Posted on 05/21/2009 1:33:35 PM PDT by stevelackner
Fox News reports on the new 47-million year old primate fossil unveiled to the world Tuesday saying it "has made waves among scientists and non-scientists. Google responded by working an image of the fossil into the logo of its search page Wednesday. The discovery was presented with much fanfare at a press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where researchers called the finding a 'missing link' and a publisher from Little, Brown (which put out a related book called 'The Link') called it 'a scientific discovery that will undoubtedly revolutionize how we understand our own evolution.'... The small body represents a roughly 9-month-old female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs. The researchers who studied the fossil, led by Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum, nicknamed her 'Ida.' Experts are almost unanimous in their praise for the fossil's exceptional preservation: About 95 percent of its bones are intact, and even some fur imprints and stomach contents are visible."
Fox News says that "the authors of the scientific paper reporting the finding in the journal PLoS ONE May 19 claim that some of Ida's features could redraw the evolutionary tree of life, and even suggest that Ida might belong to a family that is an early precursor of humans. Humans, apes and monkeys all belong to a group called anthropoids. Debate has raged for decades about the origins of this group, but the prevailing view is that anthropoids likely sprung from either the extinct omomyids or the tarsiers (large-eyed primates with living relatives in Southeast Asia). Hurum and team advocate the minority hypothesis that in fact a third group, adapids, eventually gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. They argue that Ida (scientific name: Darwinius masillae) is an adapid, and has features more closely aligned with anthropoids than with lemurs, who are thought to be adapid descendants."
However, many scientist's are all unwilling to agree that this fossil somehow is redrawing the evolutionary tree of life. Fox News reports that "some scientist's are not convinced" and "opinions diverge on how to interpret it."
"On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing," said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. "They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing."
"What does it tell us about human evolution that we didn't know? Precious little," said Stony Brook University paleoanthropologist John Fleagle.
"They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence. And they failed to cite a body of literature that's been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis," said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University.
"The P.R. campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself. It's a very beautiful fossil, but I didn't see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new," said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina.
"This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly, I've got 10 more in my basement," said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. He disagreed with some of the outlandish claims researchers made during the press conference, such as the suggestion that Ida represents a "missing link" between early primates and humans. "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Beard said.
The Fox News source can be seen at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520886,00.html.
In fact, curator Chris beard has already written an article in response to the hoopla surrounding Ida. He wrote in the New Scientist that Ida "retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do. But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably. So, Ida is not a 'missing link' – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the 'eighth wonder of the world.'" To read his full article visit http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
Live Science Editorial Director Robert Roy Britt says the disoverers of Ida with the media on their side were "struggling with the knots in their stomachs that suggested something just wasn't quite right. Maybe it was the appearance of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Ida's unveiling. Maybe it was the TV documentary planned around the finding. Or the book that's been written about it. Or the exclusive deal for yesterday's TV and Web coverage with one network. That much hype, and you wonder what they're hiding... [I]t can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won't know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed." To read the Live Science article for yourself visit http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html.
The whole course of events of the unfolding of this discovery is actually very revealing. There is a huge press conference alongside the mayor of NYC, declarations that the "missing link" has been found, the media then goes with the "missing link" angle of the story and widely reports it, major newspapers makes it a front-page story, and fanfare ensues. Then, a couple days later we find out that "it's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans," according to a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. Other reputable scientists, with not an inkling of a "creationist" motive, come out and say the fossil has been surrounded with what has amounted to a lot of hype. The whole idea that science was turned into just another media circus for what amounted to pure self-promotion is both disheartening and ridiculous. It turns out that many scientists say what is amazing about this fossil is simply how intact it is, but that those researching it were overstating its importance by declaring it "the missing link." This seems to me more to be more than enough reason for well-placed distrust of much of the media and science establishment, especially when it comes to the issue of Darwinism.
Further, the response of many scientists declaring Ida's significance to have been overstated hardly got the press coverage that was awarded to the initial announcements that "the missing link" had been found. Nonetheless, credit must be given to the highly qualified scientists that through a sort of informal peer-review had no qualms about deflating this story.
nice fossil of a lemur
bump
“anthropoids”
THIS IS PARTIALLY OFF THE SUBJECT, BUT NOT REALLY.
Did anyone see the King Tut exhibit in Dallas? There was a coffin for 2 stillborn, premature princesses (5 mo in utero) It was described as ANTHRAPOID COFFINS. I was so disgusted, I was physically ill the rest of the day and night.
Where are all of the “scientists” that were crowing about this crap yesterday when it looked like reason had abandoned her throne and the “missing link” was declared found?
I posted a few days ago that this claim to find the missing link happens about every three years. Someone is always finding the missing link which is later disproved. This is another one of those scientific discoveries are neither scientific nor discovery. It is a prime example of the lack of objectivity among scientists.
I became skeptical when it was reported he bought the fossil 5 years ago fpr $1 million.
Most of the scientific community has abandoned reason. It has now become political science or popular science. See global warming for the latest example.
Bingo! ... "Lack of Objectivity" ... Describes the realm of "Science" to a T.
There’s always a lot of initial hype. The evolutionary scientists usually put it into perspective, or outright debunk it, later after they’ve had time for peer review.
Then creationists cheer and call it another example of how Darwin was wrong and how science failed, when it’s a perfect example of science working correctly.
I suppose that's a good thing: having to tell some people what to think.
Specifically the voting idiots who are totally science morons...
Scientists are human, they can deceive in the quest for fame and fortune. The question is whether the scientific system failed. That this was debunked shows a clear success. That the previous ones you mention were debunked shows repeated success.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.