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
Let me ask you a question. As you read these threads, have you ever seen any of Gore3000's posts proven wrong in any way?
It indicates nothing of the sort. LBB has proven time and again to be incapable of civil discourse. As for the ganging up part, most of us don't even post to him any more, and those that do, such as RightWingNilla, make very cogent points that LBB is ignorant of even the most basic biological knowledge.
Sacrilicious marker.
If I had to guess, I think God would be okay with you finding that kind of funny ;)
Maybe. It's hard to say. Evolution itself can be interpreted in so many ways. How exactly do we define it? I have a feeling many times the proponents of both sides get sidetracked and confused because of the many ways terms are defined by different people (i.e., comparing apples and oranges). Because of the complexity of the issues at hand, many times I take it all in and make personal decisions as to what I believe based upon both sides.
I believe that adaptation and evolution are two different things, as an example. However, many evolutionists believe that adaptation IS evolution, which is incorrect.
Soooo...are you digging here? Did I answer your question in a roundabout way?
How 'bout:
1) Organisms change over time.
2) All organisms share a common ancestor.
The only arguments in biology right now are over the mechanism(s) of evolution, not the reality.
Indirectly.
I've never seen him admit to even the slightest typo, misquote, or flub, let alone any factual error. I just wondered whether you had assessed RightWingNilla's (or VadeRetro's or Patrick Henry's, etc.) posts and his responses yourself and agreed with him every time, or whether, without regard of the facts in evidence or his personal approach to the debate, you were just cheering him on because he's on your "side".
Perhaps it was just a silly question.
I just wondered if you saw it that much different than it appears to most of us. Thanks for playing.
Actually, the idea of having to thank you for your civil replies takes me slightly aback. Perhaps it's an illustration of the current level of discourse on these threads.
They aren't so much holding up as G3K is holding them up in spite of everything and anything. You can do that on the Internet. You just have to be Stone Deaf.
To the examples given already I could add several of my own, but you could have noticed them yourself as long as you've been around. You must be wearing very special rose-colored glasses.
So why the attacks? Debating someone who keeps using easy-to-refute data is the easiest thing in the world. Quietly point out the errors and you end up looking smart and he ends up looking foolish.
Going off topic by calling names and debating semantics, is an indication of an inability to conclusively refute the point in question.
If the data can't be conclusively refuted, just agree to disagree.
I can. It's Holy Warrior Syndrome. The people with whom the Holy Warrior argues are a Satanic Evil Enemy. They must be shown no quarter. Further, any appearance of making a mistake before them is grounds for cognitive dissonance, a troubling anomaly. "HE wouldn't let me be embarrassed before them. There must be a way that this isn't happening."
The way it works out, no error no matter how trivial is ever admitted. Distractions are made. Misunderstandings are pretended. If all else fails, the Holy Warrior falls into glum silence.
Gore3000, Holy Warrior:
Here, I can't get an answer on an obvious goof by gore. (And I never did.)Gore's reptilianly hissy answer. (Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! He calls her dishonest.)
Assuming you like posting the same refutations over and over and over and over as often as Joe Robot likes posting his dumb-dumbisms. See also "medved."
Bravo! It's refreshing to see people say that, isn't it?
Another thing that needs to be said: please don't assume that there is some 'evil' conspiracy out there trying to derail any good science. People have their beliefs, interests, and passions that they bring to the table -- along with some data (recommended) -- and present it the best they can. Those of us less educated in the sciences form opinions and the game goes on. Acting like a "howler"
is detrimental to the flow of communication and the sharing of ideas.
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.