logical argument alone, abiogenesis is not necessarily a fact. Accordingly, the author at is NOT CORRECT when claiming, “Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagined it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis).” (Emphasis added). Taken as a whole, the statement is demonstrably false.

    The parenthetical claim that “creation is a theory of abiogenesis” is simply not correct for all popularly held theories of creation (of course, use of the term “theory” here is in the philosophical sense rather than in the mathematical or scientific sense). Millions of people believe that God’s “creation” of life on Earth was accomplished through “life” that was already in existence, albeit in a different form. Under this view, use of the term “creation” has nothing to do with forming “life” solely from inanimate matter. Instead, again, God created life on Earth from existing life.

    Is it fair to call the formation of life from existing life “creation?” Of course it is. If I had the technology to travel with my spouse to a distant planet where life did not yet exist, bringing with me pets, plants, insects, bacteria, and every other kind of flora and fauna; and if I had the technology to ensure that all these forms of life could continue to live on that planet for ages; and if my spouse and I and every other living thing I brought with me produced living offspring on the planet and the offspring continued to survive, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that my spouse and I created life on the planet? Incidentally, if my buddy came to visit me, my spouse and my new children on this distant planet exactly twenty years after the time of my arrival there, would it be logical for him to claim that all the life on the distant planet necessarily arose solely as the result of abiogenesis occurring for the first time on the planet exactly twenty years earlier?

    Leaving that sentiment and getting back to the original point, as a matter of pure logic, it is simply NOT TRUE that abiogenesis is a necessary, logical given. No matter how much you believe it is. In other words, you’re just patently wrong if you claim abiogenesis is a known fact even without any evidence of abiogenesis.

    Of course, when it comes to the scientific evidence in support of abiogenesis, you better get little people to come dance around it to make it look more substantial. Remember in the movie “This is Spinal Tap” when the Stonehenge replica turned out to be way too small so they decided to have little people dance around it dressed as druids. Are you actually claiming that abiogenesis is a “fact” based on observable, replicable, scientific evidence of abiogenesis? Even though abiogenesis has not even been accomplished by scientists on purpose (by any means), let alone through experimental processes simulating natural abiogenesis? Let alone through experimental processes simulating natural abiogenesis under conditions likely to have existed at the time abiogenesis allegedly occurred? Abiogenesis is a fact? And it’s me that needs to learn more about the scientific process?

    Your point about the semantic use of the term “theories” of evolution rather than “theory” of evolution is not well taken. I was very clear about the manner in which the term “theory of evolution” was being used. There was no confusion or material lack of precision on my part (I also made it abundantly clear that I was not confusing the observable fact that species evolve with “the scientific theories (plural) used to explain that phenomena”).

    In the first place, I was discussing a quote from which stated, “The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.” Like most people, the author of the quote didn’t utilize the term “theories” of evolution. When I was growing up, none of the textbooks called it “theories of evolution.” For decades and decades, the term “theory of evolution” has commonly been used to describe the applicable concept in its broadest sense. Whether it is precise enough for you or not, you must be aware that for most people, use of the term “theory of evolution” is basically the same thing as saying “evolution theory,” and either phrase appropriately encompasses the concept that you would prefer for people to call “theories” of evolution. For instance (stepping away from evolution for a moment for purposes of this example), if I say to a friend who is a theoretical physicist, “Hey, let’s discuss Big Bang theory,” he is not going to say, “Oh, do you mean Big Bang theories?” The word “theory” can fairly and appropriately be utilized to mean “theories.”

    Here’s another question, are you actually going to sit there and pretend that the origin of life is not an absolutely necessary part of the theory of evolution? Trust me, it is. There was a reason every textbook I had in school concerning the theory of evolution included a discussion of the Miller-Urey experiment under the topic of the theory of evolution (in addition to the bogus white moth, black moth B.S.). Natural origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis) is historically part of the theory of evolution, dude, it just is. And, it’s logically required.

    If a magician apparently makes a coin disappear from one hand, the trick is completely unimpressive unless the magician can show you that the coin is also not in his other hand. Here, the trick is to demonstrate that life exists in its present state without intervention by God. The trick is to make God disappear. That’s always been the trick. Unfortunately, were all still waiting on the other hand to be opened, not just for the pinky-finger to be lifted up.

    You stated, “You can have theories that explain how a phenomena acts and the forces that cause it without explaining what started it in the first place. Similarly, we can explain how gravity works without explaining what created all gravity in the universe.” And, also, “[I] need to differentiate the phenomena from the theories about its cause.” How about we make a deal? On this side of the debate, we’ll let you get away with speculation as to the origin of life (“scientific” speculation), and we’ll even make sure to differentiate between the phenomena and the theories about its cause. And, on your side, everyone will quit claiming that the purely speculative theories about its cause are “fact.”

  5. Thomas says:

    RE: Abiogenesis

    Abiogenesis IS a fact. That species evolve is a fact. That more complex forms evolved from simpler forms is a fact. Using these two facts lead us to conclude that something must have started the evolutionary chain and must have been simpler than anything that currently exists. That conclusion is inescapable from the first two facts. That is abiogenesis: the study of what started evolution.

    The scientific explanation of inanimate matter is simply an explanation of the facts: that inanimate matter came together, probably due to energy from the Sun, to start the evolutionary chain. The logic is akin to stating that the Sun will rise in NY before it does in CA by using the fact that the Earth rotates from East to West.

    RE: The distant traveler.

    The idea here is that some traveler came to the planet, deposited its bacteria, virii, DNA or what have you, and then left. The Earth would not have been a particularly hospitable place at the time when said visit would have had to have occurred. I suppose it is possible but there is no evidence to support such a claim. In order to do so, we’d have to find fossilized bacteria from that era which was as sophisticated as modern bacteria.

    > Are you actually claiming that
    > abiogenesis is a “fact” based
    > on observable, replicable, scientific
    > evidence of abiogenesis?

    You can deduce facts from other facts. I can deduce that if stones drop to Earth in my house that they will do so outside and on the other side of the planet. Given the two facts of evolution, it is indisputable that something must have started the evolutionary chain. It could have been a series of events, It could have been a single event. However, it is inescapable that something started the chain in motion.

    The scientific hypotheses about how that might have occurred are being tested. If I remember correctly, recently a group of scientists were able to create RNA in a lab without any outside input. So, yes it is replicable. Can they recreate life? Perhaps but the real process took billions of years which is hard to replicate in a lab.

    RE: Theory vs. Theories

    The point I was trying to make is that there are more than just Darwin’s theory used to explain evolution. There is quite a bit of discussion about the processes, inputs, rates and such that cause evolution. However, that it happens is undisputed.

    RE: Origin of life and evolution

    How the evolutionary process started, while useful for understanding evolution, is not required. We have been able to study quite about how species evolve over the past hundred years without understanding how the process started. It was Einstein that provided an explanation for how gravity might work. That was over a hundred years after Newton figured out how behaved.

    > Natural origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis)
    > is historically part of the theory
    > of evolution, dude, it just is.

    Your statement is self-evident. Science only deals with what is in nature and thus, the only explanation it will provide for how evolution started is a natural one! However, there is a lot to know about evolution and one can study it with out every having to study abiogenesis.

    RE: Evolution, Abiogenesis and God

    Well, firstly, I personally consider the entire concept of “god” to be undefined. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by the term. Secondly, science only deals in what is measurable, verifiable and/or logically deducible from the facts at hand. Deities are by definition “supernatural”. If we were ever able to prove said deity exists, it would no longer be supernatural; it would natural! Third, the facts we have about the natural world lead to the inescapable conclusion that something started the evolutionary process. Science, since it only deals with the natural, obviously assumes that this process happened on its own. It might be possible that a distant traveler started the process but until we have evidence to support such a claim, we must look elsewhere. Right now the best explanation that fits the facts is that it occurred naturally.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “scientific speculation”. Scientific theories are only called theories because there is evidence to support them. All scientific theories are bound by various conditions. The scientific theories of evolution have evidence to support them. They are most definitely not “speculation”.

  6. Thomas and treasure,

    Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. People are looking into how it happened since it can logically be expected from the theory of evolution, which begins at the point at which there was a replicating molecule.

    treasure, obviously, you missed this thread on which scientists made great strides in answering the question of how abiogenesis occurred.

    Here’s the article referenced in that thread from New Scientist.

  7. Thomas says:

    > Abiogenesis is not
    > part of evolutionary theory.

    Precisely so. Just as the study of how gravity works is independent of the study of what created all gravity in the universe.

  8. dtrpogod says:

    I find the blog to be as informative and consisting of as much truth and knowkedge as the The Link presentation on The History Channel.
    Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new “Ida, Missing Link” fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis. “There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay, of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”
    Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth,” the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. “It’s like going back to 1994,” says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. “They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.”
    It is Science like this that keeps the debate so hostile. the show is based totally on the presupposition and leaves out the basic criteria in its analysis.
    We need to have a thorough debate with open minds. If anyone is interested in partaking in such a dialogue please visit me on

  9. settled81 says:

    Nebraska Man- we found the missing link!….a complete human skeletal figure is created from a single tooth….which turns out to be from an extinct pig.

    Piltdown Man- we found the missing link!….a piece of skull, jawbone, and TWO teeth…..but whats this! Some has has filed the teeth and stained the bones to make them look old and human….. turns out the skull is modern human and the teeth and jaw from an orangutan ……SHAME SHAME naughty evolutionist.

    Java Man- we found the missing link!…a skull cap and femur…….found widely scatttered in a gravel pit…..turns out to be remains from modern human and a giant gibbon……oops

    Peking Man- we found the missing link!….bashed in monkeys skulls mixed in with other animal bones and stone tools……evolutionists see tool weilding early ancestor of man…..the rest of the scientific world sees the remains of a monkey dinner in which the stone tools were wielded by man in the bashing in of monkey head in prep for delicious monkey stew.

    Neanderthal man- Missing link?….nope….mordern man with well developed culture, art , and religion……and a nasty dietary deficiency

    Lucy- Missing link…..nice try…but even by evolutionist own time frame and claims….man was already walking around upright by the time of Lucy’s exsistence…….just another monkey

    Seems like the evolutionist a VERY desperate to find something that doesn’t exsist. Creationist seem to have avoided all those embarassing moments because science and nature point towards a Creator…every single time…without exception.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6059 access attempts in the last 7 days.