Posted on 05/20/2009 8:07:15 AM PDT by lakeprincess
"This is an incredible piece of hype to popularize a movie and a book. It's hard to believe that this story took off, but the media picked up on very emotional claims about the 'missing link.' It's created good publicity," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Evolution isn’t?
Yeah. Man looks for explanations. But it not being satisfied with the first (or second, or subsequent) one that comes to mind is what makes us sapiens
“Religion is an invention of man.”
Evolution isn’t?
“Yeah. Man looks for explanations. But it not being satisfied with the first (or second, or subsequent) one that comes to mind is what makes us sapiens”
Can we not spend twenty quintrillion dollars on the “science of climate change” before we “evolve” in our thinking about the earth? Because in 1974 we had this firm grasp of science;
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
So are UFO’s but some still believe.
It would appear so, but no, there is no goalpost shifting.
The evolution skeptics understand that the fossil record can be aligned species to species to show a purported trajectory of inter-species evolution. What we dispute is that a series of random mutations is what had lead from one species to another species. We often see species 1, species 2, etc., ... species N. But even the adjacent species on that imaginary line are still too far apart: they do not appear to be a product of a single mutation. So finding one more species does not really help your case: what I want to see is a cloud of specimens with species 1 at one edge of the cloud and species 2 at the other edge. Until I see that, all I see proven is that we previously knew of N species and now we know of N+1 species and all have similarities.
Let me give you an example. In atmoshpere it so happens that some clouds are formed independently and also at times a cloud would move to a different spot. Let us say you and I have an argument: is the rain over my head today coming from the same cloud that rained over the other part of town this morning? To prove the latter, you need to show continuity, -- wet spots connected all the way from place A to place B. It is not enough to show that it rained over place A, place B and also place P and place Q -- that only proves that there have been four independent clouds. You need to show a continuum of wet spots, and you need to show a continuum of fossils separated by a single mutation.
The money isn't being spent on the “science of climate change”. Climate change from human generated CO2 is "settled science". And now the politicians have a firm basis, they can take action and solve the problem for us.
(But its not being satisfied with the first (or second, or subsequent) explanation that comes to mind is what makes us sapiens)
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".
“Climate change from human generated CO2 is “settled science”.”
You ARE kidding right? You should put a sarc warning on a message like this....
“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?
adaptation of a kind, yes.
My golden retreiver is testimony of that.
“evolving” from lower life forms, not one laughable bit.
Not one piece of evidence for it and is in complete disagreement with Scripture.
you agree?
Ok, well first of all what you seem to be saying here is that you believe there are "transition fossils". If you do say this, do you think Ken Ham agrees?
Secondly, and perhaps more important, what you describe/ask for above is perfectly reasonable, however it doesn't question the theory that "evolution" has occured, it merely questions *how* this evolution occured, which is of course a hot topic of debate among scientists.
Some believe in a gradual, linear evolution, others believe in some sort of "punctuated evolution" where it flatlines for a while, but then over a relatively short period of time, there are tremendous spurts of evolution.
The scenario you describe above, and really the fossil record (IMO) seems to support the latter.
However, again, this doesn't question evolution itself, rather only what form it took.
As for this fossil, it appears to share many (skeletal) traits with all known primates today, that is, there are certain traits that are used, taxonomically to classify an organism, and this one seems to share traits in common with primates. Whether or not this represents a punctuated evolutionary step or a gradual one will, I'm sure, be debated, but this debate in no way impugns evolution itself.
I still maintain the quote by Mr. Ham shows a certain refusal to accept this as a transition, punctuated or gradual. Which is (at least probably) what he and others who reject evolution always demand. Or at least that's what I've always heard demanded.
Maybe they have changed their tune and now accept transition fossils; but that most certainly would be "goalpost shifting".
to give the foolish someone to claim as “family” and to give me something to laugh about.
have a better theory?
I have no idea what you are asking me. Did you read my post to you carefully, with an open mind?
“I have no idea what you are asking me. Did you read my post to you carefully, with an open mind?”
Do you need to clarify that I understand, or that I have an open mind, in order to evaluate my cognitive abilities or to suggest I may have neither?
I don’t know - does an “open mind” include the possibility that a fossil MIGHT mean something that substantively changes another theory?
What don’t you understand about what I wrote?
It’s “kind of” evidence to support a theory that can’t be supported without what this MIGHT be? Pretty clear, if you have an open mind about what MIGHT have been proven by this discovery...or what might NOT have been proven.
If one can accept climate change as “settled science” in the face of an alomost equal number of opponents, one can accept this as “proof” that another theory no longer holds water in the face of an almost equal number of people that have doubts.
Actually, in this particular case, I am reminded of the Cold Fusion discovery of a few years ago...
An open mind wouldn't be saying something that wasn't said.
I never said anything about "might mean something that substatively changes another theory". I said that this DIRECTLY challenges the "requirement" of transition fossils.
It's clear it's a transition fossil. But Mr. Ham blithely, and ham-handedly (no pun intended) rejects this as just another fossil that is not worth "getting excited about" with the comment I quoted.
If Mr. Ham truly wanted to see a transition fossil, then he *should* "get excited" about this fossil. That's my point. It should be clear.
Why are there still monkeys?
And I’m not sure,would nature allow “cross species” to occur naturally?
I never said anything about “might mean something that substatively changes another theory”. I said that this DIRECTLY challenges the “requirement” of transition fossils.
“challenges” is a funny word. I could “challenge” a SEAL platoon to a gunfight...this is NOT being treated as a challenge...and the “transition” from what to what is about as clear as mud...
“Not one piece of evidence for it...”
There’s plenty, but you won’t find it at the creation rationalization sites.
“...is in complete disagreement with Scripture.”
As scripture is not literally inerrant, that’s not a problem.
Faith and science coexist peacefully, unless one’s faith is weak. Don’t you agree?
No, I simply believe that a certain ensemble of species was a product of direct and separate acts of creation, just like similar but separately created models of cars exist, or similar but distinct paintings are produced by a given artist. Some of these creatures went to extinction and others still are around; some have a vary wide spectrum of features inside the species, like dogs. I think that is the most natural interpretation of fossil evidence, and living creature biology. If you show me three species, A, B, and C and A is similar to B and B is similar to C, calling B "transitional" because it is in the middle of the other two doesn't prove that a transition had occurred.
others believe in some sort of "punctuated evolution" where it flatlines for a while, but then over a relatively short period of time, there are tremendous spurts of evolution.
This sounds to me like Ptolemy's secondary epicycles: a complication of the disproven hypothesis which is itself hypothetical. The evidence simply points to distinct species and not to any kind of evolution, constant or bursty.
All right, you know what, you're right. The word "challenges" was a poor choice of words on my part. My mistake!
What I SHOULD have said was, "I said that this DIRECTLY ANSWERS the long-standing question anti-evolutionists always throw out, 'Where are the transition fossils'?"
Now I suppose we could debate whether or not this truly is a "transition fossil" until Christ returns. I'm not interested in that. In fact, it's why I mostly avoid these "crevo" threads. To be quite blunt, the science debated here is mostly shoddy, incomplete, and cherry picked. The so called "Creation Institute" is a perfect example of such work.
My only purpose for posting here now was to show the hypocrisy of Mr. Ham. I think I've done that pretty well.
If you care to debate the merits of this fossil, that is, whether or not it truly does represent a "transition", then the last word is yours for reasons stated above.
“What I SHOULD have said was, “I said that this DIRECTLY ANSWERS the long-standing question anti-evolutionists always throw out, ‘Where are the transition fossils’? Now I suppose we could debate whether or not this truly is a “transition fossil” until Christ returns. I’m not interested in that.”
Not interested in the salient point? OK.
“To be quite blunt, the science debated here is mostly shoddy, incomplete, and cherry picked. The so called “Creation Institute” is a perfect example of such work.”
I agree...shoddy on both sides, I maintain, this exciting new find...as the Cold Fusion discovery and Global Warming (now known as “Climate Change”) have proven to be...I’ll go away now. Thanks.
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.