Posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:48 PM PDT by valkyry1
Identified via two-million-year-old fossils, a new human ancestor dubbed Australopithecus sediba may be the "key transitional species" between the apelike australopithecines—and the first Homo, or human, species, according to a new study.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Maybe with all these missing links, including the humorous Piltdown man, we should look for some other explanation.
And these evolutionists ridicule Sarah Palin for her creationism (which she would not impose of the schools if President)?
Neo-Darwinists often engage in a frustrating tautology, using the course of evolution to "prove" natural selection--and vice versa. If evolution were merely a scientific theory that was open to evaluation based on the evidence, then its evidentiary failings would be freely acknowledged and additional theories could be considered as they are warranted.
But far from being a free marketplace of ideas where scientists consider themselves at liberty to pursue the evidence where it leads, the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.
And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane."
One thing that is a possibility is that in the past, there were creatures that were apes but with different abilities or feature than current apes. Why every discovery (if it is one) has to be a “link” I have no idea.
Other than clutching at straws, of course!
I am not a believer in these “scientists” or global warming. I think this one is a money grab.
Most likely. Get some grants, write papers and make speeches, maybe a book.
It’s Darth Vader!
Here we go again, ping.....
They never will find that missing link because none exists.
Man didn’t evolve from apes or apelike creatures or whatever it is they are calling it these days.
“But we’re sure they're related to us living millions of years later”, said Iva Grant, team leader and attorney representing the deceased in a wrongful death suit.
1. Created here from scratch recently
2. Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos
3. Genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids.
Here's the basic problem: In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.
Now, it was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods of time; one fairly good description of the problem was published in Discover Magazine around 96.
And then, in the late 90s, they resolved the mystery by analyzing neanderthal DNA; the result they turned up was that neanderthal dna was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and pretty much everybody involved in these studies views that as altogether eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Even standard sources like PLOS Biology agree with this assessment.
Again as I noted, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. In other words, if you wanted to go on thinking that we are descended from hominids, you would have to produce some new hominid closer to us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of such a creature would be all over the map and exceedingly easy to find, had he ever existed. There is, of course, zero evidence of it.
The basic bottom line is that there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from via any process resembling evolution.
Amazing! How many times are they going to find, “key transitional species?”
*snicker*
There is and was no need for any crossbreeding between species for there to be descent via evolutionary processes.
The closest relative to a human in DNA is the chimpanzee, and the closest relative to a chimpanzee in DNA is the human being. Humans and chimps are closer to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla. The endogenous retroviral markers show the evidence of our common descent.
Evolution as a model, explains these observations.
Creationism does not.
As many times as the last *key transitional species* turns out to - *oopsie* - not be a transitional after all.
Thanks for the ping!
This thread is not about creationists, its about the latest ‘missing link’. So if you cant defend your ideas without that as a strawmwan you dont really have an argument.
BTW talkorigns and other evolutionist websites describe their tactics for attacking creationists, so when people as yourself engage in that, its easy to recognize.
Can you defend the comment?
And yes, scientists routinely point out that Creationists don't know much about science (or much of anything, as the more educated one is the less likely they are to be a creationist), and when creationists try to talk about science they usually get even the basics horribly wrong.
The truth, it IS a tactic. And a rather effective one.
While you have nothing here but your claim about being ‘a relative’ and channeling Dawkins with your creationist strawman.
The evolutionists have been all over the place with their origin of man from baboons, the chimpanzee, the orang-utang, or the gorilla, and more lately some mythical pre-ape creature.
the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.
And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane."
Evolutionary biology has never postulated descent of man from the orangutan or the gorilla; but has always postulated the same thing, that humans descended via common descent from other apes, and that our most recent common ancestor is shared, among living apes, with the chimpanzee.
Talk about a strawman. Why do you feel you have to invent untruths about evolutionary biology?
Perhaps you time would be better served actually LEARNING something about it rather than inventing untruths about it.
But if you wanted to learn something, instead of proudly insisting you already know, you wouldn't be a creationist.
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.