…and this is a 
Oh, man. I'm willing to keep saying that Darwinius masillae was an important discovery, but the PR machine is making it hard to do so without cringing. Carl Zimmer has the History Channel ad for their program on it.
Oh. My. Dog. "The most important find in 47 million years"? "A global event: this changes everything"? This is not helping. It is inflating a good discovery beyond all reason, and when the public hears the creationists declare that it's one fossil of a monkey-like creature, and they're right, it's going to damage the credibility of science.
Seed Media has a bit of a scoop: they've got an interview with a PLoS One editor, a History Channel executive, and Jørn Hurum, the scientist behind all the promotion. It's appalling. They're bragging about how a "production company got in on the ground floor". Shall we anticipate the brave new world when paleontologists have to beg for McDonald's happy meal tie-ins to get funding?
And I'm sorry, but Hurum comes off as a complete ass.
But in order for the story and the film to pack the most punch--and to reach the public--Hurum and the production company knew they had to keep it secret. Hurum seemed particularly preoccupied with the way the blogosphere is able to dissipate a story, mentioning an Arctic excavation he worked on several years ago that was picked-up by a blog in Japan within three hours of posting his pictures on the internet. "I've seen Chinese specimens of dinosaurs and so on destroyed like this with lots of bad early descriptions [from] blogging," he says. Hurum wanted to subvert the system and take his story straight to the masses in a way that would appeal to the average person, especially kids: "If we really want kids to get involved with exciting scientific findings, no matter what kind of field, we really need to start [thinking] about reaching people other than [our] fellow scientists. This paper could have been drowned in other papers and would have been read by 15 people around the world."
That's revealing. The fossils would not be destroyed by someone blogging about it prematurely; what would be destroyed would be Hurum's chance to play P.T. Barnum and make himself the center of the show. Apparently, those are the same thing to him. And he thinks it a problem that his paper would be "drowned" in a large volume of papers on the fossil? Jebus. This is what we want in science, lots of open discussion.
And if he thinks a few bloggers chatting prematurely about a find would ruin it for him, he should take a look at the damage this commercial hype and bogus hysteria about the specimen is doing. Misperception is rife, and the exaggeration is diminishing the importance of other finds.
It gets worse. Here's the trailer for the show.
Comments
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 7:15 PM
Shorter Hurum: Darwinius masillae is MINE! Keep your grubby hands off of it until I've milked it for all that I can.
Posted by: Everbleed | May 22, 2009 7:16 PM
Would it help to bitch to the History Channel folks? We bomb polls, why not the History Channel?
Posted by: James F | May 22, 2009 7:19 PM
In a world where where everything you ever knew was a lie....
(RIP Don LaFontaine)
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | May 22, 2009 7:24 PM
It's fascinating, because it's so old, because it's so well preserved, because it illustrates how difficult it is for a fossil to form in the first place, let alone be discovered. One of my colleagues at work, who is scientifically literate, was surprised that there were primates around 43-47 MYA (although he also thought that the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct about 100 MYA.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 7:24 PM
The truth is, there are only about 15* people in the world that care very deeply about the actual scientific knowledge gained from this fossil. They are essentially lying about its scientific significance for the sole sake of publicity. It's sick. Presumably all to justify the huge sum of money that had to be paid the "collectors." That and, apparently, ego.
gah!
*perhaps a slight exaggeration...but not much. Who here had heard of "adapids" before?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 22, 2009 7:28 PM
oh, man...just watched the video clip.
Pearl Harbor?
Apollo 11?
This is the craziest over-the-top hype I've seen.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2009 7:30 PM
It's appalling. They're bragging about how a "production company got in on the ground floor". Shall we anticipate the brave new world when paleontologists have to beg for McDonald's happy meal tie-ins to get funding?
This is what I picture getting if we adopted without thought the recommendations of PR mongers like Matt Nisbet.
It should act as a cautionary tale whenever any of us start discussing the benefits of framing science.
...because intended or not, valuable or not, framing without VERY strict control of "the message", will result in exactly this kind of media circus.
Oh, and as to cheap trinkets being sold to pay for paleontology, if any of you are Tick fans (yeah, I know it was 15 years ago), I would remind you of the Dinosaur Neil episode...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LfbCWkCZNM&feature=related
Posted by: Josh
|
May 22, 2009 7:32 PM
It's definitely true that premature blogging, depending on how premature, could have threatened a possible Nature or Science paper, if they had decided to go that route. The One Words take their embargo policies seriously. Of course there are people who would say that it's a matter of opinion if what would be threatened in that case would be science or Barnum...
Posted by: Robster, FCD | May 22, 2009 7:37 PM
C'mon. PZ. We all know that you would make special trips to McD's for the toy prize in their Evolution of Happy Meals.
Posted by: Fitz | May 22, 2009 7:45 PM
"the first ever link to human beings" WTF?
I can only imagine how much this pisses off actual scientists.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | May 22, 2009 7:47 PM
Discovery Channel/History Channel sucks. I pretty much stick to BBC documentaries, the Disc/History channel stuff is embarrassing.
Even NOVA seems horribly dumbed down from where it was maybe 15-20 years ago... Whether you like Neil Degrasse Tyson or not, the bottom line is in the 80s and 90s NOVA didn't feel like they were talking to children... now all the shows and narration have the sound of a children's afterschool special.
Posted by: AnthroBabe | May 22, 2009 7:52 PM
(Raises hand to Sven's question about adapids).
That's just cuz I teach bioanth and have a series of lectures on primate evolution. I have to deprogram my undergrads every.single.semester. that the term "missing link" is a misnomer and that usually when the media says that a find will overturn "everything we know" - it really doesn't, but might make us think a bit more. ARGH.
I gasped out loud in utter shock while viewing the first trailer. Seriously, could this be a bigger present to the creationist loonies?
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 22, 2009 7:55 PM
How about peer review applied to media release?
Posted by: José | May 22, 2009 7:57 PM
... now all the shows and narration have the sound of a children's afterschool special.
Especially NOVA scienceNOW. Even the spelling of the title is juvenile.
Posted by: Tommykey | May 22, 2009 8:01 PM
Does anybody besides me notice that the History Channel can't really seem to figure out what it is supposed to be? It's called the History Channel, but perhaps programs like Ax Men and Ice Road Truckers really belong on The Interesting Job Channel. And while I thought Life After People was interesting, pondering what might happen after the extinction of the human race is not history. And then there's Monster Quest. And then the shows that speculate whether the Bible and other religious texts describe encounters with extraterrestrials.
Hey History Channel, how about showing us programs about actual history?
Posted by: Rob H | May 22, 2009 8:02 PM
"Hurum wanted to subvert the system and take his story straight to the masses" ... kind of like the cold fusion guys did back in the day.
Posted by: frog | May 22, 2009 8:02 PM
And to the Libertarian trolls -- this is what science will look like if y'all had your way. PT's mermaid in a tent.
Posted by: BrianR | May 22, 2009 8:03 PM
Perhaps I'm having a fleeting optimistic moment ... but the fact that this fiasco is so horrendously bad should serve as the type example of how not to promote/communicate scientific discoveries.
I have a feeling we will be talking about this for some time. And, please, please ... no one try to coin this as "____gate". No more '-gates', I can't take it.
Posted by: kamaka | May 22, 2009 8:08 PM
While I abhor the "missing link" meme, there is indeed a "missing link" yet to be found, the ancestor to chimps and humans.
It's only a matter of time, it will be found.
Posted by: JD | May 22, 2009 8:12 PM
Idahop pancake day. Ida pareidolia will sweep the nation.
Posted by: john | May 22, 2009 8:12 PM
As a student of paleontology, it has been horrible how one's scientific accomplishments are measured by how much media coverage you get. This is why dipshits like the Larsons get so much press.
Lesson to beginners, make sure you do your PR and marketing real well b/c that will determine your find's worth.
That being said, it is an awesome fossil. I just wish it didn't get so much bullshit attention.
Cheers and back to my tequila!
Posted by: Doubting Foo
|
May 22, 2009 8:13 PM
Haha, #3, the Don LaFontaine reference was classic.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 22, 2009 8:16 PM
I'm enjoying the hype.
It takes a sledgehammer to get through to the public.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 22, 2009 8:24 PM
I can see the Super Bowl commercial now.
Scene fades in over stereoscopic microscope and lab equipment... Focuses in on two unshaven rugged looking paleontologists peering over a fossil Darwinius masillae... cut to them wildly hugging each other as they jump up and down ...then they both grab their ice cold Buds and toast to the fossil that changes it all! Ah!
Hey it still beats wardrobe malfunctions ya know.
Posted by: VJ | May 22, 2009 8:24 PM
This is just downright awful. How can scientists get so carried away with this? I was embarrassed the moment I saw how this discovery was being parading about in front of the media, and it has just been made so much worse by press reporting by people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. How many times have we heard things such as "final proof of evolution" or "the fossil that vindicates Darwinian theory?" All this stuff plays right into the hands of creationist pseudoscientists and propaganda machines. Scientists really need to have a long think about how they report findings such as these, as this is surely not the way to do it.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 22, 2009 8:24 PM
This is why I almost never watch the History Channel. When I do watch it, I take it with a grain of salt. They've become the tabloid of "edutainment" TV.
@ frog:
You do have a point, but it seems to me that the problem is more a matter of a general lack of scientific knowledge and understanding in both the news media and the general public.
This is evidenced by the widely spread misreporting by many news outlets from all over the world. Also, the news outlets probably wouldn't be hyping Ida so much if the hype/fake-controversy wasn't stirring up so much interest in the predominantly science ignorant public.
Posted by: Ryan | May 22, 2009 8:28 PM
I don't understand. How does finding a 47 million year old fossil make Barack Obama not elected president or JFK not assassinated? And I think I saw 0 AD in there. Didn't we start with 1 AD?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | May 22, 2009 8:31 PM
Very similar, in a way, to the idiotic cover on New Scientist ("Darwin was wrong!") that PZ posted about a couple of weeks ago. For news both in magazine and broadcast form the product is not information. Everyone makes that mistake. The product is us. Our eyeballs looking at advertisements. The sensationalism is part of the process of selling the product (us) to advertisers. The damage done to education and to the progress of science (funding issues, ammo to creationists to attack science education, and on and on) does not even occur to the people spinning the hype. This is a structural problem that will not go away until people learn to obtain or read the "news" more intelligently. (I'm not holding my breath).
Posted by: Newfie
|
May 22, 2009 8:34 PM
I saw an ad for it yesterday on the History Channel. I feel bad for science, and scientists.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
May 22, 2009 8:43 PM
Edward Current's take on Ida is much better.
Science Is The Dumbest Religion
Posted by: GMacs | May 22, 2009 8:46 PM
Et. Tu. HC.
This makes me sadder than UFO Hunters.
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | May 22, 2009 8:48 PM
As I wrote in the update to the post PZ linked to, I think the video PZ shows here is an embellished version of the original ad, which only showed the dates. But I think the embellished version uses satire to effectively highlight the ridiculousness of the original.
Posted by: ethin | May 22, 2009 8:48 PM
The History Channel has been a bit of a joke for a couple years now. It seems to me like whenever I turn it on, they're giving air time to U.F.O. conspiracy theorists (really? aliens constructed and placed the statues on easter island? I guess they also beamed up all the trees and emptied the quarries then as well?), Nostradamus prophecies, ghost and monster hunting frauds, and Jesus nuts.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 22, 2009 8:49 PM
frog,
"And to the Libertarian trolls -- this is what science will look like if y'all had your way. PT's mermaid in a tent."
Some science would look like this, because there would be no censorship, but other science would be published in private profit or non-profit journals, professional organization journals, open access journals, etc.
What is the relevance of your anti-libertarian trolling? Are you advocating the Lysenko style censorship and purges? Hopefully you are advocating something less than waterboarding for these scientists and the history channel.
Posted by: BGT | May 22, 2009 8:50 PM
Damnit, I am simply a reasonably interested person in biology, and yet I find these ads over the top. WTF? Seriously folks, the tree of life that Darwin proposed wasn't supposed to be some rigid thing! The closer you look, the fuzzier it gets given the information that we have. I am a dogdamned business major, but even I think this is an over the top media campaign. I just hope that Nisbet has enough common sense to agree that this type of hype is bullshit. I am scared to click on his blog to see what sort of justification he will spout about this. Damnit, accuracy is ALWAYS important.
(please forgive the all caps word, but I do feel the point is imporatant. All to often in my world, business types go the "simple" way for an explanation, even though reality isn't that damned simple.)
Posted by: Newfie
|
May 22, 2009 8:53 PM
heh.. I got a popup screen ad for Nazarene Bible College.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 22, 2009 8:56 PM
Sigh.
It pains me to say this, but I'm simply not surprised that the
HysteriaHyperboleHistory Channel has stooped to sensationalizing this piece. This is the same channel that broadcasts UFO Hunters and MonsterQuest, after all.There once was a legitimate channel on the same spot on the dial where now only pandering to the lowest common denominator appears. 'Tis sad.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
May 22, 2009 9:02 PM
The only missing links are the ones that should have been between the neurons of the producer's brain. This will do damage to the world of science.
Posted by: Ryan | May 22, 2009 9:03 PM
I don't understand. How does finding a 47 million year old fossil make Barack Obama not elected president or JFK not assassinated? And I think I saw 0 AD in there. Didn't we start with 1 AD?
Posted by: Bacon Eating Atheist Jew | May 22, 2009 9:03 PM
What if this turns out to be a hoax with these scientists being in cahoots with AIG? What a way for the Religious Right to wake up from the dead.
Posted by: White Rabbit | May 22, 2009 9:07 PM
Perhaps it's the scientist's fault. They said it was an important discovery so it got blown out of proportion. Clearly the media is hypersensitive, to help desensitize them Scientist could proclaim victory and party in the streets at every mundane discovery and publisise the weeping and gnashing of teeth when a hypothesis is falsified...or do you think that would just make it worse?
^_^
W R
Posted by: kamaka | May 22, 2009 9:08 PM
Paying for television and it's advertising to be piped into your home...seems really stupid and weird to me.
Of course History Channel sucks, TV sucks.
And you pay money for this? What is the foundation for the complaint?
Posted by: Omphaloskepsis | May 22, 2009 9:22 PM
Such a beautiful fossil. Such a shame about the hype.
Posted by: frog | May 22, 2009 9:26 PM
Zetetic: You do have a point, but it seems to me that the problem is more a matter of a general lack of scientific knowledge and understanding in both the news media and the general public
Which is inevitable. There will always be much more money to be made from the fake than the real -- we are monkeys who like shiny flashing lights, after all. It worked in Teotihuacan, it works today, it'll always work.
It's the nature of profit making with our natural and necessary heuristic models of thinking. You need to institutionalize protections against that -- you can't, by definition, depend on individual excellence.
Africagenesis: bite me. If you really think that science will be produced solely on the funding for private journals and foundation, you really are a cretinous faith-based thinker. At least the intellectually honest Libertarians (they're rare, but exist) will flat out say that they'd prefer much less science in exchange for their vision of "freedom". But the poseurs such as yourself are just empty-headed intellectual failures.
Posted by: Brandon P. | May 22, 2009 9:27 PM
What makes the hype about Darwinus particularly overblown here because the creature is frankly not that charismatic an animal. It's just a small, furry mammal that most likely is not our ancestor, yet the media is treating it as if it were a mummified T. Rex corpse. Ugh.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 9:29 PM
Some years ago the History Channel was referred to as the Hitler Channel because it seemed that half the programs were about World War II in Europe.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | May 22, 2009 9:31 PM
The Science News Cycle
Posted by: Corry | May 22, 2009 9:31 PM
All the hype surrounding this fossil can't help remind me of the buildup to Stonehenge in This is Spinal Tap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXGbwIkvh38
What a shame to see good science made into a spectacle.
Posted by: Tatarize | May 22, 2009 9:31 PM
Did anybody else notice that one of the dates flashed on the screen was 0AD? This fossil is the second coming of Christ. Despite the fact that there was no 0AD, that is certainly what we should conclude.
Posted by: MartyM | May 22, 2009 9:32 PM
We all know the History channel is a sensationalizing propaganda machine, but come on...
You know we're all going to watch it! It's like watching Expelled or something like that... it's an accident that you can't keep from looking at as you pass by...
Posted by: MartyM | May 22, 2009 9:34 PM
We all know the History channel is a sensationalizing propaganda machine, but come on...
You know we're all going to watch it! It's like watching Expelled or something like that... it's an accident that you can't keep from looking at as you pass by...
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 9:37 PM
The History Channel is trying to become the Science Channel for their network. Somebody needs to tell them: "U R doin it rng".
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 22, 2009 9:40 PM
"Especially NOVA scienceNOW. Even the spelling of the title is juvenile."
Oy. It's not just juvenile, it's almost lolcatian. "can haz scienceNAO!"
Posted by: Barry | May 22, 2009 9:41 PM
Ida was a youngster (she did not have an adult dentition). She died without reproducing. She isn’t the ancestor of anything. She never contributed anything to the next generation of her population. Did you possibly mean not Ida, but her species? Show me the cladogram: publicists, framers, and hucksters. I’ll add just one character and screw that up for you too.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 9:43 PM
!#$!#$@#$@^ TypePad, timed out while I was eating dinner. #52 is mine.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2009 9:46 PM
AG spewed ever onwards:
Are you advocating the Lysenko style censorship and purges?
wrt to you personally?
yeah.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
May 22, 2009 9:47 PM
BrianR #18:
monkeygate?
Posted by: genesgalore | May 22, 2009 9:47 PM
but what if it was a dead end???? hype is right.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 9:49 PM
Purge, baby, purge. Begone egotistical idiot....Posted by: Steve_C | May 22, 2009 9:49 PM
The History Channel is horrible. Only occasionally are the shows good. Often it's biblical bogus hooey.
Posted by: syntyche
|
May 22, 2009 9:49 PM
I'm actually dying to hear your suggested alternate funding model based on private and professional organization journals.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
May 22, 2009 9:53 PM
What ever happened to the History Channel's show Evolve?
Posted by: Carlie | May 22, 2009 9:56 PM
Oh, and as to cheap trinkets being sold to pay for paleontology, if any of you are Tick fans (yeah, I know it was 15 years ago), I would remind you of the Dinosaur Neil episode...
They made a Dinosaur Neil action figure. I have it. I am quite sure, however, that I do not want a Darwinius action figure.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2009 10:02 PM
I'm actually dying to hear your suggested alternate funding model based on private and professional organization journals.
*sigh*
I guess it's too late to say:
"Careful what you wish for."
Posted by: Doo Shabag | May 22, 2009 10:02 PM
I have to disagree with you PZ, on a minor point.
Is not the same as (emphasis mine)
I don't think we can assume he was referring to papers on the fossil, just the many papers in general that are published in journals weekly.
Posted by: SC, OM | May 22, 2009 10:03 PM
This comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP7AJiQM2RI
Now, if I'd known
they'd line up just to see him,
I'd have taken all my money
and bought me a museum.
Posted by: foxfire | May 22, 2009 10:05 PM
This is about the tackiest piece of hype since Jesus was last seen on toast/in Cheeto form.
The good thing is; I learned about Chris Beard's book "Dawn Monkey" from some kind commentator on this forum (or maybe Zimmer's or Coyle's - I forget) and my copy arrived today. YAY!
Posted by: GMacs | May 22, 2009 10:07 PM
I, too, miss Evolve (or was it Evolution). I did, however, enjoy The History of Sex and Barbarians.
My favorite was the special about the Anti-Christ, simply named The Antichrist. As they went to commercial I cracked up hearing "The Antichrist is brought to you by Lexus."
Although they did interview Hagard on that one, which was my first exposure to the image of that face.
Posted by: kjg28 | May 22, 2009 10:09 PM
Ok, so I always hear angry tidbits here about Libertarianism or lack thereof, and I have no clue why this always crops up. Can someone explain to me why PZ and others dislike libertarianism, or just link me to a previous thread that discusses this.
Thanks, I really just want to understand what the whole controversy is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 10:20 PM
1) most of us feel it is a morally bankrupt philosophy. 2) Those libertards who post here don't know the meaning of the word quit (or even moderation), and they hijack threads that are only tangentially related to the subject to push the morally vacuous and totally refuted ideas, and just won't let the subject drop by always trying to get in the last word.If they just make a couple of post pushing their ideas, no problem.
Posted by: kjg28 | May 22, 2009 10:25 PM
Nerd of Redhead-- Thanks. I was always curious about this.
If there's anyway I can get a link to the hijacked thread(s) or more information on the arguments against libertarianism in general, I would really appreciate it. So if someone could point me to a good article that counters libertarianism, that would be awesome.
Thanks!!
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
May 22, 2009 10:28 PM
That *is* pretty sensationalist. I will say that Discovery has had some real tripe on lately. The other night they were running this real doomsday harbinger of an hour on how sun flares and explosions of sun matter would ruin life on earth...and who knows when they'll happen!!! A flare could hit us at ANY time!
It was a lot of crap, and while I get the scientific possibilities behind what it was saying, it was such a 24 version of science, it was pretty disgusting. This History Channel special looks little different in its presentation, and like a lot of ad campaigns anymore, people apparently need to feel under threat of attack or world-changing intrigue to be compelled to watch something.
Posted by: Epikt
|
May 22, 2009 10:32 PM
Action figures. I want action figures.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 22, 2009 10:33 PM
Yeah, heh heh, loves me The Tick. I can even hear him now . . . "Do you hear that little chum? This changes EVERYTHING!"
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
May 22, 2009 10:50 PM
There is a program about this on BBC1 on Tuesday night written and narrated by David Attenborough. Hopefully it will not be quite as sensationalised as this one.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:00 PM
kjg28, here is a link where AG hijacked with his anti-AGW philosophy:
Link to anti-AGW hijack
A_Ray_In_Dilbert_Space did an exemplary task in totally refuting him, but notice no acknowledgment of being refuted ever coming from AG. His ego will simply not allow it.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2009 11:06 PM
#1 Shorter Hurum: "Darwinius masillae is MINE! Keep your grubby hands off of it until I've milked it for all that I can."
Don't you mean "take your stinking paws off my damn dirty ape"?
Posted by: a damn dirty ape | May 22, 2009 11:07 PM
The trailer says "THE FIRST EVER LINK to human beings"?? It's not like we have zero evidence of human evolution before Darwinius. Even the name sounds like it is trying too hard.
Do they seriously think they will ever find a fossil the anti-science crowd will accept? I can hear them now... "All this hype and this ISN'T a Crocoduck or Manbearpig? LOL fail again siense = s00pid! Thanks for proving my god again!"
I can only hope the actual content isn't presented like the trailer and is closer to a BBC like science show. I'm a dreamer please don't heap reality on me, I get my comfort in wishful thinking! lol
This promo has the same feel as all the bigfoot crap they put out there. Geeze.
Posted by: FirstTimeCaller
|
May 22, 2009 11:08 PM
It's woefully over hyped for sure. But at least the History Channel shows programs like this. TLC went to all home and garden shows and Discovery is mostly Mythbusters and Deadliest Catch type shows (which I do enjoy). It would be great if PBS would show it... and I suppose Science channel or National Geographic would be a good match (but I don't get those). So, bash the History channel all you want -- I regularly find shows worth watching on it. And I'll set the Tivo for this one...
Posted by: Kel | May 22, 2009 11:10 PM
I really do not get this hype at all. Yes, it's a fantastic fossil that can shed a lot of light on certain aspects of our evolutionary history. But what does this change? It may just be my ignorance, but it seems like it's just one more well-preserved piece in a puzzle where we already know what the picture will look like. Tiktaalik was way more significant.
Posted by: Lee Picton | May 22, 2009 11:11 PM
Most of us are cringing at the hype surrounding this little critter, and are fervently hoping it lives up to most of it, if just to shut up some of the creationists. But bear with me for a moment. Most folks reading and contributing to this blog are on the right side of the bell curve, and the majority of those are at the first standard deviation or more. We have critical thinking skills and some skill at separating out the gold from the dross. So we are embarrassed. Now consider the rest of Mencken's booboisie. Left side of the bell curve, awash in advertising and sensationalism from morning to night, and heavy viewers of TV. They need to be hit upside the head with two-by-fours just to get their attention. I am willing, just for awhile, to give the PR machine a pass. If, and I say IF, little IDA turns out to be what the real scientists say it is, it will have been worth it. If it all goes boom, someone please remind me that I need to go and slink back into the corner from whence I came.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:12 PM
kjg28, AG is our most obnoxious libertarian at the moment. AG is also a very vocal AGW denier, as are most libertarians. Walton is another libertarian, but he is a student in college, and we have hopes of him maturing out of it, to become just another conservative in a few years.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 22, 2009 11:17 PM
Here's a couple of websites. First, a short one: What's Wrong With Libertarianism
Then the 600 pound gorilla: Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism. I recommend starting with A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
Posted by: go777 | May 22, 2009 11:24 PM
Hi! Im a Long time lurker and this is my first comment. Darwinius is a significant find, but this is really overdoing it. I expected better of the History Channel.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 22, 2009 11:29 PM
That is a very good summation. Welcome to Pharyngula.Posted by: littlejohn | May 23, 2009 12:15 AM
Did any of you catch the Rachel Maddow show a couple of days ago? Some red-headed guy came on and described this fossil as the link between apes and humans. Jebus. Did apes grow tails and small brains on their way to becoming humans, only to quickly lose their tails and grow even bigger brains and... oh shit. Forget it.
Why are otherwise smart people so stupid?
Posted by: luna1580 | May 23, 2009 12:29 AM
totally off-topic, but check this out: "can i turn my kid in to the FBI for becoming an atheist at college?"
http://www.wowowow.com/relationships/dear-margo-howard-religious-fanatics-cooking-family-advice-302443
also, woman in "prayer death" of her poor daughter found guilty:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-prayerdeath-optio,0,1619116.story
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 12:30 AM
It's hard to know the truth.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2009 12:37 AM
It's hard to know the truth.
*yawn*, Stimpy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 23, 2009 12:44 AM
The real scientists say it's a monkeyish lemur from 47 million years ago. It's either an early twig off the branch that led to monkeys & apes (inc. us), or it's an early twig off a branch off the branch that led to monkeys and us. Is that thrilling to you?
The thrilling part is the exquisite fossil itself. It's a tiny peek into life as a 47-million-year-old primate. It's not a big deal to the Human Condition.
Posted by: oldtree | May 23, 2009 12:57 AM
The "Discovery" networks have a minor problem. They bend the owner's god fixation to fit the shit. The "naked archeologist" nakedly trying hard to prove that flimsy evidence that does not bear examination, proves all the claims of his religion? Their shows about informational content are so redundant that you can record it and use up what, 9 minutes to get the entire content of the show, half of which is informative? And then you wonder if it is one of their "fun" learning shows, you know, pap? Science has about 3 more minutes per hour of info, but is little better. You are exploring a rational for Io's vulcanism and are suddenly inside a washing machine watching a family de-evolve before your eyes. Sort of breaks the mood? And this is the best we have to help drive young folks toward learning if we can get them to watch that instead of the Nasa Channel, which really could be quite entertaining if it included shows about their mission. It could have been such a good tool, that idiot box.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 12:57 AM
Only if you presuppose Goddidit. Otherwise science does pretty damn well in regards to truth.Posted by: Gerry L | May 23, 2009 12:59 AM
I stopped at Costco on my way home from work tonight. I saw in the book section a hardcover book titled "The Link." I flipped it open and saw that it was about "Ida." The cover art was the picture from the History Channel ad. Yes, the companion book is out already. At Costco.
I didn't buy it.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 1:24 AM
Kel,
I keep looking for a sequel to There's a monkey sitting at a typewriter on your blog I can bite into.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 1:40 AM
Yesterday we had a Dell Computer technition come to our office to repair a laptop. He looked just like Richard Dawkins. I was tempted to ask him to pose with me in a picture. I didn't though because I didn't think he would appreciate being in a headlock.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 1:46 AM
I wrote that article on why evolution doesn't violate shannon entropy months ago for you, but you've ignored that in order to focus those damn monkeys.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 23, 2009 1:57 AM
Such a kind and gentle truth-seeker you are, Stimpy.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 2:30 AM
Kel,
In that blog entry you said "Our genetic code is passed down through sexual intercourse, 50% comes from the male and 50% from the female."
Hopefully you have learned something about genetics since then.
To answer you earlier question ... no I haven't visited the Discovery Institute. I'm not interested. However, I plan to meet Casey Luskin for coffee at Green Lake. I've been waiting for good weather but now that weather is good I a swamped at work.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 2:40 AM
I have, but to pick up on minor points like that is to completely miss the intention of the post. It was talking about how natural selection works, which is the very core of evolution and where you misunderstand the process. It is really very simple, I'm amazed that you can completely misunderstand how natural selection works.
Posted by: JoeB | May 23, 2009 2:42 AM
The self-described science-geek of a Borders Bookstore reported yesterday (here? not sure where I read it) that the companion book was indeed secretly published and distributed to retailers, to be unveiled simultaneously with Mayor Bloomburg revealing the fossil at AMNH. He took it home the night before to preview it, and from his few remarks, it sounds dreadful. I'm sure someone will sacrifice some braincells and report to us. The sad thing: it will sell more copies than the six recent books for us "intelligent laymen" by Prothero, Shubin, Coyne, and Carroll (3), put together.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 2:47 AM
I really should have got a picture to illustrate a blog entry I have been thinking about for Richard Dawkins. Maybe we could have had an arm wrestling match where I was thoroughly trouncing him.
I haven't read much of Dawkins but I came across some really stupid stuff in no time at all. I have one quote where he demonstrates that he is unaware that Work = Force x Distance and he practically proves a point for intelligent design without even knowing about it.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 2:54 AM
Kel that wasn't the only stupid thing you said about genetics in that blog entry. And there was nothing about Shannon Entropy in it either.
Posted by: Bone Oboe | May 23, 2009 2:55 AM
The Tick...Holy shit. One of the funniest (To me.) moments from the animated show: A super villain has lifted a large piece of asphalt out of the road and smashed The Tick and his "Dog" (It's a capybara Tick befriended in the jungle after suffering head trauma. Hanging upside down from a vine Tick hallucinates that the capybara is talking to him. And, thus names him "Speak".) Tick rushes breathless into a vet's office and sets the wounded Speak down on the examination table. Vet asks Tick what's the matter and Tick replies with Shatner like pauses "Bad...Man...Hit...Dog...With Street!
I (A layman, and wet behind the ears autodidact with a bookshelf that jumps geometric when I can afford it.) took some issue with the continued use of the term "missing link." Which seems to imply that they've found all of the intermediaries but that one critter in question. And that this latest animal completes the set, the final piece of the puzzle, as if we're talking Beanie-babies or Pokemon cards.
"Ancient Primate Ancestor Fossils, gotta catch'em all!!!"
Balls to this hyped up crapola. Wonderous find? You bet. Important find? Absolutely.
Two balls to the "History Channel" for running Da Vinci/Angels/Aztecs-Nostradamus-Doomsday/UFO/Crypto-zoophilia manure all day long. I do, as a guilty pleasure, tune in from time to time to watch Monster Quest to watch the "I can't imagine what else could have, if not *insert monster's name*_________ chewed up the front of my car/ate my chickens/chased me out of the woods." philosophy in all it's gimpy, hobbled glory. The "Jersey Devil" episode was about the zenith of this shit. Check it out if you feel like having a laugh.
Posted by: JJ | May 23, 2009 2:58 AM
Compare all this stupid Hype with the well balanced, widely presented and explained take of Neil Shubin on the ,at least equally significant, discovery of Tiktaalik .
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | May 23, 2009 3:02 AM
Ryan:
No. We started with about 15 billion BP.BTW, 0 AD was the year before 1 AD. It's more commonly known as 1 BC.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 3:04 AM
If you care to enlighten me, go ahead. But it doesn't change that your understanding of how evolution works is flawed. Change happens over time, and that happening over time IS evolution. Natural selection works by stopping deleterious mutations from continuing on (the cycle of reproduction) so change that is either neutral or beneficial will accumulate over time. How hard is that to understand Stimpy? Deleterious mutations get weeded out of the genepool.Posted by: Zar | May 23, 2009 3:06 AM
Intelligent Designer:
You are amazing. How do you find time to be such a good scientist along with the many hours you spend fantasizing about setting Dawkins look-alikes on fire or fapping in front of a mirror?
Posted by: Colugo | May 23, 2009 3:09 AM
Ida is an awesome fossil by virtue of its completeness regardless of its relationships or classification. Too bad its representatives and their associates have chosen to present it the way they have.
Are putative stem chordate, bilaterian, and metazoan fossils received this way? Why not? They too could be direct human ancestors! And frankly they would be both more interesting and profound in importance than what they are saying Ida is. (And a fossil dermopteran would be cooler.)
Prediction: It will soon be determined that Ida is no more an ancestor to anthropoids than Ramapithecus was an early hominid. (Fortunately, Ramapithecus didn't get rolled out during the internet era.)
The 'hobbit' discovery, in contrast, was deserving of its attention because it was genuinely unexpected. (A small brained hominid that recent - it surprised the hell out of me.) Ida, on the other hand, is yet another ancient fossil fodder for the omomyid vs adapid origins of anthropoid debate (what could be more obscure, unless dressed up in bogus hype-mongering?).
The 'apes evolving from humans' hype (another arcane debate, this time over Miocene hominoid posture whose terms became unfortunately labeled) of a couple years ago was downright sober compared to this.
Google "Hurum" "sea monster" and "SUV." Try it.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 3:15 AM
One more point Stimpy - the goal of the game is never to try and win over another, the goal is to be right. I don't know everything, nor do I pretend to. I learn by saying stupid things and having others correct me, I'm more than happy to be wrong. I'm not an expert, and I'm willing to listen to people who know more than me.
Now here's where I see your way of arguing is crap. You think you know better than the experts, you will happily argue your point which everyone here can see is bogus. It's based on a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. People from all walks of life, from all different levels of expertise have tried to tell you this, but no. You won't listen to them. So instead you attack people like me, scoring points by showing that a layman doesn't have a proper understanding. There was no reason for you to complain that I couldn't design a better eye, and by doing so it doesn't add or take away from my point that the human eye would be considered poor design. Yet you found it necessary to belittle my intelligence because I dared to say that the eye is back to front, even when in nature we can see different animals that don't have this back to front eye.
Why focus on me? Because it seems like this game to you is to try and win by attrition - by showing that you know more than others. If you want me ask your scalp fine. You win stimpy, I am not an expert on genetics. I should not have responded to your challenge that you asked me to do because it is apparently obvious that you want to say "I'm smarter than an evolutionist layman."
But this shouldn't matter, your understanding of evolution is true or it is not. I feel it's not, and many actual biologists who have tried for months to teach you why you misunderstand feel it is not either. When you think you know better than the scientists who actually work in the area, how is that anything other than a delusion of grandeur?
Posted by: Ploon | May 23, 2009 3:17 AM
This Tuesday there's going to be a documentary on the BBC: "Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link", written and narrated by the ever-excellent David Attenborough. Now I have great faith in the BBC for its documentaries (at least once a week I thank dog that we get it free-to-air in Belgium) and in DA, but the title and description make me fear the worst: "One of the most important discoveries in the 21st century. A scientific breakthrough that could change the usual notions of evolution." I will be watching, but with a pitcher of salt by my right hand.
Posted by: Gorogh | May 23, 2009 3:43 AM
Finally, it has become obvious: There are deep cover creationists out there. Someone write the page for RationalWiki.
BTW, what was that "Our Air - Our Water - Our Life - Creation" supposed to mean?
Posted by: McH | May 23, 2009 3:52 AM
I would so have to go to McDonals if they had Fossil happymeals (not meaning the age of the fries). It could include either Ida, Tiktalik, the Archaeopteryx or a dinosaur called Sue and a booklet on the process of fossilization.
As for the hype, I'm not sure whether it turns out for good or bad, though the history channel video really makes my stomach cringe. Reminds me of the PR machine that soared up with Knut the polar bear a few years back. At least in Germany people love Ursus marinus since then and it's a good starting point to hammer in lessons on global warming.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Hurum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over.
intellingt designer @ #101
I'm sorry but somehow my eyes see your name on top of the post and automatically jump to the next one. Could you give a brief summary of your posts every 20 or so? On another blog? Ta
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 4:12 AM
Kel,
Don't feel bad. I have to take a lot more shit here than I just gave you. It's obvious to me from your comments that you are dedicated to improving your knowledge of science.
I'm not going after you because I think you're an easy target. I am debating with you because I know something about you and because your are willing to respond to me with a scientifc argument. There are very few people here who have even tried. Most are content just to call me a dumbshit one way other the other. Has Nerd of Redhead tried -- no. Has Ichthyic tired -- no. Has Brownian tried -- no. Has Sastra tried -- well yes -- but I was getting my butt kicked and the conversation was more philosophical than about science.
In my opinion biologists don't do the math ... and if they did they might be scratching their heads a little bit more. And contrary to what most people on this blog believe, I am a very intelligent person and I am not going to back down from someone just because they have a PhD. I don't care if it's PZ, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller or even my atheist uncle Roger Dittman (who I admire), Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cal State University Fullerton.
Posted by: Tony | May 23, 2009 4:39 AM
Is it me or does much of these ads make literally NO sense?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2009 4:40 AM
Don't feel bad. I have to take a lot more shit here than I just gave you. It's obvious to me from your comments that you are dedicated to improving your knowledge of science.
so totally UNLIKE yourself.
get lost, you sanctimonious, pompous, peabrain.
...and take your fantasies of mudwrestling Dawkins with you.
*eeewwww*
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2009 4:43 AM
Hopefully you have learned something about genetics since then.
THIS is the "shit" you gave him?
ROFLMAO.
yes, why DON'T you explain what you mean by that, Stimpy.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 23, 2009 4:47 AM
Randy @ 113,pulling a Kwok :
Should have spent more time with the uncle,Stimpy.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 4:55 AM
Are you kidding? Even on diffuse biology such as evolutionary psychology, they relate ideas to mathematics. I heard Stephen Pinker dismiss an argument about the evolutionary explanations of homosexuality purely out of mathematics. Then there is the work that R A Fisher did on population genetics. Then there's John Maynard Smith who tied evolutionary behaviour to game theory. And that's just two names off the top of this layman's head.Hell, Ichthyic directed me to a 1972 paper on sexual selection. What was at the core of this behaivour? Mathematical modelling that explained behaviours based on a cost / benefit analysis.
To say that biologists are ignorant of mathematics is to be ignorant of what is done in biology. But even if they were completely ignorant of mathematics, Tiktaalik still exists. Archaeopteryx still exists. Vestigial organs are still there, genetic markers are still there. Observations of mutation, selection and adaptation are still there. Speciation is still observed. Pseudogenes are still there, and the ability to show divergence through both genetic drift and natural selection are still there. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming...
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 23, 2009 5:08 AM
In view of the ridiculous hype, a better name for the creature would have been Darwinius inflatus, or something like that.
Posted by: Max | May 23, 2009 5:09 AM
I'm looking forward to watching the show!
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 5:10 AM
So Stimpy, if I'm reading correctly then you are saying that you know more about me than genetics. Then why aren't you correcting my mistakes instead of just saying I'm wrong? I don't learn anything by you saying I'm wrong, but you saying how I'm wrong might actually teach me something. Instead, it just seems like you are gloating in my wrongness, without giving me any indication of how I'm wrong.
Even if I got the genetics wrong, it doesn't detract from my point on how natural selection works - something you gravely misunderstand. I may not know how it all works on a biochemical level, but I feel I understand the process quite well in a general sense. A few things still stump me, but that stems from my ignorance of facts rather than theory.
So the challenge to you is randy, do you think you know enough to correct my errors? Do you think you could survive the scrutiny of many people who are trained in the field? Why do you think that people like Ichthyic are criticising you instead of me? Are you going to call them ignorant on science too?
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 23, 2009 5:13 AM
See what I mean.
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 5:15 AM
To be fair to the others, if you act like a troll then you get treated like one. I'm just dumb enough to try to look past that, I have this stupid ideal that people will listen to reason.
Posted by: Louis | May 23, 2009 5:51 AM
I'm guessing that Hurum is nostalgic for the 19th Century days when fossil finds made you famous (a la Darwin).
I'm sympathetic to his desire not to be scooped, I'm utterly unsympathetic about how he appears to have gone about it. No use chasing fortune and glory. ;-)
Louis
Posted by: Leafsnail | May 23, 2009 5:55 AM
Oh my Jebus cracker. Seriously. Would there be some way for the general atheist and scientific communities to officially denounce and seperate themselves from this madness? The first ever link to humans... wtf. That's not even funny. I'm going to have fundamentalists retards quoting that at me for the rest of my life.
Damn you to hell.
Posted by: astrounit | May 23, 2009 6:04 AM
Hurum. Ugh.
That SOB is about as scientific as the worst carny barker.
His own words absolutely ripped it for me: he should be hounded and ridiculed relentlessly until he either fesses up to having been a precipitous ass, or until his reputation is finally shattered to bits, not only in the paleontological community but ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the public (and kids) he so valiantly sought to excite.
One way or the other: HE put his reputation (such as it putatively once was) in the grinder. And while he smarts he cannot whine he's being attacked for no reason.
What a dispicable man who even dares to promote his ambitions in the name of science.
This kind of crap represents extra work for those who work diligently for the scientific education of the public cannot afford to burden itself with now.
Gee, thanks Professor Hurum.
And that PLoS One editor along with the History Channel exec can go jump in the lake too. I hope they are burdened by YEARS of trying to backpedal away from this one.
Idiocy regularly does come home to roost - and the bigger the booboo, the more colorful the ensuing farce.
Good. One may look forward eagerly to lots of squirming in store for all these bozos involved, who never once reckoned the fallout of trying to pull a fast one, or assuming that they can drop their scientific skepticism in favor of a "hot commodity".
And, especially to PLoS One? The editors of which are supposed to be scientifically cognizant and know better? According to your spokesman, we should be glad to expect more such garbage in the future. Who knows? Maybe EVERY crackpot can get a crack at publishing with you eventually.
In the meantime? I LOVE that beautiful little being Ida. She is as important a fossil statement to the current living stock of primates as anything else that might serve as a "direct" ancestor to what we are. It depends on who we think "we" are - if we want to know exactly what our "human" lineage is, we have to be ultra careful about assigning a link. EQUALLY so, we have to be ultra careful (and just as ecstatic) about finding ANY fossil so beautifully complete that tells a story of WHATEVER forms lived in a bygone day that MAY have persisted to the present. (I used to collect fish fossils from Fossil Butte in western Wyoming that were of comparable age to Ida, and I absolutely TREASURE my finds as if they WERE "me").
Ida, who was NOT a "lemur", looks very much more like something that may have been a distant ancestor to lemurs. ISN'T THAT FANTASTIC ENOUGH??? Of course, we shall all remember that we and lemurs came from some common ancestor that was NEITHER human nor lemur, yes? Same with my fossil fish.
They're ALL "me". Down to the stromatolite I now clutch in my hand.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 23, 2009 6:10 AM
@ Intelligent Designer:
While agree with you that just because someone believes in I.D. doesn't mean that they are lacking in intelligence, it's important to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of scientists that actually study evolution accept it, and that they are also often very intelligent.
If it's math that you're interested in, perhaps you should head over to Good Math, Bad Math (assuming you haven't already) where the author has recently had a few articles critiquing Dembski's mathematical arguments and explaining why they are wrong.
The big problem with I.D. is that it will never be considered scientific as long as it insists (I suspect deliberately) on staying a vague "argument from ignorance". If it is to ever be considered scientific it needs to start looking for positively supporting evidence (as opposed to attacking evolution, which is all it does now) and making falsifiable predictions. As long as the I.D. community's idea of research is limited to trying to poke holes in other people's work, the weeks spent on Dawkins' "weasel" program being a recent embarrassing example, it will never make any scientific progress or advance human understanding.
Frankly, I have no emotional or professional attachment to evolution, if it's wrong...so be it, but at this point that seems very unlikely. If I.D. can make a sound logical argument and back it up with evidence, then great! But after a few decades of not even progressing beyond an argument from ignorance, that seems doubtful too. Please note...an argument from ignorance is not evidence.
Evolution provides details, answers to many questions, advances in human understanding, and solutions to some of the world's problems (pest control, controlling many diseases, better crops), and testable predictions. I.D. does none of these things, all it's done so far is sell books and movies, and attack the work of others. Oh! It also helped to kill the school budgets in many districts as fundamentalists have tried to push it into science classes before it has even tried to become scientific. Why is it that so far, I.D.'s only accomplishments of note seem to be sucking money from people and governments?
If you really believe in and want to support I.D. as a scientific theory (and you're not just another troll), perhaps people like you should be spending more time on Uncommon Descent asking Dembski, Behe, and others to try and do some real research and provide some real answers for a change. I suspect that their response to you would be to "get bent", or words to that effect (maybe more politely worded, but the same intent). I suspect that they may even accuse you of being a "Darwinist" for even asking such questions! "One must never question the great Designer, or his prophets!" Care to give it a try?
Hell... at this point I'd be impressed if the Discovery Institute, and the other smaller I.D. groups, would just make an official declaration about the age of the Earth! I mean seriously.... Do you really expect scientists to take an argument and an organization seriously when they won't even take a stand on the age of the planet? It's kind of an important basic detail if they want to even try and be seen as scientific. That they won't even officially make such a simple and fundamental statement, speaks volumes as to their scientific integrity and true motives.
Posted by: EsaT | May 23, 2009 6:26 AM
Ahhahahaha! Just watched the ad. It's ugly.
Such a comedy. Too bad for the finding tho...
Posted by: astrounit | May 23, 2009 6:34 AM
Jafafa Hots #11 Says: "Discovery Channel/History Channel sucks. I pretty much stick to BBC documentaries, the Disc/History channel stuff is embarrassing. Even NOVA seems horribly dumbed down from where it was maybe 15-20 years ago... Whether you like Neil Degrasse Tyson or not, the bottom line is in the 80s and 90s NOVA didn't feel like they were talking to children... now all the shows and narration have the sound of a children's afterschool special."
You raise an excellent point. I concur 100%
Nor has this trend been confined to televised science and nature programs. There has been a systematic diminution of the quality of content in magazines since the early 1980's as well.
For example, articles in magazines such as Scientific American, which used to run an article with a dozen pages or more of sophisticated content, that treated their readers as smart enough to understand and a policy they had held to for nearly a century up until then, now run 3 or 4 pages and have less sophistication than their frequent interleaved promos for some country. The articles (which draw the readers and subscribers) have LESS to say than the ADVERTISEMENTS do.
It's utterly dispicable. There is no reason any longer to buy or subscribe to such worthless content...unless you like the ads.
What a WASTE of WOOD PULP.
Interesting that this trend - in both published and televised media - began its movement with the Reagan administration.
It's been seriously downhill ever since.
Posted by: Whatevermachine | May 23, 2009 6:36 AM
Maybe PZ and other scientists should write and tell them how daft these claims are. Maybe they already have, I don't know.
Posted by: Sili
|
May 23, 2009 6:52 AM
. . .Doesn't this guy need to get his own story straight?
Posted by: astrounit | May 23, 2009 6:58 AM
"Intelligent Designer" #113
Okay, "Intelligent Designer", I don't have a PhD, evidently just like you. I'll tango with your "opinion".
Have you done any "math" on ANY scientific question? Do you actually have ANY practical math knowledge besides "Work = Force x Distance"???
Is that memorized bit about the extent of it?
Oh, and BTW, when you said:
"Yesterday we had a Dell Computer technition [sic] come to our office to repair a laptop. He looked just like Richard Dawkins. I was tempted to ask him to pose with me in a picture. I didn't though because I didn't think he would appreciate being in a headlock."
Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? Then to broadcast to the world (on this blog) that you fixated on a Dell technician who resembled somebody you despise and fantasized putting him into a headlock?
Much too obnoxious and STUPID to understand any math, certainly.
You aren't in fact a "very intelligent person". You are nothing but a cheap lout.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 23, 2009 7:00 AM
Zetetic,
Asking IDers and their siblings, the creationists, to actually do some science is a futile gesture. Their theory is based on GODDIDIT and "then a miracle happened." That's kind of hard to falsify.
*The IDers replace god with the "intelligent designer, wink wink nod nod, know what I mean".
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 7:17 AM
@Stimpy
You complain that biologists haven't mapped biology to mathematics (despite this being false, but lets pretend it is true), have you put biology to mathematics yet? This isn't just writing a formula then complaining that evolution doesn't work, this takes showing that your formula fits the evidence gathered in the many studies done of populations over varying amounts of generations. Mathematics without evidence suffers the same problem as philosophy - it's nothing more than sophistry that has no bearing on the real world. You need to demonstrate that your mathematics fits the evidence gathered in biology over varying amounts of generations before you can say maths disproves science...
So the problem I see is thus. You complain that biologists do not have a good understanding of mathematics. But have you even tried mapping the two together? It seems very hypocritical to complain about the inadequacy of an entire field of discipline where millions of scientists from various walks of life are all working to have less knowledge of mathematics than you when they are working with evidence and seeing what the evidence says.
So let me ask you this Stimpy: what is more important, a mathematical formula without evidence, or evidence without a mathematical formula? because to me, I would argue that maths without evidence is just mathematics, while evidence can survive well and good without having maths to guide it. Tiktaalik was found in 375 million year old rock, the ERV markers still exist in the same location on the genome, and humans have an inactive gene for synthesising vitamin C. Quite simply the markers for common descent are there, to say "they are mathematically impossible" is being grossly ignorant of the science we have. And to say "they are mathematically impossible" without even mapping the mathematics to population data over many generations (as has happened many times in experiments with bacteria) is nothing more than talking out of your arse.
So forgive the blunt nature of this statement, but you it seems like nothing more than you having an inflated opinion of yourself when you say that biologists don't have a good mathematical grounding. You somehow know better than the millions of biologists who have spent decades studying the natural world, and therefore the non-mathematical evidences for common descent are bogus? I don't even think you have an argument to begin with, because you haven't demonstrated that your mathematics fits with evidence gathered. You have nothing, yet you pretend you have an idea that would rewrite human knowledge. I put it to you that you have nothing to support your ideas, no evidence, just a few mathematical formulas that have no bearing on the real world. Yet this is the person to has the nerve to complain that my understanding of science is flawed?!? No dice Randy, you have nothing because you fail to understand that science is about the evidence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 23, 2009 7:31 AM
Randy, I have refuted your entropy idiocy, and shredded it to bits. Unfortunately, you are too dense to realize it. So I'll repeat it for the sake of the other readers. Chemical and biological reactions are not governed by entropy, but rather Gibbs free energy, ∆G=∆H-T∆S. The T∆S term is the entropy portion of the equation. If the change in entropy is negative, this will make this term a positive number which would make the reaction unlikely. This is unless ∆H, the enthalpy or heat term, is sufficiently large negative number, either by the release of heat by the chemical reaction, or by the absorption of energy by the system, it will over whelm the entropy portion and make the overall free energy favorable (∆G negative) for the reaction to occur. Any entropy argument fails because of this. And your entropy argument fails because you still erroneously think a protein just "poofs" into existence, instead of being a modification of a previously known protein that was duplicated. And such duplications happen in DNA replication and are well documented.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 23, 2009 7:37 AM
Every so often Nerd gets to show us that he is a real chemyst.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 23, 2009 7:39 AM
What is this "ping.chartbeat.net" that seems to hang up and timeout SB?
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 7:49 AM
Honestly, when Stimpy uses the word entropy, it seems he means shannon entropy as opposed to the SLoT. Which makes even less sense to argue about, because evolution relies on the notion that there is modification from generation to generation. Otherwise creatures wouldn't evolve. as for increasing information, there's what, 35,000 articles now on PubMed concerning gene duplication?
Posted by: fftysmthg | May 23, 2009 8:16 AM
This is why I hate the media. I'm sure the public will gobble it up like pablum.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2009 8:21 AM
The SB people seem to be asleep at the wheel,I havent been able to post anything without scoring a submission error for a week now.....And "chartbeat.net" clearly cant cope with the site requests,thats been fucked for a month or longer.
Regarding entropy,I was amazed to read that the energy in the universe is ZERO,that the negative gravitational energy and mass equal out to exactly Zero.
Thats kinda neat.
Posted by: Mark Gradwell | May 23, 2009 8:22 AM
History Channel? The analysis is happening now. The jury is still out so to speak. This is news not history.
C'est la vie.
Posted by: Rorschach | May 23, 2009 8:23 AM
The SB people seem to be asleep at the wheel,I havent been able to post anything without scoring a submission error for a week now.....And "chartbeat.net" clearly cant cope with the site requests,thats been fucked for a month or longer.
Regarding entropy,I was amazed to read that the energy in the universe is ZERO,that the negative gravitational energy and mass equal out to exactly Zero.
Thats kinda neat.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 23, 2009 8:28 AM
I took a look at Shannon Entropy in Wiki. It has nothing to do with biology, really about information and computing theory, and is actually a misappropriation of the term entropy as it is used in thermodynamics. The term entropy is simply used as randomness for Shannon Entropy. So that really sounds like Stimpy. Take an idea that has nothing to due with thermodynamics, and pretend it is applicable to biological systems as thermodynamic principle, since the end result appears to support his unsupportable notions.
Posted by: MadScientist | May 23, 2009 8:29 AM
I can just imagine PZ looking something like this at the moment:
http://www.seattlepi.com/photos/popupV2.asp?SubID=4756&page=15>itle=Odd%20photos%20of%20the%20week%20&pubdate=5/22/2009
Posted by: Mark Gradwell | May 23, 2009 8:32 AM
History Channel? The analysis is happening now. The jury is still out so to speak. This is news not history.
C'est la vie.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
May 23, 2009 8:55 AM
Darwinius shoves a stubby, little shit-encrusted finger in the eyes of a bunch of people who are GUARANTEED to go fucking berserk at the idea that there were a "missing link."
It is a 'cause,' and the Wing-loons will be shrieking for months...
Posted by: Herm | May 23, 2009 9:23 AM
I'm a little torn over this. It's great that findings from evolutionary biology are getting a prominent place in the popular media, but, PZ is right it is a little much for sure. That's marketing people for ya.
The whole "link" concept is a problem. It is virtually impossible to identify direct fossil ancestors. The real situation is more subtle than media and marketing people care to take the time to understand. Ida is an early branch on the primate family tree providing clear evidence of our common ancestry with the primate lineage leading to us and prosimians but that is different from saying Ida is a "link", a direct ancestor.
I'll have to read a little more and see what the actual science says. I skimmed through the original PLoS paper and Franzen et al don't really say anything about it as a direct ancestor but rather an early branch in the haplorhine lineage, maybe I missed something. I've found tree thinking is very hard to get across. It's hard to get people to break out of this ladder way of thinking about evolution where Darwinius masillae is a link, a rung on the ladder leading to us rather than a branch on a bifrucating evolutionary tree.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 23, 2009 9:29 AM
I don't think that's what he means. I think he means his paper, the only one on the fossil, wouldn't rise out of the crowd of all the other scientific papers published on all manner of other topics.
Still amounts to the same thing, though: he wants a higher impact factor.
Well, me, which probably proves your point... Adapis, Cantius, Notharctus, Europolemur, I think Godinotia... :-)
Completely impossible. We're looking at stupidity here, not that kind of malice.
Still surprising that Hurum stooped to making such a media circus, however – his previous work on tyrannosaurs and plesiosaurs is solid. Even more surprising that someone like Wighart von Koenigswald, who has been publishing mostly on Eocene fossils (including primates) for decades, got suckered into this appalling hype.
Well, it is AFAIK the most complete primate fossil ever found. It definitely is worthy of getting attention by the general media.
It's just not worth treating the general public as completely stupid.
Whether that's a fact depends on whether you're a historian.
What's your point? There really are really big pliosaurs out there.
Believing in ID isn't a sign of lack of intelligence. It's a sign of lack of knowledge.
...And a sign of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
...Which actually is a sign of lack of intelligence...
Hm.
In any case, Randy, keep your violence fantasies to yourself and learn about the basics of molecular genetics and of population biology.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 23, 2009 9:42 AM
The usual Nisbetian caution:
TS: What can we learn from this episode?
MN: The take-home lesson is that this is a really innovative model for going broad and reaching audiences, and it's a model that there's a lot to learn from in terms of effectiveness and strategy. But the danger is that in activating those broader channels that you don't go beyond what can accurately and honestly be said about the significance of the paper for the promise of the underlying science. There's a lot to like about the strategy and the planning and the wider attention that this study has gotten, but there's a lot to debate about the language and metaphor that's been used to convey the significance of the study.
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/05/interview_w_the_scientist_on_i.php
People talk things up. They go crazy sometimes. I'd rather have that kind of reaction occasionally than sedate and stately all the time.
The religious fanatics are peeing their pants. Celebrate! It's another nail in their coffin.
Shake your boody, science! Come on! It's an opportunity to educate the wider public and celebrate something marvelous.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 23, 2009 10:01 AM
Yeah. It's going to be our tedious job to counter the stupid claims pumped out by the media-Hurum complex – some of which, as you have shown us by lots of copying & pasting on the original thread, feed right into the cretinist mindset (perhaps because Hurum isn't familiar with cretinists in Norway).
It's not going to be fun.
It's going to take lots of time away from our actual jobs.
Remember Tiktaalik? That's more like how to present a fossil to the public.
Posted by: Barbara Ballentine | May 23, 2009 10:01 AM
The PI's of this research are like the Wall Street bankers of science. Unfortunately, like on Wall Street, this personality type is selected for in science. Very depressing and very bad for science. Sigh.
Posted by: Colugo | May 23, 2009 10:36 AM
Hype is zero-sum. The intensity and duration of attention of the media and the public for scientific discoveries is limited. If Ida is supposedly this spectacular, then how will truly important (besides their completeness) fossils be received? The hype machine can hardly be cranked up even more than this.
David Marjanović, OM: You're right; Hurum's colorful evocation of an SUV being bitten in half is not as telling as his dubbing a pliosaur 'Predator X' (As Poochie would say, to the x-treme!) and trying to stir up media excitement around it.
Hurum's own mentor says that "He is a bit of showman." That's putting it mildly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-jorn-hurum-profile
More from the article:
"But making a success of the Ida specimen has required much more than simply good PR. It first needed a huge gamble on Hurum's part. He convinced the University of Oslo to buy the fossil – which had an asking price of $1m – based only on seeing three high quality photographs of it. The final deal was done after Hurum was given just a few minutes to eyeball the specimen before half of the total fee was transferred to the dealer. The university only paid the rest of the money once months of work using sophisticated X-ray equipment had been done to prove conclusively that it was not a fake.
The Ida specimen had already been rejected a year earlier by two prestigious German museums on the grounds that it was too expensive. It was only after months of scientific work that the full significance of the specimen to the evolution of human ancestors became clear. "I kind of gambled that it was something even more spectacular than just a lemur," confesses Hurum."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 23, 2009 10:51 AM
Bakker, Horner...Hurum.
Egotistic paleontologist as rockstar. The precedents are set.
Is it unusual for a scientist to "specialize" in both Jurassic pliosaurs and Eocene ur-primates? What do these fossils have in common?
A: the potential to be spun to be "spectacular" enough to make the rockstar paleontologist Famous.
gah, it makes me sick.
This isn't science.
Posted by: eewolf | May 23, 2009 11:02 AM
Fixed it for you, Stimpy
Posted by: blockhead | May 23, 2009 11:10 AM
Of course this is not about science. Its about money. Didn't you visit Al Capone's secret tomb with Geraldo a few years ago? Anybody want a t-shirt-this fossil cost a LOT of money.
Posted by: blockhead | May 23, 2009 11:27 AM
I just watched both ads--and laughed out loud at both. The first had me breathless until the LAST DATE.......then I laughed. The second had me rolling on the floor around mid-way through. I guess some people just don't care much about paleontology.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 23, 2009 11:48 AM
Don’t bother trying to convince the creationists of the importance of fossils. They will never be satisfied with anything less than a fossil of Adam and Eve with the talking snake. And even that is doubtful.
Posted by: JohnF | May 23, 2009 12:06 PM
PZ, I couldn't agree with you more! There is no upside to all of the media hype!
Posted by: Barney | May 23, 2009 12:30 PM
It's fairly likely the BBC/Attenborough programme and the History Channel one are actually the same:
Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link was produced by Atlantic Productions and is co-funded by BBC, the History Channel, ZDF and NRK. The one-part, 60-minute special will be screened at 9.00pm on Tuesday 26 May 2009 on BBC One.
BBC Press Release
Some of the press release is bad hype: "a scientific discovery that could revolutionise our understanding of human evolution"; but then they tone it done a little: "an important scientific development that could tell us more about where we come from", and get relatively sensible: "could be an indication of one of the roots of anthropoid evolution".
I hope Sir David doesn't embarrass himself too much by his involvement in it.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick
|
May 23, 2009 12:39 PM
Despite everything else wrong with the first video, my biggest beef is that the heartbeats didn't give way to Pink Floyd's "Breathe." I'm so conditioned now to associating that thump-thump with the song that I get disappointed when it doesn't happen.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 23, 2009 12:40 PM
AnthroBabe @ # 12: I gasped out loud in utter shock ...
And thus we see the birth of a new unit of intertubes abbreviation: GOL, or in xtreme cases, GOLIUS.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
May 23, 2009 12:47 PM
ah, the history channel.
confession time. i'm a sucker for a ridiculous conspiracy/UFO/loch ness monster show. i am! i know it's ridiculous, and full of crap, but i'm entertained by crackpots.
but it gets sort of silly when the intellectual dishonesty becomes so incredibly easy to spot that you can't even believe the crackpots believe this stuff themselves. i'm calling this the "fucking rifles" principle.
it goes something like this: you and your team of crackpot "cryptozoologists" are looking for bigfoot in the pacific northwest. bigfoot is some 9 feet tall, possibly 800 lbs, and probably not very friendly. you're investigating an area where has been a rash of recent reports, hoping to get the animal on video, or recovery some kind of physical evidence. so why didn't you bring a fucking rifle? seems pretty obvious to me that if you're looking for a large and potentially very dangerous animal, you'd bring some sort of protection. hell, there are bears in the area, and those guys alone warrant the bringing of rifles. no rifles? tells me two things: 1) you don't think you'll find bigfoot (because he's not real) and 2) you're probably not really looking.
the most clear instance of this was an episode of "monsterquest" where they were looking for a giant man-eating shark off the coast of baja mexico. their plan for getting it on video was to circle in an airplane until they saw one, get a boat almost on top of it, and jump in the water with a video camera. this is downright insane if you're looking for (as the hype indicated) a megalodon. or even an average great white. getting something like that on film is pretty easy though -- it involves chum and a shark cage. they only reason to do what they did is if they knew ahead of time they were looking for something that wouldn't, you know, eat them. or be interested in chum. like a whale shark. guess what they ended up finding?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | May 23, 2009 1:33 PM
The Skeptics Guide, Science in Action and Material World had much better coverage of this than the papers.
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 23, 2009 1:42 PM
Don Johanson basically made a career out of finding one fossil. That is he found others and worked at it, but what made him, what got him money, fame, and clout, his own Institute (with a capital I) was one good fossil. Why would you expect others to not follow that sort of example?
This guy found a very nice fossil and he's determined to dine out on that for the rest of his life. And history shows us he will.
Posted by: saed | May 23, 2009 2:27 PM
Dawkins said the idea of a missing link is a miss understanding of evolution...
This hype re enforces the missing link idea in the popular imagination.
The history channel is a corporate propaganda mill.
There for-- this is a pre emptive attack.
well done conservatives.
Mayby thats out of line.
Posted by: saed | May 23, 2009 2:30 PM
Dawkins said the idea of a missing link is a miss understanding of evolution...
This hype re enforces the missing link idea in the popular imagination.
The history channel is a corporate propaganda mill.
There for-- this is a pre emptive attack.
well done conservatives.
Mayby thats out of line.
Posted by: kjg28 | May 23, 2009 2:59 PM
Nerd of Redhead:
Thanks for the link--I see what you mean now; that conversation was incredibly frustrating. I'll admit, I didn't expect global warming to have such a prominent role in the convo.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 23, 2009 4:06 PM
'Tis Himself said:
Thank you, but I'm quite aware of that. It's why I commented that they are being deliberately vague and react with hostility to any suggestion that they do actual science. In my opinion, going after the fundamental problems with both I.D. and the organizations behind it, is more important than pointing out the errors in their mathematical games. Especially when the math is only being misused so as to justify an argument from ignorance.
Personally I suspect that "Intelligent Designer" is just another troll, but there is always the chance that I may be wrong. I wrote my last post, more for the practice (my writing skills, such as they are, have gotten rusty) and for anyone "on the fence" that may come across it. If "Intelligent Designer" or any other I.D. believer should actually question I.D.'s true motives, so much the better, even if I doubt that will happen.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 23, 2009 4:26 PM
He didn't find a very nice fossil, he bought one.
Posted by: breadmaker | May 23, 2009 4:33 PM
@all those who are vollying with "IntelligentDesigner"
if a god did create nature and its order of things, is it still reasonable to expect ID'rs to provide some scientific explanation for how it all came about?
is it not a premise of the ID'rs etc. that,because things did not come about except by "creation", a scientific explanation like evolution is an absurd misapplication of science itself?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 23, 2009 4:42 PM
@breadmaker:
I disagree..if life was created by a god, there should be some evidence. Such as a lack of ERV's, or new and completely novel traits appearing suddenly fully formed, etc.
That the ID "movement" won't even take a stand on the age of the Earth (kind of an important detail) shows that they are not even attempting to be scientific. Their behavior shows that the only things they are interested in (the I.D. movement that is) is politics and money.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 23, 2009 4:50 PM
Breadmaker, the main problem with both creationism and ID is that they posit a god/creator, but then show no real physical evidence for one. Nada, zilch, nihil, zero, nothing. All they have is circular reasoning. God must exist, ergo he created us, ergo god exists, or some such brain rot.
Posted by: Jeanette
|
May 23, 2009 4:55 PM
Our Savior has come!
But seriously, the "History" Channel is all about hyped-up crap, anyway. Might as well read supermarket tabloids if you want to waste your time that way.
Seeing Ida frozen in time curled up in fetal position as she was when she suffocated: Poor little thing.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | May 23, 2009 8:40 PM
@kjg28
The links that Tis Himself supplied look pretty good. I would avoid bothering with Wikipedia for aside from the obvious non-scholarly nature of the source it was founded by libertarians.
I have only a couple more suggested readings. Talking about arguments against libertarianism I like to point out that evidence is kryptonite to libertarians. If you can educate yourself (preferably with primary sources) on documented economic history then recite such with references it's like throwing warm water on the Wicked Witch of the West. (Only with the witch denying that she's melting the whole time she dissolves - kinda like Terry Jones during the the Island-sinking scene from Erik The Viking). You see, libertarians proceed from an idea and cherry pick evidence (when they bother with evidence) even more than most people. Certain of their "Giants" such as Milton Friedman resort to outright lies (i.e.: claiming that the steel and railroad industry in 19th century Japan developed without any government money).
One good source for economic history that provides a good context for understanding the "free trade" myth is Noam Chomsky's The Prosperous few and the Restless Many. He has a reputation for inaccessible and dense writing but the small books such as this one from the Odonian Press result from the labor of editors who worked with him intensively to make his writing readable and accessible.
A second recommendation: libertarians can not fathom the concept of predatory pricing. I found a brief article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian which gives a good example of this practice. Libertarians consider this a conspiracy theory and a myth despite numerous SCOTUS rulings from the early 20th century (enforcing the Sherman-Clayton Anti-trust acts). If you can memorize a few gems of predatory pricing from business history that will help. Of course, this will have zero effect on any libertarians with whom you argue, but it will make them look pretty silly to any more-or-less rational person listening.
On a side note: one of my favorite bits about libertarians is their worship of Ayn Rand. I did some research (I'm hip-deep in libertarians most of the time - don't ask) and found that Rand hated libertarians. She thought they epically failed to understand her book. If she were still alive it would be amusing to do a "Woody Allen" and pull her out from around the corner (like Allen did with Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall) and have her say: "you obviously do not understand my work."
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 23, 2009 8:47 PM
:-D
Posted by: Kel | May 23, 2009 9:17 PM
If a murder is committed and no-one is around to see it, how does one solve it? It is to do with evidence. Evidence left at the crime scene, evidence left by going back through the dead man's history - by checking phone records and their personal data files. By talking to the victim's friends and family. etc.What this suggests that while all life could be poofed into existence by a creator X many years ago, it comes down to evidence to determine whether this happened. Remember that ID is claiming to be scientific - that this creation event (or God tinkering with the DNA over time) is a fact of human history - they claim that they can detect design.
So it comes down to this, what evidence is there that life was designed? What evidence supports ID? It seems that no-one from ID circles wants to answer that, the few examples they have given have been demonstrated to be possible by naturalistic causes and there is no evidence of that designer. ID has no scientific backing, it's a religious movement where people want to say Goddidit and feel smart for doing so.
If you disagree with this assessment, you can always show evidence that there really is a designer or that design is present in nature.
Posted by: Jeanette
|
May 24, 2009 3:33 AM
Libertarianism? Is that what we're talking about? I must have partied too hard in celebrating our war dead this weekend; I don't even know where I am.
Ooh, and I feel dumb for posting that thing about Ida "in a fetal position." She probably just normally has bad posture.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 24, 2009 4:01 AM
@breadmaker again:
Sorry I was late to work and didn't have time to explain as well as I would have liked. In the past ID advocates predicted that evidence would be found, just as artificial tools have evidence that they were made. Things like finding in the genetic code the first 100 prime numbers and other types of obvious evidence that an intelligence is involved in creating life on Earth.
Obviously such evidence never materialized, so now they pin their hopes on the so-called "irreducibly complex" features hoping to find something that evolution can't explain in order justify assuming intelligent involvement. The problem now for them is that every "irreducibly complex" feature they bring up turns out to be explainable by evolution. Or rather it's explainable when other scientists, never the ID "researchers" themselves, actually try and research the feature in question. Funny that, how people that actually look for answers (rather than assuming that they already have it) are the ones most likely to find the answers? Court cases like Kitzmiller v Dover publicly demonstrated this, much to ID's public embarrassment.
So now some ID advocates may be trying to claim that any changes are too subtle to be detected, producing the same changes that would be expected by the modern synthesis of evolution. Meaning that some of them are redefining ID again as something is indistinguishable from it not even existing at all.
Long story short... If life were actually created it should be very different genetically than it actually is. So we are left with concluding (assuming for the sake of argument that ID was true) that the "designer" would have to be either some kind of incompetent (making obvious mistakes even a moderately competent human designer wouldn't). Or, it's deliberately hiding evidence of it's existence making everything look like it's all just a result of natural processes. Does that sound very likely?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 24, 2009 4:04 AM
@ Jeanette:
No, the thread is just in danger of getting derailed into ideology again.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 24, 2009 4:44 AM
frog,
"If you really think that science will be produced solely on the funding for private journals and foundation, you really are a cretinous faith-based thinker."
"really think"? I've never said that. If you are going to make up "facts", make them up about yourself. In fact, I've been a proponent of the US government sponsoring research that would bring lower cost drugs to market in order to lower the costs of Medicare. I've also advocated that the FDA perform after market monitoring of drugs, and that the government pay for the drug approval process. The manufactorers can fund efficacy studies themselves also, but their main responsibility is to deliver the chemical in purity and bioavailability. FDA approval should be taken for what it is worth by those who want it.
Similarly I'm an advocate of other government sponsored medical research, climate research and model development, the space program, and military research into higher precision weapons.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 24, 2009 5:06 AM
Steven Dunlap,
"Certain of their "Giants" such as Milton Friedman resort to outright lies (i.e.: claiming that the steel and railroad industry in 19th century Japan developed without any government money). ... One good source for economic history that provides a good context for understanding the "free trade" myth is Noam Chomsky's The Prosperous few and the Restless Many. He has a reputation for inaccessible and dense writing but the small books such as this one from the Odonian Press result from the labor of editors who worked with him intensively to make his writing readable and accessible."
It is interesting that anarchists always want to argue that the advances of capitalism couldn't have made it without government help when free market advocates have acknowledged the importance of the rule of law, respect for contracts and against fraud. Limited government has proven itself viable and practical, and anarchism has proven nothing.
Free trade is creating huge middle classes out of poverty in India, China and the Asian tigers. It appears that the less people are "exploited" (to use the marxist obsfuscation), the less well off they are. Offering free people options they wouldn't otherwise have is not "exploitation". China is a mixed picture since, as in Cuba, the government claims the perogative of whether the people can work or not. Time will tell whether the "exploitation" of China or the shunning of Cuba was the better policy.
Posted by: africangenesis | May 24, 2009 5:17 AM
Nerd of Redhead,
"kjg28, here is a link where AG hijacked with his anti-AGW philosophy:"
There you go, lying again. PZ himself referred to "climate change denialists" as one of the examples of "American Idiocy", so technically it wasn't "hijacked" at all. pharyngula would not be what it is, if only agreement with PZ was tolerated. Also you failed to note that I proposed that the AGW hypothesis be discussed at another site, and that those interested review the past discussions here, but other commenters WANTED to dispute my points here. If it were hijacking, technically it is the others that hijacked it.
Posted by: Fossiliferous | May 24, 2009 1:39 PM
Back to the original thread: Although this story got out of proportion, some commentators here are assuming too much about Hurum's intentions. I happen to vaguely know him, which makes me not quite objective but at least a bit more informed about the Workings of his Mind. He is NOT doing this for money, or even fame. He is genuinely enthusiastic about his subjects. He is interested in dinosaurs and primates for the same reason that children are: It's fun. He wants to share this with the world. He is getting LOTS of children interested in paleontology, which is GOOD. This is Hurum's job as an employee at a museum. Does it give a wrong impression of science? No - science IS about exciting specimens AS WELL AS hard work and cladistics.
I also blush when I see the History Channel advert. It's silly of course. Some goofy things were said by the scientists. I would not have done it this way. But it was done for a purpose, and the positive effects for the general audience, a large part of which does not even know that such fossils exist, outweigh the damage.
Come on, cheer up.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 24, 2009 1:43 PM
*shrug* His own statements indicate otherwise.Posted by: forex | May 26, 2009 11:50 AM
Nice said Fossiliferous, I agree with you.
Posted by: Shiva | May 27, 2009 2:47 AM
Oh, for crying out loud, you guys!
For once science gets media attention and you guys complain even about that? You should only be happy.
This could be one of the most important fossil finds ever and you're arguing over how it's presented? Get off your high horses and be happy we have found something awesome :)
Just because something gets media attention doesn't make it automatically bad you know...