Well, unfortunately it doesn't, because, die-hard Christian that I am, I don't usually take such things for truth. I am interested in what it looks like, since the article doesn't include a picture. It probably does tie in with micro-evolution and Creationism, as many "missing links" have been discovered before, and some of them seem more like one species than another. Example: Archaeopteryx resembles more of a toothed-bird then a link between a bird and a reptile. They say that its survival of the fittest, but if this creature is the fittest, why is it that we only have found one or two of them? I should think that if it truly was a missing link, then there would be many, many more of the same or at least some more that look a little more human than Ida. I've always been a little skeptical of carbon-dating, mostly because no one's explained to me how they can know something is 47 million years old when the oldest living thing on earth is a tree that's 3,000 years old. It just doesn't make sense to me, but if someone can explain it, I'd appreciate it. The microevolution side is probably best represented by this: Her nails got shorter because she required more use of her fingertips or something. (I'm not a scientist, so I don't know.) I don't know about the toes, though. Also, another thing that bothers me about evolution is that if its about survival of the fittest, then why didn't we all evolve into the same species? If the human race, or the bird race, or the fish race is the best survivor, why didn't we all evolve into birds or fish or humans?