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
I mean we are starting to acquire the Roman attitudes concerning respect for life and caring for the helpless.
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!
I would not put it that way. My main objection to evolution is that it is an atheist ideology designed to drive away good Christians from their faith. My second objection is that it is just plain not true, and I strongly believe in the truth. I am certain that it is not true. I am certain that to many atheists human life can be taken at will without remorse. Otherwise the horrendous crimes of the 20th Century would have been totally impossible. Otherwise we would not see people killing people for a few bucks, to get rid of a witness, to cover their tracks and so on, as we see in many of the horrid crimes which have unfortunately become commonplace.
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.
Well, I had not planned on discussing this as an abortion issue, but it certainly is a big part of the abortion problem. A good Christian would not kill a child due to inconvenience and when one gets down to it that's what more than 90% of abortions are all about. While you may feel strongly against taking a life, I am sure that many who do take a life, as those who have abortions, as those who perform abortions, as those who kill willfully for little or no reason, are mostly atheists. Certainly there is nothing in atheism or in evolution to give anyone a high regard for life. In fact, in evolution, a low regard for life, such as Darwin's talk of eugenics and the destruction of so called inferior races shows.
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.
I have already mentioned that there is a great difference between Christianity and muslims, kindly do not confuse the two. Christianity was spread by love and sacrifice, Islam by blood and plunder. Big difference.
A related question are there any YEC among the Orthodox?
There must be because the 6000 years since the creation was first claimed by Jews. In fact the Jewish calendar counts the years from the Creation and it is now at 6000 some odd.
Only peaceful martyrdom, not murderous martyrdom - big difference. You keep blaming Christians for the actions of muslims who I have shown many times hold a totally unChristian view of life.
Nope. Another large group of atheist nations is to be found in Africa. Look at the savagery and mass murders that have been occurring there on a yearly basis some place or other since de-colonization.
Now you are blaming the Spaniards for purposely infecting the indians? That is really off the wall. However, Christianity was spread not through conquest but peacefully. The thirst for conquest is a human one, not a Christian one and the Christian Church did a lot to better the conditions and to protect the Indians in the Americas.
The mutants are the only survivors in the lactose environment. Only an complete idiot would call this “adaptation for the worse”.
Asked and answered more than once already. You seem to have the dishonest habit of repeating the same stuff that has been refuted a few hundred posts before as if it had been completely ignored. Here's the answer which you are not refuting in any way and are completely ignoring:
To: RightWingNilla
The bacteria survived far BETTER in the new environment. How they survive under previous conditions is irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant. You are claiming this is a favorable mutation, so it must be compared to how the bacteria functioned previously.
BTW - this is similar to the case of the nylon bacteria. -me-
Yes this is evolution. The selection of mutations which give rise to novel traits. You must be a closet Darwinist.
No, this is not evolution, this is adaptation - and adaptation for the worse:
I refer you again to the word COULD in the article. Further, the article did not show anywhere that there was any gene duplication. All it showed was that two DNA base pairs were altered. NO NEW INFORMATION WAS ADDED. In addition (and I am sure you forgot about it) one of the summaries you cited (see post#1213) said the following:
The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme. Post# 1213 .
So what we have here is another example of a mutation which decreased the functioning of the system except in the one specific circumstance, and which did not add any new genetic information to the organism, and does not show, in any way the expression of any new mutated genes.
As it is obvious to anyone, you cannot have evolution without the addition of additional genetic information. A single celled organism has some 600 genes and some one million base pairs of DNA, a human has some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion base pairs of DNA. You cannot get from a bacteria to a man without adding new genetic information and you (and evolutionists) are still unable to show it ever happening. And again I refer everyone to post#1271 where it can be clearly seen why this cannot happen by random means as evolution claims. It would require the co-evolution of an entirely new system to support the expression of the gene as well as an entirely new system of relating the new gene to the rest of the organism, as well as a complete rearrangement and addition to the developmental program of the organism to enable this new gene to work. In other words, utterly impossible.
1301 posted on 7/23/02 9:05 PM Pacific by gore3000
Your example does not show:
1. greater complexity.
2. greater genetic information.
3. the duplication of and expression of a new gene.
4. better functioning under normal conditions.
In short it does not show anything necessary for evolution to be true. What it does show is adaptation to the environment. One last thing, it is even doubtful that this can be called a mutation. The specificity of the change, suggests (but does not prove) that it may have been due to deliberate adaptation by transposons. As I said at the start of this discussion 4 - 2 does not equal 6. You need additional expressed genes for evolution to be true and such has never been shown.
1311 posted on 7/24/02 5:56 AM Pacific by gore3000
932 posted on 8/7/02 6:15 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The tables contain a wealth of statistics on democides and genocides over the years.
The article never claimed any gene duplication occurred. Like everything else you write, you pulled that out of your posterior.
Our whole discussion has been about gene duplication, guess you forgot. Anyways what that means is that there has been nothing added to the genome through this mutation and you need plenty of additions to get from the million or so base pairs of a small single celled organism to the 3 billion or so base pairs of a human. In short, mutations which have not created any DNA, cannot be the source of evolution. You and your fellow evolutionists need to be reminded of that.
It would be nice if you would read the stuff you yourself post (or rather which I posted because you refused to post what was in your links yourself):
These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates.
PMID: 6793063 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] - (in full here )
Of course your problem is that this was an experiment and the lactose is not the normal nutrient for these bacteria. So again under normal circumstances the EBG mutation was deleterious to the functioning of the organism in question.
BTW - this is the 3rd thread I refute this very same nonsense on, don't you have any shame?
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.