Latest update April 29th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- Canadian firm developing Uranium project in Guyana
- Guyana oil drives CNOOC’s US$5.7B first quarter profit surge
- Exxon awards new rig contract to Noble at US$375,000 day rate
- Iran’s Guards seize wartime power, blunting Supreme Leader’s role
- ‘Don’t be used in Venezuela’s Essequibo push’ – Pres. Ali warns CARICOM
The soul of a transitional fossil
Dear Editor,
Daniel Singh has again read the London Times newspaper and now he changes his story (GC June 26th).
Remember when he claimed that the fossil, Darwinius masillae, is a scientific “plot” and questioned its authenticity; when he strongly argued that “Ida” was most likely an ancestor of lemurs and bush babies?
Well, he changed his mind and now praises a scientist who says “facts make it very clear that Ida is a transitional fossil.”
So Singh’s backsliding, he’s turning tail, but doing so with the petulant remark that at least Ida is a missing link in a “very limited sense”. He is forced to accept the scientific “facts” but his mind is unhappy about it. This mindset is understandable once you realise what Singh is hoping to achieve.
He’s on a mission of scientific dis-information (remember how he incorrectly insisted that the CERN particle collider is a “time machine”?) Singh feels that once you accept his Ida criticism, you will doubt the Theory of Evolution and will fall instead for his story of two nudists and a talking snake in a botanical garden.
It is a delusional premise of course, but this is Daniel Singh we’re talking about here, the man who claims to be a Christian authority, but desperately hides the facts to support his claim. Still, Singh, who cannot prove that he is a real pastor, has the gall to talk about pseudonyms in the letters column!
This religious character also reveals a new aspect to evangelical beliefs; Singh tells us that fossils, even the “washed up” celebrity types, have souls. So I guess he’ll be working next on saving Ida’s “poor soul.”
Singh says “a few pseudonyms in the letter column” felt that if something is important it is a missing link.
The truth is of course, that Singh, who generally cannot grasp complex scientific principles, was and still is, the only one panicking over the Ida fossil.
None of his debunkers have ever said that Darwinius masillae is “the missing link” between monkeys and humans.
We have patiently explained that the fossil is a transitional form between Prosimians (Lemur lineage) and Simians (Monkey-Ape lineage) because it displays morphological characteristics of both lineages. Since hominoids (Australopithenes) and eventually hominids (Homo erectus, sapiens, aka Humans) evolved from a great ape ancestor, it means that by extension, we share a common ancestor with Darwinius masillae.
No one has ever doubted that Ida is “member of the dominant lower primate family of her time” and this is what Daniel Singh, found so difficult to understand.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.