Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Printer-friendly format July 26, 2002, 6:11PM
A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest By JEFF FARMER
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
Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest."
From what I gather, Schroeder is telling us there is much more to those biblical passages. He views the scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth as perfectly valid. Genesis (“6000 years”) cannot be interpreted in a strict literal sense.
This isn’t the "typical" YEC view correct?
To put it another way, I don’t think the folks at ICR and AiG wouldn’t accept Schroeder’s point of view.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way before.
But then again I am not too familiar with catastrophism.
No...I value life because even if there is other life in the Universe, we here on planet Earth are the only family we really have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---
That should be...would accept...
Now if only every one felt that way. :-)
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.
Now, who says it's wrong to be unmerciful. Who says you're supposed to love your enemies, anyway?
Well, at least Paul felt that we should be gracious to our enemies (Romans 12:20). BTW, the reference to heaping "burning coals on his head" is often mistaken for allowing your enemy to feel guilty or something similar. Actually, the reference implies giving your enemy the means to cook food and keep warm.
Not necessarily It's precisely because we grew up that way that it's difficult to imagine any other perspective. But consider the classical Greeks and Romans, with their pagan gods. Surely they valued their lives. As did people in other traditions before them. I think it's inherent in our being alive that we value our lives, unless we're involved in some kind of death-cult which teaches something contrary. So it's quite understandable to me that an atheist would consider his life as valuable to him as your life is to you. Maybe even more valuable, because of its brevity.
Now that I think about it, a tradition that teaches an eternal afterlife -- one which is vastly better than this life -- sometimes encourages martyrdom. Islam certainly does. The early Christians seemed to be proud of their martyrs. Is it not said that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church"? I'm not aware of any atheist analog to martyrdom, unless it's just plain old going off to war for one's country, which is something that most religious people engage in, and atheists too, but that's not really martyrdom. One might argue that atheism places a higher value on life, because of its absence of the impulse for martyrdom. I haven't thought this through, so consider it a rough draft of an idea.
But let me qualify this a bit: I consider all life to be precious, but there are some people I'd rather were somewhere else.
Understood. Each person's life is precious to him, and we agree that all equally are entitled to their lives; but none of us thinks that everyone is of equal value.
So, Paul said we should love our enemies. Anybody else?
heaping "burning coals on his head" is often mistaken for allowing your enemy to feel guilty or something similar. Actually, the reference implies giving your enemy the means to cook food and keep warm.
I'm not inclined to agree with either interpretation. I think the verse presume you're enemy is in the wrong and that by returning malice with kindness you will either "convict" your enemy, cause a change of heart and make a friend; or return vengence to God's judgement where it belongs.
Regardless you are doing right by being kind.
Well, yes, but they didn't value anybody else's, emotional connections aside.
Sure, think of Lenin's tomb and those deceases heroes of socialism bestowed with praise by the Soviets.
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.