Other "Missing Links"
"Missing Links" are vital to the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself admitted that without the existence of "missing links" his theory would be proven false. Let's take a look at some of those missing links.
Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish. After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish. All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface.
Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics. And besides, it has modern flight feathers and hollow bones, evidence of a true bird.
The "horse series" is probably one of the worst attempts to prove evolution. Ribs woulod magicaly disappear and reappear and is based on a rabbit. Talk about desperation.
Now, to the Hominid Fossils.
Piltdown Man was discovered in a gravel pit not far from Piltdown, England. It was found with crude tools, and bones belonging to humans and apes. But, what was overlooked was the obvious file markings and chemical residue, making the jaw and other bones look ancient and sub-human.
Nebraska Man was constructed from a single tooth, later discovered to belong to an extinct pig.
Ramapithecus was constructed from a heavy jawbone, some teeth, and skull fragments, and was speculated to have walked upright, though a hipbone was never found. But, a full skeleton of Ramapithecus was found, and it resembles modern orangutans.
Ausralopithecus was supposed to be the first in the line of human descent. It was a small ape skull, and regarded as unmistakable evidence, until an adult Australopithecus was found, and declared an extinct ape by evolutionists
Homo habilis was argued to be classified as a type of australopithecine. Later skeletons of homo habilus discovered would reveal though that it was not humanlike at all. And any evidence of H. habilus that would suggest it is human is because human bones were mixed by "scientists" with ape bones.
Homo erectus, known as "Java Man" and "Peking Man", discovered by Eugene Bubois, was considered a link. Heavy brow ridges and femur bones, similar to modern humans, was considered to be proof of the evolution of man. But, Dubois exaggerated the skull, and failed to report that he found a complete human skeleton in the same strata.
Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person. And some tools that have been unearthed reveal that they may have been smarter than humans of today. That sounds like a regression, and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse. In any event, they were later clasified as true humans.
Cro-magnon man, like "Neanderthal man" was a more powerful and had superior intelligence. They just lived in caves and hunted bison, like some of the Indians (or, to be politicaly correct Native Americans) do. Even evolutionists classify them as modern humans.
The impossibility of transition
In order for evolution to take place, the creature has to be fully functional while undergoing the change. Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?
Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person. And some tools that have been unearthed reveal That sounds like a regression, and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse.
The TOE makes no prediction as to whether a new species will be "better" or "worse." Neanderthals were a cold-weather adaptation of Homo Sapiens. Though there is a lot of debate whether they were smarter, better tool-makers or whatever, they seemed to lack the cognitive ability or desire to do much more than thrive in their limited environments. That is to say, Neanderthals were very good specialists, but they didn't seem to be very good generalists. As climate changed, their cold-weather adaptations became less important and Homo Sapiens' ability to do well in all environments became an advantage.
In any event, they were later clasified as true humans.
Not true. There is an ongoing debate as to how closely related Neanderthals are to Homo Sapiens. The current view seems to be that they qualify as a subspecies, rather than a completely different species. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, they were a dead end. There is some evidence that at least certain Neanderthal DNA survives on in Homo Sapiens of European descent.
>> Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish. After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish. All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface. <<
The Coelacanth is an example of a fish which has developped certain features which would make the transition from water to land possible. It was not asserted that the Coelacanth was the actual ancestor. In fact, there are many fish that exhibit certain stages in the progression from water to land, but which are still not asserted to be ancestors of amphibians: mudskippers, catfish, etc. The reason the coelacanth is famous was simply because of its amazing discovery. For whatever reason, in the 200 million years since it evolved, the Coelacanth has found the deep waters more hospitable. The presence of features which no longer serve their original purpose is not an embarassment to evolutionary theory at all. Humans are found with many such features, such as unused Caeci in the colon, wisdom teeth, a coccyx, etc.
I believed that God used evolution as the means by which He created the Earth. Why else would he create a deep-water fish with an anatomy plainly better suited for shallow water?
Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics. And besides, it has modern flight feathers and hollow bones, evidence of a true bird.
>> Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics.<<
Yes, they are called "vestigial traits." And the fact that they still emerge is a strong argument for evolution.
Piltdown man was a hoax. Scientists who are firm believers in evolution figured out the hoax.
Ramapithecus did turn out to be not an ancestor of man, but did establish that there were was diversity in the ape-man tree.
It is still held that humans descended from the Australopithecus genus. I'm not sure what you mean to say when you assert that Australopithecus turned out to be an exinct ape. That is an ape was taken for granted when the Austrolopithecus species was given a distinct genus, instead of being made a species of genus Homo. And of course it's extinct!
>>Later skeletons of homo habilus discovered would reveal though that it was not humanlike at all. <<
That's a fantastic and subjective claim. It certainly was far more like a human that it is like any living ape.
>>And any evidence of H. habilus that would suggest it is human<<
Human, as opposed to, what? An extinct ape-man?
>> Homo erectus, known as "Java Man" and "Peking Man", discovered by Eugene Bubois, was considered a link. <<
Homo Erecti have been found by several people. Java Man and Peking Man refer to two separate discoveries of separate skeletons.
>>But, Dubois exaggerated the skull, <<
???
>>and failed to report that he found a complete human skeleton in the same strata. <<
Suggesting what? That H. Sapiens and H. Erecti lived within the same couple hundred-thousands years of each other? Of course they did.
>> Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person.<<
Yes, Neanderthal Man was quickly classified as H. Sapiens. There were initially a few references to H. Sapiens Neanderthalis, suggesting a subspecies, but it was argued sucessfully that there was no need to make a distinction, even though modern man may have evolved slightly since Neanderthal Man. (He *was* found in France, after all.)
>>And some tools that have been unearthed reveal that they may have been smarter than humans of today. <<
What, a Pentium VI? A Honda that gets 85 MPG?
>>That sounds like a regression, and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse.<<
Well, that just goes to show how ignorant you are then, doesn't it? Darwin quickly scrapped the term "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." In his second book, he called it "sexual selection." It's just that his first book was the one that became so famous, so its title stuck. Being more intelligent is your value; evolution has no values.
Plainly, brightly colored cardinals are easier for predators to spot, but to a female cardinal, the male's brightness signifies that he is virile, capable of defending himself, and, well, bodacious. So cardinals bearing those traits get laid more often. (Moderator, we're talking about birds.)
I'm not buying entirely the premise that there were more intelligent subspecies of man which disappeared, but ask yourself who reproduces more, physicists or professional athletes?
>>Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?<<
Umm, bats can use their paws for grasping. The exaggerated size of their wings make running difficult, but intermediately-sized wings can still help glide. Look at flying squirrels, or even some species of toe-gliding lizards!
The feather was a quandry for evolutionary biologists, since they are too complex to evolve with a short-term mutation, and primitive feathers are useless for flight. Then it was found that ancient bird-reptiles were warm-blooded and had "pin" feathers only. Eureka! Feathers were evolved first for body heat conservation. Only after bird-reptiles took to flight did nature find that certain shaped feathers functionned as micropropellers.
Other examples of intermediate functions include Bones developping as Calcium resvoirs. This is most excellent, because by their very nature, we can examine the evolution of bones quite easily. From skin secretions, to neural sheaths, to protective coverings, to support structures, to locomotion, the evolution of bones is plainly in the fossil record. So sequential and self evident that no 7-day creationists would even think to ask why would bones evolve underwater.
If I may speculate on the Coelocanth for a moment:
Mudskippers, lungfish and catfish have evolved certain talents for extracting usable oxygen from their environment, since the edgewaters they inhabit are often very oxygen-poor.
The ability of a fish to cross land is essential if its shoreline habitat has a pattern of becoming inhospitable, so such fish often have fleshy fins to help them scoot short distances across land.
They also must be able to gulp air, or make due in very oxygen-poor environments.
It is hardly surprising, then, that a shoreline fish species might have two very different descendants: One group might continue to become progessively better and better adapted for life on land, eventually monopolizing the shoreline environment. The other, finding itself less suited for what is now becoming hotly contested real estate might disappear to the other watery environment wherein his knack for efficiently using oxygen would come in handy: the deep ocean, where oxygen is very scant.
This is speculation on my part. I don't know that whatever trick the coelocanth uses to extract extra oxygen is applicable on the shoreline.
"Bats aren't rodents, Dr. Meridian."
Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish.
No, not actually. The lobe fins are generally thought to be a sister group to the first amphibians, not necessarily in the direct line of descent. A whole series of intermediates that are MUCH closer to that line have been found, and it is essentially arbitrary where you draw the line between "fish" and "amphibian".
After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish.
No "speculation" involved. The deposits in which ancient lobe-fins have been found clearly attest to their residence in shallow water. There is nothing inconsistent in the fact that, while most lobe-fins were shallow water species, the one isolated species that happened to survive lives only in deep water.
Indeed if the living Coelacanth were a shallow water species one could argue that this would be more problematic. Then you would have to explain why lobe-fins, which were once a very common fish represented by multiple families and many genera and species, had been reduced in their preferred environment to only one or two species, but had nevertheless persisted at that precarious level of diversity for many eons. The survival of the order in a very different environment (and one poorly represented in the fossil record) is less puzzling.
All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface.
Again, it is still uncontested that most (nearly all, I believe) fossil lobe-fins are shallow water species.