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
Could've fooled me; I just looked up a talk.origins archive article on "irreducible complexity" and saw no sputtering or name calling, but rather precisely the calm, quiet rebuttal you seem to think doesn't exist.
It may be calm, but it is still nonsense. Behe's famous example, the bacterial flagellum, has yet to be refuted - a dozen years later. The article in no way addresses it. Further, science has shown and keeps showing that many of the statements there are incorrect. Junk DNA is not junk. The wings of the Drosophila are an example against evolution. In addition to which science keeps showing that genes themselves are inextricably connected to the rest of the organism and it would require the coevolution of an entire support mechanism for them to be able to produce any useful traits.
Which shows quite well he was making fun of evolutionists, but of course you did not get the joke, as i said long ago.
Is that anything like the inability to tell the difference between a replica and a real skull?
You were fooled. The name calling starts in the second paragraph:
I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.
And a rebuttal which says it is possible to posit such an evolutionary process isn't much of a rebuttal. Walt Disney posited a talking mouse.
A good rebuttal uses examples from reality. The one making it should never wind up with a conclusion such as:
I'll confess I do not know for sure. Many of the proteins of both these systems fulfill the similar sequence criterion, though this is a weak test. The much stronger test, and major violation of the "irreducible complexity" postulate, would be to find varying cascade systems in the living world. If, for example, I found a system with one less level than human, that would already show that the human system is not "irreducibly complex", violating Behe's claim that "not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway." Again, it's not my speciality, and I am unaware. Indeed, it is quite possible that it remains an unexplored area.
Debating you, "VadeRetro" is turning into a full time job--whenever it's shown to you that your statements are unmitigated crap you shrug and throw up three more. You cannot be reasoned with. So you can answer this if you want to, I probably won't get back to it. I prefer to spend my time speaking with intellectually honest people. I'm sure if your set of virtual lungs is louder than mine you'll declare yourself the victor. Although I hope you'll see deep down that wearing away the opponent's patience with waves of pure crap is in fact a hollow victory.
"This trick of yours is particularly funny."
It's not a trick, as evidenced by the fact that wading through the excess verbiage that compiled some of your answers yeilded no valid response to the *ideas* save flippant dismissals and ad homs. Acting indignant is not considered scholarly where I come from. So I'll address in this post only the most significant, the rest will be relegated to the scrap heap of your narcissism and structural incoherence.
"Your inability to see something does not entitle you to tell me to move along."
What you see is no more significant than Virgin sitings at Fatima. You're all to happy to accept the spoon-to-fork-like linear progressions presented to you because in their simplicity they "look" so convincing. The rationale behind the idea, however, is easily refuted by virtue of comparison and logic. I.e, common descent could theoretically eventually link elephants with mushrooms, man with a head of lettuce (in your case, not entirely an unrealistic premise)--all based on the fact that chickens and lizards have remarkably similar feet.
"Let's stay with birds and dinos here...You will of course claim it's just a superficial, coincidental resemblance that means nothing.
That's right, I will--based on things like bear paws being mistaken for human hands. I have xrays of both side by side and it's scary how alike they are--it fools police and anthropology students remarkably often. What is the common ancestor of bears and humans? They look so much alike--there MUST be a relation!!!
"But where are the salamanders that have mani like those?"
Why would you ask such a question? Why would that be a valid prediction? I'm afraid the ideas behind your questions are too confusing to respond to.
"Where are the mammals? Not even all dinosaurs fit that pattern, but there's a match across the "uncrossable" bird-dino line that species like Caudipteryx and Archaeopteryx straddle so finely."
Again, I'm not sure what your objection is. Like I said before, I have no doubt that there are fossils of extinct creatures that resemble one or two other kinds of animals we already see. There are animals that are living right now that resemble other animals. Why you think that proves anything is not apparent.
It is not a problem today to tell a bird from a reptile
It's also not a problem to tell the difference between a duck and a mammal, either--and if the duckbill platypus was extinct I have no doubt you people would think that ducks and otter-like mammals were somehow related because of it. It appears to be pieced together from several different animals--just like some extinct "bird reptiles" we may see in the fossil record.
"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode."--Storrs Olson, Nov 1999
"and you have no answer for why it becomes a problem"
It's not a problem until you assume evolution. (Sheesh, how obtuse can you get?)
"All your examples of similar animals being "unrelated" indeed owe their similarity to . . . common descent. Only the most stone-stupid YEC would claim that housecats and lions don't owe their similarities to common descent. Dumb examples, across the board."
LOL! Common descent from what? Family felidae is comprised of many different variations, to be sure--none of which explain the origin of the family itself.
To put it simply, what part of "it doesn't matter that they "look similar" don't you understand?
Despite your unexplained distaste for him, try reading Camp's article on "29 Evidences." It's already been referenced to you.
" The extinct marsupial predator Thylacine and the placental wolf make a fine example of what you should have said."
LOL, I'm sure if it hadn't become extinct so recently it would have been mistaken for the missing link between dogs and opossums.
"More creative writing. The real science goes out and does real research. Creationism sits around writing lawyerly rebuttals on the principle that if, in debate, Clinton opens his mouth and sound comes out, the people who are going to vote for him anyway check the box that says, "He answered that charge."
The saddest thing about the above blather is that you'll never see the hypocrisy in it. It's so rankly hypocritical it hurts my eyes. Seriously. It never occurs to you that you've completely ignored the article on whale evolution and continue to wave your flag for Pakicetus (regardless of how many bones were found, pshaw) while tossing up even more links. You continue on your blind gung-ho charge completely oblivious to any opposition whatsoever. And to think you had the gall to mention "how science is done" (grammar NOT mine) just a paragraph before! Amazing! For now, I leave it to readers to identify the numerous errors and confusions you're propped yourself up on.
"I could go on about what the current picture actually is...
I'm sure you could given your propensity for cute skeleton cartoons. Too bad they don't say a thing about the bioligical problems with your scenarios (as were pointed out to you before and you waved them away as handily as every other problem you encounter). How do you suppose your fossil evidence proves things like desalinization transitions, acquisition of sonar, problems with the tail direction etc? I guess that's someone else's responsibility?
"I could go on about what the current picture actually is, but let me just recommend you go to the library and get the May 2002 Scientific American for a fine article on the subject."
I don't need any sloppy appeals to authority (and John Rennie is no authority, TYVM).
"The fossils are in fact in the correct stratigraphic order."
No they aren't.
Considering the incoherence of the rest of your post (random gripes about "creationist tactics" etc obscuring the clear topic), I'm picking and choosing only a few items to address from here:
"The disproof of evolution is that no one can make a creationist see the evidence for it or even understand the idea."
That's interesting in light of your complete ignorance of information theory (which shoots in the ass all of your supposed evolution stories, really). Maybe you should put down your glossy toilet-reading and try a real book for a change.
"Here Bohlin tries to pretend that unless every tiniest detail of a process is known, documented, filed and forgotten, it doesn't happen at all."
Unfortunately for you, what is known about those tiny processes disproves everything you're saying. Truman on Information
"I could go on but this guy's an amateur"
And YOU'RE not???
"and I'm bored with him, bored with you."
I guess being a glorified flame warrior gets pretty tiring after awahile.
"Check you later."
Don't do me any favors.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Me thinks it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.
Wrong. But, you are in good company, Dembski seems to think so, too, in his No Free Lunch tome. Here are several mechanisms for the barcterial flagellum in published lit:
Nguyen L, Paulsen IT, Tchieu J, Hueck CJ, Saier MH Jr. (Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems, J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 2000 Apr;2(2):125-44).
Rizzotti M.: The possible origin of the bacterial flagellum.Endocytobiol. Cell Res. 1998
Rizzotti, M. Early Evolution: From the Appearance of the First Cell to the First Modern Organisms. Birkhauser, May 2000. Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/3764361913/
Flagella: multipurpose structures in EPEC, Vanessa Sperandio, Trends in Microbiology 2002, 10:262.
The flagella of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli mediate adherence to epithelial cells, Girón JA, Torres AG, Freer E, Kaper JB, Mol Microbiol 2002 Apr 44:361-79.
Note that Behe hasn't stepped up to the plate on this claim. Perhaps he should, considering that evolution is better at coming up with mechanisms to explain the flagellum than ID seems to be.
He includes it in the Descent of Man. He bought it lock stock and barrel without examination, he spread the word on it. He made it part of his theory. He is as guilty of the fraud as Haeckel.
I have seen many articles that try to prove him wrong but none that do. Kindly post the refutation. References are insufficient. If you read them you should be able to tell us what the refutation is. BTW - the only link you give does not even mention the flagellum.
"Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:1359-1366 (2002)
Gabriel Gutiérrez, Diego Sánchez and Antonio Marín
Abstract-
Recent reports analyzing mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neandertal bones have claimed that Neandertals and modern humans are different species. The phylogenetic analyses carried out in these articles did not take into account the high substitution rate variation among sites observed in the human mitochondrial D-loop region and also lack an estimation of the parameters of the nucleotide substitution model. The separate phylogenetic position of Neandertals is not supported when these factors are considered. Our analysis shows that Neandertal-Human and Human-Human pairwise distance distributions overlap more than what previous studies suggested. We also show that the most ancient Neandertal HVI region is the most divergent when compared with modern human sequences. However, the opposite would be expected if the sequence had not been modified since the death of the specimen. Such incongruence is discussed in the light of diagenetic modifications in ancient Neandertal DNA sequences.
Full text ($5): http://www.molbiolevol.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/8/1359"
The recent discovery of the Dmanisi skulls in the Caucasus Maountain areas indicate Homo erectus or possibly even earlier hominids had settled in Eurasia. The recent discovery of a 7 million year old hominid skull in WEST Africa with uncomfortably modern features also indicates our assessments of early Homid evolution may not be correct.
There is an entire school of anthropologists, among whom is a fellow named Wolfport (spelling ???) who believe "modern Europeans" amd "modern Asians" evolved from earlier populations of hominids or interbred with the early "modern Humans" who left Africa. There was probably a smilar movement in the oposite direction also.
Many anthropologists postulate that the movement of early modern man into Eurasia occcurred over an extended period of time, which would have provided an opportunity for extended contact with and interbreeding with, earlier populations there. A recent study of one of the genes responsible for red hair coloration in Northwestern Europeans is OLDER than the supposed appaerance of early modern man in Europe.
The "African Mother" theory of all modern human being descended from a single African woman has recently also been challenged bby other geneticists and their arguments are strong ones.
The fact is, that we have only extremely small views, like single snapshots, of an event - the evolution of man - which occurred over many millions of years. The more snpashots we get, the more we should realize we don't really know for certain about what actually happened. We can only make reasonable guesses, and my reasonable guess, like that of many anthropolgists, is that Early Modern Man and other forms of man like Neanderthal Man - I wouldn't even refer to him as another species - must have interbred and the offspring would have been viable. Given the highly sexual nature of modern man and his/her inclination for intercourse at any opportune time and the lack of an oestrus cycle, makes this most likely.
Further, if we were discussing any other organisms other than Homo sapiens, the differences between Neanderthal Man and Early Modern Man would not be considered sufficient to constitute two separate species, and with respect to those skeletal characteristics which allege separate us, various gradations have been discovered in the field. Our own personal bias of ourselves as something unique in the Animal World has colored our views on this subject.
Translation provided at no charge:
LALALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
(removes fingers from ears) There! You are refuted!
A germane, appropriate and insightful point. :-)
Here you reveal delusions of adequacy.
. . . you shrug and throw up three more.
There sure is a lot of that "no evidence" for evolution!
You cannot be reasoned with.
I have not detected you attempting that tactic.
So you can answer this if you want to, I probably won't get back to it. I prefer to spend my time speaking with intellectually honest people.
Methinks it is like a loser.
I'm sure if your set of virtual lungs is louder than mine you'll declare yourself the victor. Although I hope you'll see deep down that wearing away the opponent's patience with waves of pure crap is in fact a hollow victory.
Perhaps you mistake me for gore3000.
Since you desire to disengage, I'll just hit the new points and not let pass all the stuff I've answered already anyway.
If you think a bear paw should look something like a dog paw (a dog being a hairy, long-muzzled carnivore as is a bear), then the similarity of bear paws to human hands is striking and must be a stunner of a coincidence. But it's just another example like your housecats and lions. Dogs evolved to run. They run on their "fingertips," an evolution away from having spreadable fingers.
Bears are more closely related to pandas and procyonids (raccoons and coatis). If you think a bear paw looks like a hand, examine a raccoon print sometime. In fact, that five-fingered hand comes in well below the primate branch. It appears about 250 million years ago and becomes the basal reptilian form. Forms like that dinosaur and bird hand evolved away from that base.
Here's a good site for you:
Get familiar with that and you'll spend less time being astounded.
John Rennie edits Sciam (and rather poorly IMHO), but with one exception that I recall he doesn't write the articles.
Medved for one has been trying to confound us with Remine and Haldane's Dilemma for as long as he's been here, probably two years. I won't repeat it all to you lest it take all the discovery out of being a newbie. Haldane was sincerely confused mainstream scientist back in the 1950s when he announced his puzzlement on how you can have enough time to propagate and accumulate enough mutations to get a new function. Creationists continue to feign puzzlement. Two key words: 1) "serial", 2) "parallel." If you care to continue I'll give you more hints, maybe a web page or two.
As for Truman's mathematical argument from astonishment, I have little patience for such long-winded demolitions of strawmen. Let me just quote him quoting Kofahl:
What we have today in modern myoglobin and hemoglobin molecules are marvels of perfect designs for special, highly demanding tasks. Is there any evidence that intermediate, half-evolved molecules could have served useful functions during this imaginary evolutionary change process, or that any creature could survive with them in its blood? There is no such information. Modern vertebrates can tolerate very little variation in these molecules.Contrary to what is said here, practically every species has its own unique hemoglobin and its own myoglobin. In fact, practically every protein is a molecular clock you can calibrate to measure evolutionary distance between organisms. The trees you build with these clocks tend to match the structural/cladistic trees to a high degree.
Yes, there are mutations which are harmful. Variation is one part of evolution. Natural selection is another.
As for the probability of a complex molecule like DNA or a protein spontaneously jumping together from atoms, you might as well compute the probability of another you jumping together from atoms. No one's claiming it happens that way.
You're looking for the exit, so I won't run on further.
Spell-checker didn't catch the extraneous not in there.
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.