Josh Greenberger Called the Fossil 'Ida' Evolution Bluff

[CraigP]

Josh Greenberger Called the Fossil 'Ida' Evolution Bluff

Lookee here what I found. Scientists were so damn sure the fossil 'Ida' was evidence of evolution. Josh Greenberger was just as damn sure it was a lot of hot air. And guess what? Scientists themselves later realized -- months after Josh Greenberger -- that Ida had as much to do with evolution as horse radish has to do with horses.
-
-
-
New York Times - May 18, 2009
"On Tuesday morning, researchers will unveil a 47-million-year-old fossil ['Ida'] they say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.

"'We would not go forward with this, even in a hosting capacity, unless we had a sense of the scientific importance,' said Michael J. Novacek, the provost of science at the museum.

"'[The documentary about Ida is] the most newsworthy and noteworthy special we've been a part of,' said Nancy Dubuc, the general manager of the History Channel.'We made a commitment early on to get behind it in a big way: to see it through peer review, and see that it is the media event it should be.'"
-
-
-
Josh Greenberger - New York Post - May 26, 2009
"The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public.

"One fossil does not represent a transitional species, any more than the remains of a two- headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They're simply abortions of nature.

"You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

"Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda."
-
-
-
New York Post Article - October 22, 2009
"Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary?

"A publicity blitz called it 'the link' that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

"In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says an expert at Stony Brook University on Long Island.

"Professor Erik Seiffert and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"Ida is a skeleton of a 47-million- year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book,'The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor,' and a TV documentary narrated by David Attenborough.

"Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

"The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans.

"Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

"The primate skeleton 'Ida,' once called 'the link' to an evolutionary ancestor of humans and apes, turns out not to be even close."
-
-
-
Now ain't that a b*tch? Ida had nothing to do with evolution after all.

But you know what's really interesting here? Why get so excited about Ida in the first place when you believe evolution has already been proven? Do we get excited about new pictures of Mars?

The big to-do about Ida in the first place shows that scientists themselves know how little evolution has to stand on.

[MIDutch]

Hey, Josh, you sure do get around.

Old news. The fossil may have been misclassified, but this ONE bit of scientific evidence is still MORE than the ZERO amount of evidence you have for anything you say.

Hey, BTW, how are the sales going for that little 95 page self published comic book collection of "letters to the editor" that "disproves" the "theory of Evolution?

[MIDutch]

I wonder if any of those experts that questioned Ida were "creation scientists"?

I wonder if any of those experts that studied Ida were "creation scientists"?

I wonder if any of those experts that reclassified Ida were ""creation scientists"?

I'm guessing ... no.

Really odd. After 4000+ years of looking for evidence for "creationism", one of the FEW things that "creationists" seem to have gotten pretty good at (along with lying) is pointing out that scientific peer review works EXACTLY like it's supposed to.

Imagine that.

[The Dude]

Hmmm, I thought I cross-referenced this thread.

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/TCC...

Have now.

[LowellGuy]

Josh is getting into Jim Henson territory when it comes to puppetry.

[DanJeet]

MIDutch wrote:

I wonder if any of those experts that questioned Ida were "creation scientists"?
I wonder if any of those experts that studied Ida were "creation scientists"?
I wonder if any of those experts that reclassified Ida were ""creation scientists"?

I agree 100%. They're definitely all Creationists. Is there any question that any disproof of evolution is creationism? Evolution is on such solid ground that after 150 years people are still debating it. Which is understandable. People are still debating whether Mars exists. They're still debating with X-rays and bacteria exists. Why is it so terrible if they're still debating evolution? Not everyone can see it as clearly as we evolutionists.

You're so absolutely right, MIDutch, anyone who questions evolution must be swimming in creationism, and the evidence against evolution (which of course doesn't really exist anyway) is just twisted logic by people who are thinking religion.

Of course the fact that most evolution-disprovers don't mention creation or religion as part of their disproof doesn't mean anything. We evolutionists know that deep down inside every evolution-disprover is a mindless Creationist, no matter how much evidence they have.(They don't really have evidence anyway. Ever hear them? They're talking science most of the time.)

The truth is we evolutionists do have all the evidence; but if we divulge it all, who can we have so much fun arguing with?

MIDutch, you make so much sense it's just touching.

[Chaz]

DanJeet wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree 100%. They're definitely all Creationists. Is there any question that any disproof of evolution is creationism? Evolution is on such solid ground that after 150 years people are still debating it. Which is understandable. People are still debating whether Mars exists. They're still debating with X-rays and bacteria exists. Why is it so terrible if they're still debating evolution? Not everyone can see it as clearly as we evolutionists.
You're so absolutely right, MIDutch, anyone who questions evolution must be swimming in creationism, and the evidence against evolution (which of course doesn't really exist anyway) is just twisted logic by people who are thinking religion.
Of course the fact that most evolution-disprovers don't mention creation or religion as part of their disproof doesn't mean anything. We evolutionists know that deep down inside every evolution-disprover is a mindless Creationist, no matter how much evidence they have.(They don't really have evidence anyway. Ever hear them? They're talking science most of the time.)
The truth is we evolutionists do have all the evidence; but if we divulge it all, who can we have so much fun arguing with?
MIDutch, you make so much sense it's just touching.

Way to entirely miss the point.

How've you been, Josh?

[The Dude]

DanJeet wrote:

Evolution is on such solid ground that after 150 years people are still debating it.

People maybe, but not the scientific community. Oh sure, there's debates within the theory, like the significance of certain fossils and which particular species they may be related to; debates over the details are normal in any scientific theory of any field.

DanJeet wrote:

You're so absolutely right, MIDutch, anyone who questions evolution must be swimming in creationism, and the evidence against evolution (which of course doesn't really exist anyway) is just twisted logic by people who are thinking religion.
Of course the fact that most evolution-disprovers don't mention creation or religion as part of their disproof doesn't mean anything. We evolutionists know that deep down inside every evolution-disprover is a mindless Creationist, no matter how much evidence they have.

Not all of them. Some are UFO conspiracy theorists. Just as valid as creationism I guess.

[The Dude]

CraigP wrote:

Josh Greenberger Called the Fossil 'Ida' Evolution Bluff
Lookee here what I found. Scientists were so damn sure the fossil 'Ida' was evidence of evolution. Josh Greenberger was just as damn sure it was a lot of hot air. And guess what? Scientists themselves later realized -- months after Josh Greenberger -- that Ida had as much to do with evolution as horse radish has to do with horses.

Josh's prediction that Ida wasn't what it was hyped to be wasn't because he was right. After all, he/you said the same thing about Tiktaalik. And he was wrong there. However, Josh would never point out that while the scientists involved with the discovery were over-enthusiastic about what they found, much of the scientific community remained skeptical.

I'll concede one point though, the media does have a bad habit of trawling up the "missing link" headline every time a hominid fossil is discovered. It's not unusual for science articles written by journalists to be exaggerated either through sensationalism or sometimes honest misunderstanding. This can have the effect of misleading the public.

CraigP wrote:

Now ain't that a b*tch? Ida had nothing to do with evolution after all.

Uh, not quite, bub. You do realise that it was BECAUSE of evolution it was found to be something different to what some initially thought? No, you don't, do you? Duh.

CraigP wrote:

But you know what's really interesting here? Why get so excited about Ida in the first place when you believe evolution has already been proven? Do we get excited about new pictures of Mars?

Actually, astronomers DO get excited about new pictures of Mars. There's even been excitement over recent pictures of the moon. But then, we already know that astronomy isn't your strong suit, don't we?

CraigP wrote:

The big to-do about Ida in the first place shows that scientists themselves know how little evolution has to stand on.

Then by all means, present us with your amazing "scientific alternative".

Which we're uh, STILL waiting on...

(sound of crickets chirping)

[Darwins Stepchild]

The Dude wrote:

But then, we already know that astronomy isn't your strong suit, don't we?

Does Josh have a strong suit?

[Lil Ticked]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Does Josh have a strong suit?

here it is.
https://www.gypsytreasure.com/images/Miscella...

[The Dude]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>here it is.
https://www.gypsytreasure.com/images/Miscella...

Copycat!

:-p

[The Dude]

CraigP wrote:

Do we get excited about new pictures of Mars?

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/mart...

[MIDutch]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/mart...

Fabulous photos.

Wonder what the "creationists" see when they look at photos such as these?

Do they see beautiful photography? Wild, unearthly landscapes? Some surprisingly earth-like landscapes? Lots of questions waiting to be answered by science?

Or are they too busy looking for the angel and demon footprints from that big war they fought that created the craters?

Do they see the reality of space exploration, or do they see demands for more apologetics?

Do they see science at work doing what it does best, or do they see the need to shut their eyes tight for and the inevitable retreat further into their fairy tales?

[Lil Ticked]

His name is Greenberger. LOL!

[Lil Ticked]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Copycat!
:-p

Slowpoke

[Lil Ticked]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Fabulous photos.
Wonder what the "creationists" see when they look at photos such as these?
Do they see beautiful photography? Wild, unearthly landscapes? Some surprisingly earth-like landscapes? Lots of questions waiting to be answered by science?
Or are they too busy looking for the angel and demon footprints from that big war they fought that created the craters?
Do they see the reality of space exploration, or do they see demands for more apologetics?
Do they see science at work doing what it does best, or do they see the need to shut their eyes tight for and the inevitable retreat further into their fairy tales?

Does anyone else smell cheese?
I was just wondering (no I haven't looked at the photos yet) but I was just wonder Did you see anything other than just another way to bash someone's ideology?

[MIDutch]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Does anyone else smell cheese?
I was just wondering (no I haven't looked at the photos yet) but I was just wonder Did you see anything other than just another way to bash someone's ideology?

Me personally, when I first saw the images Mr. The Dude linked to the first thing I saw, being a graphic artist, was the patterns, geometry and weird forms of many of the photos. A little bland on the colors, but fascinating potential as graphic elements.

[Sheila]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Me personally, when I first saw the images Mr. The Dude linked to the first thing I saw, being a graphic artist, was the patterns, geometry and weird forms of many of the photos. A little bland on the colors, but fascinating potential as graphic elements.

photos #3 and #13 remind me, unpleasantly, of wasps' nest formations. Disturbing.

[Lil Ticked]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Me personally, when I first saw the images Mr. The Dude linked to the first thing I saw, being a graphic artist, was the patterns, geometry and weird forms of many of the photos. A little bland on the colors, but fascinating potential as graphic elements.

Thank you for the congenial response to my over-reactive comment.
For some reason I just saw hyper enlaged still of pron. That first one looked like a close up of a tattooed breast.
I guess that says a lot about where my mind goes.