Posted on 07/21/2009 8:37:13 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
On May 19 the world met a most unlikely celebrity: the fossilized carcass of a housecat-size primate that lived 47 million years ago in a rain forest in what is now Germany. The specimen, a juvenile female, represents a genus and species new to science, Darwinius masillae, although the media-savvy researchers who unveiled her were quick to give her a user-friendly nickname, Ida. And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”
If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Looks more like a dead monkey. Though it is hard to tell with it's skull all crushed like that.
“Well this is a new twist. An evolutionist who claims evolutionists do not exist. Did you ever hear this before, Fichori?”Well, that is a new one I believe.
I'm trying to think of one *missing link* earth shaking discovery which has turned out to be as significant as initially claimed and am coming up short.
I asked why you (well, not you, but you answered) were suggesting Ida was a hoax, not why it might not be "as significant as intitially claimed." As the article shows, lots of "evos" also question its significance. But as far as I know, no one's suggesting it's not actually a 47-my-old primate fossil, which is what the continual "Piltdown" drumbeat implies.
It should be treated as a potential hoax,
Why? I remember Coyoteman used to ask anti-evolutionists to come up with a list of 5 hoaxes out of all the fossils we've found, and he'd spot you Piltdown Man. Nobody ever came up with 4 other demonstrable hoaxes. And yet you act like it happens all the time and say it should color any announcement of a fossil find.
Here is a link to a better article written about Ida.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
It turns out there are two ‘halves’ to the Ida fossil find.
The other half, which has been around for a while, was extensively ‘faked’.
See the link in post 46.
That doesn’t mean this new half is also fake, but it makes one think twice.
Silly science defender. Years of study and hands-on experience count for nothing compared to what you can see in a 460-pixel photo on a website.
I've wondered before if any of the anti-evolutionists here do anything themselves that requires training or expertise, because they seem so quick to discount it in science.
The way I read it, the smaller half was found first, and missing pieces were reconstructed. I suppose you can call that "faked" if you want, but there's still no evidence of an intention to deceive. In fact, if you compare the reconstructions to the actual skeleton, you can see they got pretty darn close, and in any case weren't trying to make it seem like more than it is.
Then when the larger half was found, they realized it went with the other half and contained that parts that had been reconstructed before. There are no reconstructed parts in the current specimen.
His request was for five hoaxes in fossil finds specific to man, not all fossils.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2172003/posts?page=200#200
Name five genuine frauds/hoaxes in hominid evolution or stop making your claim. Again, I'll spot you Piltdown Man, a true hoax.
Now come up with four more examples of frauds or hoaxes with the fossils in hominid evolution.
Can't you guys ever be honest in your posts? He asked for 5 hoaxes in HOMIND evolution. And he asked for five in HOMINID evolution, because he knew that there weren't five outright deliberate frauds/hoaxes in HOMINID evolution.
Which proves nothing. Neither does it address the sloppy and careless classification that these scientists engage in on what appears to be a regular basis.
Why should it be treated as a potential hoax? Because there have been other hoaxes in evolution. Because there's been other frauds in science in general.
So that it can be as investigated as carefully as possible and caution used in making an announcement of its significance so that scientists aren't sucked in AGAIN and end up making fools of themselves AGAIN. Because every time that happens, their credibility is compromised.
What's wrong with approaching it with the healthy skepticism that it could be a potential hoax? It's a little too convenient that the fossil is so well preserved - kind of like archaeoraptor that scientists got burned on.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I honestly can't believe that I'm being criticized by an evo for suggesting that scientists approach something that has the potential to be so significant in their eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.
HHTVL:The way I read it, the smaller half was found first, and missing pieces were reconstructed. I suppose you can call that "faked" if you want, but there's still no evidence of an intention to deceive.
Faked? We'd rather call it *reconstructed*. But, hey, reconstructed, faked, no biggie. It's just a matter of semantics.
Sheesh. You should be so forgiving when creationists aren't so precise.
Oh please. That's your response--that I left out the word "hominid"? Fine: name five genuine frauds/hoaxes in evolution period. And I mean ones that were promoted by or fooled the scientific community, not "fossils" exhibited at sideshows and dime museums, or fanciful drawings in popular magazines. I'll even spot you Archaeoraptor, even though it never made it into an actual scientific journal (and in fact was rejected by two).
Why should it be treated as a potential hoax? Because there have been other hoaxes in evolution. Because there's been other frauds in science in general.
Is that your attitude towards everything? Because I'd be hard pressed to think of a field in which there's never been any fraud.
I know you're not that dumb. Crime scenes are reconstructed, to try and get at the truth of what happened. Archaeological finds, like pots, ships, and buildings, are reconstructed to show what they originally looked like. There's no attempt to deceive in any of this. National Guard letters and fingernails are faked--they're trying to fool people.
Semantics are important--"words mean things," as the saying goes. Why try to pretend otherwise?
You should be so forgiving when creationists aren't so precise.
Do you have a particular example you're thinking of?
No. Not just that you left out the word *hominid* but you substituted the word *all* and presented it not only as what cm said but that creationists weren't able to provide five in evolution at all.
Misrepresentation again.....
What I said also included.... So that it can be as investigated as carefully as possible and caution used in making an announcement of its significance so that scientists aren't sucked in AGAIN and end up making fools of themselves AGAIN. Because every time that happens, their credibility is compromised.
What's wrong with approaching it with the healthy skepticism that it could be a potential hoax? It's a little too convenient that the fossil is so well preserved - kind of like archaeoraptor that scientists got burned on.
But if you're going to misquote cm, and misrepresent creationists, it should come as no surprise that you're going to misrepresent me as well.
Again, I honestly can't believe that I'm being criticized by an evo for suggesting that scientists approach something that has the potential to be so significant in their eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.
“LOL! Needless to say, Creation and ID scientists had this one pegged RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!!”
“LOL” is right. You “creation science” types have nothing correct. If course, before you have the predictable hissy-fit, neither does real science - but real science is much much closer than the laughable “creation science” group.
Actual science simply dispassionately takes the data, lets the peer review process (by actual experts) extract the best information that can be gleaned by each discovery.
In this case, the find got a due review, and if this article is correct, it’s significance is much less than what the media reported (who is surprised?). This is how scientific discovery works, and is why one must wait for conclusions and review when a news reporter spins the significance of any scientific discovery.
Yes, the word *theory*.
There’s been no end to chastisement of creationists for not using the word *theory* “as scientists use it”.
And then there was coyoteman’s list-o-definitions that he posted with clocklike regularity to anyone he felt was misusing a word.
I couldn't help but notice this passionate plea to see "science" as a neutral arbitrator and seeker of truth. Have you not noticed the data for the global warming theory doesn't match the theory, yet many "scientists" are saying it's been scientifically proven?
It's like passing off fake art works, the greatest defenders of a fake are those who have the most invested in it. And being a late investor just won't do.
Oh wow. Not only did I leave out the word "hominid," I said "in all the fossils we've found" instead of "in evolution." I'm so busted!
Look, I didn't pretend to be quoting Coyoteman. And in fact, I made his challenge easier by extending it beyond just hominid evolution. So do you have any more hoaxes or not?
it should come as no surprise that you're going to misrepresent me as well.
I'm not misrepresenting you. As I pointed out, the whole article is about scientists questioning Ida, so you needn't worry on that count. I'm focusing only on your use of the word "hoax" and the attempt to associate this find with Piltdown Man. I was trying to see if you had any real reason to think this was a hoax, or if you were just engaging in general mudslinging. I think my question has been answered.
I honestly can't believe that I'm being criticized by an evo for suggesting that scientists approach something that has the potential to be so significant in their eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.
Now who's misrepresenting whom? Suggesting something is a hoax goes well beyond healthy skepticism and caution.
Sorry, when you said, "you should be so forgiving when creationists aren't so precise," I thought you meant "you" singular. I didn't realize I was responsible for everything any pro-evolution participant ever posted. That said, it's one thing to slightly misuse a word in passing; it's quite another for someone to base their argument on the misuse of a word, as creationists usually do with "theory."
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.