...as is my daughter. I am the first generation, in this case! I must agree with Formosus, though. Religion tends to perpetuate itself far more efficiently than Atheism, and the views of the small minority of the truly devout tend to drown out the views of the (recently estimated) 30% who are knowingly or otherwise atheist, and the other 65% who really dont care. On the other hand, no atheist so far as I am aware was ever a suicide bomber who murdered other atheists, who happened to believe in a different kind of atheism... so there is no self destructivity built into the atheist psyche! all mind boggling stuff.
Getting back to topic, I am somewhat puzzled as to why this fossil, beautiful and intact as it is, is being lauded as 'the missing link' or as a revolutionary find of a human ancestor. Surely, any primate fossil (and there must be at least a few)
from 40 million BCE or before must, by definition, be a human ancestor - Just like the mammalian reptiles of the Triassic, or the lungfish of the Devonian. The intense debate usually surfaces much more recently, when one tries to untangle the branches of the hominid line.
Personally, I dont like the term 'missing link'. For me the fossil chain from distinctly ape-like to definitely, albeit primitively human, seems more or less continuous.