Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say

So Genesis is just a big joke to you? I think God already explained how he did it.

Genesis is what it is. What it isn't is a science textbook. And nowhere in it does God say how He created the world --- I defy you to show me otherwise.

61 posted on 04/13/2006 1:53:23 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)

It sure says he created humans as humans. Unless you are reading the Darwin version.

62 posted on 04/13/2006 1:54:42 PM PDT by mlc9852

To: Old Professer

I'll keep that in mind next time they're comparing us to marxists and nazis.

63 posted on 04/13/2006 1:54:44 PM PDT by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)

For those that care here is my background and education. (for those that don’t care, skip to the next paragraph). I have a degree in Biochemistry and a doctorate in Medicine. The degree in Biochemistry included courses in biology, vertebrate morphology, taxonomy etc. I am a conservative Christian and believe in creation and not the modern Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has always been and will always be a theory and one that lacks good evidence. I think that so many discussing this topic these days lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. A theory is an idea that explains observations. It can never move from a theory to an established law without experimentation and repeated verification. The evidence from the fossil record is very weak and no matter how many “missing links” you come up with you can never prove the Theory of Evolution because you 1) were not there to observe the process and 2) cannot reproduce it. (I am not talking about and we should make a clear difference between the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. Natural Selection can be observed directly in nature and actually can be reproduced. Natural Selection does not prove the Theory of Evolution. Just because I can change one species of fruit fly into another one in the lab does not mean I can change a frog into a dog no matter how much time is given to me. The leap of faith that people take from Natural Selection to the Theory of Evolution is enormous.)
The fossil record is simply a scattered series of “snapshots” of nature’s past. The theory part comes in when you try and assemble all of these snapshots and try and make them tell a story. Imagine taking a film (that you’ve never seen) and isolating 1% of the frames from that movie randomly. Now lay those pictures out on a table. Think you could tell the story accurately. Even if you had a large number of frames and knew what order to put them in you are still not seeing the whole movie. To take this analogy even further you first have to take a leap of faith and “believe” that the frames of the movie lead from one to the other. I must first “believe” that one species evolved into another species in order to explain two similar fossils. And that’s what we are left with: a theory to explain an observation – not proof!
In my office I have a 4’x 6’ chart of all of the typical biochemical reactions that occur in a living cell. Very small print, thousands of reactions. I find it much easier to believe that Someone created than to believe that it all happened by chance.

64 posted on 04/13/2006 1:56:04 PM PDT by ejroth

To: mikeus_maximus

National Geographic is on a roll. Soon they'll report on how the missing link was clutching pieces of the 'Gospel of Judas'.

65 posted on 04/13/2006 1:57:17 PM PDT by baltoga

It's not a joke, it's one of many creation myths, translated, interpreted, edited down through the years.

66 posted on 04/13/2006 1:57:30 PM PDT by blowfish

God isn't a myth. There are just some who refuse to believe in Him. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

67 posted on 04/13/2006 1:58:24 PM PDT by mlc9852

To: edcoil; HeadOn; trebb; Abcdefg; Fruit of the Spirit; Jotmo; theFIRMbss; conservativefreak; ...

Some might say this post belongs in the "pearls before swine" department, but I consider it more "hope springs eternal"...

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee - which is similar to the early chimpanzees that (evolutionists at least think) were our common ancestors - and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human

68 posted on 04/13/2006 1:59:16 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: "The Bitter Wells Dude on the Sweetwater" by Kalbaugh)

LOL. I heard something about a NG controversy regarding Judas but I don't know any details.

69 posted on 04/13/2006 2:00:14 PM PDT by mlc9852

It sure says he created humans as humans. Unless you are reading the Darwin version.

No it doesn't, it says "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," which explains what He did but doesn't come anywhere near to explaining how He did it. Maybe your version of Genesis comes with instructional diagrams, but mine is kind of lacking in that regard.

70 posted on 04/13/2006 2:01:01 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)

To: Senator Bedfellow

For those of you creo nonbelievers, I've seen Lucy. She exists.

Has any one else?

71 posted on 04/13/2006 2:01:09 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)

He didn't form the ape-like creatures out of the dust. They were humans. They could talk and make babies and all kinds of things. You really are dense.

72 posted on 04/13/2006 2:02:41 PM PDT by mlc9852

Did you see Lucy or did you see bones?

73 posted on 04/13/2006 2:03:13 PM PDT by mlc9852

I think I've posted this response on this thread already ... but no thanks. I've had enough tap-dancing and trap-door logic and BS from pro-evolutionists to last until Christmas.

And I noticed you scored 87 on the nerd-o-meter. Wanna go out? :-)

74 posted on 04/13/2006 2:04:06 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)

He didn't form the ape-like creatures out of the dust. They were humans.

It doesn't say how long He took to create humans or how many intermediate steps He took. You're making assumptions, and I think they're dangerous assumptions given that you're using those assumptions to casually discount mountains of contrary physical evidence.

The purpose of Genesis isn't to lay out a how-to-create-the-universe manual, but rather to illustrate God's particular connection with mankind in general and with the Jewish people in particular. It does the latter well -- it is amazingly vague about ther former.

75 posted on 04/13/2006 2:08:37 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)

To: Alter Kaker; DesScorp

Nobody suggests that Lucy was anything other than A. africanus.

I clearly need another cup of coffee. Lucy is A. afarensis, of course, not A. africanus.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on the mosaic of plattyrhine features you suggest she has.

76 posted on 04/13/2006 2:11:31 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)

It can never move from a theory to an established law without experimentation and repeated verification. I think that so many discussing this topic these days lack a basic understanding of the scientific method.

Call me a skeptic...

77 posted on 04/13/2006 2:12:58 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)

To: manwiththehands; jennyp

Hey you be careful. Jennyp is actually Patrick Henry (I know, she told me so) so might be a little uncomfortable. Of course, PatrickHenry might be Patricia Henry, so you could be OK. Sigh, it gets so confusing....

78 posted on 04/13/2006 2:14:03 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)

Like I said before, ping me when the missing link for INTELLIGENCE is discovered. You might also include DNA's missing link.

79 posted on 04/13/2006 2:17:53 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit (For the ACLU: "This guilt of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great")

The snapshot analogy is a good one except of course that 1% should be reduced by unimaginable orders of magnitude and 0.00000000000000000000001% would not even be getting close.

Exactly bump<>To take this analogy even further you first have to take a leap of faith and “believe” that the frames of the movie lead from one to the other. I must first “believe” that one species evolved into another species in order to explain two similar fossils

Wolf

80 posted on 04/13/2006 2:19:10 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794