Posted by: Randall Niles | May 22, 2009

Grandma Ida, the Lemur-Monkey

On Wednesday, scientists allegedly unveiled the “Missing Link in Human Evolution.” From Alex Watts, Sky News Online (May 20, 2009):

“Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. The discovery of the 95%-complete ‘lemur-monkey’ – dubbed Ida – is described by experts as the “eighth wonder of the world.”

“They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be “somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth”. Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution… Sir David Attenborough said Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have seen the fossil – and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.”

Wow, this is it! May 20, 2009 — We now know “who we are and where we came from!” Scientists on the Web have declared that we are the result of an evolutionary variation from a simple ‘lemur-monkey’ that ultimately became the complex, thinking, soul-bearing human being!

Wait. Let’s take a step back and see if this is really possible based on what we know about genetics in the 21st century…

Nobody disputes micro-evolution. It is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of “dogs.” This is variation/adaptation within a kind of creature, NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. The variations are always in a downward trend and are constrained by the genetic code (the dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly). No new genetic information is added — genetic information is always lost. The original pair of “dogs” would have had all of the potential characteristics of all of their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.  

Here’s a basic illustration:  

Say the mother “dog” had AaBb genes and the father “dog” also had AaBb genes.  

The possible egg gene combinations = AB, Ab, aB, ab

The possible sperm gene combinations = AB, Ab, aB, ab   

The possible gene combinations overall: 

   ]           AB         Ab       aB          ab


  AB ]      ABAB    AbAB   aBAB    abAB


Ab ]      ABAb     AbAb   aBAb     abAb


aB ]      ABaB     AbaB   aBaB     abaB


ab ]      ABab     Abab     aBab     abab

The possible offspring:

















Therefore, if two “abab”s become isolated and mate, their offspring will not exhibit the traits represented by A and B (because they simply won’t have those genes). Likewise, if two “ABAB”s become isolated, they will lose the potential for a and b. 

Lost genetic information = lost potential traits. 

This is a basic illustration, but this is what we see happen with every kind of creature, including dogs, cats, horses, and yes, monkeys. They can give birth to new species over time, but this is the result of isolating a gene pool — this is not “upward evolution.” The original parents have all of the potential traits expressed in all of their various offspring. This is all science has ever observed. Upward evolution beyond mom and dad’s original pool of genetic traits is pure conjecture. 

Again, there is no known process by which genetic information can be added. Thus, “lemur-monkeys” stay “lemur-monkeys” or isolate further into segmented species of “lemurish” or “monkeyish” creatures (just like my dog example above). Genetic code is always lost through generations of isolated breeding. 

Just my three cents — Keep Thinking, 

Randall Niles



  1. I don’t see anything about this Lemur fossil that suggests it has anything to do with humans other than that humans dug the thing up. The “scientists” are on crack.

  2. A possible agenda to disprove creation by God and the existance of God might be to eliminate certain unalienable rights of all men endowed by our Creator which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government would be freed from any obligation to secure these rights of all people per “The Declaration of Independence” and could then devise, substitute and impose privileges or laws relating to certain groups or classes of people. Hasn’t this been tried before ?

  3. The more you become aware that there are consequences for your thoughts, beliefs and actions, the more likely it is that you will search for the truth about life and respond accordingly.

  4. On the concept of a purposeful life:
    A successful real estate investor/teacher told us in his class that if we didn’t set our own goals & agendas, we soon would be on someone elses. Our days truly are numbered. All things are subject to the law of change & decay. Daily I try to maintain focus on a purpose and goal in the “now” & not spend much time at all in constant debate or in matters that don’t support building relationships, increasing health or maintaining a healthy home environment. Redeem your time from thieves.

  5. So tell me, is a dog breed with curly hair that is descended from a straight haired breed a gain or loss of information? And what is the situation for a straight haired breed descended from a curly haired breed. Which is the loss, which is the gain, or why are both the same?

  6. I won’t say anything about Ida, but I find your assertion that and explanation of why ‘upwards evolution’ is impossible to be rather flawed.

    Two words: Gene mutation. DNA polymerases sometimes insert a few As or Gs where there weren’t any before, for example.

    Where did antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria come from if they did not arise by mutation? Did God purposely create some bacteria with AR genes after foreseeing which antibiotics would come into widespread use by humans? I’m pretty sure that at this point we’ve seen AR genes appear out of nowhere in isolated populations of bacteria all originally lacking the genes. There are probably better examples to back what I am trying to tell you, but I think the whole ‘gene mutation’ thing is enough.

    • Thanks for your comment — Here’s a video respone to your argument from Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – Gene Mutation.

      It’s still a change within an existing species — It’s total conjecture that this type of gene mutation produces new species — It’s never been observed.

      Yes, nobody denies gene mutation… That’s how we get crazy, four-winged fruit flies… However, it’s still a fruit fly… The rest is pure extrapolation without observation.

      • Thank you for your reply. I didn’t entirely expect one, but you have pleasantly surprised me.

        “It’s never been observed” – Perhaps it’s never been observed in a controlled setting – say, a laboratory or a small and very intensively studied and controlled area – within which we can be certain that the emergence of a new species is what has actually occurred, and not simply the discovery of an already existing species. But that isn’t saying much. No single study, to my knowledge, has ever existed for a long enough period of time for even a new prokaryotic (let alone eukaryotic) species to emerge from culture, and even if one has, I would be impressed if the study replicated natural conditions that are thought to encourage the differentiation of species, which we don’t even entirely understand yet. Even if you try to argue that observing species in the wild or in non-controlled environments should work fine, there are at least two main points I can make in opposition and many, many more less significant points:

        1. We are discovering new species from all six kingdoms of life all the time – especially Bacteria and Archaea. It is estimated that we have only discovered between 1% and 10% of all prokaryotic species. This complicates enormously the business of determining whether a newly discovered species is one that did not exist previously or simply had not been seen before.

        2. Darwinian evolution has only been a mainstream idea for a very brief period of time. Given that, I would opine that people have not been paying attention to whether or not it is occurring around them for very long at all, let alone long enough to actually witness macroscopic evolution.

        Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence for macroevolution by small incremental changes in the fossil record, but I’m assuming that isn’t what you’re looking for.

        In response to the video you linked me to, antibiotic resistant bacteria being less reproductively fit is definitely not a dead end for Darwin’s theory, and as far as I can tell it doesn’t really affect the original argument that I made, so I don’t really feel the need to say anything on that subject that I haven’t already said.

        My bottom line is that macroevolution by gene mutation not having been observed with certainty in real-time as of yet is not at all a strong argument against its occurrence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: