Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
close"missing link"?
Posted by JHo on 21 May 2009 at 19:21 GMT
The authors in the paper (appropriately, I think) make the following statement: "Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids."
Nevertheless, in press interviews, (e.g. http://news.nationalgeogr...) and in a web site called "the link"
(http://www.revealingtheli...), authors of the article have used the very loaded lay term "missing link" to describe the fossil find.
Could the authors please comment here justifying the seemingly contradictory statements that D. masillae is a "missing link," yet does not lie on the anthropoid line?
Note that creationists are already seizing on this apparent contradiction in an attempt to discredit the entire discovery (e.g. http://www.wnd.com/index....).
RE: "missing link"?
BjoernBrembs replied to JHo on 23 May 2009 at 11:34 GMT
The whole PR around this find smells like beauty products to me: nobody can tell any difference between them them so you have to advertise to sell them.
For me personally, commercials often reflect badly on the companies producing them. Unfortunately, this is not any of the exceptions. See also:
http://scienceblogs.com/p...