Hmmm. He is wearing blue.
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
Yup, here's another shameless lie by Patrick Henry. Right after I prove you to be shamelessly lying about me , you repeat the lie.
Yup, that seems to be the case with the evolutionist here. They keep losing and they keep claiming they won before. They cannot refute problems disproving evolution, but they claim their theory is scientifically true. Here are some of the total refutations of evolution which you and your fellow evolutionists continue to ignore:
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.
It's more likely due to the increase in laws of which to run afoul. Many people are locked up for things which were legal only a couple of generations ago.
Don't be silly. Think of the porn industry, which is now basically mainstream; think of the abortion industry; and consider that only a few states now have sodomy laws. All these things were very much illegal a couple of generations ago.
And I'm presuming you mean after prohibition.
If you're referring to drug laws, they are much less draconian today than in the 1960s.
Most of the people in jail nowadays are there for drug-related offenses. But I also meant gun laws, property-use laws (try building a house on your own property today without first jumping through bureaucratic hoops -- the founding fathers would be up in arms), and various and sundry "zero-tolerance" prohibitions.
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal(For those having trouble following this, the dishonest poster here would be G3K.Posted by Gumlegs to RightWingNilla On News/Activism Jul 24 12:44 PM #1,321 of 1,457
Reading a Gore3000 post is like watching a once great act. Once it was a constant source of surprise. But all acts, if they remain unchanged too long, get old and predictable. For instance, here's his post 1271 to this thread:
G3K: Your quote does not prove the expression of the new genes.I left in the last sentence to show that there wasn't some other point Gore was trying to make. Now, we'll leave aside Gore's inability to recognize that there is uncertainty in science. We will, however, point out Gore's twisting of the writer's use of the word "could." The question the writer posed was not "Could genes evolve" but rather, "How many genes could evolve ...," an entirely different question. Here is one more sentence of what he was quote-mining:Notice the word COULD in what you posted. It is you who is being completely dishonest.
How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ?
The article in no way shows that these genes were mutants and became expressed through evolution.
How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ? The answers to several of those questions are now known.So the author RightWingNilla quoted even has some answers, although as he admits -- honestly -- not all. There's no dishonesty there at all! But SOMEONE on this thread dishonestly posted only a partial quote, twisted its meaning, and then called another poster dishonest!1264 posted on 7/23/02 8:43 PM Eastern by RightWingNilla
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal Posted by Gumlegs to gore3000 On News/Activism Jul 23 11:54 AM #1,215 of 1,457All of the above flows from the post reproduced below, which explains all the questions:ME: The existence of God is outside the realm of science, and therefore irrelevant.
G3K: No it is not irrelevant.
Science looks for natural causes. God is supernatural. How many times has this been explained to you? Oh, wait! I forgot you can't count to two.
G3K: And in fact, your statement is an admission that evolution can never be proven -
How does this differ from any other scientific theory? Repeated posting that science never "proves" anything, except in a negative sense, just don't seem to make any impression on you. This is why we keep telling you that a scientific theory must be capable of disproof. You've never appeared to grasp this, either, yet it's essential to an understanding of science. You don't have to believe FR posters on this, by the way. Any scientific website or entry-level science book will tell you the same thing.
G3K: science cannot deny God and so long as you atheists cannot prove that God does not exist you must always deal with the question 'what is evolution or was it God'.
This is too profoundly incoherent for my poor powers of divination. I'll try and take this bit by bit. Science neither denies God nor wants to. Science does not deal with God. God is supernatural, remember? Science deals with the natural. So if this has any meaning whatever, it is nothing more than a false dichotomy.
You keep demanding that religion should somehow control what science does, but you've never answered a question I've asked repeatedly, "Which religion(s) should control science in the United States[? In] Italy[? In] India[? In] China?"
I object again to the characterization of all who accept the theory of evolution as atheists. I object to the characterization of all posters to this forum who accept the theory of evolution as atheists. You can set yourself up as the arbiter of who or who isn't an atheist or a Christian, or an adherent of some other religion you'll accept, but you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone else to pay any attention to you. Especially after the behavior you've displayed on these threads.
"What is evolution or was it God" as a question is right up there with "What color is the font or was the my elbow sneezing at the rumination?"
G3K: However, myself and the anti-evolutionists here are not saying that 'God did it' therefore evolution is false. We are dealing with what science can deal with, with evidence. And guess what, you are losing, losing badly and that is why you are trying to dismiss alternatives with rhetorical nonsense.
Regarding "anti-evolutionists," you are painting with too broad a brush. There are many here who do say "God did it and therefore evolution is false," and are at least honest about it. These are the ones who post bits of the Bible in an attempt to convince others that evolution couldn't have happened.
There are others here who say "God did it, and evolution was the means He chose." Many other posters appear to hold this position. This would also appear to be the Pope's position, although the Pope was careful to distinguish between man and animals. I realize you've already quote-mined the Pope's statement on the matter, but your wishful thinking notwithstanding, the Pope has stated clearly that belief in evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. It's easy to check what's being taught [in] Catholic schools, by the way.
Then there are those who appear to never admit the most obvious mistakes, can't form a coherent paragraph, frame an argument, or recognize any evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how the world works. Hint: Who complains that evolutionists are always changing their story? That's another thing science does that you refuse to recognize. It changes theories to fit the facts.
Your assertions regarding science and how it works are meaningless until you've grasped what science is.
Creationists Gather...Dinosaurs Subject of Discussion Posted by Gumlegs to gore3000 On Religion Jul 22 9:02 PM #331 of 582
No you were not.
Mind reading again?
1. Filibuster the thread and fill it with nonsense pictures so that people will not see the evidence presented by the opponents of evolution against your stupid theory.
No, Gore, it's counter-argument. You don't like it (my mind reading act), because you can't counter it. .
It's not my theory. It's the best scientific theory we have. If and when a better one comes along, the theory of evolution will be abandoned. Will you then whine that science can't make up its mind?
2. Confuse the issue. As the Bible says - you shall know them by their deeds. The words of the Nazis are meaninglessm just as the words of Clinton and his gang were meaningless. The words of a liar are always meaningless. The actions of the Nazis however are indeed evidence. There is nothing in Christianity to justify the mass murders of Nazism, nothing at all. All humans are children of God in Christianity - no distinctions. There is nothing in Christianity about killing the sick and the lame. On the other hand there is plenty in the degenerate Darwin supporting such views:
Congratulations on confusing the issue. As I posted earlier to Medved, a logical fallacy with a Biblical citation is no more impressive than a logical fallacy without one. All the deeds you ascribe to Darwin's theory were perpetrated by others who merely used his theory as a cloak. They did this much in the same fashion that many have used Christianity as a cloak. Remember "Gott Mit Uns"? Same thing. Remember all the posts about the Inquisition? Same thing. People who will commit evil acts will grab any convenient cover.
We disagree about whether or not the words of a liar have meaning. I believe they do. Perhaps not what the liar intended, but meaning, nonetheless.
Have you learned to count to two?
Have you learned that A + B does not equal 2A when A does not equal B?
Are you aware that a circle is a form of ellipse, exactly as a square is a form of rectangle?
Have you figured out that Malthus being wrong about the food supply increasing arithmetically while the population increases exponentially has nothing to do with the survival of the fittest in the sense that the phrase is used in the theory of evolution?
In short, have you confronted your own mendacity ... using your own definition?
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal Posted by Gumlegs to gore3000On News/Activism Jul 19 10:55 AM #1,021 of 1,457
I've been meaning to ask you if you'd gotten around to answering a few questions I posted here. Since you don't do links, I repost them below:
Learned to count to two yet? This is an attempt to get you to explain why you refuse to admit you are wrong about PatrickHenry's being suspended more than once.
Are you aware that A + B does not equal 2A when A does not equal B?
This is an attempt to get you to realize that one suspension of PatrickHenry, plus one suspension of VadeRetro does not equal two suspensions of PatrickHenry.
Have you decided which religion will control scientific inquiry?
You like to mock Darwin because the theory isn't "spiritual," remember? Just like astrophysics, gravity, and quantum mechanics aren't spiritual. You've ignored this question ever since: Which religion will control science, and will science then vary from country to country, according to which religion is running things?
Are you still doing your mind-reading act? In the space of one paragraph, you managed to accuse me of "putting words into Darwin's mouth," and to reveal that you actually know what Darwin was thinking when he wrote his theory. I'll ask another question again: I'm thinking of a number from one to ten -- what is it?
You have repeatedly ignored these points -- are you a dishonest LIAR??? We can now add a couple of further questions to the above list:
Have you figured out that a circle is a type of ellipse? (Hint: Circle is to ellipse as square is to rectangle).
Do you realize that the Malthus has been demonstrated to be wrong only in that he predicted that the human population would increase exponentially and the food supply [arithmetically]? No one on earth, with the possible exception of you, believes there is no "struggle for existence" anywhere at any time for any species.
Have any answers yet?
Of course. What else can he do but resort to such tactics, since none of the actual data from the real world support any of his arguments?
I suppose some of these blue smokescreens may actually throw one or two people off.
It doesn’t matter if you posted them a hundred times. Your answers are nonsensical crapola.
Hall’s studies are crystal clear examples of spontaneous beneficial mutations. This is very basic microbiology.
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.
They only assayed enzyme kinetics on a panel of substrates. The "natural" substrate for EbgA is unknown.
There is nothing here saying decreased viability under normal conditions. They almost certainly never tested such a thing. It would be completely outside the scope of these studies (screening for novel, beneficial mutations).
Hmmm. He is wearing blue.
It must be connected to a hot air pump....
You'll find that there are only one or two evos that can actually debate at G3K's level. The rest just toss insults and slander those who dare question their belief. Heck, even the one or two that understand science well enough to attempt to refute Gore's posts try to get the evo sheeple worked-up and frothing at the mouth, rather than arguing the subject at hand. Furthermore, they are completely closed-minded when the possibility of intelligent design comes up, yet they put all their 'chips' on evolution - which remains unproven and a 'theory'.
Stick around a little bit longer - you'll come to realize who is spewing trash and who is making sense.
MM
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.