according to alex watts of sky news online,
so now what to make of this:
on the one hand, non-evolutionists always shout, ‘show us the link between humans and other primates.’ and when that link is shown, they then look at the now shortened gap between humans and the new fossil and say, ‘show us the link that goes there, between humans and primates.’ and then when that fossil is discovered, and the gap is shortened even more, they claim, ‘show us the link that…..’ well, you get the picture.
on the other hand, this fossil was discovered by an amateur fossil hunter, and spent 20 years in the private collection of an unknown collector. sound familiar? it was then sent to another private fossil dealer, who showed it (finally) to scholars.
question: should the academic community publish it? it appears to have been first revealed to the pubic via the popular media. i certainly have not read about the discovery, and the first academic account is apparently only being published today.
so to my colleagues i ask: given the rules for unprovenanced antiquities, should we publish papers about this fossil? should this fossil be held in suspicion? and will evolutionists be as eager to accept the proposed implications of this missing link as many christians are to believe sensational claims made about archaeological discoveries stemming from unprovenanced finds bought on the antiquities market??
i’m curious to see the response.
Filed under: archaeology, science | Tagged: archaeology, evolution, fossil, missing link, provenance, science | 4 Comments »