I'm disappointed to see so many news agencies and readers taking this hype at face value. Before I even begin, can I just appeal to everyone to read up on Karl Popper's assertions regarding our ability to 'prove' anything using scientific insight? We can't! Especially, when we consider that deducing anything from a patchy fossil in an even patchier fossil record is a dodgy proposition to begin with...
First: this is not a new taxon, as news agencies and apparently Tim White would like us to believe; Australopithecus anamensis has been known for quite some time now, and its exact position in the hominin lineage is still under dispute last time I heard (making the assertion that it's in a direct relational line to modern humans suspect).
Second: is the evidence White cites convincing? Is linking these new A. anamensis specimens to Ardipithecus ramidus robust, or merely convenient (in other words, did White discover Ard. ramidus, as well)? Are they even comparable? I may be wrong, but I thought Ardipithecus ramidus was only represented by a few teeth and some postcrania... in which case, how convincing is White's evidence? If the new specimens can be successfully placed in A. anamensis based on the few specimens found, how can it also be so similar to Ardipithecus ramidus?
I wish the popular media would ask such questions... maybe then every new fossil 'hominin' could be examined without quite so much bias, frenzy, and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm disappointed to see so many news agencies and readers taking this hype at face value. Before I even begin, can I just appeal to everyone to read up on Karl Popper's assertions regarding our ability to 'prove' anything using scientific insight? We can't! Especially, when we consider that deducing anything from a patchy fossil in an even patchier fossil record is a dodgy proposition to begin with... First: this is not a new taxon, as news agencies and apparently Tim White would like us to believe; Australopithecus anamensis has been known for quite some time now, and its exact position in the hominin lineage is still under dispute last time I heard (making the assertion that it's in a direct relational line to modern humans suspect). Second: is the evidence White cites convincing? Is linking these new A. anamensis specimens to Ardipithecus ramidus robust, or merely convenient (in other words, did White discover Ard. ramidus, as well)? Are they even comparable? I may be wrong, but I thought Ardipithecus ramidus was only represented by a few teeth and some postcrania... in which case, how convincing is White's evidence? If the new specimens can be successfully placed in A. anamensis based on the few specimens found, how can it also be so similar to Ardipithecus ramidus? I wish the popular media would ask such questions... maybe then every new fossil 'hominin' could be examined without quite so much bias, frenzy, and politics.