Possible very ancient human ancestor species (maybe)

[a_haworthroberts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22770646
This story was reported on the BBC TV 6 pm news this evening. They think the creature lived around the time of the split into the tarsier branch of primates and 'our' (larger, anthropoid) branch. Though in fact I see that the online story states that the scientists think probably it was on the tarsier branch. It's a bit unfortunate that BBC TV News sought to sensationalise somewhat re a human ancestor, though it's still very interesting and the fossil looks impressive (if the creature was rather small).
Here's the Nature paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12200.html
Dr Henry Gee has made a quote that is correct but will probably be misused by YECs. But we haven't got a repetition here of what happened with 'Ida'.

[Brian Jordan]

Yes, the BBC showed a diagram with it clearly towards the bottom of the tarsier branch but then went on immediately to describe it as a human ancestor. Such is journalism these days, I fear.

[a_haworthroberts]

And there was me assuming most YECs hadn't heard about this or were trying to ignore it:
http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primate-a-prime-mate/

[a_haworthroberts]

And there was me assuming most YECs hadn't heard about this or were trying to ignore it:
http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primate-a-prime-mate/

[a_haworthroberts]

I submitted a comment at crev.info:

""the original paper in Nature did not mention human evolution at all". The Abstract of the paper in Nature refers to 'primate evolution' and modern humans ie our species are classed as primates.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12200.html

It is true that media speculation eg at BBC TV News about a possible ancestor species to humans went beyond the scientists' conclusions. From the Abstract: "our phylogenetic analysis based on total available evidence indicates that this fossil is the most basal known member of the tarsiiform clade"; it's thought by the scientists that the creature lived soon after the "divergence between tarsiiforms and anthropoids".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22770646"

I am confused about what has happened to my comment. It is visible in full on my screen and there's no indication that it is awaiting moderation. Yet above it the page states "No comments have been left".

CAN ANYONE ELSE SEE MY COMMENT?

[a_haworthroberts]

I see that my comment has been 'refuted' here (by trying to make me argue something that I did not argue):
http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primat ... mment-3128

Thus I've made another refuting the 'refutation' by the editor:
"Untrue.
Humans are classed as primates by biology."

[a_haworthroberts]

http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primate-a-prime-mate/

PLEASE WILL SOMEONE CLARIFY TO ME HOW MANY POSTS BY ME ARE ON DISPLAY HERE? I SUSPECT THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN CENSORED - CENSORED BY A YEC BLOGGER (FOR NOT POSTING NONSENSE), SURELY NOT - AND THAT THE ANSWER IS ONLY ONE COMMENT. BECAUSE THE PAGE REFERS TO "2 COMMENTS".

I only noticed the possible blatant censorship after making ANOTHER post:
"To clarify: I have read only the Abstract. Whilst these scientists believe humans evolved, they do not think this primate was on the human lineage. But the wider context of the finding is the 'primate evolution' they believe occurred and humans are scientifically classified as anthropoid primates.
Whether I personally believe in 'human evolution' is immaterial to what I wrote in my first reply."

The most important sentence is my last. The editor belatedly sought to refute me by posting some baloney about how I had allegedly indulged in some circular reasoning about 'human evolution' whereas all I did was disagree with one small part of the blog and clarify what the scientists were referring to in their Abstract.

These US YECs are so touchy. But maybe my last two posts will belatedly be allowed to appear?

[a_haworthroberts]

I tried to send this to the blogger just now (not by email though there is a contact form on the site for emailing purposes):

"Dear Sir/Madam

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3269&p=46263#p46263
I would be grateful if you could clarify that my latest two posts still await moderation, as the only alternative explanation appears to be that you are resorting to unreasonable censorship in order to give a misleading impression to other readers.

Ashleyhr
(If it is the former, please ignore this query ie there's no reason to display it under the blog.)"

[Brian Jordan]

A conversation with creationist bloggers. Moved.

[a_haworthroberts]

Fair enough - but when I started the thread it was pure 'Science only' as originally categorised. I am not wholly responsible for how threads may evolve over time.

I have just submitted a further comment as follows, after the editor displayed and responded to my latest comments:
"I accept much of what you say in your last comment. I perhaps should have been clearer in my second comment - when I wrote "untrue" I was referring to your claim "You can only infer it implies something about human evolution if you already believe in human evolution — a circular argument". I was inferring originally that 'primate evolution' (if it has occurred) by definition includes human evolution even if that specific phrase was not used in the paper (which I've not read).
If I appeared to you to somehow conflate the classification of humans as primates with a discussion of 'human evolution', that was not my intention - rather I was thinking of the reports eg on BBC TV where they showed a linear divergence many millions of years ago into the tarsiiform and anthropoid primate clades, with this particular species tentatively included within the former - whereas humans belong within the larger latter clade (but all the species involved, whether extant or extinct and which are thought to have evolved over time, are primates).
It is up to you whether you publish this comment, which I'm posting at the BCSE community forum."
http://crev.info/2013/06/is-this-primat ... mment-3166

[a_haworthroberts]

Response by AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-achilles

A lot of factual info (only skimmed).

But followed by a final paragraph of totally unscientific nonsense. Par for the course.