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
He senses my power.
</gen. ripper mode>
BWAAAAAAHAHAHA. You mean like you do? BWAAAAAAAAHAHA!
I knew you could not back it up. I knew you would insult instead of respond to the challenge. Evolutionists love to throw dirt up on the wall see if it sticks and when caught they insult. Nothing new.
Another typical evolutionist 'refutation', no facts, just insults.
Your assertions are garbage. You just hurl insults and never back anything up. What did he prove, give post and link. You will not, because he has been beaten in three straight threads with his garbage.
And added the ability to digest polymers - a new beneficial function.
Oh yes, you can find polymers all over in nature. Once the plant closes they will die, as I said. You just keep talking garbage.
That's right, observable. You finally looked it up after you moronically said it had to do with the expression of proteins which are not observable. Like all the evolutionists you keep trying to change the meanings of words to fit stupid theory. Phenotype is the observable characteristics. If scientists are talking about proteins, they say proteins not phenotype. Unlike evolutionists scientists are very specific in their use of words.
Yes, you did. Several times. In more than one thread.
Just answer the question: how is a program changed at random in an evolutionary way. No links, no garbage, no daemons. We are not talking mutations, we are talking about the human development program. You have shown me dozens of garbage mutations already which I have completely refuted already. You are trying to change the subject, I will not allow it. Answer the question. Just a straight answer, none of this throwing dirt against the wall see what sticks. The process by which a single cell is turned into 3 trillion cells by birth is a program, a very specific program which cannot be changed at random.
Yup, and same question, same refutation - stop wasting my time, the answer is below:
I chose the mosquito study to examine in detail since it is a good example of natural selection in the wild and the ONLY logical conclusion is that the duplicated esterase genes are expressed. Nilla
We have been over this before. We are not talking logic, we are talking facts. What you call logic is not logic. It is only logical if you start with the premise that evolution is true. Since that is what we are trying to determine such a premise is not valid. Since the premise is not valid the 'logical conclusion' from that premise is not valid. It is also very telling that since this is such a 'logical' conclusion, you cannot find any scientists that say that this is in fact what occurred. They do not say that the new gene(s) was(were) expressed. If this is the only 'logical' conclusion why don't they say it? Because they know it is not true. See my answer to Stultis just above for the reasons. 414 posted on 7/24/02 10:23 PM Pacific by gore3000
Yup, and same question, same refutation - stop wasting my time, the answer is below:
I chose the mosquito study to examine in detail since it is a good example of natural selection in the wild and the ONLY logical conclusion is that the duplicated esterase genes are expressed. Nilla
We have been over this before. We are not talking logic, we are talking facts. What you call logic is not logic. It is only logical if you start with the premise that evolution is true. Since that is what we are trying to determine such a premise is not valid. Since the premise is not valid the 'logical conclusion' from that premise is not valid. It is also very telling that since this is such a 'logical' conclusion, you cannot find any scientists that say that this is in fact what occurred. They do not say that the new gene(s) was(were) expressed. If this is the only 'logical' conclusion why don't they say it? Because they know it is not true. See my answer to Stultis just above for the reasons. 414 posted on 7/24/02 10:23 PM Pacific by gore3000
Yup, and the refutation is below. Since you lost the argument completely you are taking pieces from here and there, wasting everyone's time:
Gore3000 is grasping at straws with this statement. These mutants spontaneously evolved a new ability via random mutation. RWN-
Nope. Your example does not show:
1. greater complexity.
2. greater genetic information.
3. the duplication of and expression of a new gene.
4. better functioning under normal conditions.
In short it does not show anything necessary for evolution to be true. What it does show is adaptation to the environment. One last thing, it is even doubtful that this can be called a mutation. The specificity of the change, suggests (but does not prove) that it may have been due to deliberate adaptation by transposons. As I said at the start of this discussion 4 - 2 does not equal 6. You need additional expressed genes for evolution to be true and such has never been shown.
1311 posted on 7/24/02 5:56 AM Pacific by gore3000
Once again, Gore3000 shows us how detached from reality he is.
The population in this purely hypothetical scenario is skyrocketing in an ridiculously unrealistic fashion.
The math is the same, it just shows the problem faster. The evos have been arguing about many children, they got them. If it's too many it does not work, if it is too few, it does not work. Math is the same any way you look at it. Divide by two you always get a smaller number regardless of what numbers you use. Your argument and that of your fellow evolutionists is therefore completely moronic.
Oh wow! What fantastic evidence you are presenting us with! Maybe you should get a Nobel Prize for the discovery! I mean how can anyone refute it!
Interestingly the above is the same kind of 'evidence' presented by Darwin throughout his works - his mother's cousin's friend said that this or that had been observed. What a joke evolution and evolutionists are.
That has already been discussed. If there is close interbreeding other mutations will destroy the individuals interbreeding with close relatives. This is a very well established fact in genetics and explained in several posts already.
Max, who is a M.D., and has a Ph.d -- I'm not sure in what by I'll assume a hard science, is disputing positions by biochemist Dr. Duane Gish; peditrician Ross Olson and Dr. Lee Spetner.
Now, all four of these people know more about this subject than myself, and I strongly suspect everybody else on this thread.
The creationists argue that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in a human. Max says "so what" they happen in bacteria, and nobody ever had a reason to look for them in people, anyway. He does admit they are rare.
The creationists say mutations do not add information to the genome. Max says they do. Max publishes an interesting and fair account of a debate on the subject with Spetner here
The conclusion is nobody seems to knock anybody out. I would give the win to the creationists but that may be my bias.
I was impressed with Max. He agreed that "macro-evolution" has never been observed. I won't claim that "macro-evolution" is impossible or should be discounted.
I do believe quite strongly that random mutations and natural selection fail remarkably in explaining biodiversity.
One think I found humorous was that both sides used the phrase "straw man"
Showing your absolute ignorance of biology. Women have two X chromosomes, men have an X and a Y. So the chances of the progeny having one X and one Y are determined by the man and the chances are 50% as we see. Study up on genetics so you do not continue to make a fool of yourself.
Let's see the research on that. I have shown many mutations which are not favorable already, time for you to back up what you say.
So when are you going to answer how a program is changed at random??????
Since you keep claiming that you have the evidence you should be able to do so. Any mutation has to become part of the developmental program of an organism for it to be passed on and work so unless you can answer the question all the nonsense about mutations is just nonsense.
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.