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
No, evolution clearly falls into the second category. Various evolutionists have asserted that creationism is a priori unacceptable because it means there's a supreme being. In other words it must automatically be rejected, regardless of scientific problems with evolution and regardless of any scientifically based creationist arguments. Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.
Why must you insult your correspondents this way?
Is that an insult? I did't think so. I just think such posts add nothing to the discussion. If she had posted quotations from the Koran or the Upanishads or Homer's Odyssey would it have meant any more or less?
Threads of this type are not scientific discussions. They are philosophical discussions (when they are civil). I venture to say that none of the people on this thread are “professionals” on this subject. That’s evident from the level of the discourse and the “evidence” presented.
I would tend to agree with that. Are we in fact arguing about the evidence?
Otherwise they are spitting contests with evolutionists calling their opponents names.
What "names" have I used to describe anyone but the three I mentioned? Have I insulted you?
In view of your screen name, are you aware that J.R.R. Tolkien was a very devout Christian?
Well "hurrah" for him if he thought it necessary. But, ont he other hand, why would you believe that I am not?
A recipe maybe? (rhetorical)
My original question:
“Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?”
So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.
The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859. Your "belief" on the subject is being steered by some sort of outside influence.
Really? Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.
He spent a little over a month on the Galapagos Islands and a majority of his time breeding pigeons. I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.
Does something stop the adapations from accumulating forever? What is it? Why does it look over and over in so many different ways like amphibians came from fish and reptiles came from amphibians and mammals and birds came from reptiles over a lot of time?
The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results. That’s if these men are able to find a mate.
"Does not mean that you are not open?" This is getting silly. Maybe the sentence that precedes that one isn't conclusive proof, but you're not at all open to the idea of evolution.
No, this does not mean I am not open. Yes, this is getting silly. Maybe you can entice the guys with beer and they will be willing to jump and flap.
It's made with mechanistic Godless materialist science. It works without prayer, unless you have certain Microsoft products installed
Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier.
Life comes with Intel Inside:)
Now if you will excuse me – I am in the process of designing something. ( I can only hope you understand)
First of all “experts” appear to disagree on the humanity of the previous inhabitant of the skull.
” Have you never seen experts reconstruct the face of a murder victim from just a skull?”
Yes I have. The sketch artists all begin with the assumption that the skull is human. From that they can sometimes re-create an image that may or may not look like the original. But we can be sure that the artists will end up drawing a human face.
” I have no difficulty understanding just how much a skull can tell us, how much it's age will tell us about the hominid family tree, and what it reveals about the prehistory of our world. If I studied to become an expert (as I am on other subjects), I am sure it would tell me even more than what is intuitively obvious and so I am predisposed to value the opinion of such experts.”
As someone who is not committed to evolution, I can take a more dispassionate approach to this find. First, I have to be persuaded that the skull is human as opposed to ape. Second, if human, I would have to be shown that this represents an evolutionary link. Third, I would like to see more than a single example of this link. Even you would not claim that evolution of a species went through single individuals.
For people who haven an emotional attachment to evolution, singularities may not be a problem. For me, they are.
Good night.
You have yet to prove me wrong on anything. You slime because I constantly refute all the stupid evolutionist arguments made on these threads. I have yet to see a post from you in which you post any evidence for evolution, let alone a refutation of anything said against it. All you do on these threads is insult. Goodbye loser.
Vade, seriously, as a friend – do not watch infomercials or QVC.
Actually, I saw your website – get the BowFlex man!
Yawn. All addressed at various places on the internet. Please do use your computer wisely for self-education.
Hm, is this the beginning of VR's understanding that telling someone something (i.e. asserting) is not the same as evidence-based explanation?
Somehow I doubt it...
Really? Where are the important scientific creationist discoveries?
All I ever notice creationism saying is "You'll never find a fossil in that gap!" Or sometimes, "You'll never understand how that works!"
Many of its predictions are already wrong when uttered, but it just fumes and hisses on. It's heckling science, not doing science.
So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.
OK, but you skipped a step. Molecules don't jump together out of nothing. They're made of atoms. No, we haven't recreated the Big Bang. This proves what exactly?
Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.
Darwin didn't know about genetics (the Mendellian details) but he knew about inheritance. He also knew about variation and natural selection. There's no "Ooops!" and there's no scientific alternative.
I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.
Earth to Heartlander: Not everything that upsets you is another religion.
The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results.
Well, I guess your Nobel awaits you. Or is it the Medved Award for Silly Strawmanning? Create real pressures on the human population to change, and the survivors will be the ones who changed in the right direction. And so proceed. Over time, the average genome will change if the adaptation is changing.
Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier. Life comes with Intel Inside:)
There is no law of conservation of intelligence. It isn't in the Second Law of Thermo or anything else.
At issue is whether creationism is paying attention to the evidence in the first place. Moneyrunner has found an all-purpose answer to those who would say that it is not. He's strategically insulted. He's tactically a victim. Thus a creationist can ignore all the evidence he wishes and cry "penis-head" when challenged.
Sounds like a "penis-head"-baiting strategy Johnny Cochrane would love.
There's various creationist analyses showing how DNA creates insurmountable problems for the evolution model of random mutation, just to name one, not to mention the analysis of the fossil record. They're looking at the same things evolutionists look at claiming to show evidence for evolution, and saying no it doesn't. The new fossil "evidence" for homo sapiens evolution referred to in this article is a case in point.
We're not arguing science anymore. Just so long as you can strawman science this way, you can believe that your Invisible Friend is really making the world go around.
Science is not going to change the answers for you, even with convincing arguments like the above. </sarcasm>
Actually, I saw your website – get the BowFlex man!
Yep. You're out of ammo.
IOW, "You'll never understand DNA! You'll never understand the fossil record!"
Again, what does "creation science" have to teach us worth a bowl of warm spit?
Dr. Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and the author of Darwin's Black Box.
(But of course, we know why they are not.)
Wrong, but misrepresenting the argument is a common tactic when it can be shown an evo is losing.
At issue is whether or not so-called scientists are extrapolating unsupported scenarios based on "evidence." In the end, it's not the evidence itself, it's the stories based on them--your "accumulated changes" statement is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Changes take place, but whether or not they accumulate enough over millenia to account for biodiversity is not supported in that evidence. Basically you are advertising one thing but selling another. Try that in business and you'll be arrested.
Have a nice day.
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.