Pharyngula

Posted by: Zachary | May 25, 2009 10:39 PM

I actually just tuned in now (to catch what sounded like the end of it), and it was some dude saying that it was our first ancestor in the fossil record or something like that. Ugh.

Posted by: SC, OM | May 25, 2009 10:58 PM

I have much to say, but my question for now, before I go to sleep, is: What kind of asshole finds a fossil like that and keeps it to himself for two decades? How does this even happen? (Perhaps this was discussed on one of the earlier threads, which I didn't read fully.)

Posted by: SC, OM | May 25, 2009 11:07 PM

It's on again at 1 (again, our time - not your derivative time; in other words, 2 hours from now).

Posted by: Max | May 25, 2009 11:09 PM

UGH
I hate Discovery Channel... such a sellout, pandering entity
American Chopper... please.
When I was a kid it was, like, Wild America with Marty Stouffer...
sigh

Posted by: luna1580 | May 25, 2009 11:12 PM

max-

if "the maya" have been extinct all this time, how do you explain mayan peoples still living today?

maybe you meant to say a specific cultural phase of a specific group that falls under the mayan umbrella categorization ended in 900 AD. -and which one would that be? way to be a specific and detailed tutor.

Posted by: Max | May 25, 2009 11:16 PM

"max-
if "the maya" have been extinct all this time, how do you explain mayan peoples still living today?
maybe you meant to say a specific cultural phase of a specific group that falls under the mayan umbrella categorization ended in 900 AD. -and which one would that be? way to be a specific and detailed tutor"

Excellent points, but I was oversimplifying things for the purposes of a short thread comment. I explained to him that the classical culture we refer to as the Maya in historical vernacular was extinct, in the same sense that we speak of the fall of the Roman empire.

Posted by: mus | May 25, 2009 11:24 PM

#3- "National Geographic seems to dominate in all respects."

When it tries, it does dominate. However, even the nat geo channel has mostly become trash now. "the dog whisperer" is on every damn time I want to watch it. Actually, the other day I saw another show was on... but it was pretty much the same thing.

Posted by: James F | May 25, 2009 11:26 PM

#9

The first rule of Dinosaur Fight Club is: you do not talk about Dinosaur Fight Club.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 25, 2009 11:27 PM

scienceblogs commenting has been wonky for a day or two.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 25, 2009 11:29 PM

Off topic...

News
World news
France
Church of Scientology goes on trial in France
French branch accused of preying on vulnerable people for financial gain in second fraud case in six years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/scientology-france-fraud

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | May 25, 2009 11:30 PM

Two words make up for all the crap Discovery Channel puts out:

Myth.

Busters.

Posted by: Newfie | May 25, 2009 11:32 PM

sorry for the double post. scienceblogs commenting has been wonky for a day or two.

I think there's a tribe of "high functioning" YEC's that filter the posts on this site... if it has some failed logic, they make sure that it posts 3 times... Just an observation.

Another observation:
these posts take longer to post/submission stall when not signed in to typekey.. and has a different "error" message page.

Posted by: Cyberdraco | May 25, 2009 11:41 PM

I enjoyed the pictures, glad to know where it came from but didn't find it necessary for them to repeat the same information numerous times and recapping after every commercial break.

Simply put, it should have only been an hour special with just the essential information.

Posted by: MadScientist | May 25, 2009 11:47 PM

@Lee Picton #5: Unfortunately the presentation is the problem; my personal opinion is that wrong ideas are often put into people's heads by other people who believe they're making things understandable while in fact they're telling people the wrong things but in such a way that the audience might believe they've learned something when they hadn't.

As an example, let's take the claim of a "transitional fossil". Now, please show me a fossil (plant, animal, myconoid, or whatever you want as long as it was once alive) which is not transitional. The only fossils which would qualify are those of species which we are confident became extinct and left no evolutionary descendants. The distinction of "transitional fossil" for me has little meaning and what meaning it does have is not of great value.

Reading through numerous criticism of published claims about the fossil, I'd like to see that TV show to see what is being claimed - specifically, what position of the phylogenetic tree this particular group wants to place the fossil in.

Posted by: WhiteCross | May 25, 2009 11:58 PM

I saw most of it, and I thought it did a pretty good job of presenting what made this such an interesting find. One thing to keep in mind: If it appeared over-hyped, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The general public can't or doesn't want to understand peer reviewed literature about it. That's fine, it's there for the more serious lay people and scientists to study and debate if they want. Our fight, if you will, is with the much larger general public. And the show did an excellent job of dumbing down or puffing up the story to make it palatable and easy to digest. I've already seen a few creationists throw their hands up and resign themselves to having been wrong all along. I kid you not. So if the show does that for some, or even plants the seed for some, then it's been fantastically successful. The science is there and it's correct. Who cares what the vehicle is so long as they get to the right destination.

Posted by: laurence | May 26, 2009 12:02 AM

What I don't understand is why they insist so much on some characteristics like the lack of tooth comb. They say it's one of the important feature that would link her to the Anthropoids. But all adapiforms lack a tooth comb, so what is the big deal?

And I can say the exact same thing about the absence of the grooming claw. It is also absent in Notharctus, so what is so special with Darwinius?

Posted by: Rebecca Lohr | May 26, 2009 12:16 AM

Anyone got odds that the guys behind this whole brouhaha are stealth creationists? Prediction: six months or so they go on TV with "sorry folks, its fake and we fooled you so0called scientists, oh, and by the way, that proves evoltuionism false once and for all, and the discussion is over, thank you, fuck off." Seems to me these days the only reason anyone ever seeks out a position of public trust is to maliciously and vehemently betray it.

Posted by: raven | May 26, 2009 12:40 AM

if "the maya" have been extinct all this time, how do you explain mayan peoples still living today?

I've met plenty of Mayans. Some of them don't even speak Spanish very well even today. A few of them still use their old calendar.

The classical civilization fell a while back but the Mayans themselves just kept going.

Posted by: Ian | May 26, 2009 1:01 AM

So I agree that it was overhyped. And I remember PZ saying that he was really worried about it giving the creationists some more ammo to complain, but I have a different take on it. As I was watching this, I could imagine myself as a kid, getting so excited about it. I feel that this will excite many young kids to do something involving science and as they grow up, possibly go into the field. I think more children will be influenced by this than it will anger creationists. I think over all, it's a very good thing. Anything we can do to get our kids excited about SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: luna1580 | May 26, 2009 1:18 AM

Benjamin Franklin #43

if you have a source that shows daniel hauser acknowledging that his mother mislead him about the reality of his illness and potential treatments, please link it.

nearly everything about this case so far made public shows that he didn't understand what his options were, and maybe couldn't understand them, therefore he was incapable of ever giving informed consent, one way or the other.

orac's blog has done much to show this (keep scrolling down for more hauser, and check the comments too):

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?utm_source=bloglist&utm_medium=dropdown

if you have evidence that shows daniel hauser suddenly understands what was happening to him and what his options were PLEASE do share it.

remember that he is not only 13, but also home-schooled, functionally totally illiterate, possibly learning disabled to due physical brain damage from lack of oxygen during his birth, and under the tutelage of parents who thought his x-rays revealing tumor growth were somehow "wrong" and that his chances of recovery using only herbal "cures" were "100%."

so, if you have proof his world-view has expanded lately, link it. thank you.

Posted by: llewelly | May 26, 2009 2:12 AM

The Maya did not go 'extinct' in 900 CE . Instead, it was the large cities of the southern lowlands which went into decline and were abandoned in the 8th and 9th century (yes, that's roughly by 900 CE). This marked the end of the 'Classic' period. However, the cities of the northern lowlands in the Yucatan, including Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Edzna, Mayapan, and Coba, continued to flourish until about 1450 CE. At that time there was widespread revolt, Mayapan was sacked and burned, and the other cities went into decline. Although no Maya city-state after Mayapan ever ruled over so many other city-states, Chichen Itza and other Maya cities remained inhabited and ruled by various Maya peoples until the Spanish conquered the Yucatan in the 1540s. (The Itza Maya of the Peten basin were not conquered by the Spanish until about 1697 or so.)

It's quite common for superficial histories of Mesoamerica to treat the end of the Classic Maya period as the end of the Maya, and ignore the Post-Classic period. But this wrong for many reasons; not the least that the Maya maintained a complex civilization for centuries after, which successfully fought off the first two Spanish attempts to conquer it (one in the 1520s and one in the 1530s).

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | May 26, 2009 3:28 AM

#26

Two words make up for all the crap Discovery Channel puts out:

Myth.

Busters.

That is true. Other than that, it's a strange mix of uninteresting programmes about people who rebuild motorcycles and cars, or some curiously persistent show about annoying people in a tattoo shop.

But I do like the shows about great engineering and such.

Posted by: JMk2 | May 26, 2009 3:55 AM

There's a 59 minute TV programme with the same title and subject on BBC One TV tonight at 9pm, "written and narrated by David Attenborough" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ksh5y - should surely be available on iPlayer eventually - would that be available to non-residents of the UK?

I wonder whether it uses the same material as well as being on the same subject, or whether it is an original. We might hope for better from Sir David in any case.

Posted by: Chris Tucker | May 26, 2009 4:01 AM

Citizen of the Cosmos, American Chopper has been consigned to TLC, Monster Garage has been "off the air" for two years and the tattoo program is also TLC, if I recall correctly.

Currently, Discovery had a series, "Doing Da Vinci", where some of Leonardo's designs were 'brought to life' by a team of artists and engineers. Beats the hell out of the dysfunctional family of the alcoholic father browbeating his sons and workers as they build ugly as sin motorcycles.

ANY network that makes science and engineering accessible to the general public in an entertaining and educational manner is obviously superior to a network that ignores its responsibilities to the public by showing nothing but reality programming, vapid dramas, crime shows and insipid "comedies".

Discovery, History, Science and NatGeo may not be perfect, but they're far, far better than any network carrying 'American Idol'.

Posted by: africangenesis | May 26, 2009 5:52 AM

Chris Tucker,

"Discovery, History, Science and NatGeo may not be perfect, but they're far, far better than any network carrying 'American Idol'."

As a homeschooling parent, I definitely agree. These are standard evening fare. I would have loved these when I was young, but had to make do with "How and why wonder" books, "golden books", and "all about" books instead. History is taught so poorly in factory model schools that it would be better if the subject would be dropped, so that at least the students wouldn't get turned off.

TIVO improves all of these, with the pause button enabling television watching to become an active critical social process and not just passive.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 26, 2009 6:48 AM

What kind of asshole finds a fossil like that and keeps it to himself for two decades? How does this even happen?

Private collectors do that kind of thing all the time.

Anyone got odds that the guys behind this whole brouhaha are stealth creationists?

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. I know the previous (solid) work of some of the authors of the PLoS ONE paper.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | May 26, 2009 7:02 AM

Africangenesis said:

Ice Road Truckers is definitely not history but the challenges of dealing with harsh, variably predictable conditions can be interesting and educational.

Oh, I can definitely see how such a program would be interesting and informative (I'm a big fan of Deadliest Catch) - I was just wondering what it was doing on a channel who's title at least would suggest that it was supposed to be about History!

Posted by: Ranson | May 26, 2009 8:01 AM

@ Lilly

Shows like that are part of the reason my dad frequently calls the History channel to complain -- he bought a life membership to its "club" back when it was the "All WWII, all the time" channel, and he's exercised his right to complain loudly since. He understands that some people love the show, but thinks it's should be on a different channel in the family, like Discovery shuffling things off to "The Learning Channel".

Posted by: Charlis | May 26, 2009 8:57 AM

Well, it's History Channel. They tend to overhype everything, including alien abductions and cockamamy cosmology theories.

Posted by: Fentwin | May 26, 2009 10:32 AM

I didn't appreciate the voice over. It reminded me of those political ads with the ominous deep voice.

Other than that I was completely underwhelmed.

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 26, 2009 10:46 AM

I'm glad to see a fellow homeschooler piping up in the thread. I just wanted to say a few things. First, Daniel being homeschooled has nothing to do with his lack of understanding his issues. When someone says "Remember, he is homeschooled" in response to his inability to comprehend his illness, it makes me wonder just how much people really understand about homeschooling in general. His being homeschooled has nothing to with his lack of understand--that fault rests squarely on his idiot mother's shoulders--for being ignorant enough to not want the best for her son.

It would be very much like me making the false assumption that "public schooled always equals bad attitude."

As for this show, I caught part of it. Compared to most, I am a layperson in science and thought it easy to understand, but also easily saw where some could take what was said out of context and twist it.

(any spelling/grammar errors are the fault of my coffee. I have had none yet. :) )

Posted by: bobxxxx | May 26, 2009 11:03 AM

just a sudden breathless introduction of the talus bone, which supposedly makes it a human ancestor.

I got bored during the first hour, turned it off, but fortunately turned it back on for the last half hour which I thought was interesting, including that talus bone thing, and they also talked about Lucy and why she was likely a human ancestor. I also liked the way they explained to the evolution deniers how wrong they are.

Posted by: littlejohn | May 26, 2009 11:08 AM

Alas, Monster Garage has recently reappeared. What does Sandra Bullock see in that tattooed thug?
I watched almost all of Link, except when my wife made me change the channel after I screamed at the TV that no, it isn't our oldest ancestor, and no, it isn't the missing link between humans and apes. Not even close. I too was astonished that the fossil was kept secret for decades. Neat fossil owned by complete assholes.

Posted by: Darren | May 26, 2009 11:16 AM

Hi all, like many here i'm also following this story quite closely and, to a degree, irked by the level of hype created by popular American media. I will certainly be watching the BBC documentary tonight and hope for an interesting presentation by David Attenborough. Some of those trailer previously posted and those 'missing link' headlines are particularly troubling.

All that said however, i've been wondering whether Ida could still qualify as a transitional fossil; if not one between anthropoids and prosimians as claimed by the discovers, then one between Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. Provided that the fossil possesses basal characteristics, which it probably does, and is placed at the very base of the Strepsirrhini group, wouldn't it still be a perfectly valid transitional form?

Posted by: E.V. | May 26, 2009 11:29 AM

Speak not about which you know nothing.

I am assuming then you have mastered all disciplines required to teach; a true polymath.
I have several friends who home school. The elementary levels through Jr. high do not require as much competency in pedagogy as the high school level, so usually the gaps aren't so noticeable. While many of the home schooled kids seem to develop a specific forte that rivals public/private tutored kids, the deficiencies in other general areas of knowledge are striking.

You may be among the few who can replace the training of several teachers who majored in specific disciplines, but what I read from your defensiveness is telling. It's difficult to assess any situation if you don't acknowledge a little humor. Cognitive blindspot, hmmmm?

Posted by: AdamK | May 26, 2009 11:38 AM

It would be very much like me making the false assumption that "public schooled always equals bad attitude."

As a data point, I was public schooled and my attitude is terrible, and getting worse.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 26, 2009 11:52 AM

Because of the branching nature of phylogeny, it's really very difficult to speak of any single specimen as a "transitional form." It makes a lot more sense to speak of transitional characters or traits instead.

Posted by: Randy | May 26, 2009 11:54 AM

Doesn't appear like there is much to add this far down the thread.. but for my purposes I liked it. It provided a basic science background for the non-science types (like me sadly enough) and enough color and movement to keep people mostly interested. It also did not 'teach the controversy' in any way which was delightful. Evolution as unambigious fact. Also those lemurs they were playing with looked so darn cute I could hardly stand it... I would give it a B.

Posted by: africangenesis | May 26, 2009 12:14 PM

E.V.#74,

"You may be among the few who can replace the training of several teachers who majored in specific disciplines, but what I read from your defensiveness is telling."

I am among those the few, I think good teaching has little to do with the training. Didn't they usually MINOR in those specific disciplines? But it is not important to replace those teachers, and I didn't believe in trying to. More technically, I am an unschooler. We teach the children how to learn and then facilitate them following their interests. Knowing how to use a library, phonebook and the internet is all that is really needed, reference librarian type skills. I was looking forward to teaching them some math, but they mostly learned it on their own. Hmmm.

Posted by: E.V. | May 26, 2009 1:26 PM

Electric Barbarella:
I hear ya, and I'm not attacking - I promise.

First, I wouldn't dream of fully home schooling my kids, but that may be because of my personal bias borne out of fear of misinforming or leaving gaps in areas I'm not proficient. I try to reinforce my kid's public school learning in the areas I know and opt for tutors when I'm out of my element.
Secondly, yes, I'm coming from anecdotal evidence but so is the claim that home schooled kids are better educated, well adjusted and well rounded. I've never found a home schooled child who possessed all three characteristics. Evidently, all the people I know who home school their kids aren't true scotsmen home pedagogues.

I keep hearing about the positive effects of home schooling but what I see are either ideologically brainwashed kids or intellectually precocious kids with imbalanced knowledge and poor social skills: adolescent kids with an air of pretension who can't (or won't) socialize with other kids their age.

I understand the impulse for very educated parents to brand their kids as prodigies and isolate them from the general herd but true wunderkinds are a bit rarer than most parents want to believe. What they usually produce are eccentric insufferable brats from my experience. Eccentricity, by definition, is to be imbalanced and off-centered. As one who has been branded an eccentric I can tell you it ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Those who home school for religious reasons - well, the results speak for themselves.

I'll not include you in this description since I don't have any knowledge of you or your children.(I have been proven wrong from time to time ;))

Perhaps I am guilty of tarring all home schooling advocates with the same brush.
I'm sure you are highly educated,well rounded and are very competent to give your daughters their educational needs. DO they get social interaction with kids from their same general age? I'm also sure there are areas of the country where the local public school system isn't up to snuff and a private school is unavailable or unaffordable: so home schooling would probably be the best alternative in that case.

May I ask why you chose to home school versus public or private education with a little home reinforcement perhaps?

Posted by: SC, OM | May 26, 2009 1:54 PM

Though it is a shame that the fossil has been hidden from science and the public for such a long time, one needs to take the history of the Messel site into account...

Thanks for the background, McH. Of course, we can't know that the person who preserved the fossil was the same who kept it for himself all of those years, but that's important contextual information. Interesting.

Posted by: Logan | May 26, 2009 2:57 PM

They have also just released a book called "The Link" which apparently compliments the documentary. I just saw it today as I happened by the bookstore. It's written by some guy named Colin Tudge and seems to have been slapped together so quickly that all the blurbs are from famous scientists commenting on the fossil itself, not the actual book.

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 26, 2009 3:59 PM

You can cover the highest-level class in every subject a high-school student might take: Calculus and Computer Science and Physics and Advanced Chem and Biology II/Pre-Med and 4 years of English Literature and Journalism and Creative Writing and World History and American History and Civics/Government and Economics and Psychology and Art (at the advanced HS level now, not just elementary-school fingerpainting) and Drafting/CAD and up to 4 years of any one of the 3 or 4 most popular foreign languages and Drama and Band/Orchestra and Choir and... and... and...?

Lots to answer here, but yes, I can and am Bill. And guess what? If I can't or won't, there are homeschool co-ops, there are video (college level) lectures (that I am using for one subject now), etc.. So yes, I can. However, the "highest level class" is not something every single person strives for nor something every single person wants. I will be graduating my oldest next year and her highest level science will be Physics (taught by me and The Teaching Company Lecture series), and her highest level math will be college level Algebra 2--also taught by me. Of course, most of what you mentioned is umm, what's the word? Pedantic? As in, you are doing what *every*one does when I mention the word homeschooling--but what about, etc..?

Not even your typical, normal, not above average, just every day student, takes all of that. Socialization? Ha! I do solemnly swear that if I had just a penny for every time that word is brought up, I'd be richer than Bill Gates. Moot point since the socialization one gets in public schools is not quite the socialization you think. My girls are out every day dealing with all walks of life, not just their peer age group. :) So yes, we get plenty. No, I don't board up my windows and keep them locked up "Flowers in the Attic" style either. :)

(Unless, of course, your decision to homeschool also includes a decision to arbitrarily restrict your children's education to those subjects you feel qualified to teach.)

Quite the opposite in fact. I'm teaching a 13 year old on a high school level. In fact, she's doing such advanced work that I feel quite confident in my ability to not only teach it, but her ability to learn it. But I also have a 17 year old who is right on target level. Does that mean I've failed her because she isn't one of those homeschoolers you hear about excelling at everything? Nope, in fact, I'd wager my perfectly on target level teenager against that claim any day. That is one of the beauties of homeschooling, I'm tailoring the needs of my two the way they need tailoring. I recognize I've got one mini-Einstein and one regular normal kid. And I am perfectly okay with that. No need to push the mini-Einstein into Hawking territory and no need to belittle or remediate the normal one.

As for why I started? Has nothing to do with religion at all. But it has everything to do with the fact that our school system (in a word) sucks and I knew I could do a much better job of it than the teachers were. Been doing it this long, ain't about to stop. :)

I realize there are all sorts of strategies to get around these difficulties — co-ops and inter-homeschool exchanges and such — but my sense is that once you've employed all those strategies, what you're engaged in is not so much homeschooling as running an unlicensed, unaccredited private school. And I still doubt you're even close to matching the overall quality of an average public school education. Further, you're subordinating every other aspect of family life to the educational process: In my experience, it's valuable for kids when their parents and their teachers are different people. In fact, many schools go out of their way to avoid assigning teachers' kids to their parents' classes.

Nah.. All I can say is my proof will be in the puddin'. If you've never fully experienced it, never fully done it, never fully had a chance to step outside of teacher brain, you will believe as you do above. My kids and I are closer now than we ever were. Our systems were subordinating MY family, IMHO. Bringing them home brought my children back around to being actual children and not drones parroting what their teachers told them to parrot. (YMMV this is all anecdotal and for my family only).

For the record, I've said it before, I'll say it again: I am a degreed CSI, about to go back for my Bachelor's in Biology. My DH just graduated from Embry Riddle with a Master's in Space Science and has a Bachelor's in Physics, Theatre, and Math. And even without all of that, I could STILL homeschool my kids and do a damn good job of it. :)

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 26, 2009 4:49 PM

Even a brief overview of the research done on the academic achievement of homeschooled kids would show the ridiculousness of the claim that they are suffering academically.

While this may be true as a whole, there is enough minority to not be able to state, equivocally, that it is wholly true. That is, you look at my 13 year old's test scores and they are **equal** to her sister's (11th grade). Does that mean I have a very smart 13 year old or an 11th grader who is very weak? If you compared my 11th grader to other 11th graders, her test scores will not be equal to theirs. Does that mean I've failed as a homeschooler, and thus, her? No, but to some it would.

It just means that I recognize I have a poor test taker (because she's already been psychologically evaluated as above her age group) and one very good one. She can do the book work, just can't take the test.

Yes, we homeschoolers do outshine our peers, but not all of us do. I just work with what I have and do the best I know I can, use every curriculum I know works for her and know that she is, in fact, quite educated. I don't need a test to tell me that.

Posted by: Drosera | May 26, 2009 5:37 PM

I just watched the BBC version of The Link, narrated by David Attenborough. It lasted one hour, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I liked best the parts describing the actual fossil and its history. The Messel site was well explained and beautifully visualized. What happened to the fossil after its discovery, and who discovered it, are still mysteries, apparently. The fossil has been embedded in resin.

In parts the documentary was clearly oversimplified. For example, you get the impression that the main question was whether Ida* was a lemur or an anthropoid, and that in order to find out which it was, they had to go to the US to study some living lemurs in a zoo. As a result they discovered that the fossil did not have a tooth-comb and lacked a certain kind of claw. In reality, of course, they could and would have seen these things much more easily in lemur skeletons in musea, or from the literature. The final and dramatic conclusion was that Ida was indeed an anthropoid, all be it one with some lemur-like characters. There was nothing about the finer details of anthropoid classification.

The documentary was certainly entertaining and well-made, but some of the one-liners thrown in were really too much:

"Ancestor to us all" (repeated in various ways)
"Like an asteroid hitting the Earth."
"Rosetta stone."
"We could all be descended from Ida." (Yeah, sure, as if Ida could have had children...)
"Could reveal the origins of every living person on the planet."
"A link that connects us to the entire animal kingdom."

Still, it is always a pleasure to listen to Sir David Attenborough.

*The name Darwinius masillae never came up, probably too difficult for the intended audience.

Posted by: Rúnar | May 26, 2009 5:54 PM

I would like to clear up some misunderstandings I have spotted in various comments.

First of all, it seems like some people here think Hurum is just som random guy that stumbled across this fossil and decided to make a buck on it. One person even seem to think Hurum was the jerk who kept it hidden for so many years.

Hurum is a serious scientist and has done alot of field work. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is household name here in Norway, but I had certainly heard of him before, and have a good impression of him.

I just watched the documentary on the norwegian public broadcasting, and I found alot of the criticism to be unfair. Some of you have gotten hung up on the mention of the fossil as a "holy grail". But in the actual documentary the only mention of a holy grail was in describing the messel pit as a holy grail for paleontologists studying the Eocene epoch. And I never once heard any mention of Mona Lisa.

The description of the fossil itself seemed sober, and they constantly mention how they initially considered it a primitive lemur, not a common ancestor for humans.
The evidence they laid out to support the theory that Ida was more linked to apes was the lack of a grooming claw, tooth comb, and the shape of some bone in the foot.

The only "hype" of the fossil in the documentary was on the basis of its completeness and age.

I thought it was an interesting documentary, and even if time and more research shows that Ida is on a totally different branch of the evolutionary tree, the discovery is still amazing and well worth the attention it has received.

Posted by: JMk2 | May 26, 2009 7:10 PM

The BBC's "The Link" is now on iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ksh5y/Uncovering_Our_Earliest_Ancestor_The_Link/

I've not yet watched even the closing credits. Is it essentially the same as the program (sic) broadcast in the US, but with Sir David A's narration?

Posted by: Shiva | May 27, 2009 2:36 AM

I think it was ok.

I don't understand why you guys are so bothered with the media hype. It might be one of the most important fossil finds ever.

We should be happy science gets some media coverage (for once) :p

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 27, 2009 7:16 AM

The key thing is to model life long learning for them, and don't let them get turned off, like so many factory model school kids. If they know how to learn, they can make up any "gaps" later. For instance, I continued to by them velcro closure shoes at the risk of them have to wait until their teens to learn to tie their shoes. But by that time they were pretty quick studies at shoe tieing.

I must give you full marks for being creative with your insults. I think I would rather be insulted, though, with slurs and cuss words, than like this. In any case, it is too bad you had to resort to this instead of having a decent conversation about it.

Oh well. I'm off to have fun with my children, for the day. No velcro shoes or protective gear, either. :)

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 11:00 AM

ElectricBarbarella:

First, and I truly mean this: If homeschooling is working for you and your family, more power to you. I honestly do admire your passion and commitment.

Second, I "confess" my philosophical "bias"¹ on the issue: I believe the true mission of parenting is to prepare our children to become independent adult members of the community, and that the true mission of education is to produce skilled, knowledgable, well-integrated members of the community, and I question whether keeping kids at home and "stovepiping" families truly serves either of those missions, regardless of how much individual academic success it produces. So you and I might be coming to different conclusions because we're defining success differently.

Now to specifics:

Lots to answer here, but yes, I can [cover] and am [covering that long list of subjects] Bill.

What's the most polite way for me to call bullshit on this? I really don't mean to offend, but I don't believe that you're truly competent to teach the entire course catalog of an average public school, all the way through 12th grade in every discipline and subject. Let me put it this way: I'd be shocked if there were even 10 people in the whole country who've truly mastered every corner of the academic envelope to the point required, and have the pedagogical skills required, to teach high-school seniors at whatever level turns out to be appropriate to them in every discipline... so the odds are rather sharply against you being one of them.

If you're assuming that anyone is qualified to teach any subject they passed in high school themselves, I beg to disagree... but even if I didn't disagree, nobody takes all the high-school classes they might be called upon to teach.

And guess what? If I can't or won't, there are homeschool co-ops, there are video (college level) lectures (that I am using for one subject now), etc..

Hmmm... I'm guessing that using commercially available video lectures to cover teachers' subject-knowledge gaps is the sort of thing that, if a public school did it, would get superintendents fired and school boards voted out of office, and which would result in angry parents pulling their kids out of school in favor of private schools or (ironically) homeschooling.

However, the "highest level class" is not something every single person strives for nor something every single person wants.

Of course not; I said as much in my original comment. My point, though, is that if you commit to homeschooling through high school when your child is very young, you have at that point no way of knowing which courses or what levels will turn out to be appropriate. Even at the point when they enter high school, many students don't yet know which fork in the academic road they will take. I'm suggesting that a single parent or pair of parents can't possibly know in advance that they are prepared to meet a given child's needs unless they're fully prepared to meet any child's needs... and I've already expressed my skepticism on that point.

I suspect what happens is that homeschooling parents (probably unconsciously) channel their kids into the areas they're most comfortable teaching, which probably leads to good results in those areas, but doesn't necessarily reflect what the child would've achieved if s/he'd had broader choices available. You mention, for instance, that your background is Cuban/Italian and that you've been teaching your kids Spanish. Maybe you could also teach Italian? But what if, left to their own devices, your kids would have wanted to study French or German (choices even average public schools would probably offer)? What if one of them might have wanted to major in French or German? If they'd had a strong passion in a direction you were not prepared to teach, would you have been willing to send them to public school where they would have had those choices? More to the point, how would they have had the opportunity to develop a passion for things you might not be prepared to teach? If something's not on the menu, how do you know you want to order it? Of course, no school offers everything every kid might want to study, either... but almost every school offers a wider range of choices than a parent or pair of parents really can.

Of course, most of what you mentioned is umm, what's the word? Pedantic? As in, you are doing what *every*one does when I mention the word homeschooling--but what about, etc..?

Pedantic? Thanks ever so much for the kind words. I'm expressing my personal, individual observations and thoughts, not parrotting some anti-homeschooling talking points from "*every*one." I don't mean to fall into the fallacy of argument from numerical superiority, but if the reflections of one education savvy, modestly intelligent former teacher/successful parent seem to match what you hear from lots of other people, you might want to at least consider the possibility that said reflections have some merit.

There... was that pedantic enough to suit you? ;^)

BTW, I think you misunderstood E.V.: S/he reports having fallen behind, overall, while homebound, despite "zooming through" preferred subjects. But as you point out, homebound is different from homeschooled. My own daughter was homebound for 6th grade due to cancer treatment, and worked with a tutor provided by her school. The tutor was a great person and a fine teacher, but I don't think my daughter actually learned much new in that setting. She was, however, so far ahead of grade level to begin with that she returned to school for 7th grade with now delays or deficits whatsoever.

You know, it doesn't surprise me at all that children of nonsectarian homeschoolers outperform the average student in public schools: Almost by definition, secular homeschool students are not average. First, they clearly come from families that are intensely focused on (and supportive of) education, and family support is widely understood to be one of the top predictors (if not the top predictor) of academic success. In addition, because homeschooling is a resource- and time-intensive activity, homeschooling families are likely to be above average in family wealth (i.e., in the current economy, any family that can afford to devote one parent's full time to nonrevenue-generating activity is by definition relatively well off). The advantages of family focus, support, and wealth would lead you to expect those students to exceed the broad averages in any educational setting. The real question is whether those same students, from those same relatively fortunate family situations, would do better at school than they do in homeschools.

My kids and I are closer now than we ever were. Our systems were subordinating MY family, IMHO.

Here's where we may have a significant philosophical difference: I think your family should be subordinated to the larger community, and so should mine. I think the U.S. should aspire to being a well integrated community, not a quasi-feudal scatterplot of autonomous families. Hillary Clinton famously titled her book with the old maxim that "it takes a village to raise a child"; I not only agree with that, I go further: It takes the village raising children to have a village. I'm a total anti-Thatcherite in my belief that we should be focused on optimizing society, and I think educating our children in communal settings best serves that goal. You have lots of opportunities to personally bond with your kids; school is (IMHO, of course) about other goals.

This focus on a larger societal vision is why I never actually used that word "socialization" that you complained about... but since you mention it, I do also think kids are better off having the experience of operating in larger groups. The point is not the "quality" of their peers at school: The fact that some (if not many) of their schoolmates may be jerks and fools is, IMHO, a Feature, Not a Bug™; there will be jerks and fools aplenty in their adult lives, and learning to deal with them in a relatively safe, controlled environment is an important part of development. Despite the impression created by back-to-basics trolls and NCLB, school is about a lot more than skills training and test scores.

You and I are clearly never going to agree about this stuff, and I'm truly happy for you if what you're doing is working out well for you and your kids. But if everyone were doing what you're doing, I'm afraid it would be an unmitigated disaster for our country... so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't join in the cheers.

¹ The scare quotes (I hate that term, but it is what it is) are intended to indicate that while I consider what follows them a statement of my philosophical position, I understand that you're likely to view it as a confession of bias.

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 27, 2009 6:41 PM

Hey Bill, rather than hit up all of your points (you really do have to do some more research on homeschooling, and I don't mean *that* as an insult either, you just spoke about every single falsehood about homeschooling in your post. Just one: I am poor. My husband may be a high school teacher but that doesn't mean we have money. We have ONE income. We qualify for welfare even. Yet, we successfully homeschool).

I'll let this speak for me:
http://www.tip.duke.edu/about/news/2009/ceremony_pr.html

Cassidy Johnson — Home School Student of Bradenton, FL, will be honored in both the Grand Recognition ceremony at Duke University in Durham, NC, on May 18, 2009, and in the Florida State Recognition ceremony at New College of Florida in Sarasota, FL, on May 27, 2009.

Duke TIP Honors Local Seventh-Grade
Students for Academic Success
More than 67,000 academically gifted students take college admissions exams
DURHAM, N.C., April 8, 2009 — Academically talented seventh graders in your area will be recognized this spring for their exceptional scores on the ACT or SAT.
The Duke University Talent Identification Program’s (Duke TIP) 7th Grade Talent Search identifies students in sixteen states in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest who have scored in the 95th percentile on a grade-level achievement test. As part of the program, these academically talented students take above-level college-entrance exams (SAT or ACT) to learn more about their abilities.
Duke TIP hosts annual Recognition Ceremonies to honor the 7th graders who score highest on these SAT or ACT exams. This year, of the 67,438 participants nationally, 24,204 students (36%) have been invited to attend State Recognition Ceremonies and 1,769 students (3%) have been invited to the Grand Recognition Ceremony.
"The Recognition Ceremonies are inspiring events," says Martha Putallaz, Ph.D., Executive Director of Duke TIP and Professor of Psychology at Duke University. "It is rare that so many gifted students can come together to be honored for their achievements and encouraged by their intellectual peers. The honorees have proven, at this young age, their capacity for great things. We hope they consider their achievement to be an invitation to pursue an ambitious path in life."
The State Recognition Ceremonies honor seventh graders who have earned scores equal to or better than half the college-bound seniors who took the tests. Working with host academic institutions, Duke TIP sponsors 34 State Ceremonies in its 16-state Talent Search region during the months of May and June. Speakers include university administrators and professors from the host institutions, state and government officials, and accomplished former Duke TIP students.
The Grand Recognition Ceremony honors seventh graders who have earned scores equal to or better than 90% of college-bound seniors who took the same tests. The event will be held May 18 at Cameron Indoor Stadium on the Duke University campus in Durham, N.C. Steve Nowicki, Ph.D., is this year’s keynote speaker. Dr. Nowicki is a professor of biology and Dean of Undergraduate Education at Duke University.
About Duke TIP: (Duke TIP) is a non-profit educational organization that is recognized as a leader in identifying and serving the educational needs of academically gifted youth. Through identification, recognition, challenging educational programs, information, advocacy and research, Duke TIP provides resources to gifted students, their parents, educators, and schools for the development of the students’ optimal educational potential.

Cassidy not only is known by me, but she and her brother are bowlers on my sanctioned YABA league for homeschoolers. I can guarantee you they don't fit any stereotype you painted.

Posted by: CMFlyer | May 28, 2009 12:21 AM

Just watching it on my DVR for first time. So far quite suitable for high school biology. I do the ENSI "Whales in Transition" exploration, which features all the whale fossil work of Phillip Gingerich. He is on this team, so it will have some prior meaning/connection for my students. It will be fun to smash some of the hype, but also focus on the geology and paleontology. And I don't care what anyone says, two hours about human evolution explored in high def. is just plain cool! My fundie students need to see it over and over...

Posted by: Watchman | May 28, 2009 10:43 AM

Rabble-rousing is what it's all about, Bill. Whenever the government gets involved, the results are invariably dehumanizing and grossly inefficient. Right? Right?

Posted by: africangenesis | May 28, 2009 12:12 PM

Bill Dauphin,

"I don't expect you to agree with this position, because I know it's a philosophical anathema to you, so I won't waste any time arguing the point further."

Those who believe in subordination don't need to waste time finding ways to "agree".

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 12:46 PM

So wait, because I refuse to get into a "tit for tat" argument with you all about homeschooling, my discussing it is "not up to task"?

I see...

Bill, no I won't get into it with you over it and yes we disagree. Given the format of this chat, I'd much rather "up to task" it with you in person or private email. T'would be much nicer than this. However, since that isn't feasible either, I suppose I have to leave you to your assumptions just as some have to leave it at me not being "up to task".

It would also be too much to ask that these kinds of stories leave out information that is not relevant to the real story, but hey, I'm not a journalist fighting for my job and looking for that one big headline, either.

Oh is that the thread were the one poster could do nothing but post insults towards and about me rather than intelligently argue with me, as Bill has done? Yeah, that *really* proves I can't "task" it. I'm not as sadistic as Bill in that I won't re-read it. :) I have other means of torture that are far more enjoyable.

Point is, homeschooling isn't and never was the focal point of that story (and it never should have been). And comments like "typical: he's homeschooled, what do you expect" aren't either.

Posted by: SC, OM | May 28, 2009 2:29 PM

So wait, because I refuse to get into a "tit for tat" argument with you all about homeschooling, my discussing it is "not up to task"?

I see...

...Oh is that the thread were the one poster could do nothing but post insults towards and about me rather than intelligently argue with me,...

You see nothing. That thread wasn't about homeschooling. My point was that it was evident there (and prior, for that matter) that your analytical and research abilities/skills are weak, as I and others made clear at the time (I've linked to it so anyone can read it) and as Bill Dauphin has pointed out here. You're a very muddled thinker, ElectricBarbarella, and you do your cause little good with your failure to comprehend others' arguments or to respond to them rationally.

Posted by: ElectricBarbarella | May 28, 2009 6:12 PM

Yes, I did mean Masochist, not sadist. Unless, of course, you enjoyed inflicting the pain in that thread upon others...but seeing as how you already said otherwise...

However, I myself, am slightly sadistic. So maybe I meant something else entirely. :)

Posted by: africangenesis | May 30, 2009 7:52 AM

An excellant fossil but the hype was way overdone. It didn't really matter that much whether it was in the lemur or primate lineage, since even a lemur fossil that old would be pretty close to the common anscestor. The one thing we do know is that this was not a human anscester, it was too young to have reproduced.

How good is that 47 million year age estimate?