The hype exploded—by the hypester himself

As I said before, I wanted to get beyond the obfuscatory PR and find out the real significance of the remarkable Darwinius masellae fossil. In an earlier entry, I exposed the outrageous hype—though “lying” would be a more accurate word—of the Wikipedia article about Darwinius masellae, which keeps making phony connections between the fossil and humans. In that same entry I also discussed the scientific paper on the 47 million year old primate by Norwegian scientist / promoter / fossil speculator / multimedia entrepreneur Jorn Hurum and his colleagues. I noted that the only thing I could find in the extremely detailed paper that seemed to make the fossil seem special was its extraordinary completeness. But, after all the build-up, there had to be something more than that, right? What do Hurum and his colleagues say is the significance of this fossil for the evolution of mankind, the proof of the Darwinian theory of evolution, and all that?

Then I found the passage near the end of the paper where they sum up the meaning of their findings:

Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tasioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates [that is, apes, monkeys and humans] evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids. [Italics added.] [LA replies: Got that? While Hurum’s hype factory was saying that this was an ancestor of the human race, the “missing link” between humans and animals, and that it alters our entire view of evolution, Hurum and his colleagues, in the scientific paper, are not actually claiming that. They are not even claiming that the fossil is an ancestor of apes and monkeys.]

As currently conceived, the history of anthropoidea is traced through the Eocene in somewhat speculative identified lineages of isolated teeth. Darwinius masillae shows that it is possible to recover much more complete and informative primate fossils. [LA replies: So the earth-shaking impact of this discovery, which has been said to equal that of an asteroid striking the earth, a discovery which its promoters say “changes everything,” is that it shows us that other complete primate fossils … may be found. Whoo-eee!] Most primates in the Eocene, certainly most known from cranial remains, are not anthropoids. Continued recovery of complete skeletal remains, like those of Darwinius masillae described here, will help to clarify the systematic position of additional primates relative to the strepsirrhine-haplorhine dichotomy with the order, focus attention on specimens complete enough for phylogenetic interpretation, and define the threshold required for inclusion in Anthropoidea. [LA replies: So “Ida’ doesn’t mean that much. Ida raises the possibility that other primate discoveries may be made in the future, and that those other discoveries may help reveal … uh, how to classify Eocene primates, and how to determine whether primates are Anthropoids. That’s it. The biggest hype of any scientific discovery in decades, maybe in our lifetimes, and the discovery turns out to be basically a promissory note toward a greater ability to classify primitive primates.]

- end of initial entry -

May 20

Christopher L. writes:

Even though you are not a Young Earth Creationist, I thought you might be interested in this article at a major Creationist website. They make several of the same points you have been making for the past couple of days. Also, according to an article they link at the Guardian:

The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.

One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. “That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published,” he said. [Emphasis added]

Now in fairness, based on the ones I scanned, the major Darwinist sites are also saying the hype is excessive. Of course, they go on to say that new fossils are found all of the time and they add to the already mountains of evidence that Darwinism is true. Here is a link to a pro-Darwinism blog that concludes with:

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.

While the pro-Darwinism crowd knows that the media hype is wrong and Hurum is acting like a carnival barker hawking his wares, we also know that if Hurum were a supporter of Intelligent Design or Creationism, they would be marching on the studios and newsrooms of anyone supporting his claims. Yet, because this hype helps their cause with the general public, they seem to be willing to let him slide with mild rebukes.

LA replies:

I’ve read the article at the creationist site, and its arguments on masellae seem good.

I agree that the Darwinian site’s rebuke of Hurum is too mild. To say that Hurum is merely “going along with” the hype is not correct. He knew from the moment he raised all that money to buy the fossil that he had to make the money back for his investors, by turning the fossil find into a multi-media carnival. And as he has shown repeatedly by his own statements, he is without conscience about the outrageously misleading statements he has made. So he is reprehensible.

Also, I notice that the Guardian writer, James Randerson, makes the same point about the proper meaning of “missing link” that I made in another entry:

The phrase usually refers to the creature that links us to the apes, in particular the common ancestor of chimpanzees and ourselves.

Then Randerson continues:

The fossil evidence of primate evolutionary history is sparsely populated—more missing than link. So almost any major primate fossil at a significant point in our ancestral line could be referred to by that over-used phrase.

Also, filling the gap is not the end of the story. “Every time you find a link that once was missing, you find two more, you’ve created two more that are missing. So it’s never going to be a complete chain,” said Sir David Attenborough, who is narrating a BBC documentary on the fossil.

Ahh, yes, that IS a problem, isn’t it? If we found a previously missing common ancestor of apes and humans, that would only mean that we would have to find the missing transitional form(s) between that common ancestor and humans on one side and between the ancestor and apes on the other. It can’t be stated often enough: the fossil record is the exact opposite of what Darwinism says it ought to be. It ought to be filled with thousands of transitional forms. Instead, it consists of forms popping into the record without antecedents, existing without change for eons, then disappearing. But the “scientists” are so wedded to their non-scientific devotion to Darwinian dogma that they never draw conclusions from this overwhelming fact about the fossil record.

Randerson continues:

Jorn Hurum, at the University of Oslo, the scientist who assembled the international team of researchers to study Ida is relaxed about using the phrase. “Why not? I think we could use that phrase for this kind of specimen,” he said. “[People] have a feeling that if something is important it is a missing link.”

However, in the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil he is more circumspect. “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past,” the authors wrote.

“[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here.”

Hurum is really covering himself with glory, isn’t he? From “Why not? … [People] have a feeling that if something is important it is a missing link,” to (my paraphrase), “We are not saying that this creature represented a group which evolved into a group which evolved into anthropoids.” And apparently he was forced into that demurral by the PLoS ONE publishers, who would not allow him to repeat his hyped statements in the peer-reviewed paper.

On a side note, Randerson has it wrong. The anthropoid line does not lead to humans. It includes humans as one of its lines, the other lines consisting of apes and monkeys.

Then Randerson quotes the tireless Darwinian promoter David Attenborough:

“It’s a discovery of great significance.”

But WHAT is its great significance? Let us quote again the paper co-authored by Hurum:

Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past.

No missing link. No great new proof of evolution. No asteroid striking earth and changing everything we thought we knew. Just a very well preserved fossil which fills in details on early primates.

The Guardian article also has a nice artist’s reconstruction of what Darwinius masellae would have looked like, though there’s an excessively “cute” and humanized femininity in the creature’s face and overall aspect that smacks of a contemporary Disney female heroine.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 20, 2009 02:09 AM | Send