A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

[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

[longshadow]

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.

Do ANY of THESE quotes sound familiar:

"No, a circle is not an ellipse...."

"Wildly elliptical" planetary orbits

"1⁷²⁰"

Hmmmmmmmm???????

[PetiteMericco]

"We're not arguing science anymore."

I don't think you ever were, considering your snotty, condencending little snipes at religious people from the get-go.

[RadioAstronomer]

Fight the power! Communicate! You know you can!

ROTFLMAO!

[Tribune7]

You mean that if one atheist anywhere becomes a deist, as thedilg has cited for his own story, do they all experience the same revelation?

Would you want to know if God exists?

[PetiteMericco]

IOW, "You'll never understand DNA! You'll never understand the fossil record!"

How ironic you say that since accusations of ignorance are certainly more abundant at your favorite evo sites like talk.origins. IME, and that's about four years worth, accusing someone of ignorance or misunderstanding is a favorite tactic of evolutionists. Go ahead and ask me for references!

"what does "creation science" have to teach us worth a bowl of warm spit?"

What does it mattter? You're obviously one of the dime-a-dozen naturalists who is not the least bit interested in learning to begin with.

[medved]

There's something wonderfully comical about being called a crackpot by a perv... by somebody who has a glaring problem with "glass house syndrome" or whatever you care to call it.

Those who find "PatrickHenry"'s infantile attempts at humer via links funny will be rolling on the floor over this one:

Unbridled lust leads to frustration and misunderstanding despite Jimmy Carter's advice to the lustlorn

Then again, there're the FR threads on Who is PatrickHenry...

Granted the clowns who form the inside clique on talk.origins (bandarlog) appear to have it in for me, I don't really view that as a BAD thing; Serious scholars view talk.origins as a philosophical disaster zone of sorts.

The reasons for the bandarlog having it in for yours truly should also be obvious enough...

For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:

[RadioAstronomer]

I sure do. More than 100 posts to explain that a circle is a type of ellipse.

[RadioAstronomer]

Yes I am alive!!!!!!!!!! :-) LOL!!

[Tribune7]

You'd think on first blush that a semi-major screwup like this one would embarass the evolutionists; in real life, evolutionists don't embarass easily. They've now had over 100 years worth of training in dealing with embarassment.

In the immortal words of Patrick Swayze in Road House, "be nice." :-)

[longshadow]

More than 100 posts to explain that a circle is a type of ellipse.

And Heaven knows how many to try to explain to him that most of the planets aren't flailing about the solar system in "wildly elliptical" orbits!

[general_re]

"wildly elliptical"

I still don't know WTF that means.

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL, we could have written a text book :-)

[gore3000]

That is funny! Humans have more genes in common in chromosome 3 with a chicken than a mouse! Guess the 'artistes' of evolution will have to start painting some new evolutionary trees! Uhm, what happens to the poor monkeys now? And all those stupid bones the evolutionists keep digging up? Seems to me they will have to find now when wings turned into hands! Seems this is a very good finding for evolutionists though, just think of all the work they will have now painting new trees, phonying up bones to make them look like they came from a chicken, borrowing bones to show the progression from chicken to man, making whole new dioramas and stuff. This will keep them busy for at least another 150 years!

[StoptheDonkey]

Maybe
George "Mussolini" Bush is the missing link.

[Tribune7]

And note that was a pro-evolution site.

[gore3000]

More than 100 posts to explain that a circle is a type of ellipse.

Sure shows that evolutionists will discuss anything but their stupid theory does it not? Well, let's bring the discussion back to the subject at hand. I know you folk would much rather bash your opponents, but it seems to me that those who view these pages want to learn something instead of watch a bunch of children throwing food at each other. So in you honor I hereby give you another example of paleontological fraud. The first 'primate':

PALEONTOLOGICAL FRAUD

A great example of paleontological fraud is Eosimias. Eosimias was trumpeted by evos, by so called scientists and by the press 'the missing link of human evolution'. Here's Eosimias:

Time Magazine's Eosimias illustration
The Evolutionary tree showing Eosimias's place in it

This must be quite a find indeed! The whole history of man, the missing link, finally found! A great new specimen found!

There are many links to the pictures above, however you will have to look for a long time for the pictures of the bones showing this fantastic find. I found a site which showed the bones and guess what, they were from those totally unscientific folk called creationists. Imagine the nerve, the total gall of these people of showing the evidence, the bones, upon which those gorgeous drawings were made! How unscientific can they get?:

Alas! Here's the picture! The proof of macro-evolution, the proof that Darwin was right! The proof that God does not exist!

From:Evolution in the News - September 2000
In case you missed it, the "evidence" is in the case being held by the man, the bones are two, just above the white ruler.

However, this is not the only evidence for Eosimias of course. Here's the story of the lower jaw and tooth of Eosimias:
In a separate article in the journal Nature, the group reported on more fossils from a previously discovered third primate called Eosimias centennicus. They had discovered its teeth and jaws in the mid 1990s. Now they?ve got ankle bones, which they say backs up their controversial claim that Eosimias is an early ancestor of humans.
from:A Shrew Size Primate

Of course, they did not bother to show the rest of the evidence of Eosymias, the lower jaw and teeth:

from:    Picture Gallery of Fossils from China
Note that the jaw bones had been found some 10 years earlier in a part of China hundreds of miles away from the ankle bone find.

One may ask how the jaw bones and the ankle bones were determined to be of the same creature? What scientific explanation could there be for such a determination? No doubt they were genetically linked through evo supermollecular retro-dna analysis to each other(a wonderful new invention which can trace non-existing DNA back hundreds of millions of generations). From this awesome evidence they made the drawings, the articles, the missing links and a whole new family tree for mankind! And the best part about all this is that your taxes paid for this wonderful discovery!

Short list of the purveyors of this fraud:    Carnegie Museums--- Athena Review--- Myanmar.com--- Northern Illinois University--- Northern Illinois University --- Arizona University --- Science News--- ABC News--- Northwestern University--- UC Davis--- BBC News--- Post Gazette---

[RadioAstronomer]

Sure shows that evolutionists will discuss anything but their stupid theory does it not?

Except YOU brought it up in the first place. Do you now admit a circle is an ellipse?

[jwh_Denver]

”My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?”

Essentially I was asking him why pro evolutionists are liars and decievers.

I sure do agree with you on the school thing though. I remember taking a biology class in High School and had this jerk who would not accept anyting but evolution. My first test I failed miserably. The 2nd test I wised up and parroted the crap he and the texbook said (not buying a word of it) and I aced the test.

Let the athiests figure out their problems sinced they caused in the first place.

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping placemarker.
Of course he was a creationist. If he was a Christian he believed in a Creator.
There are no creationists. [but see above]
You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Wildly elliptical.
1⁷²⁰.
Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Nobel Prize for creationism.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant .

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

[The Raven]

>> Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution

Nothing is essential to the evolution methodology. The scientific method allows for a hypothesis test and then one can fiddle with the theory if all is not well. I just read an article which claims the earth's core is a nuclear reaction and not a cooling iron core - as has been thought for quite a while now.