Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   The Darwinius affair: Science held hostage. How hype, rushed publication, and poor access ruined a perfectly good fossils reputation   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

5595 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 22 May 2009 at 7:45 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



76 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-05-21 9:23:14 PM  
Carl Zimmer does what science writers should actually do. Know something about what they are talking about and ask experts when you don't. Fact check and strive for accuracy not sexiness of the news and hype.

Also, I called this in the first thread from the WSJ article that came out last friday. Ida is an interesting find and definitely has a lot to contribute to our scientific knowledge, like most new fossil species do when they are discovered. What she doesn't do is "re-write" human evolution or radically alter any paradigms. That sort of crap needs to start getting purged from the lexicon of science writers. Unfortunately in our infotainment obsessed society glitz sells whether it is real (or deserved) or not.

Theres also a lot of talk (and I agree) that this paper had one major flaw. The phylogeny aspect of it was pretty weak... probably because they were rushed due to the TV documentary also being developed about the fossil.
 
2009-05-21 9:26:19 PM  

entropic_existence: Carl Zimmer does what science writers should actually do. Know something about what they are talking about and ask experts when you don't. Fact check and strive for accuracy not sexiness of the news and hype.


Zimmer and Ed Yong are the two best science writers I've ever come across, and I absolutely love Zimmers work. It bugs me that he's mostly published in the New York Times which doesn't submit to Fark for some reason, because his work is fantastic.
 
2009-05-21 9:39:29 PM  

entropic_existence: Carl Zimmer does what science writers should actually do. Know something about what they are talking about and ask experts when you don't. Fact check and strive for accuracy not sexiness of the news and hype.

Also, I called this in the first thread from the WSJ article that came out last friday. Ida is an interesting find and definitely has a lot to contribute to our scientific knowledge, like most new fossil species do when they are discovered. What she doesn't do is "re-write" human evolution or radically alter any paradigms. That sort of crap needs to start getting purged from the lexicon of science writers. Unfortunately in our infotainment obsessed society glitz sells whether it is real (or deserved) or not.

Theres also a lot of talk (and I agree) that this paper had one major flaw. The phylogeny aspect of it was pretty weak... probably because they were rushed due to the TV documentary also being developed about the fossil.


I don't think that the fossil is real. I think that it's a raccoon covered in shotcrete.
 
2009-05-21 9:40:18 PM  

entropic_existence: Also, I called this in the first thread from the WSJ article that came out last friday. Ida is an interesting find and definitely has a lot to contribute to our scientific knowledge, like most new fossil species do when they are discovered. What she doesn't do is "re-write" human evolution or radically alter any paradigms. That sort of crap needs to start getting purged from the lexicon of science writers. Unfortunately in our infotainment obsessed society glitz sells whether it is real (or deserved) or not.


I was thinking of that as I read the article. Any new find is a good find, as far as science is considered. The whole idea that one discovery or another should rewrite our history, as you put it, is ridiculous. That's not science, that's our emotions and giddiness running away with us.

On the other hand, it does give me a chance to use this image I stole from PhD Comics the other day.

img199.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-05-21 11:01:53 PM  
Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith
 
2009-05-21 11:24:36 PM  

Bevets: I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Wat.
 
2009-05-21 11:32:43 PM  

Bevets: I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


The Aristocrats!
 
2009-05-22 8:57:29 AM  

Bevets: Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Even though this has been redlit and it is well after the fact:

This fossil is NOT a hoax, it is very real it has just been massively overhyped and sensationalized you lieing POS.
 
2009-05-22 7:48:13 PM  
Its also a very important fossil indeed in terms of the information it yields, and the science behind the work done on it is rock solid.

Just the media hype is bullshiat but so what?
 
2009-05-22 7:51:18 PM  

Bevets: Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Thou shall not lie. Why do you lie? You are a lying liar.
 
2009-05-22 8:06:48 PM  

Bevets:
I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Dude, you're hung up on a quote about something that was debunked in 1953! Probably time to get off it.
 
2009-05-22 8:09:32 PM  
Bevets: I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Many people would agree that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but Jesus claimed to be God. If this claim (that He died for) is incorrect, He must have been either profoundly deluded or dishonest. Either of these possibilities would disqualify him as a moral leader. ~Bevets, bevets.com

huh

Guess it's only Jesus we're holding up to those high standards of honesty.
 
2009-05-22 8:13:47 PM  
Just once I'd like to see Bevets post... On weed!
 
2009-05-22 8:42:58 PM  

gaspode: Its also a very important fossil indeed in terms of the information it yields, and the science behind the work done on it is rock solid.

Just the media hype is bullshiat but so what?


The media hype (much of which the lead author seemed to be very complacent with) undermines the publics trust in science, misrepresents the science, and generally does more harm then good.

Also, while the paper itself (ie the research) is generally good there are some complaints about certain aspects of it so characterizing it as one of the most important scientific works in recent memory is just plain false (and silly).

Also, nice to see this thread got dug out of the graveyard for a greenlight.

One really positive thing that came out of this is something you won't see discussed in in the media is a taxonomic one. The Society in charge of zoological nomenclature has some rather draconian rules that have to be followed by journals that don't print paper copies (like PLoS ONE) that weren't followed, meaning that right now the naming is invalid. Hopefully this will force a review and revision of their rules to account for online-only journals like PLoS, which are growing in popularity and prestige among scientists, especially in the Biological Sciences. (Maybe Physics and Math too, not sure).
 
2009-05-22 8:47:12 PM  

entropic_existence: Hopefully this will force a review and revision of their rules to account for online-only journals like PLoS, which are growing in popularity and prestige among scientists, especially in the Biological Sciences. (Maybe Physics and Math too, not sure).


I'm definitely a fan of online journals, or at least online access to print journals. Searching PubMed, Web of Science, or ToxNet is a lot easier that searching through giant tomes in the basement of the library.
 
2009-05-22 8:53:36 PM  

mgshamster: I'm definitely a fan of online journals, or at least online access to print journals. Searching PubMed, Web of Science, or ToxNet is a lot easier that searching through giant tomes in the basement of the library.


Well I think all print journals are now online as well, although whether your school/institution has access to the electronic articles can be another matter. And I agree, luckily from the moment I started really needing to read articles (late in my undergrad and now in grad school) online versions have always been available. I've rarely needed to go and try and find a print copy in a library.

What I was more referring to in this case was online-only journals like PLoS, the BMC family of journals, etc.
 
2009-05-22 8:57:43 PM  
It's hard not to come away from this whole debacle without seeing at least some of the scientists involved as sleazeballs. It's fun to blame the media, and some of the reporting has been over-the-top bad, but a lot of it has just reported the hyperbolic ravings of Jorn Hurum. The paper itself doesn't do a real cladistic analysis, but instead does some very preliminary work, off of which they make some fairly modest claims--see this enlightening blog post. I personally thought the paper itself was pretty open about this, but Hurum seems to lose all of this modesty when talking to the press.

Ugggh, I've been reading comments on various news sites about this all day, and I am officially depressed. This fossil x "ZOMG it's a human ancestor!" = the perfect creationist caricature of human evolution.
 
2009-05-22 9:05:12 PM  
I'm sure the fossil probably has it's own Twitter account by now.
 
2009-05-22 9:09:58 PM  
entropic_existence:
Well I think all print journals are now online as well, although whether your school/institution has access to the electronic articles can be another matter. And I agree, luckily from the moment I started really needing to read articles (late in my undergrad and now in grad school) online versions have always been available. I've rarely needed to go and try and find a print copy in a library.

What I was more referring to in this case was online-only journals like PLoS, the BMC family of journals, etc.

I understand perfectly what you mean. I was just adding commentary. :) Currently late in my undergrad programs (toxicology and forensic chemistry).

I remember the first time I had to hunt down a print article (had to go to multiple libraries on campus to find it). When I was done, there was a huge sense of accomplishment in finding the few articles available to compare to my hypothesis (has this been done before? You know the drill). Not to show my extreme nerd-dom, but it felt like I had just completed a dnd adventure leading towards the completion of a greater campaign. :)

What grad program are you in?
 
2009-05-22 9:11:43 PM  

SVenus: I'm sure the fossil probably has it's own Twitter account by now.


Darwinius is: still dead, not entirely sure how she's typing
 
2009-05-22 9:20:42 PM  
I was meh about the coverage, figured it was just lame media sensationalism, but after seeing the commercial for the documentary they produced investigating this thing...

What the fark are they thinking?
 
2009-05-22 9:23:18 PM  
i224.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 9:36:02 PM  

ninjakirby: I was meh about the coverage, figured it was just lame media sensationalism, but after seeing the commercial for the documentary they produced investigating this thing...

What the fark are they thinking?


OK, seriously. Wtf? It's the most important discovery in the last 47 million years? Ugh.
 
2009-05-22 9:44:20 PM  
A rant courtesy of PZ Meyers. Has both History Channel trailers embedded, for your viewing displeasure.
 
2009-05-22 9:45:27 PM  
Yea! BevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBe vetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsshiatheadB e vetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevetsBevets!
 
2009-05-22 10:04:26 PM  

ninjakirby: entropic_existence: Carl Zimmer does what science writers should actually do. Know something about what they are talking about and ask experts when you don't. Fact check and strive for accuracy not sexiness of the news and hype.

Zimmer and Ed Yong are the two best science writers I've ever come across, and I absolutely love Zimmers work. It bugs me that he's mostly published in the New York Times which doesn't submit to Fark for some reason, because his work is fantastic.


Your journals must be sticky.
 
2009-05-22 10:04:50 PM  

Dr. Orpheus: It's hard not to come away from this whole debacle without seeing at least some of the scientists involved as sleazeballs. It's fun to blame the media, and some of the reporting has been over-the-top bad, but a lot of it has just reported the hyperbolic ravings of Jorn Hurum. The paper itself doesn't do a real cladistic analysis, but instead does some very preliminary work, off of which they make some fairly modest claims--see this enlightening blog post. I personally thought the paper itself was pretty open about this, but Hurum seems to lose all of this modesty when talking to the press.

Ugggh, I've been reading comments on various news sites about this all day, and I am officially depressed. This fossil x "ZOMG it's a human ancestor!" = the perfect creationist caricature of human evolution.


Totally agree. If your cladistic analysis boils down a really simplified view of the two groups of primates and where Ida falls you can't make much in the way of conclusions. There are a lot of primates down around those basal regions of the tree that they apparently could have used to do good cladistics with. The paper itself is ok, nothing radical just a thorough description of this new taxon.

Personally I think the lead scientists got themselves in trouble as soon as they came under pressure to rush publication because of this BBC documentary that was being produced at the same time as they were finishing work on the paper. They made their bed now they have to lie in it, unfortunately it just does more damage to public perception of science overall. And yeah, Hurum's BS he spouts when talking to the media is way over the top.

The BEST coverage of this has been on blogs like the Loom and the blogs of some prominent evolutionary biologists.

mgshamster: What grad program are you in?


Working on my PhD in a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology department. Specifically I do work in molecular evolution. I'm more of a Computational Biologist then a bench work kind of guy though so I work on developing new tools, doing sequence analysis, and working on new phylogenetic methods and models.

ninjakirby: What the fark are they thinking?


As Zimmer points out (unless there has been a new update since I last read the post) it is entirely possible that the youtube video was a creative editing job to make the commercial even more sensationalist and over the top.
 
2009-05-22 10:14:10 PM  

Bevets: Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Evolutionists need to explain away this as well:

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny...politics is applied biology"
-Ernst Haeckel
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-22 10:23:17 PM  

Bevets:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Bevets, Bevtes, here you go again, never let a minor thing that the facts get in your way........

The Earliest Englishman x
by
Sir Arthur Smith Woodward

With a foreword by
Sir Arthur Keith
London:
WATTS & Co.
5 & 6 Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, E.C.4.
First published 1948



Link (new window)

In 1953, chemical tests proved that the fossils were frauds. Someone had taken a slightly odd "modern" human skull, and the jaw of an orangutan. They had been stained, filed, smashed, and so on, in a fairly clever way.

Link (new window)

Lets see we are now taking a quote from a book written 61 years ago, about a fraud that was exposed by the scientific community 56 years ago.

That is some real intellectual honesty there Bevest. Oh I almost forgot this is coming from a person who believes it is OK to lie as long as we are doing it for the baby jebus.

As shown by the Wharragarbl on your website:

Are Creationists honest?

Everyone makes mistakes, but there seems to be a common accusation that creationists intend to deceive ( 1 2 3 4 5 ). The most frequent charge is that creationists take quotes 'out of context'. This is an easy charge to make since no creationist goes to the trouble of quoting the ENTIRE book of the author they quote


Link (new window)

Now lets take a look at the "out of context" quotes on your site and compare them with the about statement.

First


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species (1859) p.189

Link (new window)

Here is the quote in the correct context

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

Link (new window)

Next

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186

Link (new window)

Here is the quote in the correct context.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition

Link (new window)

Next


For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin

Link (new window)

Now in the correct context,


"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18). [top]

Link (new window)

Wait there is more:

The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. ~ Richard Dawkins

Link (new window)

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a number of rival theories, but they all have certain features in common." (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New Edition, 1989, p.14). [top]

Link (new window)

This is a good one.


The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin

Link (new window)

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

Link (new window)

These examples clearly show that what you are doing is more that just not quoting the "entire book" it is a deliberate falsehood, and as you have previously stated "To the Christian, a lie is a deliberate falsehood"

Now lets see what the Holy Scripture says about lying
.

Proverbs 14:5, ~ trustworthy witness will not lie, But a false witness utters lies.
Link (new window)

Proverbs 6:16-19, ~
16 There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.


Link (new window)

John 8:44 says "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Link (new window)


Revelation 21:8, ~ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Link (new window)

So the very text that you believe in inerrant states that you lies are a abomination to The Lord and that you will burn in a fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Bevets I call on you as one Christian to another to repent and turn from your evil ways.

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 10:30:09 PM  
CDP,

I assumed, in light of entropic_existance's post in the last evo-devo thread we had, that we were going to ignore all conversation that didn't actually talk about the science involved with the subject.

As we seem to have been doing so far.
 
2009-05-22 10:33:14 PM  

mgshamster: CDP,

I assumed, in light of entropic_existance's post in the last evo-devo thread we had, that we were going to ignore all conversation that didn't actually talk about the science involved with the subject.

As we seem to have been doing so far.


As we do every time. I always feel like we are at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in these threads. Some neat quirk of evolution to talk about and then the very merry unbirthday talk starts, and then, when a point is about to be made about the actual subject, "CHANGE PLACES!!!"
 
2009-05-22 10:40:41 PM  

Bevets: Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


Didn't Bevets finally admit in one of these threads that this quote was probably made up.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-22 10:42:52 PM  

mgshamster: CDP,

I assumed, in light of entropic_existance's post in the last evo-devo thread we had, that we were going to ignore all conversation that didn't actually talk about the science involved with the subject.

As we seem to have been doing so far.


I guess I must have missed that memo...

Excuse me while I continue my research for my "other" post.

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 10:45:49 PM  

CDP:
I guess I must have missed that memo...

Excuse me while I continue my research for my "other" post.


Point taken. Coincidentally, I don't remember seeing your posts in that thread. Two and two...
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-22 10:59:58 PM  

mgshamster: CDP:
I guess I must have missed that memo...

Excuse me while I continue my research for my "other" post.

Point taken. Coincidentally, I don't remember seeing your posts in that thread. Two and two...


I am no longer an unemployed Farker, which makes the landlord and my g/f happy, but on the downside I find that my job does interfere with my time spent Farking around.

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 11:01:06 PM  
oh WOW! Someone found a dead animal skeleton!!!! Let's all freak out and deny the existance of God!! (or not)
 
2009-05-22 11:05:13 PM  
Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

Bevets:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

entropic_existence:

This fossil is NOT a hoax, it is very real it has just been massively overhyped and sensationalized you lieing POS.

You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?
 
2009-05-22 11:09:48 PM  

Bevets: Sometimes big movie production companies decide that they'd be better off not showing a movie in advance to the critics. They know that the reviews would probably do more harm than good. Looking back on the the Darwinius affair, I'm starting to wonder if the unveiling of this fossil was stage-managed in the same way.

Bevets:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

entropic_existence:

This fossil is NOT a hoax, it is very real it has just been massively overhyped and sensationalized you lieing POS.

You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


You built a time machine - out of a DeLorean? ~ Marty McFly
 
2009-05-22 11:13:56 PM  

Bevets: You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


Actually, there was considerable skepticism over piltdown from the get-go:

"Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled modern man. Despite these differences however, it does not appear that the possibility of outright forgery arose in connection with the skull.

Approximately 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct." Link

Isn't there something or other in the Bible about not bearing false witness?
 
2009-05-22 11:14:35 PM  

Bevets:
entropic_existence:

This fossil is NOT a hoax, it is very real it has just been massively overhyped and sensationalized you lieing POS.

You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


Ok, Im having trouble following Bevets more than normal here. By saying you missed the point I'd think he's agreeing that the fossil is real and not a fake, which leaves one to wonder why one person knew it was a hoax. I'm not even going to try to get to the later sentences for now.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-22 11:16:26 PM  

Bevets:

You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


You seem to forget that it was the scientific community exposed that hoax using the scientific method.

Also why do you continue to have proven out of context quotes on your web site in direct contradiction to the word of God?

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 11:24:48 PM  

entropic_existence: I'm more of a Computational Biologist then a bench work kind of guy


You're missing out on smelling like phenol and beta-mercaptoethanol at the end of the day, and snorting a big load of SDS as you're trying to weigh it out, amongst other things. Good times...
 
2009-05-22 11:27:05 PM  

Bevets: You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


Do you see any signs of the academia accepting this fossils lineage by fiat? If you don't, then why bring up piltdown? If you do, where and who?

As it stands right now, everything I see coming out of the academic community is against the sensationalism and hype of this collection (despite it's supreme condition), and calling it out for over-reaching the conclusion. Precisely the opposite of what occurred with piltdown.
 
2009-05-22 11:39:38 PM  

bugenhagen: ...and beta-mercaptoethanol at the end of the day


Ugh. I had to work with that stuff once. Nasty.
 
2009-05-22 11:40:46 PM  

bugenhagen: entropic_existence: I'm more of a Computational Biologist then a bench work kind of guy

You're missing out on smelling like phenol and beta-mercaptoethanol at the end of the day, and snorting a big load of SDS as you're trying to weigh it out, amongst other things. Good times...


Haha. I spent all day yesterday smelling mercaptoethanol trying to determine the amount of P450 in rat testis.

Oddly enough, I've never thought of sulfur as "bad smelling," only different.
 
2009-05-22 11:43:31 PM  

Sid_6.7: I don't think that the fossil is real. I think that it's a raccoon covered in shotcrete.


It's obviously not a raccoon -- it clearly has an opposable thumb and toe. It also has a neck like a primate (which enters the skull from below) rather than a raccoon (which enters the skull from behind). And the head shape is not right for a raccoon either.

It's certainly a primate fossil, similar to a lemur but with some differences. It may well be the earliest simian fossil known to exist.

However, no, it's not really a game changer. It doesn't redefine or improve our knowledge about primate evolution. It gives a new piece to the puzzle but it doesn't change the picture that we are seeing.
 
2009-05-22 11:44:32 PM  

Fano: I always feel like we are at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in these threads. Some neat quirk of evolution to talk about and then the very merry unbirthday talk starts, and then, when a point is about to be made about the actual subject, "CHANGE PLACES!!!"


I love your mind.

img199.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-05-22 11:44:37 PM  

Sgt. Pepper: bugenhagen: ...and beta-mercaptoethanol at the end of the day

Ugh. I had to work with that stuff once. Nasty.


Your pictures in your profile have earned your place in my favorites list. :)
 
2009-05-22 11:58:11 PM  

Bevets: You missed the point. One person knew it was a hoax. Everyone else believed because they WANTED to. It fit so well with their atheism, why bother asking questions?


That's not true.

First, there were several scientists who were suspicious of it from the get go. Oddly enough, creationists of the day were all a flutter about it more than the evolutionists.

Second, many scientists who fell for the hoax did so because they were British and the fossils were "found" in Britain, which fit with their egocentric bias suggesting that human intelligence originated in the "civilized world." Many of those who fell for it were Christians or Deists, not atheists.

And either way, it was evolutionists who uncovered the hoax, not creationists.

Once again, you missed the point and continue to lie because you're ignorant and have no desire to learn anything that doesn't fit with your prejudice.
 
2009-05-22 11:58:17 PM  

mgshamster: Your pictures in your profile have earned your place in my favorites list. :)


Thanks. I've got more that I wanna put in my profile, but I'm too lazy to get around to it.

img194.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.