Yes it is. It is amazing that GGG would use this guy as his expert!
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.
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.
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.
Maybe some take their jobs seriously........
Yes it is. It is amazing that GGG would use this guy as his expert!