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

Of course. Duplication is a mutation.

True.

But as I understand it, for evolution to occurr, necessary traits can't be lost or the organism will be at a selective disadvantage. Can evolution occur without gene duplication?

Look at humans. We've lost the ability to manufacture our own vitamin C. I don't know what we gained instead but I presume it was worth it at the time.

But remember, this mutation happened in one organism in significantly sized populaiton. The creature must survive to breed for this mutation to pass it on. And the offspring must survive to breed, also. Most offspring don't.

True, but remember the nylon-eating bacteria? That specific mutation arises often by a specific mechanism and it died often. It was only beneficial the one time it occurred in a polymer plant waste pond. Mutations aren't necessarily one time events that must survive or forever after sit in history's dust bin.

Even assuming survival, a neutral mutation is likely to die out according to GK3's calculations in Post 683? Unless these calculations are wrong. Can you show they -- or the premise on which they are based -- are wrong?

Beneficial mutations, by definition, have a survival, and hence breeding, advantage. Singular neutral mutations may or may not die out for reasons that have nothing to do with the mutation. Again, from the posts above, there may be more complex mechanisms at work to keep many strings available for the genone bow. I'm sure we'll figure it out eventually.

The duplicate then must mutate again into a new beneficial trait. Or a survival-neutral one -

Mutations of genes are common. Standard estimates are 1-2 mutations per thousand individuals per gene.

So, we have an observation in humans of a gene duplication that has mutated into a gene containing a beneficial trait?

Not in humans. How many genones have we sequenced? Two. We have nothing to compare anything against ... yet. Although we could probably induce such a change (or will be able to do so soon enough) just to test the theory but, gee, there's that problem of ethics again.

So I just got my new “computer evolution” kit. It’s basically a 4-bit instruction processor with program counter, address decoder and sufficient RAM to store a set of microinstructions and do something worth doing. You get 8-10 discrete integrated circuits plus assorted resistors, capacitors and LEDs.
Note: If you would like to make your own, all the supplies are available at a nearby Radio Shack store or from mail order dealers like Digi-Key.

I thought the computer was going to be designed randomly and over a period of time but when I read the instructions – well, I was surprised:
“For best results, follow meticulously the precise design and careful assembly… Placing the components in a container and shaking them randomly for an extended time will only damage them.”

It goes on to say:
“Once the computer is fully developed (meaning you have bought all the other accessories and incorporated them per the intended design), all new evolutionary changes take place according with the preinstalled program and plug and play components… mutations are known as bugs that should be removed immediately… beneficial changes exist in the software and hardware provided…”

Oh well, I guess we can’t design things as well as nature… LOL

“According to J.B.S. Haldane, the acceptance of radical ideas that challenge the status quo proceeds in four stages. First, the idea is regarded as preposterous--it is so absurd as not to merit consideration. Second, it is regarded as pernicious--the idea is firmly on people’s radar but now is regarded in moral and even apocalyptic terms (intelligent design spells the end of science). Third, it is regarded as possible--it is now evident that the idea is not entirely absurd and may even have far-reaching consequences. Fourth and finally, it is regarded as plausible--a new status quo has emerged and the mainstream cannot imagine how people in times past could have thought otherwise. With intelligent design, we are now at the transition from stage two to stage three. This is the hardest transition.”

“Comment: In other words, if you don’t want to face social and legal intimidation from the ACLU, NCSE, and other groups and individuals in that small ten percent of the population that are hostile to ID (Gallup poll after Gallup poll confirms that about 90 percent of the U.S. population are behind some form of intelligent design), stay clear of intelligent design. All it will take is a few school boards and individuals to stand up against this pressure, and in short order we’ll see a stock market-style collapse of the Darwinian stranglehold over public education.”
-Dembski

Oh no! Say it’s not true.

BWWAHAHA! BWAAAAHAHAH… (choke, choke) Excuse me…

It goes on to say:“Once the computer is fully developed (meaning you have bought all the other accessories and incorporated them per the intended design), all new evolutionary changes take place according with the preinstalled program and plug and play components… mutations are known as bugs that should be removed immediately… beneficial changes exist in the software and hardware provided…”

An apt illustration.

With intelligent design, we are now at the transition from stage two to stage three. This is the hardest transition.”

It's actually kind of exciting though.

No, the other genes are not relevant, since they do not deal with the creation and regulation of the three relavant parts of the system.

Because you say so? Don't think so. It is all part of the regulation and control system of the flagellum.

It seems you are missing the point.

No, I am not. I got it that they are positing that it was a secretory system. That only explains the hairlike structures and not the other part of the system.

It's pretty obvious, in the cases of the things I have posted previously. They still perform their earlier functions

No they cannot, if a gene changes to make a different protein it leaves a function undone. Different proteins cannot perform the same function and once transformed to another function, the old function goes unperformed.

The real meat of the flagellum structure is the rotor and movement mechanism. The flagellum is the only system in nature which has circular movement. It has a very closely controlled rotor and stator. It has a control system which allows it to move the rod at some 100,000 rpm in either direction. The author of the article did not even try to explain that most important and most unique part of the system.

Beneficial mutations, by definition, have a survival, and hence breeding, advantage.

The problem is that they have to be immediately beneficial and have a large survival value to overcome the tremendous 50% chance of its not being reproduced. This implies that a duplicated gene would immediately acquire all the mutations necessary for it to perform a new function, to acquire a regulating mechanism at the same time, to be adopted by the rest of the organism at the same time. This is utterly impossible.

There is another problem with positing duplicate genes as the engines of evolution. The seemingly duplicate genes which we know of perform very similar functions to those of the 'original' genes. For evolution to be true you need totally new genes and there is no possible explanation for them.

Gore to balrog: The problem is that they have to be immediately beneficial and have a large survival value to overcome the tremendous 50% chance of its not being reproduced.

Here's what I'm talking about. This is just indefensible. Can you tell me how he can still be saying this? This has been going on in front of you as well as me.

There is no 50 percent chance of reproduction per generation per gene. I explained it already on this thread. There's a crudely fifty-percent copy rate across all offspring whenever there's a mutant/non-mutant pairing. (But if you get a mutant-mutant pairing a generation or two down the road there's a 100 percent copy rate.)

Now I've been on threads where jennyp was trying to pound this into gore's head with a sledgehammer and the boy's still spouting nonsense months later. I hope I'm not getting too slimey here but it's this kind of robotic repetition of nonsensical falsehood that just destroys any hope of credibility for gore.

And the astonishing thing is that no fellow C can bring himself/herself to call gore on his behavior. Normally, in any rational discourse, you can't let someone discredit your position just because he's "on your side." But, in a Holy War you just don't attack an ally against the heathen enemy.

The visible Holy War mentality in Cs undercuts all claims that the anti-E position is based in any way upon science or evidence.

The problem is that they have to be immediately beneficial

I agree that beneficial means beneficial.

and have a large survival value to overcome the tremendous 50% chance of its not being reproduced.

If this mutation occurs in a bacteria, 100% of the descendents will have the mutation. In higher animals, 50% of all descendents will inherit the mutation. Don't you have any family? Any aunts, uncles, cousins, children? Can't you see specific characteristics survive from one generation to another?

This implies that a duplicated gene would immediately acquire all the mutations necessary for it to perform a new function, to acquire a regulating mechanism at the same time, to be adopted by the rest of the organism at the same time. This is utterly impossible.

The gene is the new function (protein) and it is either beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. No additional regulatory mechanism is necessary at this point.

There is another problem with positing duplicate genes as the engines of evolution. The seemingly duplicate genes which we know of perform very similar functions to those of the 'original' genes.

No one has postulated that duplicate genes are the "engines of evolution" - just one "engine" of many. And not similar function - exactly the same function. Until a mutation occurs in one of the duplicated genes.

For evolution to be true you need totally new genes and there is no possible explanation for them.

Haven't we seen totally new genes come into being in just this way? Yes, we have. Go look at the nylon eating bacteria again for a documented example. Go back and read RightWingNilla's references for others. Look at your family and see the obvious inherited traits within each generation. So your conclusion is not only a non-seqitur but absolutely wrong. Again.

The reason mega-ten(#) was named 'slim'...

not to be confused with mega-ton...blob-bore on a blackout---

sucking up all the precious bodily-brain fluids...

from smoking too much evo gas---crystals(space gaps/farts)!

They orgy--spore off...morph---mostly stealth...

communicate and reproduce themselves through imaginations---flatteries!

Space Aids---holes---drains/sewers!

Sub humans...pre/post sapiens!

To: donh

Well, in fact, you don't see them trying to insist in any great numbers--to most scientists this is vacuous annoying nonsense that's beneath notice. It is the parents and administrators that want their children educated to scientific literacy that insist.

That isn't the way I read it. As I read it, it's mainly a number of well-heeled organizations which are insisting and, in a political system such as ours, they will ultimately not have the luxury of ignoring the opposition.

Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial", page 144:

"The Darwinists may have made a serious strategic error in choosing to pursue a campaign of indoctrination in the public schools. Previously, the high-school text books said relatively little about evolution, except that most scientists believe in it, which is hard to dispute. Serious examination of the scientific evidence was postponed until college, and was provided mostly to biology majors and graduate students. Most persons outside the profession had little opportunity to learn how much philosophy was being taught in the name of science, and if they knew what was going on, they had no opportunity to mount an effective challenge.
"The Darwinists themselves have changed that comfortable situation by demanding that the public schools teach a great deal more "about evolution". What they mean is that the public schools should try much harder to persuade students to believe in Darwinism, not that they should present fairly the evidence which is causing Darwinists so much trouble. What goes on in the public schools is the public's business, however, and even creationists are entitled to point out errors and evasions in the textbooks and teaching materials. Invokations of authority may work for awhile, but eventually determined protesters will persuade the public to grant them a fair hearing on the evidence. As many more people outside the fundamentalist camp learn how committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuary."

248 posted on 8/5/02 7:59 AM Pacific by medved

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

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---the 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(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!

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.