A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

[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

[VadeRetro]

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.

What is this "evidence" you're trying to get in? Anecdotal sightings of fairies?

In other words, naturalsitic assumptions are NEVER ALLOWED TO BE QUESTIONED! That is "sticking to the story despite the evidence".

What is the evidence for anything else?

Any naturalistic explanation, regardless of how contradicted by evidence, is taken to be infinetly better than any supernatural explanation, no matter how obvious.

There is nothing obvious about that which has no evidence pointing toward it.

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.

Science is not a religion. It accomodates current theory to evidence and not the other way around. Science can be wrong for decades; the Bible is wrong forever.

I hope I am getting this across.

I'm perceiving a long shrill screech devoid of substance.

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.

"Silly science doesn't believe in magic." No sh!t.

[VadeRetro]

Form molecules from scratch?

This is trivial. Chemistry all but demands that atoms form molecules if sufficiently cool. Trap a bunch of neutrons (emitted from uranium, for instance) and you'll soon have molecules of H₂ from their decay into protons, electrons, and neutrinos. The protons will naturally capture electrons and become hydrogen, which will naturally fuse into diatomic molecules. You don't have to make them do this. You can burn the hydrogen in oxygen to make molecules of water. Molecules happen where the chemistry of the situation more-or-less demands a reaction.

You're railing at science for taking God's Job away from him. You can go back to the cave if you want, but I'm keeping my computer.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution.

PetiteMericco: I'm not sure why you think that's important given the open contempt in the "scientific community" for religious explanations for origins.

Why would it be important that a few Luddites don't accept evolution given the overwhelming evidence for it?

[VadeRetro]

The definitions are constantly being shifted--"evolution" either means "change" or it means "accumulated change to account for biodiversity."

Big yawn. Small changes accumulate over time. That much I understood in High School, but you can't make a creationist get it.

[VadeRetro]

What difference does it make? [Creation by whom?]

If Science announced proof of Brahma, Zeus, or Odin, you would still be anti-science. Do you know why?

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.

It is not rational to insist that science prove your creation myth.

The definition of that power is beyond the scope of evolutionary debate.

Translation: You have nothing to offer science except to demand that it cease to offend you.

[ZULU]

Huh???

No one but a scientific moron can possibly refute the reality of evolution as the method used by the Almighty to create physical bodies. While the evolution or genesis of the human soul is best left to theologians, the evolution of the human body clearly derives from a lower primate.

Belief in the Bible and God, and belief in Evolution, are no more contradictory than belief in a heliocentric planetary system and belief in the Bible. Those theologians who persist in denying the obvious by attacking evolution will find themselves in the same penalty pew as the Vatican officials who condemned Gallileo.

[VadeRetro]

From your No Transitionals link:

One of many examples of the incomplete picture given in Hunt’s FAQ may be found in her treatment of whales.  Besides presenting a phylogeny that (much like elsewhere in the FAQ) seems to rely largely on dental records at the expense (in the absence?) of the balance of physiological evidence, she makes mention of Pakicetus, which she describes as “the oldest fossil whale known ... nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole) ... found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious...” What Hunt fails to include in her description of “the oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than:

1. the back of a mammal skull
2. two jaw fragments
3. some teeth

This is pure Lying for the Lord. I've mentioned being an agnostic, but this sort of testimonial to the effects of faith is going to drive me to raving atheism one of these days. How far is this statement from true?

Pakicetidae.

Post-cranial bones were found NLT 2000 and prove that Pakicetids were artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates related to hippos, camels, etc.). So here's TrueOrigins all this time later "forgetting" their info is wrong. I don't know when their version was up-to-date. Maybe the late 70s or early 80s.

Is this an isolated incident? Hah! What comes after Pakicetus? Ambulocetus!

"Actual bones found (Yellow). Note missing pelvic girdle."

No pelvis and practically no spine, actually.

As represented by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of and for AnswersInGenesis.

Another one, same site, different author.

And the problem with that?

From Thewissen's site.

The Lord seems to have declared open season on the truth, if you go by the behavior of some people. I just think He shouldn't be telling people to behave that way.

[VadeRetro]

I meant to ask also, "Why whales?"

Because creationists made hay with the gaps in the whale story for decades. Gish on the ICR site still quotes some guy Colbert back in the 1950s lamenting the lack of whale data. That's a little dishonest too, isn't it?

Evolution predicted the finding of Pakicetus-Ambulocetus-Rhodocetus type transitionals. Creationism crowed over the gaps, essentially predicting that the gaps were evidence for separate creation.

So who was right? That's why it's necessary to lie and the Lord will understand if not approve.

[VadeRetro]

Is it your position that God does not exist and rational people can only hold this view?

I can't imagine saying anything but "I don't know" to the question. But God's getting to be a bit like the ether. The luminiferous ether, the medium in which light waves supposed were waving, was dropped from mainstream science in the 1880s because its predicted effects didn't show up. Thus, if it existed, it didn't do anything.

God is getting to be like that for me except for the effect he has on creationist minds and that does not strike me as a good deed.

[VadeRetro]

the medium in which light waves supposed were waving

Supposedly, that was an adverb.

[thedilg]

My experience may shed some light. Like so many college students I lost my faith, became an atheist and an evolutionst. I also majored in math and science. Through my atheist journey I lost my faith in evolution. It took way more faith than I could continue to muster. Eventually I lost my faith in atheism for the same reason.

By the way a person who believes in God are often great scientists. I give you Werner Von Braun,Einstein, Newton, Kepler,Copernicus, Galileo, etc. (This list could continue by the hundreds.)

Godspeed, The Dilg

[thedilg]

My experience may shed some light. Like so many college students I lost my faith, became an atheist and an evolutionst. I also majored in math and science. Through my atheist journey I lost my faith in evolution. It took way more faith than I could continue to muster. Eventually I lost my faith in atheism for the same reason.

By the way a person who believes in God are often great scientists. I give you Werner Von Braun,Einstein, Newton, Kepler,Copernicus, Galileo, etc. (This list could continue by the hundreds.)

Godspeed, The Dilg

[Gumlegs]

Mark placer.

[Tribune7]

They're waiting for evidence that God affects the world before believing that he does.

So presented with the proper evidence an atheist will become a believer. Will other atheists then accept his testimony as to why he came to accept a creator or will they mark it up to weakness and delusion?

[thedilg]

Sorry for the Double post. Fat fingers and a fat brain is truly a cross.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[Tribune7]

No one but a scientific moron can possibly refute the reality of evolution as the method used by the Almighty to create physical bodies.

I haven't claimed to refute evolution. I said I am skeptical of it. On the other hand, there are those who are literally refuting evolution most notably Michael Behe with his theory of irreducible complexity. He theory has been assailed and is holding up. His detractors are resorting to sputtering and name calling -- rather than calm, quiet rebuttal -- which is a strong indication that he is going to win the argument.

Belief in the Bible and God, and belief in Evolution,

My personal view is that one can be a Christian and believe in macro-evolution. I am beginning to have doubts that one can be a man of science and do so, however. :-)

[Tribune7]

But God's getting to be a bit like the ether.

Not to me. You think that's rational?

[Taliesan]

My experience may shed some light.

Oh, the naivete. Read these threads long enough and you'll learn that nothing, absolutely nothing sheds light on anyone else. Each side is convinced the other is Satan.

[Gumlegs]

Here are two interesting articles on this matter. The first is from National Geographic. Here are a couple of quotes:

The finding has excited the scientific community especially because it opens a window onto a period near the time when humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor. Virtually nothing about that period is known, as most human fossils are considerably younger.

Various aspects of the new fossils could force scientists to rethink some basic theories about human origins, according to several scientists who were not part of the research team.

Then later,

Lieberman saw the skull and, like some other observers, said he was particularly intrigued by the creature's unusual mix of both primitive and advanced traits. The braincase is chimp-like, for example, but the face, teeth, and somewhat flattened head resemble those of humans.

"What's most astonishing is that the facial features are like those that we don't see until 1.8 million years ago in the genus Homo. It is more Homo than australopithecine," he said, referring to the best-known group of hominids, which appeared in East Africa three to four million years ago and whose fossils have provided most of what we know about the earliest human ancestors."

Then, Lieberman again, in answer to a question:

So, is the new skull fossil a hominid—perhaps our earliest known ancestor?

"It's very hard to be sure, but I think it's a hominid," said Lieberman. "But whether it was the earliest hominid or the earliest ancestor of anyone living today, we can't tell."

The National Geographic article also quotes experts disputing Lieberman.

The next source is Nature Magazine. A quick quote from this article states that scientists have indeed noticed that the muscles attached to the back of the scull:

"When I first saw the skull I thought: 'Gee, it's a chimp'," says anthropologist Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University. Toumaï's brain, for example, was roughly chimp-sized. A closer look "blew my socks off", he recalls.

Sahelanthropus has many traits that shout 'hominid'. These include smaller canines, and thicker tooth enamel than apes. And the point at the back of skull where neck muscles attach suggests that Toumaï walked upright.

Many of Toumaï's advanced features are missing from later fossils such as Australopithecus, but reappear in still later species that are classified as Homo.

And to satisfy those who will note that this will force changes in the "ladder of evolution," the article states that this will force changes in the "ladder of evolution."

Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. "Anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn't learning from history," says Wood.

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last.

Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

Read both articles. There is a lot more information -- and controversy -- than Jeff Farmer prints.

[Gumlegs]

Here are two interesting articles on this matter. The first is from National Geographic. Here are a couple of quotes:

The finding has excited the scientific community especially because it opens a window onto a period near the time when humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor. Virtually nothing about that period is known, as most human fossils are considerably younger.

Various aspects of the new fossils could force scientists to rethink some basic theories about human origins, according to several scientists who were not part of the research team.

Then later,

Lieberman saw the skull and, like some other observers, said he was particularly intrigued by the creature's unusual mix of both primitive and advanced traits. The braincase is chimp-like, for example, but the face, teeth, and somewhat flattened head resemble those of humans.

"What's most astonishing is that the facial features are like those that we don't see until 1.8 million years ago in the genus Homo. It is more Homo than australopithecine," he said, referring to the best-known group of hominids, which appeared in East Africa three to four million years ago and whose fossils have provided most of what we know about the earliest human ancestors."

Then, Lieberman again, in answer to a question:

So, is the new skull fossil a hominid—perhaps our earliest known ancestor?

"It's very hard to be sure, but I think it's a hominid," said Lieberman. "But whether it was the earliest hominid or the earliest ancestor of anyone living today, we can't tell."

The National Geographic article also quotes experts disputing Lieberman.

The next source is Nature Magazine. A quick quote from this article states that scientists have indeed noticed that the muscles attached to the back of the scull:

"When I first saw the skull I thought: 'Gee, it's a chimp'," says anthropologist Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University. Toumaï's brain, for example, was roughly chimp-sized. A closer look "blew my socks off", he recalls.

Sahelanthropus has many traits that shout 'hominid'. These include smaller canines, and thicker tooth enamel than apes. And the point at the back of skull where neck muscles attach suggests that Toumaï walked upright.

Many of Toumaï's advanced features are missing from later fossils such as Australopithecus, but reappear in still later species that are classified as Homo.

And to satisfy those who will note that this will force changes in the "ladder of evolution," the article states that this will force changes in the "ladder of evolution."

Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. "Anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn't learning from history," says Wood.

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last.

Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

Read both articles. There is a lot more information -- and controversy -- than Jeff Farmer prints.