The History Channel: Hype That Changes NOTHING!
Posted by lamarzulli on May 26, 2009
Hello everyone. This post is from Jody Rohr and I’m including it in today’s BLOG because, in my opinion, she nailed the History Channel’s show last night, that featured, Ida, the supposed missing link.
There is so much that is happening in the world right now that I’ve included several links to areas of interest.
North Korea: detonated a nuclear device that was similar in strength to the one use at Hiroshima, in the closing days of the WWII. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98DCSF00&show_article=1
Israel: It appears that Israel is responding to Iran’s saber rattling over the weekend as it moved six of it’s war ships into the Gulf of Aden. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088184.html
Iran: Here’s the story about Iran sending it’s warships into the Gulf of Aden. http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39868320090525
Mexico: Swine flu deaths rise to 83!
Pakistan: It appears that upwards of 2.4 million people have been displaced because of the fighting between the Taliban and Pakistani troops. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1ufUjFAroLYzPr6omU3QLXf5rhw
USA: Finally! Ron Paul is trying to get the Federal Reserve audited. The name is a misnomer as it has nothing to do with our federal government.
Hello Mr. Marzulli,
Well, well, don’t the “scientists” of the world have vivid imaginations? I watched the “Link” show tonight on the History Channel and came to some conclusions. It was only worth my time to see the show so that I can now speak about it. Otherwise, it was ho-hum. The most that anyone can say about Ida is that she has traits like a monkey and a lemur. She is one individual, one sample, and nothing can be extrapolated from the facts that she presents, besides the facts that she presents… The “scientists” examining her have gone to a lot of trouble to “tell us her story” as if it is fact. Her “story” should be limited to what can be observed and nothing more. And then they end the show by bringing up the point that some people are not going to be happy about this discovery… My feeling is: what is to be upset about except that YOU people are telling us what to think about it?! They tell us that she is supposedly 47 million years old. The accuracy of carbon dating is questionable. She has some traits like lemurs (her body proportions, hands and feet, tail, and size) and some like primates (her fingernails and lack of a grooming claw, lack of tooth comb, presence of ankle bone that primates have but lemurish animals don’t have). I fail to be impressed with their conclusion about her age, less than one year. I will give reasons for that later. I missed the first few minutes of the show if it started at 9:00 p.m., so I don’t know if some explanation was given for the way she was extracted and preserved. That topic was covered very lightly later in the show and it still didn’t answer some BIG questions I had regarding the so called “shadow” of her soft tissues, that surrounds the fossil. How was the fossil extracted from shale in such a way as to preserve it perfectly as it appeared in its present resin “coffin”? And how, pray tell, was the shadow of her soft tissues also preserved unless she was fossilized in the resin? If the fossil was extracted from something hard like shale is there some way to also preserve the shadow of her soft tissue? unless the shale she was originally in was discolored and the person/people who preserved the fossil took artistic liberties and added their recreation of the shadow to the resin when they prepared the fossil. I can imagine woody substances in her stomach (like the seeds they say they can see – I couldn’t see them) being fossilized but not soft plant tissues. Perhaps they also saw the stems/frames of leaves??? I thought the discription of the analysis of her stomach contents was insufficient to explain this. I saw the lump on Ida’s wrist long before it was brought to the viewer’s attention and thought to myself, “She had a broken wrist, or a bone tumor or something that caused that.” My husband has a similar lump on his wrist, from having broken it, but it isn’t nearly as big. I also noticed from the x-rays of her skull that she had adult molars still up inside her jaw and came to the conclusion long before it was mentioned that Ida MIGHT have been a juvenile. That is the first logical conclusion one would come to. But I know from my own teeth that anomolies in dentition are common. I have only 24 teeth (rather than the normal 32) that are errupted. My set of baby teeth was minus 4 on the bottom jaw and minus two on the upper jaw. My adult teeth errupted far later than my classmates of similar age and I had to wait until I was about 15, and had two of my adult premolars pulled on the top, before I could get braces to correct my overbite and the crowding on the top. In addition to that, I had one baby pre-molar that was deformed (it had two sections, instead of one, sharing a common root). The baby tooth behind it was a normal molar but there was never an adult tooth to replace it and I had that baby tooth until I was about 32 years old, when it started to get very loose and to break up, and it had to be pulled. So, technically, I was born with 5 less teeth in my bottom jaw than should have been there. One of my adult incisors to the right of the main incisors is also deformed, having a rough ridge along its biting surface. Both of those incisors are undersized. My parents both had normal teeth and the correct number of them. My children also have the normal number of teeth and no deformities but they were both a little slow getting their adult teeth. When my adult canines on the top started to errupt, it was found that they were both turned backwards! I had to have surgery to have orthodontic appliances (the metal bands) put on them, and then little gold chains were attached to them, and the wire on my braces, and the chains were twisted each time I saw the orhodontist. The teeth eventually emerged mostly facing the right direction and then the braces finished the process. And finally, at about age 38 years, ONE of my 4 wisdom teeth errupted on the upper right (that makes the total of teeth errupted 24 because I’m minus that one adult molar on the bottom left). It took several years to reach its present state, which seems to be only half-ways out of the gum. It causes no trouble and has plenty of room due to the other missing teeth. I have a horse who is 22 or 23 years old and he is at an age where most of his teeth could be quite short by now. Horse teeth continue to grow, in order to replace wear on them, for most of their lives. At a certain age, which varies from horse to horse but is usually around the time they get close to 20, their teeth stop growing and the resulting wear on the remaining teeth causes them to get worn away. My old-timer has good length to his molars yet but his top front teeth are almost completely gone. He should have worn his bottom front teeth off at the same rate, and maybe have remaining about a half inch to 3/4 of an inch of tooth length on the top and bottom of his front teeth. But he has close to an inch and a half or an inch and 3/4 on the bottom and nothing but little white nubs that are smooth and flush with the gum on the top. This could be due to him rubbing his top front teeth on something but the entire time I have owned him (14.5 years now) I have never seen him rub his teeth on anything nor have I seen any spot in his housing that has been being rubbed or chewed on. The wear on the top front incisors is even all the way around. If he’d been wearing his teeth off by rubbing, I’d expect to see only the front two incisors that short, and not the other 4 as well. These are anomalies in dentition that are unique to individuals. What if I had symmetrical absence of those teeth, and no deformities, and had been fossilized? What if they found only one side of my skull, WITH the assymetries? Would they say that I was a new species of human? And my horse? What if Ida had a slow rate of tooth erruption? Then how could we determine that she was a juvenile? Also, considering how smashed the skull was, it seems like a stretch to determine that she didn’t have a tooth comb for lower incisors… Perhaps their scans and frontal x-rays showed them something they didn’t show us. They didn’t show us that x-rays or scans confirmed it, they just said she didn’t have a tooth comb… There may be another way to determine whether she was a youth or not, which was not mentioned in the show. Young animals have incompletely ossified ends on their long bones. When they have completed the growth of their long bones, usually before they are completely mature, the soft, cartilaginous plates on the end of the bones (which are inbetween the bone and the cartilage of the joint) get hard and become bone. These ends on juvenile bones are called growth plates. In horses we see the growth plates harden between the 2nd and 3rd year of life (at which point horsemen say the joints have “closed”). I think, in humans which grow more slowly, the “joints close” at an older age, around puberty, give or take a year or two. Someone like a zoo vet or zoologist or paleontologist would know when lemurs and monkeys “close their joints” (ossify the growth plates). From that point on, the bones above the elbow and true knee on the hind leg continue to lengthen and widen (the pelvis and rib cage get deeper) causing the animal to have more adult-like proportions. Foals are known for being long-legged with short, shallow bodies and short necks and small heads. We raise cattle and occassionally we find the remains of a calf that didn’t make it. Usually, the ends of the bones are not there because they were soft when the calf died. All the soft tissue disintegrates in a carcass. Adult cattle bones have the typical shape to the end of their long, leg bones. Did anyone on the investigating team notice that it appears (as far as I could tell…) that Ida had adult looking ends to her long bones? They mentioned the substantial nature of the bones/joints leading them to conclude that she must have been pretty muscular. I agree with that – I saw that also, long before they mentioned it. But they didn’t touch on the growth plate issue. If Ida was indeed a juvenile that was about 6 months old, she should have had soft growth plates at the end of her leg bones and they may have deteriorated, along with all the other cartilaginous stuff in her body, before her bones were fossilized. I don’t know for sure if they would have done so but if they didn’t deteriorate I think x-rays surely should have been able to show a distinct line of seperation where the bones ended and the growth plates began. It shows up in x-rays of adult bones but not as clearly as in juvenile bones. I have a B.S. in Animal Production (Cal Poly U., Pomona) and have worked for veterinarians and taken x-rays of animals. I had to take anatomy and physiology classes and meat science (butchering) and learn all about the different domestic animals used in agriculture. I graduated cum laudi (I wasn’t a slouch student). I’m not bragging. I’m just trying to explain why I think I can talk about these things. One time we had a cow go down on one of her hind legs and we had to shoot her because she wasn’t going to get better. We didn’t have the vet out: it was just pretty certain she was done for (she was quite aged as well). I was curious about what happened to her hind leg to cause her to go down. After she was dead, we butchered all but the affected hind quarter. I dissected it and found that not only had she worn off a good portion of the joint cartilage on the medial side of her knee joint (there was bone on bone there!), she had also torn some joint cartilage (she had been in heat and the weight of other cows mounting her was more than her aged skeleton could handle). There was a LOT of joint fluid built up around the joint. She would not have gotten better, for sure. You don’t do joint replacement on an aged cow… I’m not impressed with Ida being the missing “link”. How many thousands of species are not represented in the “fossil record”? How can we take one individual fossil and make such certain claims about it? The “scientists” are assuming that she was a normal individual and not one with symetrical anomolies. With only one hind leg to examine, we can only assume the anatomy of the other leg was exactly the same. The “scientists” are assuming that the physiology of Ida followed the same rules that modern mammals follow (in other words, the age of tooth erruption…). I seriously question the accuracy of carbon dating… Ida does not come close to filling in the gaps in the fossil record because we don’t even know what the gaps look like, or how they should be represented. We can only make educated guesses, which is what science is supposed to do, rather than TELL people with such certainty that “this changes everything”! It doesn’t change anything. It just gives fossil and evolution nutts something else to dream about. I also laugh when I see the transition of ape to man… Why on earth, if modern adaptations make a species more fit for survival, do the ancient species continue to flourish in their present envirnonments? I suppose they’d say that the environment that the primates adapted to became overcrowded, necessitating a change in genetics in order for survival of the fittest to continue? I just don’t buy it. It doesn’t compute in my mind. I suppose that is why we don’t see a new type of whitetail deer emerging… In Pennsylvania the whitetails are overcrowded so they are smaller and not as healthy. Shouldn’t a new type of deer start emerging? The species is still the same, and given ample nutrition, would attain the size of the Ohio whitetails. Oh, I’m sorry, it takes millions of years to make a new species… (tongue in cheek there) The law of entropy says something like this: Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1972, says: 2. a measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or a system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a colosed system, as the universe.” In other words, “everything moves from a state of order to disorder” in a closed system. That goes against the idea of evolution because evolution says that simple creatures are evolving into ever more complex animals. That, in and of itself, goes against common sense. I fail to see how more complexity is efficient enough to allow for greater survival ability.
Just my two cents worth!
21 Responses to “The History Channel: Hype That Changes NOTHING!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.