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

1. I used his definition, not mine. But how would you characterize your comment?

To clear up a point I muddled, we're talking about general_re, not longshadow, who must have given you a very loose definition of ad hominmem if you're not using it loosely.

Trib7 opened the thread by saying "This is type of thing (the article he had just posted, the half-informed opinion of a professional artist) that has made me skeptical of evolution."

My immediate response was "So it's nothing to do with, say, your religious views."

I don't know what definition of ad hominem you're using, but so far I have made no assertions about who Trib7 is. In fact, I have only asked a question. In this context, my skepticism should be clear. Nevertheless, I have only given Trib the opportunity to clarify his statement against the usual perception, hardly unique to me, that creationists are 95 percent protestant fundamentalists whose objections to evolution are totally religious in origin if not in the details of their arguments.

2. An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, like an honest Clinton. I simply stated that atheists have to be naturalists since to be otherwise would either force them to forgo one belief or the other. The conclusion you can then reach is that atheists will be as committed to their belief in naturalism as Christians will be in their belief in creation.

Do you mean "Naturalism, the philosophical doctrine that Nature is all there is" or "Naturalism, the method of investigation?" A few people are committed to the first. Lots of people are committed to the second.

3. I do not consider your comment a personal attack, merely a misinterpretation of my comments.

I've lost track but never mind!

In any case, I do not have your devotion to this subject, so I will bid you farewell and wish you well.

I call it a hobby. I'm not a wannabe paleontologist or whatever. I'm a wannabe shrink. Take care. Thanks for the dance!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!

------------------------------------------

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!!

---------------------------------------------------------

Changing--morphing words-meaning-reality...

the CONSTITUTION via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs/IDEOLOGY---LIBERALISM/EVOLUTION...

is called psychosis!

"if you consider neanderthal to be a modern man, then he should fall under the guidelines of needing salvation, correct?"

Right

"If so, when did he exist in respect to Adam, before or after?"

If he was Human, he must have been a descendent of Adam.

"Or was he Adam's contemporary? "

If he was a contemporary, he couldn't have been a descendent, and hence was not human (but I believe he was, and that would make him a descendent of Adam).

"Because if he was not a descendant of Adam, he would not need to be saved, right?"

O.K.

"if the physical is not related to the spiritual, why is it that any descendant of Adam is party to his sin? Why are men not born innocent?"

??? Who are we? Are we really the flesh-filled container of animal-like putrescence called the Human Body, or are we really an immortal soul? I think we are the latter and that what we inhabit is just a shell used in this life and resurrected or created later at the Last Judgement by God. Original sin was disobedience to God and that sin followed all of Adam's descendents. When God creates a new human soul, he puts it in a body. I don't understand why there is any conflict in logic here. The sin follows the primary creation, the "real" being - the soul, not the empty shell of flesh that temporarily houses it. No?

"Biblically, it is made clear that the curse follows biological lines."

The act of physical intercourse is merely the method God chose to allow His creation to replicate. He could have done it any way He wanted to, and although reproductive biology is the physical means to house the spirit, I believe the Spirit and Soul of the person is not created at the moment of animal intercourse - its created beforehand by God and placed in the empty vessel of the fertized egg by Him. Doesn't that make sense? By mere physical acts, man cannot create an immortal soul. Only God can do that. We just make the shell.

"And a new question that occurred to me late last night while I thought about this stuff - if man evolved through a series of lesser men (and I don't expect you to have the answer for this, just food for thought), did man evolve a soul? Or was man infused with a soul when God determined that he had evolved enough?"

That's a good question, but from our human perspective not directly relevant to our own salvation. Personally, I believe that ALL living things have a soul of sorts. No scientist yet has been able to string together a bunch of amino acid molecules and create life - NONE of them. Only God can create life and I believe that all God-created life forces are souls of sorts. There are many cases of highly intelligent higher animals, particularly dogs, that have acted to save human lives. Was this because God directed them to do so, was it instinct, or was it a conscious decision by that animal to save its master? If the latter is the case, it would be hard not believe a just God would allow such a spirit to just depart into nothingness upon its death. Yes. I think ALL living things have a God-given spirit or soul.

"In my opinion, science, while in strictest definitions demands provable information, requires much faith."

Believe me, there is no faith in science. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't.

"The theory of evolution requires much faith."

The evolution of higher organism has never been verified in the laboratory. However, the evolution of lower life forms, like bacteria, HAS been verified in the lab. We know it is possible for one kind of bacteria to change or mutate into another form.

If Evolution was on trial, you wouldn't have the equivalent of a confession. What you would have is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence - the body, the fingerprints, the smoking gun, the motive, witnesses, etc. If that constitutes faith, then its faith. But it seems more like good detective work to me.

"The only theocracy that will ever work will be the future kingdom of God on earth. No other should be attempted, and no other has ever been successful."

I agree with you there.

"However, He DID spend much time on physically healing, demonstrating that the human body in its current state is imperfect."

I believe He also did it to prove that He was the Son of God and He had the power to suspend the laws of nature since He was nature's God and controlled nature.

"I just can't believe God created us to harbor disease."

I don't know the answer to the existence of evils like sickness. We have finite minds and God is Infinite Intelligence. He has his reasons for doing things, and sometimes we are incapable of understanding them.

"Regardless of whether you believe that our spiritual bodies will involve the physical on any level (I think they will - Jesus resurrected was our future model, and he ate and was tangible),.."

I agree with you, but I believe our present bodies are poor reflections of what we will become if we are saved. At present they are mere vessels of clay that hold the spark of an immortal soul.

"His return involves much repair of the physical world. So I feel my question remains, rephrased - why correct it if its original state is intact? If God's intention was for things to evolve, destroy each other, die out from violence or disease or cataclysm, why start from scratch."

I think you may have hit on the answer - "His return involves much repair of the physical world" This is not a perfect world and if God chose evolution to create us, He had a reason for doing so. A finite mind can't comprehend an Infinite Intelligence. I don't think God would "plant" fossils and fossil evidence in an attempt to "trap" people into believing in something He didn't want them to believe.

"I agree that the Bible is subject to interpretation. However, ........................................................but I think the basics are pretty clear."

"..but I think the basics are pretty clear." So do I. God created the world, God created man, the first man disobeyed God and committed sin bringing evil into the world, God promised to send a Saviour, the Saviour arrived, He died for our sins, and He will come again at the last judgement to raise the dead for eternal reward or punishment. The minutia of HOW God created the world and HOW God created man doesn't really seem very important to the rest of the story - at least in my book.

That's how I see it, but everybody has a mind of their own.

Jeff Farmer, basically, described how a particular discovery was handled by the major media and the academic community. Why, Vade, do you think that is opinion?

Farmer's big discovery: the find is controversial. If you've followed the threads and news stories on it, it was from the first. Most of us already knew that. The finders piped up with the importance of the find. Others were saying, "Maybe, but I doubt it."

It's more human-like than the average ape, but maybe not enough to squarely label it as diverging humanwards from the ape population. This in itself is consistent with a human divergence from apes which would have been barely if at all started when that animal lived. Is it "too human too old?"--a point creationists have tried to make before? Or is it "An ape! Just an ape!"

Big shrug. Farmer sees this as proof of something. His opinions, however, go well beyond this.

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.

Crammed? When scientists find a new fossil, they want to know "What is it?" You can't be a paleontologist and not want to know this. This question can be rephrased as "Where does it fit on the tree of life?" He thinks it's realistic not to do this. That's his opinion.

Then there's this bit of torture:

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.

So sloppily written that I'm not sure what Lieberman said. I gather he meant that any remaining gaps are no big deal compared to what's been filled in. Farmer appears to correct him by saying that "links are absolutely essential to evolution." Is he confused or just trying to confuse me? Yes, links are important. Yes, we have the tree of life pretty well outlined in fossil species except for the very base of the tree, bats, and maybe a few other holdouts. Yes and yes. Do you follow me? You don't rebut one with the other. Let's hope Farmer can draw.

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.