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
Evidence for Hominid Evolution, with a pathetic attempt at creationist spin.
Really? Gee what species has yellow and orange skulls? I see different colors in those skulls, clearly a yellow skull cannot descend from an orange skull can it? And of course you took it from someone making fun of evolution who did not even give a source. Boy, you really buy any nonsense that backs up your theory!
Which, historically, has always been wrong anyway.
And there has to be some frustration among the E's that as science progresses, the opinions do not shift that much.
Science education is apparently pretty bad around the country as a whole, although there are bright spots.
It is further interesing that according to information I've read, although the majority of Americans don't believe in the E's version of evolution, about 83% don't object to evolution being taught in schools.
There's no valid reason to so object.
Americans have short attention spans and send a lot of confusing signals...but they just don't change their basic dogma too much. That's got to be a challenge for the scientific community in terms of acceptance of new discoveries.
Except that the rest of the world will be kicking our butts and we'll be a third-rate power, there's no reason to worry about a little anti-science hysteria further pulling down an already lousy educational system.
First of all it does not present any evidence, it does not give any sources. The sources it does give are phony and are part of the joke being played on evolutionists. If you can accept the conclusion of the article which i posted just above you clearly cannot tell s--- from Shinola.
No one has ever accussed you of having a sense of humor Vade! That is why you cannot tell when someone is pulling your evolutionist leg (either that or as usual you only looked at the pictures but did not bother to read the story). Here's the conclusion so all can enjoy it:
The variety of forms can be attributed to some form of reticulation wherein the original creatures outcrossed to both H. sapiens and pongids, as well as interbreeding within their own group. Michael Day, in a booklet in the Oxford/Carolina Reader series entitled "The Fossil History of Man" asserts that the skull from the cave of Arago "...shows a mixture of both erectus and sapiens features. It may be regarded as an example of mosaic evolution that may be an erectus/sapiens intergrade." That such is possible is doubted by few knowledgeable anthropologists. For example, Wong states, with respect to modern humans interbreeding with Neanderthals:
"Radovcic draws my attention to a grayish green band, the so-called G3 level that contained some of the Neanderthal fossils he himself unearthed and fishes a cast of one of the ancient bones out of his pocket. 'The Vindija hominids were modernized Neanderthals,' he says, showing me the partial lower jaw featureing the beginnings of a chin--one of the hallmarks of modern human morphology. And although other fossils from the site reveal typical Neanderthal traits such as the pronounced browridge, they are most delicate and modern in shape in the Vindija people than in earlier Neanderthals. Radovcic and others who have studied these remains believe this apparent shift toward the modern condition suggests interbreeding between Neanderthals and moderns--a case that is strengthened by early modern human fossil finds from central Europe that bear some Neanderthal-like features." Kate Wong, "Cave Inn," Scientific American, Dec. 1999, p. 34
That fossil hominids represent the results of hybridization between modern humans and apes is an hypothesis that should not be tested. And the moral implications of such an experiment are enough to keep most rational scientists from doing so.
The stuff is totally made up and it shows quite well your total lack of critical abilities - as well as a total lack of a sense of humor. You have been fooled, and even after it was pointed out to you, you still insisted on it being true!
Yes, your hero is back and claiming that your page, first posted by you back in number 326 is a scam on evolutionists! So, were you taken in or are you part of the conspiracy?
(Personally, I suspect he's covering for his inability to tell a drawing from a photograph.)
Absolute garbage - and you know it. On post#534 I give solid scientific evidence as to why evolution is false. None of you evolutionists can refute it. Therefore, it is evolution which is not science and that is why it has to rely on the phony interpretation of bones to try to prove its case, and even then the fossil evidence, and in particular, the Cambrian explosion which evolutionists also will not disuss, shows evolution to be totally false. So that is why I say that:
Alas, one can attribute anything to a god or gods. (People used to do just that.) Unfortunately, it's a pretty worthless thing to do. Once you say "God did it," any further discussion or attempt to understand is useless. "God did it" also doesn't let one make any predictions--and falsifiable predictions are the heart of science. So I don't think you'll get your wish. If you did, you could kiss technology goodbye, and you'd just need a three-word "science" text that says in large, friendly letters, "God did it."
Indeed it is, and of course it also shows that you cannot tell when someone is pulling your leg. BTW - as I already showed above, it well determined that man did not in any way descend or even was able to mate with Neanderthals. In addition to which the article shows a big problem with evolution. The problem is how can a whole species gradually evolve together so that the members can continue to reproduce? This completely destroys Gould's idiotic punk-eek, but it also, together with my post# 534 shows quite well that evolution is utterly impossible.
Yep! All made up.
But here's a nice quote from from one of the good "Docs":
"The research dealing with mans "evolution" from the apes (or to be specious, ape-like ancestors) begins with the assumption that man did in fact evolve from the apes. No observations or interpretations are allowed to question this apriori assumption. What has been sought in paleo-anthropology then are the transitional stages from ape-like animals to man. Transitional forms have proven as elusive here, however, as between any other plants or animals. In short, the missing link remains missing."
Such a needle in a haystack, huh? Heck, even the most well-renowned Paleos in the field are saying the continuance of investigating the evolution theory is a waste of time. (1)Quote: "anyone reasonably acquainted with the marvels and usefulness of the human mind ought to be looking to an explanation other than evolution on that ground alone."
(1)Lee A. Spencer, Ph.D.
And this is from one of their top scientists!
Anyway -- trash the references, trash my 'unscientific mind', trash and slime away, but the more I read, the more I am convinced that evolutionists have a LOT of work ahead of them. :)
The only thing we agree is goofy is the hypothesis that anyone can account for anything with human-ape crossbreeding. All the evidence for chimp-to-human intergrading is real and solid as presented. It's a more fleshed-out (more species) version of the You Figure It Out presentation up to the goofy stuff about ape-human crossbreeds.
Actually, if you are following this thread, you will see that it is the evolutionists that are calling for miracles and the anti-evolutionists that are presenting scientific evidence. The evolutionists have only shown drawings of bones and call that proof. They do not say how such a thing could have happened or even try to defend their position against scientific arguments that it could not have happened. In fact, evolutionists cannot show a single clear case of macro-evolution - the transformation of one species into another - ever having happened. I have shown two examples of clear cases that it could never have happened in post# 521 which of course, the evolutionists ignore and continue to blather 'evolution is true', 'evolution is proven fact' even when they cannot refute clear scientific evidence which totally discredits their theory.
Spencer is a creationist. Notice the title of the web page. Are you watching your hero gore calling the whole thing a hoax? Do you understand what's going on?
I posted a joke along with it. Did you read down that far? It was about wanting to have an 'animal' in bed. Vade, you are exposing yourself as a pussycat. I mean, otherwise you would have got the joke...right?
Nothing in his paper is a joke in his mind.
I am out for the evening. Nice rapping with you folks.~MM
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.