Smithsonian Writer on “Missing Link” Fossil
Filed under News, Philosophy & Science on May 21st, 2009 by Marcus FrenchSmithsonian Magazine’s Brian Switek had the following to say with regard to the Ida fossil being described as “the missing link” by many:
Is Darwinius important to understanding primate evolution? Of course! It is an exceptionally preserved specimen that could do much to aid our understanding of adapid evolution and paleobiology. The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. I hardly think this is a responsible way to conduct or communicate science, flooding the media with poorly supported claims, but as reported in the New York Times some of this paper’s authors care more about marketing than about good science;
“Any pop band is doing the same thing,” said Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo who acquired the fossil and assembled the team of scientists that studied it. “Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.”
This is a shame. I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well. As Karen James has suggested, the overall poor quality of the paper and the disproportionate hyping of the find make me wonder if this research was rushed into publication so that the media splash would occur on time. The paper tried to cover so much, so quickly, and contained so many shortfalls that I honestly have to wonder why it was allowed to be published in such a state. Perhaps we will never know, but I am sickened by the way in which a cable network has bastardized a legitimately fascinating scientific discovery, with the scientists themselves going along with it every step of the way. I can only hope that Darwinius will eventually receive the careful analysis it deserves.
We are clearly blessed to have such a well-preserved fossil to aid in our understanding of biology and human origins, but let’s be patient in our search for truth. When someone like Switek, who it should be noted makes evolution a focus in his writings for the Smithsonian, argues that “the grand claims about [Ida] being our ancestor [...] can not be upheld as true,” and “the researchers simply did not do the work to support their case,” we should be careful not to extrapolate scientific truth from the fossil prematurely, particularly as it relates to any sort of “final verdict” on human origins.
Tags: apes, evolution, fossil, humans, hype, ida, missing link, science, smithsonian, television
Possibly Related Posts:
The “full scoop” on this find, including the fact that this animal is really just a lemur (with two, hardly significant, unique features for a lemur), can be found at: http://creation.com/darwin-fossil-ida-hype. Here’s a citation: “The fossil has a basic body pattern and toe and finger nails like lemurs, but lacks two features that are peculiar to lemurs: a toilet claw on a toe and grooming teeth (a row of fused teeth), both used for grooming, so it is not “just a lemur””. Much more is covered in this article, including how the chief, missing-link related claims that are being made (which are more or less just innuendos rather than forthright claims: the journalists, though, report the full, intended message) were actually rejected in the original paper (by these very authors)!
The shale in which ‘Ida’ was preserved is also talked about in this article. Is this explanation, which flows from the assumptions of geologic evolution, credible? :
“The fossil is embedded in shale. The Messel shale has yielded many other interesting and very well-preserved fossils. The shale is supposed to have formed in a lake bed created by volcanic activity. This lake bed, “filled with water, which seemingly, one way or another, accumulated gases that poisoned the animals individually, episodically, or periodically [refs]. The result is a diverse fauna of exceptionally preserved insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals [refs].”8 [authors emphasis]. It stretches the imagination to think what gas could have killed such a wide range of creatures in repeated episodes. …. There is a mixture of fossils of terrestrial and aquatic creatures. Did carbon dioxide gas kill fish as well? Also, how could the creatures then get preserved with such detail, with the slow accumulation of sediment in the lake, as per the deep-time evolutionary approach to the geology? Even the soft body outline of Ida is preserved, and remnants of her last meal (fruit and leaves).“ More can be read about these geologic concerns (evidence for rapid deposition of (what turns into) shale and mudstone) at: http://creation.com/mud-experiments-overturn-long-held-geological-beliefs.
Peace~
Marcus, I hardly think this fossil could “aid in our understanding of …… human origins” unless you’re prepared to accept the scientific bunk about human evolution. The article linked to by Nicholas above Darwin fossil Ida hype also documents the sensational Hollywood like hype referred to by Brian Switek in the article you quote.
The links to creationist websites instead of scientific ones proves that the creationists on this blog get all their science information from non-scientists who have never even had one of their papers or books peer-reviewed! ROFL!
No, it just proves that despite evolutionist claims to the contrary, there is more than one way to interpret the evidence. And as usual a closer look at the evidence refutes the evolutionary propaganda.