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
To: AnnaZ
"as arrogantly vile as the attitude of an evo"
It's not arrogance, it's childishness. Ann Coulter makes a good point about Democrats when she points out that they argue by calling their enemies names. At some point in this thread, some Atheist will call a Christian "penis head" and conclude that he has made a brilliant point.
86 posted on 7/30/02 9:33 AM Pacific by moneyrunner
To: VadeRetro; AnnaZ; thedilg
"I can't imagine anyone with unimpaired critical faculties reviewing the evidence for evolution and deciding that some sort of invisible magical being is a better explanation."
Didn't have long to wait: "you are a penis-head" dressed up and with lipstick.
93 posted on 7/30/02 10:11 AM Pacific by moneyrunner
To: VadeRetroYou really like using that word, don't you.
"It's an integral part of the delusional system: No one can tell you that you are not following the evidence, that your belief system is irrational."
You have to grow up. Calling someone delusional or irrational in the context of a discussion is name calling. It is, to quote Ann Coulter, the equivalent of children calling each other "penis head."
102 posted on 7/30/02 10:48 AM Pacific by moneyrunner
Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational/sane)---LAWS not evo schlock-BUNK!
Rational--objective TRUE science must limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world...
not pervert/SCHLOCK it all up...
like the way evo moonie cult 'science' does!
Time to check your dosage, dude!
evo doomsday bomb---
Only lead foil can save us now...
if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone...
this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning...
NUCLEAR SOCIAL----ALIEN ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!
Fight the power! Communicate! You know you can!
The question was “Form molecules From Scratch?” - meaning matter from nothing. It was a rhetorical question. Maybe I’ll ask a question later that is not rhetorical so you can see the difference.
You're railing at science for taking God's Job away from him.
I see science as explaining God’s handiwork. Darwin’s theory has given us some insight to natural selection (survival of the fittest), but the conclusion that he draws, I believe, is wrong. I see adaptation as a quality of a robust design. I do not believe in common descent – “soup to man”. This does not mean that I am not open to the theory though (or any theory for that matter).
But for an atheist, agnostic, naturalist, etc… if intelligence comes into the creation of man, they must (or should) change their beliefs.
You can go back to the cave if you want, but I'm keeping my computer.
What would make you think that I would want to move into a cave and throw out my computer? (not rhetorical)
“Gould proclaims the long and slim Basilosaurus as ". . . the `standard' and best-known early whale." However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales." Today there are two major groups of cetaceans: the baleen whales, called the mysticeti with double blowholes; and the toothed whales, odontoceti with a single blowhole. Stahl presents irritating morphological facts such as: ". . . the structure of the skull in the odontocete and mysticete forms shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . . ." She also describes sperm whales (odontocete) which have an asymmetric arrangement of bones that roof the skull, while mysticeans have a symmetrical arrangement.”
“None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement. However, whales (and an alleged link, Ambulocetus) do have a spinal up-and-down undulation. When did this happen? Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus (and the whales)? This is quite significant! The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea.”
Here is a list of all the amazing features that evolved on this animal during the process of becoming whales and dolphins:
1: Nose moves to the back of the head.
2: feet, claws, and tail are exchanged for flippers.
3: random growth of dorsal fin for steering and stability.
4: It would have to change the shape of it's body for hydrodynamics.
5: It's entire skeletal and muscular structure would have to change along with metabolism, audio, visual, sensory, olfactory, and circulatory systems.
6: It would have to develop a method of desalinizing sea water to remain hydrated.
7: Develop sonar and a way to interpret it to aid with visibility.
So who was right? That's why it's necessary to lie and the Lord will understand if not approve.
So now you must go beyond just insulting the poster?
Sad… very sad…
To understand the differences, let’s compare the relations of these groups of animals to those of a number of female members of a human family. Let’s say that we are trying to determine the relation of Celia to her relatives Heidi, Arlene, and Megan, and we know that all are from the same generation.
Substitute Cetacea for Celia, Hippos for Heidi, other artiodactyls for Arlene, and mesonychians for Megan.
|
|
MESONYCHIAN HYPOTHESIS
 |
|
It could also be that Celia is a sister to Heidi, and that Arlene is their first cousin. Megan is more distantly related. |
 |
|
Finally, it could be that Heidi and Arlene are sisters, Celia is their first cousin, and Megan more distantly related. |
 |
Now these diagrams explain the essence of the differences between the three competing hypotheses for cetacean relations. The new pakicetid data indicate that the third branching diagram, the artiodactyl hypothesis, describes the relationships of cetaceans best.
Are you being intentionally dense? The "missing pelvis" isn't missing. Compare the creationist accounts with the actual bones on Thewissen's page.
1: Nose moves to the back of the head.
We have exactly this progression in the fossils. Thanks for bringing it up.
2: feet, claws, and tail are exchanged for flippers.
Ditto.
3: random growth of dorsal fin for steering and stability.
Even in modern whales, the dorsal fin is soft tissue (not supported with skeletal bone). That probably doesn't tell you anything, of course.
4: It would have to change the shape of it's body for hydrodynamics.
Like from Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Rhodocetus?
5: It's entire skeletal and muscular structure would have to change along with metabolism, audio, visual, sensory, olfactory, and circulatory systems.
We can see the hard parts changing. They give clues to the changes in the soft parts. Where are you imagining the difficulty, given all the evidence that it happened and that creationists are lying about the evidence?
6: It would have to develop a method of desalinizing sea water to remain hydrated.
There is isotopic evidence for this change occuring somewhere between Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus.
7: Develop sonar and a way to interpret it to aid with visibility.
Not something the fossil record can tell you about, but it clearly happened.
I did – and found what you had pointed out as ironic. As for the “intentionally dense thing” Do I need to keep explaining things to you? (rhetorical)
Not something the fossil record can tell you about, but it clearly happened.
No, it did not clearly happen. You refute maybe 1 out of the 7 and conclude that it clearly happened? (rhetorical) Thanks for the insight to your dogma…
Rather an inadequate response to the flood predictions link. Yes, there are lots of marine fossils in the Himalayas. Whales, for instance. Those sediments were once in what's called the Tethys Sea. In other words, plate tectonics make a better explanation for sea fossils in the mountains than does your global flood.
And why is that? Because of all the points in that link that you didn't answer, of which the one you quoted is oddly enough one. Here's another.
2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.What you have done shows "Morton's Demon" in action. You blot out all the stuff in that link you don't have an answer for (essentially all of it) and trot out the sea fossils in the mountains, which plate tectonics explains rather better than creationism.
Why better? Just for instance, in my Appalachian Mountains there are none of those whale fossils the Himalayas have. There are no dinosaurs, no mammals. Why? Flood geology has a shrug. "Because there aren't, that's all."
Against that, real geology says that some mountains are a lot lot lot lot older than others. The Appalachians are some really old mountains. Mountains don't build up fossils while they're wearing down.
So which one makes sense?
You have trouble with counting? (Not rhetorical)
[If, as you say, the ancient Hebrews were aware of the value of pi, then it should not have been necessary for them to have given any more information than the diameter of the "molten sea."Now your response:
So to wrap up the "pi issue," first, you are just quoting others, and you decline to state your own opinion of the matter. Second, you say it doesn't matter anyway (whether the Hebrews knew diddly about pi). Okay. Now I know where you stand on the issue.
That was an excellent link - I'll have to keep the term handy now.
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.