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
We do not know how the mutation arose. Therefore we cannot tell how or why it spread to such a large part of a population. We do not know when it started and we also do not know if it is dissappearing or not. What we have are a lot of assumptions and assumptions are not evidence.
Very important point. If one looks at many evolutionist arguments, the only basis they have is that if God does not exist then ...".
An interesting and very good point.
It seems that way. It was ingrained in me -- probably through pop culture more than anything -- that scientists treat things with skepticism. I don't see this happening with evolution. How do we empirically know that a housecat and donkey have a common descendent? I mentioned this to RWN earlier. I'm curious as to his answer.
I don't think they have found any bones which they could even remotely 'use' to link most of the mammal genera (which being the most recent, should be the easiest to find). If one looks at the 'ancestors' in the evolutionary trees, for most species they have 'proto' this or 'archaic' that which means they don't know beans what came before.
Do you see the absurdities in blue being posted to me now? He claimed that most of the species in the fossil record are still around. Can defend, can't retreat: the Holy Warrior is caught out again, dumping buckets of slops over Satanic materialist infidel heads and announcing victory.
Meanwhile, you blandly declare that one might go either way but so far as you can see the preponderance of evidence as presented on these threads is that gore has the facts. Can you explain this in any sort of rational terms?
You: An interesting and very good point.
Explain please! I posted 1208 to you yesterday.
See, this is Creation Science 101. No facts, no logic. Just blithely ignore all refutations and keep pretending that pasture pie is filet mignon.
Can't spell, can't proof. "Can't defend" was meant.
I'm trying to avoid being a lawyer with words -- i.e. allowing "species" a very broad definition -- but most of the classes of plants and animals of which there are fossils exists today.
Go back to your link in post 1208. How many classes are extinct? Are we confident in our taxonomy? Are we going to call something a class today that we were calling a subphylum yesterday?
And what exactly was a trilobite anyway? Maybe it is more closely related to the horseshoe crab than we believe. Taxonomy by fossil is pretty speculative.
A further note, one should avoid being definitive concerning the extinction of marine creatures. Consider the coelacanth.
I suppose a trilobite is an arthropod (but so is a cockroach) and a T. rex is a reptile (but so is a garter snake) and an ammonite is a shellfish because it looks like a nautilus. And a creationist is a scientist because he writes about fossils and stuff. Anything can be sort of anything when it's for the Lord.
You're moving goal-posts past the point where gore's original contention has any significance. Obviously, there are still primitive micro-organisms. There are still primitive multi-cellulars. There are still primitive vertebrates. This chain of increasing complexity in extant creatures suggested evolution to various people even before Darwin.
More importantly, the converse statement (that everything today goes far back in the fossil record) is not true. Go back to the Permian, there are no mammals. There are some reptiles which are trending to look sort of mammalian, but they don't pass muster. In the late Triassic, you have some shrew-like creatures that have the signature mammalian jaw and ear bones. No primates. No humans. No horses. No dogs. No cows. No whales. No bats. No cats or rats or elephants, as sure as you're born.
There is no excuse for gore not to know that "species" is the second-lowest taxon (after only subspecies/variety). His statement is a rather spectacular "refutation" of evolution in the form he made it, but it's a lie. Your modification ("species" means "some kind of taxon, anything from kingdom on down") makes the statement literally defensible but removes any impact it may have on the crevo debate.
And you think he's doing fine. How are you doing?
Actually, that's not more important. Evolution implies a need for extraordinary adaptation. Why wouldn't all organisms have this need to adapt? Why would those which fail, survive?
Go back to the Permian, there are no mammals. There are some reptiles . . .
And you draw the conclusion that the mammals are descended from the reptiles. Something I'm unwilling to do.
How are you doing?
I am fine. How are you, doing?
There is no need to adapt. Changes simply happen and if there is a niche where these changes provide an advantage then the individual is more likely to survive in this new environment.
On doctrinaire religious grounds. The physical evidence is unambiguous. The "mammal-like" reptiles become mammals in a nearly seamless sequence. I've posted those skulls enough times a veteran like you should remember.
And the very same thing, multi-part lower jaw bones drifting off to become ear bones, happens all over again in mammalian embryos. Funny, that.
So why do different species, genus, orders, classes, phylum and kingdoms occupy the same niche?
That's a point of disagreement. I see fossils as ambiguous.
I don't see it. Beside, that would be a lot of coincidences to assume they are random occurrances.
Oh, now fossils generically are ambiguous! Can you explain this better?
Maybe they were planted by God/Satan to confuse us? Getting a little unscientific here, aren't we?
You're too quick to run off when you come out with this kind of statement. I'm still wondering what color the sky is in a world where G3K is scoring solid points and there's plenty of room to doubt whether evolution produced the diversity of life and (now) fossils are ambiguous.
I don't see it. Beside, that would be a lot of coincidences to assume they are random occurrances.
These occurrences may be random but they can happen in every individual independently. And since there are many individuals their occurrence isn't that unlikely. Note that the probability for one particular beneficial mutation may be low but in general there are several possible beneficial mutations that can occur to one of those many individuals.
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.