Explain what? It's not a link to anything. That was the point of the post.
You could have just said, "cdesign proponentism don't have an explanation". But, since you desperately flailed around trying to make a point, I'll go ahead and eviscerate it.
When you buy a million dollar fossil sight unseen, you have an agenda.
Yes, in the case of Ida it was to create a huge buzz for the museum in Norway, sell a book and get a TV show produced. The actual paper described a being that
might or might not be related to anthropoids. The phantasmal agenda you describe in the rest of your post exists only in the minds of cdesign proponentists.
Their desperation to come up with something, anything that could remotely point to Universal Common Ancestry, then promote and market the daylights out of it like its...
How the heck is an ancestral proto-primate supposed to demonstrate
Universal Common Ancestry? That is actually demonstrated by the existance of a single genetic code in DNA and in numerous genes that are shared (in one incarnation or another) by nearly every living being.
And, again, those trumpeting Ida is "the link" were those promoting her to make a name for themselves and as much money as possible. This cabal of paleontologists lying about her relatedness to humans, also, again, exists only in the fevered imaginations of cdesign proponentists.
Afradapis and "Ida", sittin' in a tree... : Laelaps
The fact that access to the scientific description of Darwinius was tightly controlled until after the media frenzy was initiated by Atlantic Productions meant that science took a backseat to hype.
Indeed, paleontologists who specialize in the study of early primates were not impressed by Darwinius. The fossil primate bore very little resemblance to the earliest known anthropoids, and critics soon found themselves fighting a battle on two fronts. The initial description of Darwinius, despite being much more reserved than the media hype, did not provide solid support that this primate was closely related to anthropoids. Much of the media coverage, by contrast, simply parroted unsubstantiated claims that Darwinius was one of our ancestors. Both the "strong" and "weak" interpretations of Darwinius had major flaws, and it was tricky responding to both versions of Ida's story.
Why is it when evolution data falls flat on its face, the evolutionists don't say they were wrong about that one.
Again, "evolution data" didn't fall flat on its face - wanton self-promotion on the part of museum curator and a production company fell flat on its face. Further, was it cdesign proponentists who properly identified Ida not as a basal primate, but an adapid that may or may have been related to anthropoids? No, it was actual paleontologists in the original PoLS article.
PLoS ONE: Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology
And others who took them to task with science, not cdesign proponentism.
http://strainlab.uchicago.edu/publications/Williams et al 2010.pdf
Instead, they turn the question around and fault let's say, an ID proponent for not being able to explain it?
Ironic. You spin my question - the point of which was to show that cdesign proponentism has no explanatory power when it comes to Ida, or any fossil for that matter - around to act as if I am playing games by asking it. Wow, just wow.
