Da da dum dum dum another one bites the dust?

DaveScot at uncommondescent is in a tis. Write he:

Another icon of evolution, the world famous fossil “Lucy” was found to not be in the modern human lineage at all. The interesting part of this is that this is extremely newsworthy but because it casts a very unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma. Keep it mum and let the embarrassing news become common knowledge over a long span of time. Haeckel’s embryos are a fine example of it.

You can always count on DaveScot to make some far-reaching and yet unsupported claims. First of all, what is embarrasing? The researchers were able to draw this conclusion based on the find of a new specimen of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's kin). The data available before that were in accordance with the notion that Lucy's kind were our ancestors. The new data supports another conclusion. It is not embarrasing to change your view in light of new evidence; What is embarrasing, is seeing someone claim this very thing, though.

The article states:

They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”

So, as opposed to Lucy being our direct ancestor (which no one thought anyway), it seems that she was a very close cousin to our human ancestors.

About "evolutionists" not shouting about this from the roof tops: This "strategy" is common when, to the ID/evolution discussion, insignificant new observations that don't affect evolution are found. No one thinks to bring it up, because it doesn't matter to the discussion at hand.