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
So it's nothing to do with, say, your religious views.
...we now return you to your regularly scheduled catfight...
But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution. And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.
Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?
It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.
EsotericLucidity, banned for being a troll shortly before Subliminal_Kid was, once pointed out that there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.
[Takes a drink of the potion, throws away crutches, does a little dance. Crowd cheers.]
And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism.
Agreed?
There are philosophical naturalists, yes. They're a subset of the people who despise creationists.
So, does materialistic naturalistic science reveal it's Godless agenda by
1) sticking to its story despite the evidence or2) revising its story every so often to fit the evidence?
Some do, some don’t and many are not sure. I would say that says a lot about the open-minded attitude of religious people. How about the reverse? Would you say “vast numbers of atheists accept creation?” If not, can’t we conclude that atheists are close minded on this subject? And that is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me make it.
”And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.”
That is a totally subjective and unproven assertion on your part, not doubt driven primarily by your belief system.
” It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.”
If “science” has a “job” it is to question everything. Unfortunately for the atheist faithful, the theory of evolution is …. evolving. For those who’s faith is atheism I have no doubt that they would wish that people would stop questioning their faith in the naturalistic explanation of everything. Unfortunately, not everyone is so easily cowed into the easy acceptance of the theory-du-jour by snide remarks. By the way, how can one determine – from a hominid skull whether the creature walked upright?
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.