Vaquero, this one's for you - kibbitzing off Westbrooks #5. Please note where 'Ad Hominem' rates on the scale:
Posted on 05/22/2009 8:16:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the beginning, Ida's unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo. A week ago, the first breathless press releases began to arrive, portending the presentation of the now famous 47-million-year-old primate fossil from Germany: "MEDIA ALERT," the notice shouted in all caps. "WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING."
The press releases were followed by an international press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the publication of a book, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little, Brown), an ABC News exclusive and on May 25 a prime-time television special on the History Channel. Of the avalanche of media-related promotion, Jorn Hurum, a Norwegian paleontologist involved in Ida's discovery, told the New York Times, "Any pop band is doing the same thing." (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2008.)
This isn't exactly the stamp of approval most scientists look for, though, and in this case the puffery is especially unfortunate because the actual scientific finding, described in a paper published on May 19 in the online journal PLoS One, really is important. First, the young mammal, which would have looked like a cross between a lemur and a small monkey, is astonishingly complete. "Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws," says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. Ida, by contrast, has pretty much every bone, from the skull to the tip of the tail, and they're all in place. Not only that: you can see impressions of its fur in the surrounding material, and there are even the remains of what was presumably Ida's final meal (leaves and fruit) still visible where the digestive tract used to be.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time’s verdict regarding Ida: “Most paleontologists will roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there’s real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.”
Then there is this gem: “‘Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws,’ says Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History.”
Teeth and jaws. Seems to me that leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, which, of course, is influenced by worldview (or “metaphysical prejudices if you like) as much as anything else.
It’s a fossilized monkey.
Big deal.
You can get one of those in a couple of months by burying it alive under high pressure in a mud deposit.
As long as it's TIME Magazine that is doing the fact finding!
That is certainly an unbiased, objective, believable source!
Turns off sarcasm.
this stuff is so hard to get exactly right that the scientist involved all know that they are just scratching the surface (and will remain hazy about the facts until Doc Brown flux -capacitates that Delorean). But the basic premise is solid and unassailable except by the usual Luddites.
> But the basic premise is solid and unassailable except by
> the usual Luddites.
Ad hominem. The method most esteemed by the consensus “scientist”.
The premise is assailable and has been successfully challenged by may reputable scientists.
Being a consensus type, though, you probably would not accept nor even give a read to any of their research.
Do you support “global warming”, uh, “anthropogenic climate change”, too?
That’s another spawn of consensus “science”.
Piltdown Man!
Interesting article taking some of the hype out of Ida. Thread’s already been hijacked, though.
‘”Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws,”
Like ‘Nebrasksa Man’, his whole family, culture, etc, based on a pigs tooth. Enough with the ‘real science’ arguments based on desperate, government subsidized claims.
Indeed. I don't know how to post pics on Freep, but below link has a nifty model of rhetoric & argument grafted upon Maslow's Pyramid. Feel free to use...
JG
http://s597.photobucket.com/albums/tt54/jacksoniangrouch/?action=view¤t=MaslowsTheoryofArgument.jpg
absolutely NOT.
but neither will I throw out the baby with the bath water....
when serious scientists like the late Dr. Michael Crichton and other serious science folk have exposed anthropomorphic global warming for the fraud it is.
most of the global warming scientists are feathering their own nest with huge grants...
But as far as the creationism fraud, my Catholic faith does not prevent me from understanding true science as some faiths do.
First, Intelligent Design is not creationism. Therefore, you are mislabeling the competition intentionally.
Second, calling a theory 'fraud' while claiming you have an open mind to scientific data demonstrates further hypocrisy on your part.
Lastly, the fact that liberals have taken evolution from a good, current theory to unassailable fact should give you pause.
Evolution proponents seem too quick to denigrate anyone espousing a competing theory for me. They are not making any converts with their tactics.
and you are partially right when you say
the fact that liberals have taken evolution from a good, current theory to unassailable fact should give you pause.
yes they have grabbed hold of it as their own, but I dont accept it as their own.
from what I have seen, Intelligent Design ( large ‘I large ‘D’) as practiced by some is bogus.
Believe that God created everything, but don't try to make square pegs fit into round holes, to fit your preconceived ideas.
The pinko PC version of mankind is ‘humankind’.
Be careful as some have tried to co-op ID as something it is not.....possibly evolutionists trying to be agent provacateurs.
If you study Behe and the original ID theory, you will find it is rooted in good science and is offered as something to consider, not as the be-all, end-all.
The neat part of ID (for me) is that there are mechanisms found in lifeforms that act very much like sophisticated computer programs. As someone who enjoys order, I can relate easier to that than random change.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks colorado tanker. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution, because, as you said, the eadthray has been ijackhayed. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
:-))
Vaquero, this one's for you - kibbitzing off Westbrooks #5. Please note where 'Ad Hominem' rates on the scale:
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.