Media Overblows Claims of "Human Evolution": Examining the Newest "Missing Link"

Evolution News & Views ^ | April 14, 2006 | Casey Luskin

[JCEccles]

Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."

The latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans."

[RobbyS]

Darwin was the product of a certain cultural mileiu, one already disposed to racism and other notions of social hierarchy. Herbert Spencer was already famous, so "social darwinism" was simply his appropriation of natural selection. His theory was appreciated by Carnegie and the industrialists since it justified their practices. But it was the Gedrmans who created "darwinism" as an overarching theory. As Darwin himself admitted, he was not much on theory. Natural selection was less a theory an operational devise. The Germans turned it into a theory of humanity.

[Thalos]

His theory was appreciated by Carnegie and the industrialists since it justified their practices.

That's funny. I thought people on this site would try to get sympathy by conflating Darwin and Marx, not Darwin and the capitalists. First you are pro-choice and pro-gun-control, and now you are an anti-capitalist commie... are you sure you didn't mean to go to dailykos?

The Germans turned it into a theory of humanity.

Actually, Hitler was a creationist. Also, Godwin's law.

Some nice Hitler quotes for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.

the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission

[longshadow]

"Festival of anti-Capitalist Claptrap" placemarker

[RobbyS]

Darwinism was very congenial to Bismarck's Germany, and Macht macht recht was the motif of the Germany that invaded Belgium. What the leaders of the Reich shared with the leaders of American industry was a paternalism that led to the creation of the welfare state in Germany and to philanthropy in America. Marxism was simply another ideology of power.

[Thalos]

Darwinism was very congenial to Bismarck's Germany, and Macht macht recht was the motif of the Germany that invaded Belgium. What the leaders of the Reich shared with the leaders of American industry was a paternalism that led to the creation of the welfare state in Germany and to philanthropy in America. Marxism was simply another ideology of power.

????

What are you trying to say? That Darwinism is bad because Germany was like Marxism? Darwinism is bad because Germany was more fit than Belgium and that's why they invaded? Maybe you should actually say what you mean instead of insinuating a bunch of random garbage.

Anyway, like I already said, Hitler was a Creationist Christian. So what? That doesn't prove that Creationism is wrong. The tons of evidence in the world around us proves it is wrong. Even though Hitler used his Creationist beliefs to kill millions of people, saying that Creationism is therefore evil is a logical fallacy. It would be just like saying that the Theory of Relativity is evil because it leads to Da Bomb, which is also not necessarily evil, although people like you probably think it is. Saying Creationism is evil because of Hitler the same logical fallacy as saying astronomy is evil because it means the earth isn't really the center of the universe or that Germ Theory is evil because it leads to the ideas of biological warfare.

[RobbyS]

I am talking about the uses of darwinism, which is something more than Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory buttressed a radical nationalism who was the natural conclusion of a theory of a hierarchy of races that was developed long before Darwin and to which Darwin himself subscribed. You can find it in the Descent of Man. As to the theory that Hitler was a creationist Christian, that has elements of truth. The German Christian Church, consisting mainly of Germany Protestants, did further the Nazi ideology. But Mein Kampf has little good to say about traditional Christianity. and the Nazi leadership despised it, because of the unavoidable fact that Jesus was a Jew.b But Laissez faire capitalism and Marxism have commonalities. Marx's notion f the inevitability of a proletariat is based on Ricardo's theory of wages and Malthus's population theory.

[dread78645]

If we do not know how far they are away then we do not know that it takes billions of years for the light to get here.

Trigonometry is a tool of the Great Deceiver.

[dread78645]

This does not mean every one only the kind. Dog kind, cat kind, ECT. Variations excluded.

So how did the 'variations' come about?
You know, the lion, cheetah & wolf kind ...

[dread78645]

Your picture is pretty yet it is way out of proportion, that angle is way to big.

Which is why he stated:

0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees

The circle could not be measured in one night.

The supernova was detected Feb 23 (IIRC) and the illumination of the ring was seen in September.

... I do know trig. I was top in my class.

Whew. You had me worried that you rejected trigonometry ...

It appears that some can not grasp that God would have created things with precieved age for us to look at and wonder at his abilities

Lemesee if I got this straight ...

God creates the appearance of a supernova, then twiddles his thumbs (or noodly appendages) for nine months, then creates the appearance of light hitting the first ring?
Just to confound humans into thinking it was plain old physics?

[Right Wing Professor]

If Pb were incorporated into zircons, how could it be incorporated in such a way as to give a consistent radiogenic age for both isotopes, and without affecting the amount of the other two isotopes?

I do not know enough about the subject but this site seems to believe there could be a problem. Appears that leaching can have an effect.

So you admit you're posting material you don't understand, in the hope that the site you're quoting know more about it than you do.

Let me assure you they don't. They don't address the issue of the fact that radiogenic (U,Th)/Pb ages use two and sometimes three independent pairs of nuclides, which give mutually consistent ages; and they state falsely that the data could be compromised by non-radiogenic lead, which in fact is corrected for.

[Creationist]

You will only begin to understand when you have given in to Jesus.

[Creationist]

Good try but you are wrong. The title only impresses girls

[Right Wing Professor]

'You are wrong' is your only response?

Leaching can't differentially affect two isotopes of the same element whose mass differs less by 0.5%. Because the U-238 and U-235 decay rates are so different, it would cause the two isotopes to give dramatically different ages. But they give the same age, to within 1%.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2
2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This happens before God separates Light from Dark and then calls it the first day. There is room there for trillions of years. We simply do not know because it doesn't say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"3
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day."

best to you,
ampu

[jec41]

6. While life evolves to conform to its environment, or not and dies out, what and why life was created is still a scientific THEORY, there is NO proof that one species evolved into another species, there is proof that species evolved to conform to their environment.

You seem not to know what is a scientific theory. Of 6.7 billion people on earth no two have ever been found to be a exact clone or without differences. BY DNA and observation most agree that that all have some slight variation or difference. However philosophy might say that's proof that all have some differences. Science accepts it as a theory. Science simply says that all of the population is slightly different by observation and evidence but that a clone might appear in the future or may have appeared in the past. Proof would then be false. A scientific THEORY is of a higher order than either proof or a fact. Instead of wanting proof of a thing you might want to request the scientific explanation or theory. Its why the term proof is not used in science, it is of a lesser determination and a tool of philosophy that argues unknowns.

[wallcrawlr]

posted a couple days ago...just found it

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[js1138]

You will only begin to understand when you have given in to Jesus.

You really insult religion when you equate it with the effects of drugs. Or perhaps the effects of Islam. Submission.

I find it difficult to believe that God would go to the trouble of creating minds, only to punish those who use them.

[jec41]

No it means you are still a low IQ uneducated idiot.

Actually when one claims a MS and several accreditations toward a PHD and still does not know the difference between a scientific theory and proof I would suspect he is more of the lesser IQ and his attempts at education wasted. You would be of the higher IQ and better education.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

That's spooky!

I have noticed that Helen Thomas resembles Emporer Palpatine from Star Wars in drag.

[connectthedots]

Well, aren't all men pigs? ;-)