The center of the front page of today's New York Times proclaims, "Rat-Size Ancestor Said to Link Man and Beast." Accompanying a cute illustration (shown at right) is this lead: "Humankind's common ancestor with other mammals may have been a roughly rat-size animal that weighed no more than a half a pound, had a long furry tail and lived on insects."
Well, that clinches it. Next paragraph: "In a comprehensive six-year study of the mammalian family tree, scientists have identified and reconstructed what they say is the most likely common ancestor of the many species on the most abundant and diverse branch of that tree—the branch of creatures that nourish their young in utero through a placenta."
Game, set, match. "Comprehensive study" -- must be thorough, not speculative. "Scientists" -- not just several scientists, but must be millions and millions. Published, the net paragraph tells us, "in the journal Science." Sounds definitive.
But wait a minute -- what exactly is the evidence for the rat-size animal being our ancestor? "The animal had several anatomical characteristics for live births that anticipated all placental mammals and led to some 5,400 living species, from shrews to elephants, bats to whales, cats to dogs and, not least, humans."
So because the animal apparently gave birth a bit like mammals and humans give birth, that's proof of ancestry? Hmm. Couldn't it be evidence for intelligent design, with God having a group of His creatures giving birth in similar ways?
[Read the rest of the article at WorldMag.com.]