Skip to comments.A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest
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
Creation by whom? What does it mean to say an atheist "accepts creation?" Are atheists rejecting evidence? What's the basis of your claim that they're being close-minded?
BTW, what about agnostics? Is an agnostic close-minded for not accepting creation? Why should anyone who hasn't drunk the communion Kool-Aid accept the universe coming from a supernatural entity?
This may be a whole new logical fallacy you've invented. Argumentum ad Oxymoronem.
If science has a job it is to question everything. Unfortunately for the atheist faithful, the theory of evolution is . evolving.
So is physics. Maybe that means it's just a scientific theory and not a religion. But I suppose there's no explaining that to people who think everything's about religion, period.
I'm out for the night. Just pile it up here and I'll hit it tomorrow.
Scientific naturalism can become a religion.
I think he's being sarcastic.
Are atheists rejecting evidence?
What's the basis of your claim that they're being close-minded?
They reject God without evidence.
BTW, what about agnostics? Is an agnostic close-minded for not accepting creation?
Why should anyone who hasn't drunk the communion Kool-Aid accept the universe coming from a supernatural entity?
Is it your position that God does not exist and rational people can only hold this view?
When I was a kid, I saw clouds that were shaped like different things, too.
One time while playing by the creek, I found a rock shaped like a fish.
See? I can see things just like these scientists.
(Can I get a nobile prize for that?)
They hold up Christians that accept their beliefs only to laugh at them at least some of them. (a hollow laugh)
Because religion has more documented proof than evolution. Opps!
Have you ever noticed their argument? "Prove there is a God", yet not once have they come up with proof themselves that says there isn't a God! How can they deny him without proof of something else to take his place?
I wish there were no "materialsitic naturalistic" science. I wish there were only "science" that was willing to accept whatever conclusion was allowed by the evidence. Alas, some misdefine science in such a way that certain possible explanations are ruled out in advance regardless of evidence. That is the subjective "materialist naturalistic science" that undermines plain old, non-philosophical, objective science. The kind Newton and Pascal and the rest of the giants practiced.
Now as to the specfics of your question : it does number 2 in the particulars in order to do #1 in the general. In other words, naturalsitic assumptions are NEVER ALLOWED TO BE QUESTIONED! That is "sticking to the story despite the evidence". That is the only story they stick to...that it is all naturalistic. Everything else must be constantly changing to be bent around their one absolute.
That is where #2 comes into play. Any naturalistic explanation, regardless of how contradicted by evidence, is taken to be infinetly better than any supernatural explanation, no matter how obvious. These leads to missing the true explanation so that an infinte series of flase explanations must be tried and discarded, even while the true explanation is sitting there like the elephant in the room.
So I say that they DON'T change regardless of evidence in philosphical underpinnings, and this causes them change constantly in terms of the particulars. Since they miss the obvious truth, that forces them to set a series of untruths as proposed explanations. These are being shot down with increasing rapidity as our power to test hypotheses grows.
I hope I am getting this across. The point is somewhat hard to grasp, how an error on point one of your question leads quite naturally (no divine intervention required!!) to errors of the nature of type two.
Sounds like an evolutionist. Was it able to tie its shoes without bending over?
While I am one who does not see why there must be this "one OR the other" approach, you've made your points very well and exposed the atheists for what they are. By actively embrassing the idea that there is not and can not possibly be such a thing as "God", they've pre-determined their own inability to accept the idea of "Intelligent Design" or "Creation" in any form.
and to think they call this science!
Actually, I am a very religious person and actually believe that God is important in the development of life here on Earth.
Unfortunatly, those that have devoutly supported the Creationist side of the argument, have actually achieved the exact opposite of their desired intention.
I love to read these threads, but so far, the Creationists are loosing.
Why? Because they have absolutly failed to present an alternative argument of HOW things work. Oh, they are more than happy to say WHO and WHEN, but always avoid the basic question.
Just once, can anyone from the Creationist side present a hypothesis of HOW it works?
I know that I will not receive an honest reply. Why? Because I have asked this simple question for 5 years now. Not once, has anyone attempted to answer my simple question.
They actually fear the word create so much, they will deny anything was created.
The irony is that they enclose themselves in this naturalism genome and refuse to mutate or evolve by way scientific data that contradicts their belief structure. Naturalism as far as human intelligence can go and nature provided them with the intelligence to figure this out
Also, look for a great new book coming out soon Uncommon Descent.
If I understand your question correctly, there may be a response here: Freeper Views on Origins
My question is HOW?
How does the supernatural alter DNA? Can this be reproduced in a lab? If not, why not?
If God directs the development of species on Earth, then we should be able to document this. New species are being developed all the time, so it should be a simple task to document how God alters the DNA of a species.
HOW does it work?
And since you are one of my most respected Freepers, your thoughts have a great deal of weight with me.
And religious dogma is not science. If you have noticed, our religious views have evolved over the centuries too.
How what works? The internal combustion engine? A pressure bandage? Aspirin?
There are somethings we know. There are some things we don't. It is worse to pretend to know something than to admit you don't.
Or, is there a valid reason why it is impossible to document God's alternation of DNA?
How does God do it?