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
Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?
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.
We share 96.4% or our genes with an orangutan. We can go to the moon, communicate with computers, and drive on roads. Why?
We share 94% of our genes with mice…(mice to men) our genes make up 10% of our genome. There is still much to learn – and I am excited.
There is a very real and specific answer to this. Do you know what it is?
With nuclear physics, the answer is a definate YES!
Why? Because humans have been able to ask these questions and attempted to find answers.
Once again, is there a basic law of the Universe that is preventing us from understanding HOW God can alter the DNA of a species? Even this knowledge would be astounding!
Ok, I will bite....
And the answer is > > >
I don't know.
I am saying that right now, neither you, nor I, nor Vade, nor any evolutionist knows how God -- the idea that we are here by accident is irrational -- has caused different types of living organisms to occur.
I do not know, but am using the intelligence that God gave me to ask the basic questions.
Is this not the difference between Humans and Animals? We ask questions?
I'm not sure why you think that's important given the open contempt in the "scientific community" for religious explanations for origins. Don't believe me, see Eugenie Scott's "National Center for Science Education."
You'd do well to read the criticisms of that view on Trueorigin.org, specifically Deception by Omission
Have a nice day.
"It is the job of science to figure out what is going on."
Interesting...what IS goING on. Why do you suppose then that "scientists" continue to foist simple mechanisms on the unsuspecting public as acceptable explanations for diversity? That's not an explanation for what IS goING on, but rather an unsupported extrapolation of what WENT on. Just my $0.02.
1) sticking to its story despite the evidence or
2) revising its story every so often to fit the evidence?"
False Dilemma.
The third option would be they are presenting a story that the evidence does not support. The definitions are constantly being shifted--"evolution" either means "change" or it means "accumulated change to account for biodiversity." There is evidence for the first, and people are supposed to believe that the same evidence accounts for the second. See Hasn't Been Proved
Some of us are not that gulliable.
What difference does it make? The point is that it's rational for one to believe that there is a greater power in the world than naturalistic forces and man. The definition of that power is beyond the scope of evolutionary debate.
"Why should anyone who hasn't drunk the communion Kool-Aid accept the universe coming from a supernatural entity?"
Because it very obviously did. I don't think it takes much, just honesty, to admit that complex matter and life forms do not self-originate from nothing.
PS: Communion is recognized with either wine or grape juice, not "kool aid."
With nuclear physics, the answer is a definate YES!
Please. The Big Bang has never, EVER, been recreated. That is because even the smallest sub-atomic particle is in fact mass that must have an origin--something cannot come from nothing, IOW. Mass can be turned into energy, but not the other way around.
It's been said before that some taxonomies and cladistics are contradictory--evolutionary based explanations for animal relationships cannot be used to prove evolution.
More on the subject can be found here: 29 Evidences critique and No Transitionals.
Hope I made sense.
You'd do well to read the criticisms of that view on Trueorigin.org, specifically Deception by Omission
You'd do well to read the criticisms of that criticism on Talkorigins.org.
(Jenny's First Internet Crevo Law: For every claim there's an equal and opposite rebuttal somewhere. :-)
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
Many people believe in evolution because that is what has been taught exclusively in public schools and universities. Like bloodletting several hundred years ago, it is taken as an article of faith and accepted as such. It covers the situation for the vast majority of people who accept evolution.
One the other hand, atheists attach themselves fiercely to this theory because it provides them with an explanation for their existence that eliminates the need for a Creator, and fits into their worldview. The absence of a God requires a naturalistic explanation to answer the question: “why am I here?”
It is the reason that atheists cannot even accept the possibility of an “Intelligent Design” theory, since to do so would require them to concede the possibility that a God may exist. And if that is true, their atheism is false. And if God does exist, all sorts of epistemological issues would need to be re-examined.
Example: "Where can I buy a pair of asbestas BVDs?"
They're waiting for evidence that God affects the world before believing that he does. That's reasonable. I don't postulate God where Archimedes's Law of the Lever will suffice.
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.