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

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.

Start by thinking of those avowedly atheist institutions -- a few have obtained power --and consider their attitude towards human life.

Start by thinking of those avowedly atheist institutions -- a few have obtained power --and consider their attitude towards human life.

The only such I know of are socialists and communists. And we know about them. Other atheist nations? I don't know of any, so the commies are, perhaps, giving us a biased sample to use for making judgments.

So, Paul said we should love our enemies.

No, Paul did not say this. My interpretation of the passage is that we should seek to do good to them.

I meet many people all day in my work. I try to be kind to each person, but I do not "love" them all except as terrestrial kindred. I reserve "love" for a very, very select few.

I don't know of any, so the commies are, perhaps, giving us a biased sample to use for making judgments.

There hasn't been that many. Revolutionary France had a strong anti-Christian stain which was a sort of cross between goddess worship and quasi-atheism. The Paris Commune also featured a sort of atheism.

Regardless nations which tilted towards atheism were unpleasant places. As I said earlier, just consider how lame a concept "we are endowed by accident with certain unalienable rights" sounds.

OK, Paul didn't specifically say we should love our enemies. He said we should be kind to them.

Can you think of anybody who said we should love -- which in this case means wish them well, show them mercy, provide them kindess, treat them as we would like ourselves to be treated etc. -- them? Do yo need a clue?

OK, it's kind of tough to find atheist martyrs. I did a search for martys, communist and what I found was mostly sites dedicated to Christians murdered by communist.

But I did find this: Martyrs Day So I guess there are atheist martyrs, although these marytrs were martyred by Soviet Communists -- apparently apostate -- and Moslem fundamentalists.

Thank you so much for your post!

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.

Indeed! Schroeder and I see it pretty much the same way. The time since Adam is roughly 6000 years, and the days before Adam are from God's perspective - which is roughly 15.75 billion years from our perspective.

My "take" is from a Christian point of view and also uses New Testament Scriptures to examine Genesis --- and thus we differ just a tad on the details. Mine is explained here: Freeper Views on Origins

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.

Indeed! The way Schroeder (and I) view creation is not in conflict with science.

Regardless nations which tilted towards atheism were unpleasant places.

Most nations, throughout all of history, were unpleasant places. Let's not forget that the American Revolution really did change the world, and made our lives far more pleasant than they would have been otherwise. I submit that it's our revolution, with its principles of equal rights under the law, that has had as much impact on this "valuing life" issue as anything else in history.

And back to my earlier statement that the Greeks and Romans valued their lives, although they weren't Christian, you replied, in 1059, " Well, yes, but they didn't value anybody else's ..." Come now, do you really imagine that Christian nations behave differently? Consider the glory of imperial Spain, from the time of Colombus to the revolutions that swept South America in the early 1800s. For 3 centuries they ruled most of this hemisphere, and God alone knows how many people they slaughtered. I'm not mentioning this to condemn Christianity, but to point out that "valuing life" is not unique to Christians, and de-valuing life is not unique to non-Christians.

As I said earlier, just consider how lame a concept "we are endowed by accident with certain unalienable rights" sounds.

That is lame, as are most strawman-style arguments. What in the world has this to do with anything? I pointed out the valuing life is not unique to Christians, and that even an atheist values his life. I still think this is true.

Well, yes, but they didn't value anybody else's, emotional connections aside.

Right. All past armies were composed of long-time friends, all cities were founded by family groups, and all past societies were built by constraining people solely through coercion. Uh-uh, yeah, I can see how that happened.

Here's some perpespective on Roman respect for life vis -a-vis our traditional Judeo Christian one.

Twelve Tables
Table IV.
1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
2. If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.

On dad finding daughter with boyfriend

48.5.24 (Ulpian, On Adultery, book 1) (pr.) What the law says, that is, 'if he finds the adulterer in his daughter,' does not seem to be superfluous; for it signifies that the father shall have this power only if he surprises his daughter in the very act of adultery. Labeo also adopts this opinion; and Pomponius [23] says that the man is killed when caught in the very performance of the sexual act. This is what Solon and Dracho mean by "in the act" (en ergôi).
(1) It is sufficient for the father for his daughter to be subject to his power at the time when he kills her, although she may not have been at the time when he gave her in marriage; for suppose that she had afterwards come under his power.

Twelve Tables

Interesting stuff, but way off point. Both of us can dig into the history and laws of other societies and come up with things we find that are good, and things that are repugnant. We can find good and bad people and laws within Christendom, and outside it. (But I'm certainly not saying that all cultures are equally good.) As good as we are now, we still have a load of idiotic and destructive laws right here in the US. But the original point, and the only one that brought me into this mini-thread, was whether the atheist could have a love of his own life, and the lives of others. I never claimed that all atheists are wonderful people; we are well aware of some ghastly examples to the contrary. I just think that what Piltdown_Woman said seems sensible to me -- and I don't think that atheism is automatically an anti-life system of thought. I think I made my point, and we probably agree on it. We also agree that our own society is superior to any other, so we can both be happy with our conclusions.

But the original point, and the only one that brought me into this mini-thread, was whether the atheist could have a love of his own life, and the lives of others.

And I'm not disagreeing with you or Piltdown. My point is that culture has a huge influence on attitudes. Our culture is Christian -- although much regression has been occurred during the last 40 years to make it more Roman.

You have people in this country who might declare themselves atheist because of a particulary bad experience with a church -- which I don't think is infrequent. But they still accept the values of a Christian society.

On the other hand if we institutionalize atheism, or paganism or anything expressly anti-JudeoChristian -- which I think is the agenda for some in this country -- you will end up with a hell on earth.

My point is that culture has a huge influence on attitudes. Our culture is Christian -- although much regression has been occurred during the last 40 years to make it more Roman.

Agreed with respect to the influence of culture; but I don't know what you mean about the Roman part. We are now less explicitly Christian, but there was always more to our culture than that -- we've been influenced by the civilizations of Greece and Rome, plus the development of the scientific method, free enterprise, constitutional government, etc.

On the other hand if we institutionalize atheism, or paganism or anything expressly anti-JudeoChristian -- which I think is the agenda for some in this country -- you will end up with a hell on earth.

Not likely to happen. We can't "institutionalize" any sect as long as we have the 1st Amendment.

SECT/CULT ATHEISM---SCHLOCK science!

The founding fathers I believe...

were interested in wealth--character--virtue---

not SCHLOCKOLOGY/ideology(mantras--race/gender/class/PHILOSOPHY rhetoric) ---

hedonism/heresy via SCHLOCKOLOGISTS/quacks/whacks---social engineers(liberals/evolutionists/atheists)!

I'm whacking 'religion'...atheism---LIBERALISM!

SECT/CULT ATHEISM---SCHLOCK esoteric(alien/bizarro) science!

The founding fathers I believe...

were interested in wealth--character--virtue---

not SCHLOCKOLOGY/ideology(mantras--race/gender/class/PHILOSOPHY rhetoric) ---

hedonism/heresy via SCHLOCKOLOGISTS/quacks/whacks---social engineers(liberals/evolutionists/atheists)!

I'm whacking DNC-'religion'...EVOLUTION(mad commic book science)---atheism---LIBERALISM---devilcRATS!

Good News For The Day

‘The truth will set you free.’ (John 8:32)

"God's dismissal in the 19th century, and the humiliation of truth in the 2oth, was supposed to set the world free."

"The experiment has been under way for some time now, and it is fair to ask, what are the... results---so far?"

"The Nazi experience in Germany provides a case study. There, a government and a society were organized on the principle of God's non-existence. Did liberation come to pass? On the wall of one of the death camps there is a plaque. It preserves the language of one of Hitler's speeches. The plaque overlooks large mounds of human hair, piles of personal effects; shoes, spectacles. The plaque reads: "I freed Germany from the degrading fallacy of conscience and morality. We will train people capable of violence-imperious, relentless, cruel. . ."

"Those sentiments were nurtured on the same continent that gave the world the reformation. Which was more liberating? If someone came today and said: "I am the truth," we would not take him seriously. But when Jesus says it, we are tempted to let him get away with it. If he is mad, it is a beautiful madness; such an attractive insanity. Let us not be ashamed to offer Christ to the world."

‘The truth will set you free.’ (John 8:32)

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.