Let's not loose sight of the forest because of all the trees here. The point is this is an important find because it's exactly what those who reject evolution claim doesn't exist: a transition fossil.
Is the term "Rosetta Stone" hype? Probably. But that's irrelevant to the larger discussion and really it's a smokescreen to say, "It's not a 'Rosetta stone', it's just a fossil". Sure it's "just a fossil", but it's exactly what Ken Ham and others who reject evolution claim doesn't exist.
The hypocrisy and double standard of the previous Ham quote is not diminished by the descriptive term "Rosetta stone" applied to the fossil. This should be clear, that is, if one doesn't have an agenda to protect. It's perfectly reasonable to "get excited" about this fossil, that is if Mr. Ham and others really DO want to see a "transition fossil".
“Is the term “Rosetta Stone” hype? Probably. But that’s irrelevant to the larger discussion and really it’s a smokescreen to say, “It’s not a ‘Rosetta stone’, it’s just a fossil”. Sure it’s “just a fossil”, but it’s exactly what Ken Ham and others who reject evolution claim doesn’t exist.”
Huh? You mean it’s “kind of” evidence to support a theory that can’t be supported without what this MIGHT be?