Media Overblows Claims of "Human Evolution": Examining the Newest "Missing Link"

Evolution News & Views ^ | April 14, 2006 | Casey Luskin

[JCEccles]

Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."

The latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans."

[GSlob]

All those failing to evolve by noontime the coming Tuesday will be subject to summary extinction.
Personnel Department

[narby]

only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution.

"Paltry evidence", measured by it's literal tonnage.

[JCEccles]

You pride yourself on employing only reason and logic to the available evidence. Suppose you found a thumbnail-sized piece of thin tortoiseshell buried three feet deep in your garden. Would you conclude from that evidence that ancient Indian tribes were laying down riffs on Les Paul deluxes in the vicinity of your backyard in 488 AD?

Darwinists make substantially analogous and foolish claims every day.

[YOUGOTIT]

And a fish decided to come out of the water so it laid an egg that turned into a small mammal. However, there was only one egg so the mammal had no mate so another fish laid another egg and a mate evolved.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Suppose you found a thumbnail-sized piece of thin tortoiseshell buried three feet deep in your garden. Would you conclude from that evidence that ancient Indian tribes were laying down riffs on Les Paul deluxes in the vicinity of your backyard in 488 AD?"

Me? I'd conclude nothing, as I am not an archaeologist.

" Darwinists make substantially analogous and foolish claims every day."

You wish. :)

[Andy from Beaverton]

I thought James was the link?

[js1138]

Evolution does successfully predict whhere to look for specific kinds of fossils. No other hypothesis even makes the attempt. If you have an alternative explanatory hypothesis that predicts fossil finds, let's hear about it.

[mountainlyons]

Nebraska man was a whole civilization created form a tooth. The tooth turned out to be a pig tooth but someone wanting to find something will make much out of nothing.

[Coyoteman]

Nebraska man was a whole civilization created form a tooth.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

[js1138]

I would be interested to know whether the Nebraska man was exposed by a creationist, and if so, on what basis.

I find it interesting that creationists blindly accept the determination by mainstream science that Piltdown Man was a hoax. How does one know it wasn't a coverup to hide a fossil that would destroy the theory of evolution?

[PatrickHenry]

Archive.

[Creationist]

Nebraska man was a whole civilization created form a tooth.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

It appears that is was the case.

Early Man: Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link. In England Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, fully supported Osborn (Bowden 1977, 46).

At the time a politician from Nebraska, W. J. Bryan, was campaigning in the courts against man being descended from the apes. Osborn stated;

...the Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes. (Bowden 1977, 46)

In 1922 the Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of Hesperopithecus and his wife, all from the remains of one tooth! A few years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig! Little publicity was given to the error.

In this case you see some of the ingredients of the pre-man game. A discovery is made, a prominent scientist(s) interprets the data in the framework of current scientific thinking. The popular press bridges the gap between the scientist and the lay person, and in the process "fills in" a few details. The man on the street is presented with an image, that will be retained, that man arose from apes.

In this case, how many people read the Illustrated London Times and were influenced by it? Probably many.

[Creationist]

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils: Books: Marvin L. Lubenow by Marvin L. Lubenow.

[GLDNGUN]

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

LOL. Ouch. Better put some ice on that.

[Creationist]

How does one know it wasn't a cover up to hide a fossil that would destroy the theory of evolution?

You hold to the ""Theory of Evolution"" as if it were fact, maybe the ToE is "Satan's" cover up to destroy your soul and get you to believe that there is not a God who created the universe and everything in it it 144 hours 6000 years ago and lose your chance to make it to heaven.

[Creationist]

Evolution does successfully predict whhere to look for specific kinds of fossils.

In the dirt.

[js1138]

You hold to the ""Theory of Evolution"" as if it were fact, maybe the ToE is "Satan's" cover up to destroy your soul and get you to believe that there is not a God who created the universe and everything in it it 144 hours 6000 years ago and lose your chance to make it to heaven.

I thought of that by myself.

When I was eleven years old.

[Coyoteman]

Nice unattributed cut and paste from the Creation Science page. Here is the link you forgot to post.

For a scientific view of anything pertaining to evolution, I generally do not start with the creation websites. They, as one might say, have a bone to pick.

Try this site for a more balanced view:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

[balrog666]

Is ignorance contagious? Or is our educational system turning out ever more scientific illiterates?