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."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The problem with evolution is that it can not be proven because an experiment can not be performed over a million years and then the experiment would have to be repeatable."

1) Lab experiments are not a requirement for science. Repeating the phenomena is not a requirement in an historical science. If it were, forensics would be impossible.

2) Science as a method is not capable of providing proof.

" It seems that people of religion are more open minded than evolutionists."

Most evolutionists are also people of religion.

[texasmountainman]

ROFLMAO! Which is Gollum and which is Carville? I can't tell the difference!

[narby]

Evolution does successfully predict whhere to look for specific kinds of fossils.

Was this the find where they looked at previous geologic surveys, picked out one with the right age, and the right conditions (near river delta), went out and sure-nuf, there were the ancient hominid fossils where none had been found before? That find, even though paltry when measured by weight, was large when measured by theory prediction confirmation. You are right, no other "theory" even tries such things.

[Oztrich Boy]

Bones of Contention : Controversies in the Search for Human Origins by Roger Lewin

A far superior book. - I've read both.

Citations
Bones of Contention : Controversies in the Search for Human Origins by Roger Lewin 33 books that cite this book
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow 14 books that cite this book

Still winning

[Oztrich Boy]

No Nebraska. Man, thst's disappointing

[js1138]

This looks like a good day on which to have had something else to do. If that's grammatical, It's a miracle.

[Coyoteman]

Re: your tagline. There is a better one over here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616205/posts?page=2#2

*-o(:~{>

[js1138]

So with the definition of science clear that it does cover creationism, it is a science.

That's about the oddest claim I've ever seen.

[js1138]

The recent fish fossil was found at the expected place also.

[csense]

Second, it is primarily an anti-evolutionist contention, and wrong, that a science has to replicate all experiments. Physics and chemistry require it in many cases--this is where the cold fusion claim of a few years back has been found wanting. But nobody can replicate plate tectonics, ice ages, meteor strikes, or many other well-supported aspects of science. It is disingenuous to imply that this is a necessary condition in science, and that the theory of evolution is the weaker because of it.

You may not be able to replicate the phenomenon, but you can replicate the method of inquiry, whcih is all science is really...a method of inquiry. The distinction though, is that those phenomena you cite lend themselves to mathematical models, whereas, and so far, evolution seems to be resistant towards.

Although, I'm sure, some of you may disagree...

[Coyoteman]

The distinction though, is that those phenomena you cite lend themselves to mathematical models, whereas, and so far, evolution seems to be resistant towards.

Evolution any many other processes are tough to model mathematically: I agree with you on that. When mathematical models are sophisticated enough to handle easy things like global warming let me know and maybe we can take a try at the theory of evolution.

The problem is, you have to account for all of the important variables, and get all of the relationships and assumptions correct. To date, we have only the simplest of models and there is no reason to place any confidence in them. This goes especially for the creationist models which purport to say evolution is mathematically impossible. They aren't worth the bits they are made of.

When you leave mathematical modeling and examine theories and the data supporting them, you find that there is a huge amount of data from a wide range of sciences all pointing in the same direction--these are subsumed into the theory of evolution.

I realize you disagree for religious reasons, but evolution is one of the most researched and best supported theories we have.

[csense]

When you leave mathematical modeling and examine theories and the data supporting them, you find that there is a huge amount of data from a wide range of sciences all pointing in the same direction--these are subsumed into the theory of evolution.

I agree that evolution is supported by a wide range of sciences and disciplines, however, it fails to garner the support of physics, which in my opinion, is very significant.

The reason I entered this thread is because people tend to take liberties with analogies, and sometimes it has a profound effect upon the discussion. In the phenomena cited earlier, there is an exchange of energy, making it supportable by physics. Now, unless someone wants to claim that there is an exchange of energy between organisms and natural selection, then I don't see how physics could possibly support evolution...let alone lend itself to a mathematical model.

I realize you disagree for religious reasons...

Yes, I do...but my criticisms are not reflective of that. Even if they were though, a valid criticism is just that, and should be treated with respect, and answered with reason...not that I'm saying that is the case here.

...evolution is one of the most researched and best supported theories we have.

You might be right...and it still could be wrong.

[Creationist]

Decay dating is a flawed system. First it is assumed that as the magma is mixed in the chamber before it is erupted out it is an equal mix all the materials are equal within the batch, every time it erupts. Second there is not one that can prove that the dying magnetic field has an effect upon the decay rates of these radioactive elements.

It has been said that the magnetic field fluctuates and is not dying, well if there is a mysterious energy source recharging the magnetic field then it must also recharge or slow the process or even speed the process. Not enough data to assume the age of the earth at billions of years when there is data the suggests a young universe. Saturn's rings are still unstable after billions of years. Saturn and Jupiter still have enough heat left to measure that they lose heat faster than they gain it from the sun. The sun is shrinking at a measurable rate.

The Shara grows at a measurable rate that suggests an age of approximately 4000 years.

They studied the great coral reef after major destruction during WWII and learned it grew at a measurable rate that put it's age about 4000 years old.

The oldest living tree is about 4000 years old.

The Niagara could only be approx 10000 years, less when you factor in the water receding from the Great Flood of Noah's day. ECT.

I can not answer for the one's who claim to believe in Jesus yet do not believe his word to be 100% true, we will all have to answer to God in the end.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Darwinists make substantially analogous and foolish claims every day.

As opposed to you referring to more evidence than can be reviewed in a single lifetime as "paltry".

We're all still waiting for creationists to come up with a better explanation than, "God made it rain cement."

[csense]

Evolution any many other processes are tough to model mathematically...

Name me a process, other than evolution, which can not be modelled mathematically, but is also a mechanism within a theory, and recognized by science.

[Coyoteman]

Name me a process, other than evolution, which can not be modelled mathematically, but is also a mechanism within a theory, and recognized by science.

Air flow; water flow; weather.

Models break down very quickly in all three cases. Otherwise we could predict the weather accurately, for example, months in advance.

[Creationist]

Our fore fathers and the great men and women who fought and died for this great country over the years believed in a God of the Holy Bible, at least most did.

Many who fought in Iraq believe in the God of the Bible.

The Constitution is founded upon the morals of the Bible.
The Declaration of Independence is written with God of the Bible in it.

Since the time just before WWII people have tried to remove The One true God from this Great Country. The American Communist Lairs Union is one of the biggest enemys of this country. When those who oppose the belief of Jesus enoungh that it becomes a majority of godless people the fruits will become self evident in the over all outcome.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” —Benjamin Franklin, April 17, 1787

[Coyoteman]

Decay dating is a flawed system.

Just to take the simplest, radiocarbon dating, is enough to show that you are incorrect.

I don't have the time tonight to explain this in my own words, so must resort to links (which I prefer not to do in this field, as I know it fairly well).

So, if you are interested take a look at some of the links and I will try to do more if you want tomorrow night. Let me know.

Night all!

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

[andysandmikesmom]

Ah, another graduate of the 'Al Capone' school of witnessing, which was so eloquently described just a few days ago by another poster...In other words, you say that people just have to believe the Bible exactly as you do, and interpret the Bible just as you do, and if they dont, they will go to Hell...undoubtedly this is one of the most disgusting and least effective ways of witnessing...

You interpret the Bible one way, millions of others interpret it another way...your authority in condemning others to Hell, is non existant...you do not speak for God...what you have is your own personal beliefs, your own personal Biblical interpretations, and since you only a human being, prone to complete error just as much as any other human, your interpretations, may be completely wrong...

The idea that ones salvation depends on a belief of 144 hour, act of Creation, only 6000 yrs ago, is something you have made up for yourself...because you cannot and do not and never will speak for God...

[Creationist]

No more odd then proclaiming the that the theory of evolution is real.
When in truth it takes faith like a religion to believe that nothing exploded, coalesced into stars, planets, solar systems, cooled off, rained upon the rocks in an oxygen free atmosphere for millions of years, creating puddles of amalgamated chemicals, which were struck by lighting, that became amino acids, that became simple celled organisms, which became multi celled organisms, which became fish, reptiles, then a great ice age happened which wiped out most of the organic stock, and yet some things like the alligator and croc made it through, then the mammals which lived through the ice age became something the resembled a humanzee which split into chimps and humans.

Let us bow our heads to the creator, All praise the great explosion or expansion, chaos is supreme and creates order, eventually.

Evolution is a religion. (:~/