1. Comment #421221 by WereGryphon on October 3, 2009 at 6:52 am

Fuck how much unsubstantiated conclusions.

Other Comments by WereGryphon

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

Rough automated translation by Google

Other Comments by LA_Pilot

3. Comment #421226 by backstab on October 3, 2009 at 7:03 am

wow

Other Comments by backstab

4. Comment #421227 by backstab on October 3, 2009 at 7:06 am

google translate some of the user comments...

The first one starts with "Darwin communist"

Other Comments by backstab

5. Comment #421228 by NewSkeptic on October 3, 2009 at 7:09 am

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

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

6. Comment #421229 by HoyaSaxa87 on October 3, 2009 at 7:12 am

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.

Other Comments by HoyaSaxa87

7. Comment #421231 by seabala on October 3, 2009 at 7:29 am

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

Other Comments by seabala

8. Comment #421232 by TIKI AL on October 3, 2009 at 7:29 am

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.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

9. Comment #421236 by carbonman on October 3, 2009 at 7:51 am

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.

Other Comments by carbonman

10. Comment #421237 by geru on October 3, 2009 at 7:59 am

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.

Other Comments by geru

11. Comment #421240 by Jos Gibbons on October 3, 2009 at 8:23 am

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.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

12. Comment #421241 by NakedCelt on October 3, 2009 at 8:24 am

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?

Other Comments by NakedCelt

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?

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.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

14. Comment #421245 by A on October 3, 2009 at 9:08 am

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

Other Comments by A

15. Comment #421246 by Smashman42 on October 3, 2009 at 9:15 am

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.

Other Comments by Smashman42

16. Comment #421248 by Rawhard Dickins on October 3, 2009 at 9:36 am

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

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

17. Comment #421250 by RichardofYork on October 3, 2009 at 10:02 am

Does the term ;Face Palm mean anything to anybody?

Other Comments by RichardofYork

18. Comment #421253 by Follow Peter Egan on October 3, 2009 at 10:12 am

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

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

19. Comment #421254 by jamiso on October 3, 2009 at 10:17 am

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

Other Comments by jamiso

20. Comment #421256 by mlon on October 3, 2009 at 10:20 am

far behind??

its willfully(!) distorted to indoctrinate the masses.

mlon

Other Comments by mlon

21. Comment #421258 by pipsy on October 3, 2009 at 10:31 am

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.

Other Comments by pipsy

22. Comment #421261 by toyboatt on October 3, 2009 at 12:01 pm

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


Other Comments by toyboatt

23. Comment #421269 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm

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.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

24. Comment #421270 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2009 at 12:58 pm

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.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

25. Comment #421271 by SilentMike on October 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm

most non-biased Arabic speaking news agency you can find

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

Other Comments by SilentMike

26. Comment #421274 by j.mills on October 3, 2009 at 1:20 pm

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.")

Other Comments by j.mills

27. Comment #421276 by Enlightenme.. on October 3, 2009 at 1:46 pm

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!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

28. Comment #421277 by bethe123 on October 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm

A complete and accurate translation needs to be made available.

Other Comments by bethe123

29. Comment #421280 by PERSON on October 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm

"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.

Other Comments by PERSON

30. Comment #421283 by Lemmywinks on October 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm

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...

Other Comments by Lemmywinks

31. Comment #421288 by Mbee on October 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

This article appeared in my local paper (California) as:
"Fossils may turn 'evolution on its head'"

The original article they quoted was in the LA Times titled:
"Fossils radically alter ideas about the look of man's earliest ancestors"

The text was identical (and a seemingly accurate description of the find) and there was nothing in the text to indicate 'evolution being turned on its head'. I wrote a letter to the local paper complaining of the title.
So this is not a totally Arabic issue!

Note: Program appears on Discovery channel (US) October 11 at 9pm
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/about/about.html
also good info and pictures on:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html

Other Comments by Mbee

32. Comment #421289 by jamiso on October 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm

I'm actually kind of surprised by the surprise to arab media. Hell...world media.

I've spent a lot of time overseas, and believe it or not fox news is not the pinnacle of bullshit news...Turkish newspapers take that cake.

Other Comments by jamiso

33. Comment #421291 by PERSON on October 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm

That's because Fox News has to deal with a comparatively literate and well educated audience who have fairly free (if extremely differential) access to information. This is not the case in other countries, so the media and those who would manipulate them can say even more outrageous things. IME not that much more outrageous though, surprisingly, just different.

• example: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/


• 2008 press freedom index

Other Comments by PERSON

34. Comment #421296 by Border Collie on October 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm

This makes me want to dip a banana in a jar of peanut butter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwsdLOmOxFw

Other Comments by Border Collie

35. Comment #421297 by Rational_G on October 3, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Looking forward to a serious Ardi article here...

Other Comments by Rational_G

36. Comment #421298 by Steven Mading on October 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm

29. Comment #421280 by PERSON on October 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm

"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.

True, but do keep in mind that there already have been cases where it's been shown that Muslims in the west have said one thing to the outside media, and then say something totally contradictory within the mosques when speaking to an internal audience. (Fundamentalist Christians pull the same stunt - pretending they only take the scriptures as metaphorical when speaking to the camera for an interview show and then it's right back to lying to the parishoners the next Sunday. Scientologists pull the same stunt, holding back on revealing the batshit crazy parts until after people are well inside the organization, and blatantly lying to the public about those batshit crazy parts - claiming they're not there when every ex-Scientologist who ever got out of the religion after being deeply in it verifies that they are there.) With Muslims immigrating into the western world, the language barrier makes a convenient tool to use to help accomplish this two-faced task so I wouldn't put it past them to use it. That's why I'm not willing to just dismiss this claim as the typical rantings of right-wing nutters. Also, a lot of time spent checking out Memri TV does seem to show that at least some of Al-Jezeera's Arabic language programs are willing to be a lot more brutally bigoted than anything you see on their English programs. What I can't tell from clips on Memri TV that are taken from Al Jezeera is whether or not these shows are typical content for Arabic Al Jezeera or exception cases.

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.

Yes, that would be a good test. Especially in the case where a parallel article was written for the English site so you can compare the independant translation by yourself against what Al Jezeera was choosing to expose on its English version.

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.

True but irrelevant to my point. The relevant question is whether there is a descrepency between what they choose to present on the two different language sites, not whether or not bad reporting like this is, in general on both sites, caused by intentional bias or just plain laziness.

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.

Why are you portraying that as if it was an incorrect meaning? The evolutionary tree as we currently understand it DOES claim we descended from apes, and that we still are apes today. The problem is not that "we're descended from apes" is a strawman - its not - it's what the scientists do claim. The problem is that the people you are referring to misrepresent what "apes" means, and pretend it refers only to the modern apes we see today when it actually refers to an entire branch of the ancestry tree including the prehistoric ancestors on that branch that are no longer around today.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

37. Comment #421299 by DamnDirtyApe on October 3, 2009 at 3:41 pm

What on earth are they trying to pull with that gibberish?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

38. Comment #421306 by Teenspirit on October 3, 2009 at 4:17 pm

By the way, this morning Al-Jazeerah slightly changed the articles title from "Ardi proves Darwin wrong" to "Ardi discredits Darwin's Theory", while also keeping the same content with the 1st paragraph stated above.

Other Comments by Teenspirit

39. Comment #421310 by superatheist on October 3, 2009 at 4:27 pm

I am not surprised at all at that article. These people always try to diminish science as much as they can, without knowing it. As a former inhabiter of that world, I am so happy that I left it.

Other Comments by superatheist

40. Comment #421312 by maximus444 on October 3, 2009 at 4:33 pm

"If this were a news agency like FOX News I would really understand"
Fox News actually covered this story and had a reputable scientist on to explain the fossil and its importance with regard human evolution. No need to attack when its unwarranted.

Other Comments by maximus444

41. Comment #421318 by the great teapot on October 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm

yup, that seals it for me, evolution sucks.

Other Comments by the great teapot

42. Comment #421322 by Hasan on October 3, 2009 at 5:16 pm

The moment I read about Ardi and the way the discovery was marketed, I knew something like this was going to happen. The discovery further strengthens Darwin's theory of evolution but I think we have our work cut out for us and need to come up with a counter response to this ignorant rambling in order to short circuit this meme before it spreads further.

Other Comments by Hasan

43. Comment #421323 by Frankus1122 on October 3, 2009 at 5:19 pm

There was a good interview with the discoverers of Ardi on Quirks and Quarks today.

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/podcast.html

Other Comments by Frankus1122

44. Comment #421325 by digibud on October 3, 2009 at 5:21 pm

These people, along with all the xian fundies aren't batshit crazy. Some are simply ignorant, as in the case of uneducated children who are taught stupid shit, or they are stupid, as in the case of adults that have been exposed to the evolutionary theory and choose to reject the information. I'm becoming less and less interested in this insanity. It's like trying to argue with a 6yr old child having a tantrum.

Other Comments by digibud

45. Comment #421330 by Buerggiste on October 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm

When facts contradicted holyscripts they opt for the latter, it’s eerie they got no qualm telling lies so openly as the alternative. It’s sad for those innocents who were forced into their fold and looks like the community need a hell lot of more time to settle in the modern world.

Other Comments by Buerggiste

46. Comment #421331 by NormanDoering on October 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm

The Muslims look to be a real problem in the future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ

Other Comments by NormanDoering

47. Comment #421333 by root2squared on October 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm

The Muslims look to be a real problem in the future:

They already are. But they are not the only one. Arguably, the bigger problem is the crazy ones who make the Muslims go crazy.

http://www.alternet.org/story/142839/10_ways_the_u.s._military_has_shoved_christianity_down_muslims

Other Comments by root2squared

48. Comment #421337 by jabr on October 3, 2009 at 6:40 pm

My understanding of the relationship between AJ English and Arabic versions is that they are nearly completely separate organisations. So, while it's deplorable that this kind of rubbish is being broadcast at all, I don't think it supports the "Two-faced Al Jazeera" conspiracy theory the way it would if one were more tightly coupled with the other.

Other Comments by jabr

49. Comment #421340 by GandalfGrey on October 3, 2009 at 6:48 pm

"He was shot to the head like a monkey head and toes facing allow them to climb trees easily"

Google translate makes me smile...
The article however does not. What gross ignorance those people display.

Other Comments by GandalfGrey

50. Comment #421347 by jamiso on October 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm

48. Comment #421337 by jabr

I think you are thinking of Al Jazeera magazine... which is really batshit

Other Comments by jamiso