Am citit pe sarite comentariile voastre si ma bucur cand vad ca si altii gandesc la fel ca mine. Sigur a fost o creatie dar nu a unui mare D-zeu ci a unor binevoitori veniti de pe alte meleaguri (univers), care au imbunatatit atat cat au putut adn-ul pt ca sa iasa ceva cat de cat......, dar pacat ca s-au oprit cam devreme si ne-au lasat atatia sceptici printre noi si pe care cu greu ii mai poti convinge.

Interesanta varianta... Nu am gasit nimic pe internet. Unde gasesc detalii?

E o minciuna. Viata a venit de pe planeta Pellegrini 173-AII, din galaxia HC89, adusa de o sonda spatiala acum cel mult 1,2 miliarde de ani. Fragmente din sonda se pastreaza in secret sub marele templu de la Teotihuacan.

Exista destule dovezi ca Vietuitoarele au evoluat si s-au adaptat. Asta chiar ar putea fi veriga lipsa. insa exista prea multe verigi ca sa spunem ca nu exista un lant evolutiv. Dumnezeu nu ne-a creat, ci noi am evoluat. Pentr toti indoctrinatii care cred ca creationismul o sa-i duca undeva....fratilor, vedeti cum va traiti vietile ca altfel ajungeti in iad si un ateu ar putea ajunge in rai. Acceptati ideea, altfel o sa apara probleme.

Vasazica astia au descoperit VERIGA LIPSA argument si dovada ca ne tragem din maimuta, zic ei !...Insa nimic nu evolueaza de la sine, asa din senin, pur si simplu din intamplare asa cum sustine teoria evolutionista. Lumea functioneaza dupa reguli iar regulile sint stabilite de CREATOR .Aceste reguli se numesc RATIUNILE LUCRURILOR pe care oamenii le studiaza cu ajutorul stiintelor: fizica, matematica, astronomia, biologia etc. Teoria evolutionista exclude creatorul... hocus-pocus apare celula ,apoi fosila si in citeva miliarde de ani apare OMUL. Ia hai, plimbati ursul cu teoria voastra STIINTIFICA ! Maimutoilor !

Imi cer scuze pt cateva greseli de ortografie in comentariul precedent. Provocarea pe care as vrea sa o lansez tuturor acelora care cititi diferite articole in mass media si nu numai prin care se sustin niste adevaruri absolute este sa cercetati toate dovezile pe care acestia le aduc pt asi argumenta orice idee. Va provoc de asemenea pe toti aceia care doresc sa sustina ca Biblia nu este adevarata sau ca are tot felul de minciuni si greseli sa incepeti o cercetare amanuntita, cu obiectivitate stintifica si istorica, prin care sa dovediti ca este asa. Incercati acelasi exercitiu cu orice carte religioasa si de asemenea cu orice document istoric. Mie unul mi-a luat in jur de cativa ani buni pentru a ajunge la o concluzie de care ma temeam la inceput: Biblia ca si document istoric este adevarata fiind de fapt singurul document istoric care ar rezista oricarei analize obiective stintifice. Spor la treaba;)

Pentru cei care citesc engleza as vrea sa va indemn sa cititi doar cateva remarci ale celor mai importante ziare si reviste de specialitate din lume cu privire la aceasta descoperire. Este cred foarte important sa discernem faptul ca adesea unele data stintifice sunt interpretate de mass-media intr-un mod subiectiv, fara a fi in masura de a trage anumite concluzii stintifice. Cotidianul britanic "The Guardian" afirma ca "Jørn Hurum, at the University of Oslo, the scientist who assembled the international team of researchers to study Ida is relaxed about using the phrase [“missing link” to describe Ida]. “Why not? I think we could use that phrase for this kind of specimen,” he said. “[People] have a feeling that if something is important it is a missing link.”
[I]n the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil [the author] is more circumspect. “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past,” the authors wrote.
“[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here.”
The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.
One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. “That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published,” he said.(“Is Fossil Ida a Missing Link in Evolution?”, James Randerson, The Guardian, May 19, 2009)

New York Times afirma despre acelasi subiect: "[D]espite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a “stem group” that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, “but we are not advocating this.”
All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may" (“Seeking a Missing Link, and a Mass Audience”,Tim Arango, The New York Times, May 19, 2009)
Principalul ziar austrian "The Australian" subliniaza faptul ca unul din principalli membrii ai echipei de cercetari in acest proiect nu este de acord cu afirmatia potrivit careia "Ida este veriga lipsa in demonstrarea evolutei umane" - University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown remains skeptical. He pointed to a story in the Weekend Australian in which one of [coauthor Jørn] Hurum’s coauthors, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, said the team would have preferred to publish in a more rigorous journal such as Science or Nature.
Dr. Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal: “There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”
“That rings all sorts of warning bells,” Professor Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.
“It’s nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates . . . but they’ve cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they’ve been criticized (by other scientists) for doing that.”(“Scientists Divided on Ida as the Missing Link”, Leigh Dayton, The Australian, May 21, 2009)
-- Una din principale reviste stintifice din lume Live Science afirma ca - “On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing.” . . .
“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”
Most experts agree that the find is significant, if only for its impressive degree of completeness, but some were put off by the bells and whistles that went along with the publicity campaign around Ida. . . .
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” [Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris] Beard said.(“Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience, May 20, 2009)
--- Alta revista de stiinta Science NOW explica "Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new 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 in the paper. “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 unsupportablle 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.”(“‘Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists", Ann Gibbons, ScienceNOW, May 19, 2009)
---- Alta revista cunoscuta in lumea Stintei Live Science declara: "Science is supposed to be methodical, and usually it is, sometimes to the point of being dull. But there are times when a little hoopla is called for. Major discoveries that rewrite the textbooks deserve big headlines and ubiquitous media coverage and lots of scientific slaps on the back and all that.
The discovery of the “Ida” fossil, announced this week as though the 47-million-year-old lemur-like female were a rock star, seemed at first like one to celebrate.
Today we know better. . . . [T]here are doubts about whether [humans are] really descended from Ida. Problem is, most of the coverage is done, and the public could be left with the impression that Ida is a rock-solid missing link in the human evolutionary chain. . . .
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. . . .
The debacle started to unfold when the finding, cloaked in secrecy while a media engine was being primed, leaked out in The Wall Street Journal, and then in London’s Daily Mail. Then The New York Times wrote about the media circus that was to ensue. All this was published before anyone but the research team (and its tightly controlled media team) knew the details of the finding. . . .
Ida’s unveiling was highly scripted (with some “Barnum and Bailey aspects,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University). More important, it can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won’t know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed.(“Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far”
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, May 20, 2009)
---Postul britanic de stiri BBC news: "Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil. . . .
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."(“Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil”
Christine McGourty, BBC News, May 19, 2009)

Eu lansez o provocare. Cititi Noul Testament si dupa aceea Vechiul Testament. Si in timp ce cititi asteptati sa auzi un click in sufletul vostru. Va asigur ca va va rasturna tot sistemul vostru de valori marunte.

Valian in Biblie scrie : Cercetati toate lucrurile si opriti ce-i bun. Si ma intreb unde-i basmul? Sa crezi intr-o aberatie nedemonstrata stiintific cum ca aveti ca descendent un animal sau sa fi modest si sa-ti dai seama ca omul care practic isi foloseste partial creierul este facut de cineva mult mai inteligent. Este trist sa vad cati de putin mai cred in Dumnezeu.

observ k din ce in ce mai multa lume contesta existenta lui dumnezeu... sincer ma bucur. inseamna ca incet incet lumea deschide ochi si nu se mai rezuma doar la "crede si nu cerceta"... e imbucurator.