A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

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

But since creation happened, the perspective science should be taking is to deduce what is random and what is not. - tribune7-

Something happened. We need to understand more about what.

We understand plenty already, enough to know that abiogenesis is impossible. It is so impossible that atheists are totally unable to show any process by which it could have happened. Not prove it mind you, just not even be able to show how it would be possible let alone it being probable or likely.

And while evolutionists deny that their theory has anything to do with abiogenesis, it certainly does. Darwin thought about postulating it, but he did not dare. He knew it was too unlikely, too wild a thing to say and it would render his theory a complete joke if he tried it. He however knew quite well, as do all evolutionists, that the theory of evolution, a theory which denies that God has had any influence in the development of life on earth even up to and including man's creation, needed abiogenesis, because it needed to get rid of God as a possible agent in the life process. For why else would people deny God's own words in the Bible that he created man, the fish and the rest of the living species if he indeed had been the Creator of life? Why would one say that the Creator of life sat on his hands for 4 billion years allowing chance to rule the world? So yes, abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably intertwined and that is why both are false.

Don't tell me about the poor muslims who made a living for a thousand years out of rape and piracy until an American President sent the Marines to put an end to their destruction on the shores of Tripoli.

Wow! Thanks for the motivating, inspiring, and chilling post. I haven't read anything like that for a long while. Good for you, Gore!

Makes me proud to be a veteran, but even more proud to be human.

Have a good evening!

Everyone please take note of this new gem. It's a classic:

Evolution claims to be science. Scientists and scientific theories have to answer challenges to it. They have to disprove the claims of opponents.
992 posted on 8/8/02 8:22 PM Eastern by gore3000

Now it's up to us to disprove the creation myths of every society on earth. Better get cracking!

Now it's up to us to disprove the creation myths of every society on earth. Better get cracking!

I am not talking creation myths, dishonest one. I am talking scientific facts which have been presented to you:

Post# 858 That the development of an organism from conception to birth is a program.
Post# 958 That birds could not have evolved.
Post# 998 That Darwin was a charlatan.
Post#345 That paleontology cannot even come close to proving descent.
Post #521 That euglena and the platypus refute evolution.
Post# 530 That evolution is scientifically impossible.
Post #634 That genetic evidence shows evolution did not occur.
Post# 683 That genetics shows that the passing of mutations is practically impossible.
Post# 683 That new working genes through mutation are impossible.

Hhhm, seems like a lot of scientific stuff has been presented to you eh? Lots of stuff you have totally ignored. Lots of stuff that has gone totally unrefuted. Lots of stuff that strikes at the heart of the stupid theory of evolution. Lots of stuff which you cannot wave off.

Seems you have been wasting a lot of time with insults, dirty pictures and just plain blather. For that you have time eh?

Scientists and scientific theories have to answer challenges to it. They have to disprove the claims of opponents. [emphasis added to illustrate how far out of touch with reality G3k really is...]

This gem shall now be immortalized along with your other astounding quotes:

"You have yet to prove me wrong on anything."
"No, a circle is not an ellipse...."
"Wildly elliptical" planetary orbits
"1⁷²⁰"

Now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared with what happened in the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, you would not believe it. Suffice to say that, in the Temple and Porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood.

From Raymond d'Aguilers, Historia francorum qui ceprint Jerusalem

Likewise, many of the city's Jews took refuge in the main synagogue. It was burned to the ground, killing all inside. Not everyone was killed – some were made captive and used as labourers to cart the bodies out of the city. Iftikhar ad-Daula and his bodyguard shut themselves in the Tower of David, negotiated a surrender with Raymond of St Giles, and were allowed to go free.

Christian treatment of Jews during the first Crusade.

Wildly elliptical Blue-skipping placemarker 1⁷²⁰
Evolution claims to be science. Scientists and scientific theories have to answer challenges to it. They have to disprove the claims of opponents.
Of course he was a creationist. If he was a Christian he believed in a Creator.
There are no creationists. [but see above]
You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Nobel Prize for creationism.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant .

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

Scientists and scientific theories have to answer challenges to it. They have to disprove the claims of opponents. [emphasis added to illustrate how far out of touch with reality G3k really is...]

Yup, the lamers of evolution refuse to answer scientific questions. We are supposed to believe that evolution 'happened' but never mind how it happened. Well the science of the last 150 years has shown how impossible it is for evolution to have 'happened' and since you folk do not believe in miracles it is really absurd for evolutionists to say that species just transform themselves 'somehow' but it 'happens'.

Popper argued that progress requires a critical structure within which competing theories can be tested. Popper captured his philosophy, called falsificationism or critical rationalism, with the motto "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth." Instead of attempting futilely to verify or justify our theories, Popper claimed we should try to falsify them since we need only a single negative instance to refute a universal theory. Consequently, what matters in rational debate is that different positions are open to criticism, which becomes the engine of progress by removing from consideration false theories, leaving only the provisionally best theories behind. The "best" theories could still not be verified or justified, but since they had not been falsified either, they would be preferable to falsified theories. The rationality of holding a particular position would be granted to the extent to which the theory is open to criticism. This makes possible not only progress but also optimism, which is for Popper a moral duty.
From: Remembering Karl Popper

The attitudes of the evolutionists prove more than anything I can say that:

Evolution is pseudo-science for morons

Evolutionism/Atheism is the religion that says that all men are little more than pond scum, that they have no intrinsic value beyond a mass of proteins and that if they are weak or lame, old or unborn they are totally worthless and may be destroyed as inconveniences.

So your objection to evolution is twofold: you are personally insulted at the thought that life arose from "pond scum", and you are afraid that if this is true, then human life has no worth. Is this a fair representation of your views?

I can't help you with the first issue, but I can tell you that as an atheist, I consider all life to be infinitely precious and worth preserving. I do not believe that abortion should be legal except for very serious health reasons such as the life or mental health (and I don't mean simple depression) of the mother are in danger. I do not believe in euthanasia, but I do believe that terminally ill people should be allowed to choose the time and mechanism of their deaths, if they wish.

I have seen and read about many instances where religion played a huge role in devaluing human life (note recent suicide bombers in the Middle East). Religion in my opinion, devalues life.

but I can tell you that as an atheist, I consider all life to be infinitely precious and worth preserving.

Why?

Answer: because you grew up in a Christian culture and were exposed to Christian values, which you have recognized as good. Or Jewish values. Christian and Jewish values are basically the same albeit the theology is obviously different.

The values of the world can be summed up as social Darwinism.The worth of a life here is not infinite but relative as to how much that life benefits the one in charge. It's an evil philosophy.

I thought the greatest and the only unpardonable sin was blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29). It says so in my Bible.

Amen, sister! Many of the folks that purport to believe the Bible to be literally true have never actually read the book and simply go on what others have to say on the matter. I keep a King James and an NIV at my desk at work and I've got a New Jerusalem on my desk at home.

Religion in my opinion, devalues life.

You may have a point to an extent. Religion in general, and Western religions in particular, see life as a transient situation. Indeed, many Christian sects consider life to be a necessary sojourn in an evilly tainted world (hence the "in the world but not of it" attitude evinced by many). Of course we've seen the Moslem attitude toward life in this world.

If you think about it, to an athiest all there is is this life -- and efforts should be made to prolong the experience, as it were. As humans are a cooperative bunch by nature, and as even chimpanzees understand recipricol arrangements (you scratch my back and I scratch yours), it stands to reason that atheists would aid others in prolonging their existence in return for the same consideration. Hence the argument can be made that atheists could derive their valuation of life from a rational, rather than a religious perspective.

If you think about it, to an athiest all there is is this life -- and efforts should be made to prolong the experience, as it were.

Does anyone know the statistics -- if they exist -- for suicide rates among atheists, as compared to religious people? If it were true that atheism caused life to be devalued, they should be killing themselves at a far greater rate than other people.

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.