The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public (“Meet Your Dear Old Aunti ‘Ida,’ ” May 20).
One fossil does not represent a transitional species, any more than the remains of a two- headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They’re simply abortions of nature.
You’d need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you’d need many transitional aberrations that couldn’t survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.
Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.
Josh Greenberger
Brooklyn
***
We modern humans are “homo sapiens sapiens,” meaning “wise, wise, men.”
A much more glaring mistake in the article is our age. We are at least 130,000 years old, not 10,000 years old.
In fact, most experts accept a date of 200,000 years ago for our debut appearance.
Stan Kabrt
Bayonne, NJ
***
I am a loyal fan of The Post, but the creation/evolution debate is one issue you clearly do not understand.
Your coverage of the latest “missing link,” Ida, the lovely little lemur, is dramatic evidence of this charge.
Everything in your articles about Ida took the opinions of the scientists promoting her to be sacrosanct.
The authors of these articles accept these opinions as facts, but they’re just the opinions of devout evolutionists, and one day they will be proven to be completely worthless.
Don’t let yourselves be spoon-fed the endless lies of evolutionists. The objections to evolutionary theory are very real and very powerful.
Raising objections about evolutionary theory will dovetail very nicely with your other editorial positions.
Steve Bartholomew
Salem