This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Ardi proves Darwin wrong!!

Ardi proves Darwin wrong!! - Comments

WereGryphon's Avatar Comment 1 by WereGryphon

Fuck how much unsubstantiated conclusions.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:52:00 UTC | #403029

LA_Pilot's Avatar Comment 2 by LA_Pilot

Rough automated translation by Google

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:55:00 UTC | #403030

backstab's Avatar Comment 3 by backstab

wow

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:03:00 UTC | #403034

backstab's Avatar Comment 4 by backstab

google translate some of the user comments...

The first one starts with "Darwin communist"

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:06:00 UTC | #403035

NewSkeptic's Avatar Comment 5 by NewSkeptic

Truly disappointing. Are there any forum members or subscribers who could submit a grammatically accurate correction to Al-Jazeerah?

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:09:00 UTC | #403036

HoyaSaxa87's Avatar Comment 6 by HoyaSaxa87

Just to give a brighter side to the "we're far away, very far behind" comment, let me just give a quit anecdote.

I'm American and live and work in Doha, Qatar (home of Al-Jazeerah), and while in the cafeteria at the University where I work, at lunch time, during RAMADAN, there was an amazing seen: Four Qatari girls, all wearing the traditional abaya, eating and discussing how to get their hands on a copy of a "Religulous" dvd.

So while this type of abuse of science at the hands of religious fundamentalism is certainly prevalent in this part of the world among older generations at least here in this tiny country in the Persian Gulf, things are changing...slowly.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:12:00 UTC | #403037

Bala's Avatar Comment 7 by Bala

The double standards of Al Jazeera! I wish Richard or someone else publicly address this on TV.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:29:00 UTC | #403039

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 8 by TIKI AL

Are they sure this wasn't Al-Jazeerah - Arkansas version?

If this is true, don't take the camoflage off the tall buildings just yet.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:29:00 UTC | #403040

carbonman's Avatar Comment 9 by carbonman

It's quite usual to hear kids as young as nine denouncing Darwin here in the Middle East, saying there is no way we could have 'come from animals', obviously parroting what they've been trained to say. Not long ago I met a senior (British) teacher on the stairs, white-faced at having found a book on Darwin in the school library, who told me of her good fortune in having removed it before anyone saw it. There is a long, long way to go.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:51:00 UTC | #403044

geru's Avatar Comment 10 by geru

2. Comment #421222 by LA_Pilot on October 3, 2009 at 6:55 am
Rough automated translation by Google


A bit off topic, but Arabic translates to English surprisingly well. :o

I sometimes use Google Translate to translate Russian pages to English, but the translation is really rough and usually hardly understandable.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:59:00 UTC | #403045

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 11 by Jos Gibbons

Muslims often claim that our criticisms if translations of Arabic are invalidated by us using translations, but sod them, I'm going to critique this translation. It says over and over that this proves Darwin wrong, but the whole argument is that Darwin said we're upgraded chimpanzees (WRONG!) and that Ardi looks a LITTLE different from what we expected and therefore it's all wrong. What these people don't understand is that the common ancestry model only implied certain features would PROBABLY be found in the ancestor. It's really not a very surprising fossil. But let's focus on what's realy important: EVERY fossil of something extinct proves change has occurred, disproving creationism MILLIONS of times.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:23:00 UTC | #403047

NakedCelt's Avatar Comment 12 by NakedCelt

Well, it's what we expected. Quote-mining the "humans didn't evolve from chimpanzee-like animals" part. I'm sure we're all saddened for our Arabic fellow-Ardi-descendants, but is anyone really surprised?

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:24:00 UTC | #403048

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 13 by Steven Mading

I've heard that one common complaint about Al-Jazeera is that they present a false face to westerners by making sure that the English language version of their content is kept much more balanced and reasonable than the Arabic language version. Being someone who does not know Arabic, I can't verify this claim. Is this article a typical instance of this trend, or is there no trend and this article is an exception?

PZ Myers on Pharyngula predicted exactly this media reaction to the Ardi discovery, by the way. The discovery of Ardi, that reveals more of the evolved history of humans, will be deliberately misrepresented by the media to portray the discovery as being a disproof of evolution.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:26:00 UTC | #403049

A's Avatar Comment 14 by A

What more needs be said other than that these people are liars.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:08:00 UTC | #403052

Smashman42's Avatar Comment 15 by Smashman42

Couple of bits from the article....

On the other hand explained Ovgoi C. Owen, a scientist at the University of Kent, an American specialist in the origin of man that he made a study of primitive man, known as Ardipithecus ramidus who lived 4.4 million years in Ethiopia.


He said in a study published today in the journal Science, that "people often think people evolved from apes, but that is not true."


He said he "spread the idea that human beings are an upgraded version of the chimpanzee study but contributed to the primitive man made sure that he could not develop human beings from chimpanzees or gorillas."


It seems like the first paragraph above is reasonable enough & the clunky sound of the 2nd paragraph is due to errors in translation - could someone who reads Arabic please confirm?


Said Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, who helped lead the research team, said "People have a belief that modern chimpanzees did not evolve much, and that the last common ancestor was like a chimpanzee and about birth control is a human that has occurred for each development."


What the hell might my bolded bit actually translate to?

Also, what is with "Ardi" becoming "Shot"?



Note: Sorry for the edits, I'm not too familiar with this interface.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:15:00 UTC | #403053

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 16 by Rawhard Dickins

It's a shame that the cradle of civilisation has turned it's back on science ( = knowledge ).

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:36:00 UTC | #403055

RichardofYork's Avatar Comment 17 by RichardofYork

Does the term ;Face Palm mean anything to anybody?

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:02:00 UTC | #403057

Follow Peter Egan's Avatar Comment 18 by Follow Peter Egan

Wow. How thoroughly depressing. Thanks for the link though, it's certainly enlightening.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:12:00 UTC | #403060

jamiso's Avatar Comment 19 by jamiso

10. Comment #421237 by geru
"A bit off topic, but Arabic translates to English surprisingly well. :o"



Unless it is the quran, which is written in apparently 'untranslatable' arabic. ;p

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:17:00 UTC | #403061

mlon's Avatar Comment 20 by mlon

far behind??

its willfully(!) distorted to indoctrinate the masses.

mlon

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:20:00 UTC | #403063

pipsy's Avatar Comment 21 by pipsy

Those religionists lying to each other. When all the evidence goes against your beliefs and faiths you have no other option than to lie or else you would have to doubt your clerics and scriptures.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:31:00 UTC | #403065

toyboatt's Avatar Comment 22 by toyboatt


I expected religious sources to publish, "Another Transition Fossil Discovered!"

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:01:00 UTC | #403068

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 23 by phasmagigas

its strange how singularly evolution brings out lies and denial, it as if opponents have told themselves conciously or otherwise 'if i simply tell myself and others its not true it will go away and i will go to heaven' or suchlike.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:50:00 UTC | #403076

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 24 by phasmagigas

PZ Myers on Pharyngula predicted exactly this media reaction to the Ardi discovery, by the way. The discovery of Ardi, that reveals more of the evolved history of humans, will be deliberately misrepresented by the media to portray the discovery as being a disproof of evolution.


its incredibly strange that with each piece of added evidence to support evolution creationists somehow always try to distort it to oppose it, the fact that the oppposition is variously (think of all the negative reactions to it) incapable of understanding the significance of a new find like this, they demonstarte yet again that they have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

its astounding, it would be like myself getting airtime and consideration for my views about economic policy in Argentina, something which i know absolutely nothing about.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:58:00 UTC | #403077

SilentMike's Avatar Comment 25 by SilentMike

most non-biased Arabic speaking news agency you can find


Isn't that like saying "least silly looking pope you can find"?

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:03:00 UTC | #403078

j.mills's Avatar Comment 26 by j.mills

The google translation includes:

He was shot to the head like a monkey
Now that really would shake up our histories! Four-million-year-old fossil human killed by high-impact .45 calibre! ("Like a monkey.")

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:20:00 UTC | #403081

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 27 by Enlightenme..

Thanks, for the translation Arabic Freethinker.

For all the attempt to word it utilising the long-known fact that we didn't 'evolve from chimpanzees', a good number of the readers are going to realise they are being misled, after all the picture of Ardi looks a lot 'like a monkey' to me!

Of course, it's also sensationalised from a western perspective, as there is no certainty yet that she was a direct ancestor anyway!

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:46:00 UTC | #403083

bethe123's Avatar Comment 28 by bethe123

A complete and accurate translation needs to be made available.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:51:00 UTC | #403084

PERSON's Avatar Comment 29 by PERSON

"13. Comment #421242 by Steven Mading on October 3, 2009 at 8:26 am
I've heard that one common complaint about Al-Jazeera is that they present a false face to westerners by making sure that the English language version of their content is kept much more balanced and reasonable than the Arabic language version. Being someone who does not know Arabic, I can't verify this claim. Is this article a typical instance of this trend, or is there no trend and this article is an exception?"
Whatever is the case, I'm certain there are people who like to paint Al Jazeera as a secretly or even openly subversive against freedom, democracy, motherhood, apple pie, and so on. As for CNN, they wouldn't publish something like this because it would be objectionable to too many people, but they do employ Lou Dobbs.

One way to begin to test for tendencies to inaccuracy (and I'm sure they are present, though they do not automatically indicate an agenda on the part of reporters and/or the organisation) would be to pick, say, 20 articles at random and translate them.

It's also difficult to be sure that the reporter isn't just ignorant, or perhaps lazy, as opposed to trying to deceive explicitly. This is how most media operates, in the UK, the US and everywhere else. There are strict deadlines, pressure to produce copy quickly and a requirement to be able to get on with people who will tell you stuff rather than know it yourself. They may well just be repeating what they've seen in other, more ideological media. Despite their considerable neutrality relative to US media, the BBC often do that, picking up themes from e.g. the Telegraph or the Mail.

When I say the reporter is ignorant, I mean that they may think (as is common in the west, never mind the gulf states) that Darwinism states that people descended from monkeys or apes as they are today. I've often heard Richard say that we're a kind of ape, which I'm sure some will hear as meaning we're descended from apes. When there's a shortage of time to be clear, I'd think even he is misunderstood because of the force of conventional "wisdom".

This all assumes, however, that the Arabic version was written separately, not translated. Does someone have a link to the English version? It was mentioned in the text above but curiously omitted. If they are very different, that is likely what happened.

I agree it would be good to draft a response if we could find someone to translate it for us.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:06:00 UTC | #403087

Lemmywinks's Avatar Comment 30 by Lemmywinks

Nooooo.....

Aljazeera was the last news source that I took seriously. This is too depressing for words.

It's interesting that the content would be different based upon language though...

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:27:00 UTC | #403090