Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae

A new (to the press, at least) fossil makes big waves. Missing LinkStrange. Even Google is showing a pre-rendered picture they obviously had ready for today. Makes my skeptical-meter rise somewhat.Or, maybe... is biological science starting to enter the propaganda arena? Is biology finally fed-up with being consistently out-classed by creationism in the media?Anyone know the science behind this? Is this really "so big"? Or just a media play? Possible hoax?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Organized Scientific News?" to "Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae"

I didn't watch any video, but even just the article seemed a bit dramatic. True. However, I've never seen such an organized presentation of a scientific find. Museums have had prime attractions and created hype before, but not like this. Or am I overstating the apparent drama? I'm certainly leaning in this direction myself. It's just the large, overly-done, "orchastrated" media that seems new to scientific findings to me... which makes me raise an eyebrow slightly. In the words of Stewie Griffin: "I don't like change." That would be really cool.

I do agree. It kinda-almost begins a path that may open the door to non-peer-reviewed type stuff slipping through and being viewed as mainstream science. This seems to advance the opportunities available for blurring of the lines between "good science" and "pseudo science."But it's hard to argue with Hurum's general point. Is it possible that science needs to enter this world of vast media presentation? Perhaps this wasn't the best way... but at least it was an effort, and further tweaking of the "scientific media presentation" can now begin?Without embracing the modern media and advertising in some way (just because it's "so big") is science somehow doing a disservice to itself?Maybe getting into modern media/promotions is a good thing, but this specific attempt wasn't quite right?

I thoroughly enjoyed that link In other news, "thoroughly" is a rough word to spell.

My guess is the asteroid one.It's not biology-related enough. They would have said something like:"This will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth and raising Darwin's body from the dust."

..but, it's not, it's real
It may be in the original link in my OP, but I'm not sure. I've read a bunch of articles on the topic today. Each one including eye-rolling amounts of dramatic flair.

I'm very tired of such things. I agree. My problem is that I agree with both sides of this issue.
I agree scientific findings should get promoted alongside pop-culture issues since the science findings actually are important and interesting rather than just seemingly, short-sightedly so.
But I also agree with the other side that "creating hype for the sake of hype" can hurt science's professionalism, and therefore start to eat away at it's credibility.I don't have an answer for this.If science remains professional, it will get lost amongst all the not-really-important-but-people-love-it-any crap that gets tossed out on the news every day.If science starts farting their message into the faces of the world's population, just like all the pop-culture promotions of today, they'll end up losing credibility and have trouble being seen as "equal" to these same pop-culture poop-factories.Where's the middle ground?Perhaps science should take a dramatic dump all over the media for a while... then pull back a bit. Get that shock factor of "see, this is cool and interesting..." in, and then pull back to a more professional level of world-wide, general populace promotion.Perhaps this specific advertising was too much, and even though science definitely should do more than what they're doing now... maybe this is a bit too far.Personally, I'm currently flip-flopping faster than a baseball card hitting a bike's spokes. I'm not sure if I need to digest, or see how things develop, or just need more information before seeing which actions should be taken. Right now, I'm sympathetic to both sides.

I completely, 100% agree.
That is, assuming that all the actual, real science behind this is legit (and right now, I don't find that to be a difficult assumption to make). This is what I'm talking about: Is this really required? I mean, c'mon... "unable to associate before"?? That seems to be overstating the case a bit. Perhaps unable to specifically, deterministically give the 'ol "aha!!" But I think the word choice of "associate" isn't quite required. I don't have a problem with this. This is the kind of drama I think should be included. But the previous is over-the-top. I would say this is over-the-top and not required, because it doesn't really say anything and therefore doesn't really mean anything. But I'm guessing this is the one Percy made up, so my distaste for it may very well be irrelevent. I have no problem with this either.My problem isn't with "any hype at all", my problem is with the little bits that are "over-hype." If we removed the one where I have issue, and the one I think is from Percy... isn't it still hype, and a good amount of it?But, I certainly think science may even deserve a bit of over-hype for a bit just to even things off from it's recent hype-drought anyway.

Thanks for the background info. It certainly makes more sense given such a motivation. I agree.I'm just not sold on where exactly the level of "enough drama" to "too much drama" is. But, well, perhaps that's just a nit-picky personally subjective thing that won't ever be comfortable for all people anyway. Perhaps I should just suck-it-up and see where this goes