Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Printer-friendly format July 26, 2002, 6:11PM
A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest By JEFF FARMER
It has been said that if anyone wants to see something badly enough, they can see anything, in anything. Such was the case recently, but unlike some ghostly visage of the Madonna in a coffee stain, this was a vision of our ancestral past in the form of one recently discovered prehistoric skull, dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Papers across the globe heralded the news with great fanfare. With words like "scientists hailed" and "startling find" sprinkled into the news coverage, who couldn't help but think evolutionists had finally found their holy grail of missing links?
For those of us with more than a passing interest in such topics as, "Where did we come from? And how did we get here?," this recent discovery and its subsequent coverage fall far short of its lofty claims. A healthy criticism is in order.
Practically before the fossil's discoverer, the French paleoanthropologist Michel Brunet, could come out of the heat of a Chadian desert, a number of his evolutionary colleagues had questioned his conclusions.
In spite of the obvious national pride, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History of Paris sees Brunet's skull as probably that of an ancient female gorilla and not the head of man's earliest ancestor. While looking at the same evidence, such as the skull's flattened face and shorter canine teeth, she draws a completely different conclusion.
Of course, one might be inclined to ask why such critiques never seem to get the same front-page coverage? It's also important to point out that throughout history, various species, such as cats, have had varying lengths of canine teeth. That does not make them any closer to evolving into another species.
A Washington Post article goes on to describe this latest fossil as having human-like traits, such as tooth enamel thicker than a chimpanzee's. This apparently indicates that it did not dine exclusively on the fruit diet common to apes. But apes don't dine exclusively on fruit; rather, their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, lizards and even the flesh of monkeys. The article attempted to further link this fossil to humans by stating that it probably walked upright. Never mind the fact that no bones were found below the head! For all we know, it could have had the body of a centaur, but that would hardly stop an overzealous scientist (or reporter) from trying to add a little meat to these skimpy bones. Could it not simply be a primate similar to today's Bonobo? For those not keeping track of their primates, Bonobos (sp. Pan paniscus) are chimpanzee-like creatures found only in the rain forests of Zaire. Their frame is slighter than that of a chimpanzee's and their face does not protrude as much. They also walked upright about 5 percent of the time. Sound familiar?
Whether it is tooth enamel, length of canines or the ability to walk upright, none of these factors makes this recent discovery any more our ancestral candidate than it does a modern-day Bonobo.
So why does every new fossil discovery seem to get crammed into some evolutionary scenario? Isn't it possible to simply find new, yet extinct, species? The answer, of course, is yes; but there is great pressure to prove evolution.
That leads us to perhaps the most troubling and perplexing aspect of this latest evolutionary hoopla. While on one hand sighting the evolutionary importance of this latest discovery, a preponderance of these articles leave the notion that somehow missing links are not all that important any more.
According to Harvard anthropologist Dan Lieberman, missing links are pretty much myths. That might be a convenient conclusion for those who have been unable to prove evolution via the fossil record. Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution. It is impossible for anything to evolve into another without a linear progression of these such links.
The prevailing evolutionary view of minute changes, over millions of years, is wholly inadequate for the explanation of such a critical piece of basic locomotion as the ball-and-socket joint. Until such questions can be resolved, superficial similarities between various species are not going to prove anything. No matter how bad someone wants to see it.
Farmer is a professional artist living in Houston. He can can be contacted via his Web site, www.theglobalzoo.com
I think the percentage goes up if you only poll people with some High School. And so forth.
I think we're talking past each other. If a poll reveals that the percentage of the population that has studied astrology is about the same as the number that has studied relativity, you don't really think the same people have studied both subjects, do you?
The whole thing is garbage. For one thing the scarcity of fossils makes it impossible to be sure when the organism was around. The coelecanth was thought long gone hundreds of millions of years ago and it is still around. Likewise we cannot tell when it first came to be. Without knowing exactly when species first arose and when they ceased to exist lines of descent are impossible to ascertain.
The problem however is even bigger. The evidence is quite lacking in much that is needed to prove descent. For example:
1. What is the evidence that dinosaurs did not have purple skin? (this is needed because skin is almost an absolute requirement for proper classification - fish have scales, reptiles do not, mammals have fur, and birds have feathers).
2. What is the evidence that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands? (again this is absolutely necessary since the definition of a mammal is that it has mammary glands).
3. What is the evidence that dinosaurs had 2, 3, or 4 chambered hearts? (again this is necessary because different species have different hearts)
4. What is the evidence for dinosaur DNA? (again, this is necessary to tell us the relationships to different species).
The answer is that we do not have any such evidence. The answer is therefore that we cannot tell the descent of species from bones because bones do not give us the necessary information to even classify the organisms being studied, let alone to determine if they could have descended from one another.
In real life, it turns out the story of the ark is true and the theory of the "big bang" is a bunch of BS. If you actually have any concern about your students, you really need to do some catching up and get your head on straight.
Patrick distorting my statements again. My statement was that many have won a Nobel Prize for discoveries that disprove evolution, but that no one has won a Nobel Prize for discoveries that prove evolution. Since you and your friends are very lame, I hereby give you a list of Nobel Prize winners for biology related discoveries. They all disprove evolution:
From: DNA Nobel Prizes
Nobel Prizes for work related to genetics/ DNA
| Table 1 - Nobel prizes related to genetics / DNA | |||
| Person |
|
Category | Description |
| Emil Fischer (Germany) |
|
Chemistry | chemistry of carbohydrates - laid foundation for modern biochemistry |
| Eduard Buchner (Germany) |
|
Chemistry | discovery of enzymes |
| K. Landsteiner (Germany) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of human blood groups |
| Thomas H. Morgan (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discoveries on hereditary functions of chromosomes |
| Herman J. Muller (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
hereditary effects of X-rays on genes |
| Arne Tiselius (Sweden) |
|
Chemistry | biochemical discoveries & isolation of mouse paralysis virus |
| Linus C. Pauling (USA) |
|
Chemistry | studies of forces holding together proteins |
| Sir Alexander Todd (England) |
|
Chemistry | showing the role of nucleic acids ( DNA) in genetics |
| Frederick Sanger (England) |
|
Chemistry | determining molecular structure (SEQUENCE) of insulin |
| JoshuaLederberg George Beadle Edward L.Tatum (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovering how genes transmit hereditary characteristics |
| Severo Ochoa Arthur Kornberg (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of DNApolymerase |
| James D. Watson (US) Maurice H. Wilkins Francis H.C. Crick (England) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
determining the structure of DNA(!). |
| Max F. Perutz John C. Kendrew (England) |
|
Chemistry | mapping protein crystals with X-rays |
| François Jacob André Lwolff Jacques Monad (France) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of the operon and proposing a model of gene regulation |
| P.F. Rous |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
Viral induction of cancer in chickens |
| Robert W. Holley Har G. Khorana Marshall W. Nirenberg (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
studies on the genetic code |
| Table 1 (continued) Nobel prizes related to genetics / DNA | |||
| Person | Year | Category | Description |
| Max Delbruck Alfred Hershey Salvador S. Luria (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
studies on virus infections and DNA recombination |
| N. Borlaug |
|
Peace | Genetic improvement of Mexican wheat |
| G.M. Edelman R.R. Porter |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
chemical structure of immunoglobulins |
| Christian B. Anfinsen Stanford Moore William H. Stein |
|
Chemistry | relationship between primary and tertiary structure of proteins |
| David Baltimore Howard M. Temin Renato Dulbecco (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
for work on interaction between tumor viruses and genetic material in the cell |
| Baruch S. Blumberg D.C. Gajdusek |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
elucidation of prion-based human diseases, kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob dementia |
| Werner Arber (Swiss) Daniel Nathans Hamilton Smith (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of restriction enzymes & their application to problems in molec. genetics |
| Paul Berg (USA) Walter Gilbert (USA) Frederick Saenger (UK) |
|
Chemistry | for developing methods to map the structure and function of DNA... (sequencing) |
| Aaron Klug (England) |
|
Chemistry | biochemical discoveries & isolation of mouse paralysis virus |
| Barbara McClintock (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of mobile genes in plants |
| M.S. Brown J.L. Goldstein |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
genetic regulation of cholesterol metabolism |
| S. Tonegawa |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
genetic basis of antibody diversity |
| J. Michael Bishop Harold E. Varmus (USA) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
unifying theory of cancer development |
| Thomas R. Cech Sidney Altman (USA) |
|
Chemistry | discovery of RNA - dependent enzymes & self-splicing RNA |
| Kary B. Mullis (USA) Michael Smith (Canada) |
|
Chemistry | discovery of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) |
| Phil Sharp (USA) Richard J. Roberts (UK) |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of "split genes" |
| E.B. Lewis C. Nusslein-Volhard E. Wieschaus |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
control of early development in Drosophila |
| Stanley B. Prusiner |
|
Physiol. or Medicine |
discovery of Prions - a new biological principle of infection |
So, just what did Darwin know?
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
But an influential relative got him a position as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.
It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories… {to explain life without need of a creator}.
After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some Finches, Darwin's finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.
Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his six sons became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)
His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals… {‘his’ underlying concepts}
Side note:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which *Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das KapitalDas Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.
In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and *Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (*op. cit., p. 86). At Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).
Note: The above was to show why many associate Darwin with Marx. In Darwin’s defense, I do not believe he intended to establish communism with his theory.
Back to his book:
In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.
Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:
Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.
When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."
Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.
He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.
Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side! To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!
With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.
Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another:
It is a variation of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)
Note: This is what was attractive to Marx and Hitler… Once again, in Darwin’s defense, I do not believe this to be his intent.
He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy"
The X Club was a secret society in London which worked to further evolutionary thought and suppress scientific opposition to it. It was powerful, for all scientific papers considered by the Royal Society were first approved by this small group of nine members. Chaired by Huxley (Darwin’s colleague), its members made contacts and powerfully affected British scientific associations (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 64). " ‘But what do they do?’ asked a curious journalist. ‘They run British science,’ a professor replied, ‘and on the whole, they don’t do it badly’ " (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 467). In the 20th century, U.S. government agencies, working closely with the National Science Federation and kindred organizations, have channeled funds for research to universities willing to try to find evidence for evolution. Down to the present day, the theorists are still trying to control the scientists.
There is no law of conservation of intelligence. It isn't in the Second Law of Thermo or anything else.
OK - but you will be a fossil one day – and no intelligence will come from you anymore…
Well, we could argue if this has already taken place.
Naturalism, naturalism, all is naturalism…
Good observation!
488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved
And when did he know it? (Well, he published in 1859, which I'm pretty sure was well before any of the skulls in post 338 were unearthed.)
It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories… {to explain life without need of a creator}.You forgot to prefix this with <Tin_Foil_Hat_mode>.
WITCHCRAFT!! (Shrinks away, brandishing crucifix.)
Well, I guess I have to abandon evolution now or a pack of you will show up to burn me at the stake, right?
Oh, shucks! And I was sure we almost had Heartlander persuaded.
</sarcasm>
I'm outta here too.
Oh, but YOU are the one who brought up "wildly elliptical" planetary orbits in the first place, after you took offense at "junior's" accurate characterization of them as being "nearly circular." Are we not permitted to point out your error?
And it was YOU who boldly asserted: "No, a circle is not an ellipse....", a claim that is as wrong as it can get. Are we not permitted to point out your error?
And it was you who claimed: "you have yet to prove me wrong on anything!" which is absurd on its face in view of your egregious errors memorialized in the two previous paragraphs. Are we not permitted to point out your error?
You appear to have defined anything that points out your errors as being a change of subject.
How convenient for you.....
Now, at long last, do you understand why virtually no educated person takes anything you post seriously?
I got nothing. Did I spell it wrong?
You: WITCHCRAFT!! (Shrinks away, brandishing crucifix.)
Well, I guess I have to abandon evolution now or a pack of you will show up to burn me at the stake, right?
I take it back… you are a fossil - It is not something for debate.
Here is a brief, partial overview of what true scientists were accomplishing in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them were Creationists:
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science. (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research. (1561-1626): scientific method of research.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics. (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope. (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology. (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology.
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics. (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects. (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory. (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.
Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve. (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.
Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer. (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars. (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics. (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.
Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable. (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy. (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology. (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery. (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography. (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.
James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics. (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics. (1822-1884): genetics.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph. (1791-1872): telegraph.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes. (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer. (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
Louise Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization. (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.
Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry. (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.
John Ray (1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals. (1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis. (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry. (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry.
Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology. (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.
Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics. (1819-1903): fluid mechanics.
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology. (1821-1902): pathology.
Actually, the ring species you keep showing do not even prove speciation. The determinant of speciation is ability to produce viable mates. The so called 'scientists' who did these studies did not even bother to see if these salamanders and these birds could mate with each other.
Further, the statements made as to the proof of 'speciation' are so ridiculous as to be totally laughable. The birds for example were called different species by these numbskulls because they had two yellow stripes and different songs than the ones at the start of the ring. Clearly according to the criteria of these morons of evolution, Englishmen and Chinamen are different species since they speak different languages and have different skin color.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.