Comments on: Ardipithecus ramidus remains finally published after years of delay. Not all that interesting.

By: Alan E DuPuis

Alan E DuPuis — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:16 +0000

They spent those 17 years collecting additional flora and fauna fossils that created a more comprehensive view of the ecological niche that Ardi lived in. However, 17 years is a bit long even taking that into consideration.

More importantly, they stated that Ardi was a Biped that lived in the forest/jungle NOT savanna. They used the data gatherd during the 17 years to prove that statement.

One of Ardi’s foot bone has a curious adaptation exclusively for moving about in trees. I am not a bone man and I do not remember the bone’s name. I do know it was not the big toe, one of the other four could be risen above the other toes and grasp limbs.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:25:04 +0000

OMG that was obnoxious. The way they did this legitimizes the anti-evolution position as though it had sufficient validity to form policy in the newsroom around it.

Next time they talk about the “Miracle Flight” … the plane that crashed in the Hudson … I want a warning in front of the story.

By: SplendidMonkey

SplendidMonkey — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:00:19 +0000

Cover your ears kids, they’re going to talk about science!
http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=67937@wcco.dayport.com

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:19:36 +0000

Ayn Rand AND “channeling”? Way to get me to never click.

By: Joey Panto

Joey Panto — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:33:33 +0000

Ayn Rand’s voice is channeled from beyond to refute a creationist who thinks Ardipithecus disproves Darwin.
http://02e56fa.netsolhost.com/blog1/index.php/2009/10/01/ayn-rand-refutes-creationist-who-claims-

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:57:23 +0000

Wow. I used to get a lot of shit for having Ph.D. students
do 2 or 3 years of research before publishing anything, and then publishing several papers in a year or two.

How on earth could anybody get a Ph.D. in a research environment where nothing gets published for a decade or two?

By: a lurker

a lurker — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:22:18 +0000

Did the team have the funding to bring in the additional people and resources it would have taken to cut the time needed to evaluate the fossils? I imagine that the time extracting the fossil from the matrix could not be speed up much though and the team was saying a decade ago that this was a very difficult extraction.

Still the skeleton was first found in 1995 and this kind of delay is pushing it. Maybe someone should set up a rule of thumb suggesting how long is a reasonable time to study a fossil before letting outsiders take a crack at it.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:33:50 +0000

It is actually very very interesting, but at a level that is mind numbingly specific and detailed.

That is the best level. Sound bites and headlines are the worst level.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:46:16 +0000

Brandon: That is a very nice post hoc explanaton, and it is 50% true. The other 50% is bullshit. I know many of the people on this team, some are friends, and I respect them all. I’m not blaming them for holding this up (note I say what we should “ask the question”) There are many reasons why this research, as well as research in Kenya and Tanzania and elsewhere has in many cases taken decades to get out (most people have no idea what is currently “not out” and not even being worked on). It is a huge issue in palaeoanthropology. I’m uncomfortable with saying that “it just takes time.”

When a scholar’s entire career can go from start to finish before certain data are out and available then one can ask this question. A person who started his or her PhD on proconcul, for instance, in the 1960s when it was a big deal newish find would have retired before the fossils necessary to know whether or not it even had a tail were known from the museum collections in which they were stored for decades. I raise that as a typical but fairly innocuous example (because I can’t actually name a person who’s career of research was affected by that).

Again, I’m not saying that those people are screwing up, but there are deep, important, systemic problems in the system.

By: Brandon Keim

Brandon Keim — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:12:49 +0000

“Someone does need to start asking the question: How can a major set of hominid fossils languish unpublished for 17 years. That, I’m afraid, is the most remarkable thing about this particular press event.”

Very easily. The Middle Awash team spent those 17 years gathering another hundred A. ramidus fossils, plus thousands of plant and animal fossils from the same sediment layers, and analyzing them carefully. Their secrecy pissed a lot of people off, but I’ve heard several prominent paleontologists today express the equivalent of, “Oh, okay, so that’s what they’ve been doing. The secrecy was worth it after all.”

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/ardi-2/