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.
Hmmm, an almost complete fossil with patterns of fur still visible. What a find! This is great! Just what we’ve been looking for.
*cough* archaeoraptor *cough*
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
If it’s genuine, fine. No problem that they found a nice, well preserved fossil.
But after archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man, if scientists want to believe that this fossil is some kind of missing link so bad that they aren’t willing to consider that something that fits in just a little bit to conveniently might not be another hoax, they, and you, have nothing to complain about when it comes back to bite them.
The articles are laced with doubt that this fossil represents the ultimate 'ancestor' of primates.
It would seem it is the reporters looking for some 'sensational news' who are making the 'link' claim, and not really the scientists at all. The scientists are only suggesting it is 'possible'.