Posted on 12/04/2009 8:07:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In May 2009, a remarkably well-preserved extinct primate, nicknamed “Ida,” was hailed as one of the most important fossil finds ever. It had features that some interpreted as a link between two primate body forms. At the time, ICR News suggested that its evolutionary significance was far overblown, predicting that the scientific consensus would offer retractions. Those retractions came three months later, confirming that the fossil―called Darwinius―was really just an extinct lemur variety...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
At least since yesterday ....
Speaking of fairy tales, it’s interesting what lengths some scientists will go to to *find* evidence to support the ToE and a possible connection of man to animals.
Notice the efforts involved in reconstructing the bones.
Here’s a link to the announcement that Ardi is a human ancestor....
And then one expressing skepticism of that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-humanlike-was-ardi
“Despite the numerous images and descriptions put forth by the researchers, others are reluctant to take the reconstructions without a grain of salt. Begun says: “Maybe the pieces do fit together nicely, but the reality is they start out with a very damaged specimen, and they end up with something very similar to an australopithecine” (the group that includes “Lucy,” the 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus as well as a 2.7-million-year-old Paranthropus). “It’s very difficult not to make them look like something you have in your mind if there’s any chance of play,” he says. Jungers also notes the perils of reconstruction, which in a case like Ardi’s “requires a lot of guesswork.”
A lot of guesswork....
OK.
And further on in the article....
“From studying the published data in Science, Begun found “very little in the anatomy of this specimen that leads directly to Australopithecus, then to Homo sapiens,” he says. “This could very easily be a side branch.” “
So, indeed, scientists, (pl) did have to back off on their claim about Ardi so the ICR article wasn’t lying.
Not possible, just coming into Jr. High as he is.
Until that hopeful day (when he grows up), just as a suggestion, let me recommend that you not feed the Troll.
You have pinged me numerous times the last hour. Talk about feeding!
I believe so, at least for now.
Is this question as close as you can get to admitting you believe that life was Intelligently Designed?
Interesting. You pinged me to a post that you considered feeding a troll. However, I never responded to that post. I ignored it. It seems that YOU are the one doing the feeding here.
Not capitalized, no.
Why do you keep dropping God from the equation and substituting the Intelligent Designer?
Talk about feeding! You above post is a classic!
In defense of GGG, I personally don't arrive at his threads by title. I search by keyword. For example, I may search on "evolution", and that can take me to much of his material.
Of course, I can also check the secret keywords. I may search on "BTMSpussout". If I'm really curious, I'll look for "ragingyechardon", "forrestisstoopid", and "embarrasschristians". Please don't make these public!
Ah, I see you are feeding the trolls again.
And even more guess work is the inference of behavior from a few bones. Ardi preferred males with small teeth, Ardi stood upright to see over the grass...or climb on jungle limbs or squat down to turn rocks over or Ardi just wanted a hug from her ape man.
So is Lucy with the plaster skull or Ardi the other woman an ancestor of humans?
Welllll noooooo. Not directly, they share a common ancestor with man we're told. What does that mean? According to Darwinists every single organism alive today shares a common ancestor.
Reconstruction? Ardi and Joan Rivers have a lot in common.
Courtesy ping, Bonehead.
Uncharted territory there.
Fair enough. But if everyone was doing that, it wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't in New and Activism.
Of course, I can also check the secret keywords. I may search on "BTMSpussout". If I'm really curious, I'll look for "ragingyechardon", "forrestisstoopid", and "embarrasschristians".
Interesting. How many hits do you get on those?
Do not feed the Troll.
The only definitive statements made were that they found some badly crushed bones that were very fragile and they had a hard time putting them back together and they were missing some key pieces of the skeleton.
That may have given them some information about the creature’s method of locomotion, but beyond that?
Guesswork is about right.
So, suddenly, DEBATING means the same as "backing off"?
Some experts think the evidence is sufficient to make a presumptive reconstruction, and even shove the result into a phylogenetic slot. Others think the evidence insufficient.
I don't see either side backing off yet. As more evidence accumulates -- either new fossil material from this creature, or new and more perspicuous analysis of the existing material -- one side or the other may "back off," or some different, or intermediate, interpretation may prevail.
Even then, that is assuming one view or another prevails as the result of scientific debate, the terminology is forced and awkward.
For instance, if you and I have debated an issue (in science or any other area) and we've each looked for evidence and presented it, and thoroughly criticized each other's strongest arguments, and each of us has tried to answer those criticisms and improve our arguments, and if we've tried to agree on evidence or analysis that would decide the issue between us, and etc, etc... That is if we'd done all the things scientists do. And if, as a result, I end up saying, "you know, I now think my original position is unsustainable, and yours has held up well, and so I'm switching to it," I'd hardly call that a backing off. I'd call that an advance. Indeed it would be an advance I contributed to. By stubbornly trying to knock your interpretation of the evidence apart, but failing to do so, I was instrumental in helping to demonstrate the strength of that interpretation.
But whatever happens in the future, as to the present, it is obscuretent to ignore the debate, and even pretend it isn't happening, which is what this "back off" language seeks to do.
“Interesting. How many hits do you get on those?”
As Forrest himself would say, “Life is like a box of chocolates—you never know what you’re gonna get!”
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.