David Beorn dbeorn at freenet.vcu.edu
Sun Sep 8 02:53:57 EST 1996

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:

> From: Ed Conrad <edconrad at prolog.net>
> Newgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution
> The latest edition of  ``Nature," the so-called respected journal,
> rolled off the press today and once again it features a story that
> really should have appeared in a child's book of fairy tales.
> .
> Yet the editors at the Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call -- same as those
> at  newspapers across the continent -- made it a sound like it was
> based on solid fact by deciding it warranted a glowing -- but totally
> erroneous -- headline:
> >                 FOSSIL FIND ILLUMINATES
> >                    MAN'S APE ANCESTOR
> >         Discovery helps fill  gaps in what happened
> >         to humanity's ancestors between about 18
> >                  million and 5 million years ago
> The article describes the discovery in Turkey of ``a fossil ape face"
> by a team of anthropologists and researchers who call it
> ankarapithecus meteai, a 60-pound, fruit-eating ape.
> Without any basis in fact, they refer to it as ``a  cousin" of man and
> say it will tell us more than we now know about the common ancestor of
> humans and the great apes (which is absolute zero).
> The article even quoted bullshit artist David Pilbeam of Harvard
> University as saying, ``There are so few specimens that are as
> complete as this," adding that the discovery makes ``a significant
> increment in our knowledge."
> ------------------------------------
> It seems only fiiting and proper to resurrect the heads-on quotation
> which shined like a beacon in ``The Velikovsky Affair: The Warfare
> Between Science and Scientism" . . .
> >                  ``The easiest ploy is to impress upon editors
> >                    that only scientists -- and preferably selected
> >                    members of the establishment -- are competent
> >                    to judge scientific theories. And, since science
> >                    is an important source of news of interest to
> >                    the general public, editors are not inclined to
> >                    reject such advice."

Yeah - this is one of the reasons why science has gone wrong in some areas
- it is not now P.C. to criticize, because w/o being a "scientist" in
whatever field of study, you are no longer a valid critic.  Reminds me of
a certain discussion here about the definition of evolution and it's
common use et al. 


        *        David Beorn, david.beorn at pobox.com (internet)        *
        *        Virginia FREENET                                     *


More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net