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

The causes of mutations are many. Anything from radiation, to the sun, to viruses.

(Psst...these cause random mutations).

Only a small part of the population in these malaria infested areas has the mutation. How come others without it survive?

There are likely many genetic factors which contribute to malaria resistance. The mutant hemoglobin allele is simply one of them. Also as you know the homozygous condition is dangerous.

Answer that one wise guy.

I'd say I am more of a "Goodfella".

IR turns out to be a flimsy house of cards. Gene manipulation experiments have been a disaster for Behe’s argument –

Another blatant lie. No one in the over a dozen years since he first proposed it has been able to show that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. And BTW, no one, least of all Darwin, has ever shown that the eye is not irreducibly complex either. However, I have shown, quite clearly that the developmental process of an organism is a program and hence not subject to random evolutionary stochastic alteration.

So why can't just all mutations be somewhat beneficial or at least neutral?

Because the wrong mutation in a gene will destroy the functioning of a gene. An average gene has some over a thousand base pairs of DNA. Changing a single one of those base pairs can totally destroy the functioning of the gene. A few, very few may be neutral or perhaps enhance the functioning of it, but the chances of that are overwhelmingly against it. To realize how exact genes have to be just consider that the mad cow disease is caused not even by a change in a gene, but by a change in the shape of the protein made from a gene. That is how exact the product of genes has to be.

So you’re a Detroit Lions fan? ;)

No, but I grew up with the Eagles, which was once almost the same thing. ONCE, you know. :-)

Creationist: If one can somehow disprove evolution, then God MUST exist.

There could be. It's not my view. I think I can trace my skepticism in evolution to my school days, when I was taught (uncritically) that the development of life began with abiogenesis (albeit it wasn't called that) followed by a poorly presented explanation of evolution --which I accepted until much of what I was taught was shown to be untrue, even falisfied.

Added to that was a strictly enforced ban on any mention of the Creator.

I suspect if they were to allow the Bibles back, and some innocuous prayer and some Christmas carols, much of the hostility in this debate would go away (along with a lot of other social pathologies.).

On the other hand, I sometimes think that if I went to a strictly religious school and all mention of evolution was banned, the odds would be good that I would be a raving atheist. So there is a line which must be walked.

I guess I'm not really as much of an anti-evolutionist as I sometimes think, although I'm very skeptical of common descent, and I think the unguided development of life is ridiculous idea.

Another point. I think there are a lot of holes in the theory. If they are filled and the theory is found to be solid, that's a good thing. If they can't be filled, however, it is even more important to understand that. A skeptical attitude -- by which I don't mean a ban on its teaching, or research or a doctrinarial approach that it must be wrong -- towards evolution might go a long way in furthering our knowledge.

It's late and I'm starting to ramble. Thanks for the answer.

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.