Wow, have you seen the story front and center on Drudge? They have found a monkey that is the missing link. A transitional species. Macro evolution is proved. Case closed. Oh, and by the way, find out all about it by purchasing our documentary.
I am no scientist so I have no gauge by which to measure the veracity of their claims. But for me, this whole things gives me a whole “Jesus Ossuary” vibe. Big press conference to present lots of conclusions being derived from the re-discovery of a long lost find of which nobody previously understood the value. This is all timed, conveniently, with the release of a documentary about this amazing discovery!
As you may or may not know, in the case of the Jesus Ossuary (which proved the resurrection did not happen and which followed this exact same pattern) most of the science behind the conclusions proved to be bunk. Most of the scientists associated with the conclusion either recanted their testimony or claimed they were misquoted. But who cared at that point? By the time the story was debunked, they had drummed up all the publicity they wanted for their documentary, and nobody cared anymore if it was true.
Again, I am not a scientist, but the idea that human macro evolution is proved by the discovery of one fossil that is 95% lemur seems a stretch. Interesting, sure. Conclusive, I dunno. Seems that when conclusions are foregone, the bar for evidence is substantially lowered especially when profit is involved.
I have no issue with evolution, mind you. But I do have an issue with a sales pitch that pretends to be science. Is that the case here? Time will tell. To me, the whole things smells funny.
May 19, 2009 at 5:59 pm
no, its just the montauk monster
May 19, 2009 at 10:25 pm
When something stinks, no reason not to mention it.
I think they use to call that “critical thinking” before it became too unkind to be thought. ;^p
May 20, 2009 at 11:45 am
A couple of paleo’s check in:
“Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 to 40 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper. “There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as Haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”
Other researchers grumble that the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils when it describes the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth.” Paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias, says: “It’s like going back to 1994. They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.””
I love the fact that Google is supporting this everywhere today. They get excited over anything anti-God. They can’t be controlled with their home page decorations on Earth Day, where Pat Buchanan says on that day we call all worship dirt!
May 20, 2009 at 11:47 am
Here’s the link, I didn’t want to pull a Maureen Dowd:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1?rss=1
May 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm
A Voice in the Crowd,
Even if this turns out to be legit, it’s not necessarily anti-God. Right? I’m pretty sure that even if macro-evolution were somehow proven (which I doubt is possible), it would have no impact on our faith. Only the faith of the young earth creationists.
I’m not that smart on these matters though, so I’ll defer…
May 20, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I think you are mistaken regarding the ossuary you mentioned. It is claimed to be the ossuary of James, the brother of the Jesus. It was not claimed to be the ossuary of Jesus the Lord of Glory. This is an important distinction. There was no attempt to repudiate the resurrection of the Lord.
May 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I’ve always wondered … if Macro-Evolution were proven to be true, what do we do with the belief in an immortal soul? If we have the same ancestors as apes, either the immortal soul evolved (which has all sorts of theological problems), was infused at a certain point in history (in which case how horrible to be the generation just prior to this event), or it was always present but at some point was removed from the ‘line’ that became apes/monkeys/etc ….
May 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Suz-
My mom has her own theory that when God made Man in his image, it involved taking human-like existing beings and making them into thinking people.
That said, I no more “believe” or “disbelieve” evolution in general than I believe or disbelieve the various theories of gravity.
I tend to pick at a lot of the evolution stuff because so much of the evidence and arguments are just silly, but it doesn’t effect what is. (I must say that I haven’t been convinced that macro-evolution is a solid theory, though.)
God’s in charge, and the details of how we got here have no more effect on that then the details of gravitational interaction between planets would.
May 20, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Meh.
I’ll start buying any flavor of evolution when they prove plausibly life started from dirt.
May 21, 2009 at 12:15 am
Steve-
The Theory, and it is just that and unproven by definition, of Evolution is not in itself anti-God. Those waving the theory and this recent find as an absolute explanation of our existance, at the same time wiping out any participation of the Divine in the creation of this world, is very anti-God.
I have had more visitors to my blog from P.Z. Myers’ site than I ever cared to have counted. This breed of evolutionists’ end game is just that. Not to ever classify all evolutionist out there as this type, but I believe this is a predominent line of thought in those who are self-proclaimed evolutionists. We all wiggled out of puddles and God does not exist.
On a lighter note, I always thought the evolutionists should study Slash from Guns and Roses.