>>The evolutionists regualrly criticize the creation account because of the meat-eating-animals-whose-teeth-aren't-suited-for-a-vegatarian- diet issues, and yet here we have *scientists* looking at some sizable looking canines claming that this creature was *probably* a *fruit eater*.<<
I have not heard that criticism of creationists but a couple of big pointy teeth could be for defense. But in any case this seems like an early article -that scientists all across the world haven't had a chance to double check everything yet.
That's an important part of scientific review - scrutiny from scientists all over the world - that's how the cold fusion success was shown to be wrong..
So then why are they shooting off their mouths making statements that they're likely to have to retract later. The article is replete with uncertainty; loaded with words and phrases like: *could have been*,*probably*,*are thought*,*Scientists think*,*the possibility exists*,*it appears to show*.
Even other scientists are unsure of the conclusions drawn.
But not all were convinced by the conclusions drawn by the Spanish researchers. Professor Begun considers it unlikely that Pierolapithecus was ancestral to orang-utans.
Professor David Pilbeam, director of the Peadbody Museum in Cambridge, US, was even more sceptical about the relationship of Pierolapithecus to modern great apes: "To me it's a very long stretch to link this to any of the living apes," he told the BBC News website.
That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone. Once burned, twice shy.