unCommonSense: The Missing Link or Marketing Ploy?
“Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilized skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” - Sky News
This amazing fossil discovery, dubbed “Ida”, has been described by experts as the “eighth wonder of the world” and on par with the famous unearthing of the Rosetta Stone which allowed the world to decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. It’s impact on paleontology has also been described as “somewhat like an asteroid falling down to earth”. In other words, its a big deal. This is the one, the holy grail of Darwinism. The fossil that proves without a shadow of a doubt that humans evolved from apes. Sky Net summed up this crushing blow to skeptics of evolution in the final paragraph of their article:
When Darwin famously told the Bishop of Worcester’s wife about his theory of evolution, she remarked: “Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.”
Now, it certainly is.
Doesn’t this sound like the ground-breaking missing link that could be the final nail in the creationist coffin? Not so fast:
First you need to define the “missing link”.
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. - Guardian UK
Ok… so there are lots and lots of “gaps” in the theory of evolution at least when it comes to primates and humans. But this extremely well preserved fossil must be particularly important to the argument that humans evolved from apes… right?
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn’t been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the “missing link” controversy.
In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically “missing links” until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless. - WSJ
Obviously this isn’t the link that we were led to believe… So should this fossil even be considered a “missing link” and human ancestor at all?
Jørn 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.” - Guardian UK
Hurum seems to be 100% on board the missing link train during interviews. Of course there is still the matter of that pesky thing called the scientific method, so Hurum assembled a team of hand-picked specialists to co-author and publish the findings, here. I wonder what the peer reviewers had to say…
On the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil [Hurum] 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.”
The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line. - Guardian UK
As you can see, Hurum is relaxed about using the “missing link” phrase because he simply doesn’t have a good case for using the phrase. The guy clearly can’t admit his find isn’t as ground breaking as originally trumpeted, but he backs off just a little bit in another interview.
“It is a representative of an ancestral group giving rise of all kinds of higher primates,” Hurum said. “We are not dealing with our great-great-great-grandmother, but perhaps our great-great-great-aunt.” - Mercury News
So it’s NOT like your great great great grandmother, but it IS like her sister. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but he is the expert. It still sounds pretty close to being a direct link of humans to primates…
Critics, however, say that it is not even that closely related. “It’s more like our third cousin twice removed,” said paleontologist Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History at Johns Hopkins University. “It’s part of the primate family tree that is about as far away from humans as you can get and still be a primate.” - Mercury News
Maybe that’s just one confused paleontologist. And who has ever heard of John Hopkins anyway? Huffington Post should have an honest assessment:
“I actually don’t think it’s terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people,” said K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. “I would say it’s about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate.”
After two separate interviews and two separate professional opinions that say pretty much the same thing, the earth shattering missing link is not sounding quite as amazing. Good thing no one other than Sky News is making a big deal about it.
[the fossil] has been shipped across the Atlantic for an unveiling ceremony hosted by the mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg today. There is even talk of Ida being the first non-living thing to feature on the front cover of People magazine. - The Guardian UK
There’s a new book, “The Link,” being published Wednesday. A two-hour, high-definition movie of the same name will premiere on the BBC, the History Channel and other networks Monday. “Revealing the Link,” a new interactive Web site, explains all things Ida; a replica skeleton is destined for New York’s Museum of Natural History as well. - Washington Times
the event, which will coincide with the publishing of a peer-reviewed article about the find, is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site. - The New York Times
Seems like a lot of marketing and bru-ha-ha for a fossil the published scientific paper won’t even promote as an ancestor in the human evolutionary line. The New York Times, well known as a staunch advocate of creationism, continues with a very interesting take on the subject:
“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.”
But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a “stem group” that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, “but we are not advocating this.”
All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may. But this campaign is only the latest example of the scientific media blockbuster, of which the National Geographic Society has become perhaps the most successful practitioner. It often gives grants to researchers, with National Geographic gaining the rights to produce television shows and magazine articles related to any discoveries. - The New York Times
After taking a breath and employing a little common sense, the hype becomes clear. Just like with the branding of LeBron James and Brittney Spears, this scientific discovery is being mass marketed to do one thing and one thing only… Make money.
This is yet another example of the importance of critical thinking when it comes to “game changing” revelations or discoveries that stand to generate a lot of cash. There will always be someone gullible enough to take each media spoonful as the definitive truth, but fortunately for those of us who prefer to ask questions, the facts are widely available in this digital age… You just need to know where to look.
To do your own research, or to learn how to defend creationism effectively using scientific facts, please see Answers in Genesis..
Make Sense? 
Get the feed for a fresh dose of common sense twice a week.
I have a phrase I use at work: Term Paper Marketing. We already know the conclusion we want, so now all we have to do is find the data (and ONLY the data) that backs the conclusion.
But I’m glad this is keeping scientists busy. Otherwise they’d be looking for conclusions that global climate warming reactionary bad bad BAD human change has only happened in the last 100 years.
Where is my “Bang Head Here” sign???? Wow. Talk about the potential for breeding corruption - there are a couple technical ladders in the companies I’ve been in where the evidence is that the more someone markets their innovation widely, the better chance for a promo they have. But to see this in the university & scientific community is troubling. At least the latest Intel commercials where Intel fellows are “rock stars” is meant as a toungue-in-cheek joke instead of being very serious about the fact that their science amounts to a joke to have access to more $….