New species discovered: Possible missing link?

[phildonnia]

Get ready for:
"Scientists maintain belief in the evolution dogma, despite not having a single example of a transitional fossil between Darwinius and Homo. "

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I heard that as well. WTF were the BBC thinking about? This is a science story, why interview someone from a tiny, extremist religious organisation? Was everyone who has a biology degree in the UK busy?

Just emailed the BBC to ask that question.

 

[dudalb]

That they were destroyed in the flood is a common belief. The idea is that Noah saved one animal of each kind, rather than each species. Kind, of course, is a term that is poorly defined, to be very very generous to creationists.

You are forgetting the good old "Fossils were put here by Satan to challenge our Faith" explanation.

 

[nois forme]

Get ready for:
"Scientists maintain belief in the evolution dogma, despite not having a single example of a transitional fossil between Darwinius and Homo. "

Sadly, spot on.

 

[Nogbad]

There are a number of approaches. The one I find most amusing (though not very widely held these days) is the Omphalos Hypothesis. This approach (named for the Adam's navel) says that God put all these things that indicate an older history to the Earth at the time of Creation even though there was no time prior to that. (He created the stars with star light already en route to the Earth, for example. He created Adam with a navel even though Adam wasn't born and had no umbilical cord attached to him at any point, for another.)

Presumably God created fossils of animals that never actually lived!

I have heard of this thinking (loose term I know).

Beautiful fossil and I am sure more will continue to be found. It is like a huge fascinating jigsaw puzzle and we are slowly putting all the pieces together.

 

[zooterkin]

My understanding, from having heard a piece about it on Material World (available as a podcast at the moment), is that it's not actually an ancestor of humans, but of lemurs, although the wikipedia page contradicts this. It's mostly an example of how to get a story into the media. Apparently, because there has not been a paper published in a recognised journal, the name, Darwinius masillae, is not yet officially recognised. I'm just watching the BBC documentary now, but don't expect too much in the way of detail, though it does look like a beautifully complete fossil.

ETA: According to the documentary, the shape of the talus (ankle bone) indicates that Ida is an ancestor of humans. I'm not sure how they can be so sure that she wasn't some branch that didn't die out.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Just emailed the BBC to ask that question.

After a delay, a reply appears:

The story being covered related to the discovery of a potentially exciting new fossil (Darwinius masillae) which is unusual in how well preserved it is and has some interesting features for a primate. The story is featured online in the science and environment section of BBC online.

Can you explain why the guest (Stephen Green of Christian Voice)brought on to be interviewed was a religious extremist with, apparently, neither scientific knowledge or qualifications? No guest who actually knew anything about fossils, science, evolution or indeed common sense was involved to provide a counterbalance to the uninformed, illogical, inaccurate comments made . Was every person with a biology degree busy? Or is it going to be standard practice now on for any science story to bypass people with real knowledge and go for the nearest loudmouth religious fanatic?

Did you not learn your lesson after previously giving Green a platform on Question Time in 2005 when his so-called organisation was described by Rev Dr David Peel, Moderator of the General Assemly of the United Reform Church as "as representative of Christian opinion in Britain as the Monster Raving Loony Party would be of mainstream political parties _ and far less entertaining".
Do you think that such a person is really appropriate to be the interviewed when the topic is science, not religion?

Thank you for your e-mail regarding '5 Live Breakfast' broadcast on 20 May.

Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

I understand you had some concerns with Stephen Green appearing on the programme and appreciate you felt the piece in question was unduly biased towards Creationism.

The first thing to point out here is that Stephen Green was not referred to as an 'expert'. He was introduced as follows:

"…but does it tell us anything about creation? Let's get the view of Stephen Green, National Director of the campaigning group Christian Voice…"

This gave listeners a very clear indication of the nature of the guest's views.

The coverage on 5 live was overwhelmingly about how scientists believed that the fossil could help explain human evolution. This was what was reported on 'Up All Night' and 'Drive' the same day and both played a clip of Dr Jorn Hurum, explaining the significance of the find. This was also the case prior to the interview with Stephen Green.

Mr Green was invited on specifically to ask what a creationist's view on the find was, given that the significance that scientists were attaching to the find - did the find change their view at all? This one example of a creationist's view was a very small part of 5 Live's coverage of the find.

Whether or not there is any scientific basis to creationism, the fact is that some people do believe in it and we have a duty to reflect a diverse range of views on our programmes.

I would like to assure you that I've registered your feelings about this matter on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers within the BBC, including the '5 Live Breakfast' team and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.