Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest
Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bone; crevolist; darwinism; evolution; farmer; mediahype; sahelanthropus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,251-1,265 next last
To: VadeRetro
"So, does materialistic naturalistic science reveal it's Godless agenda by

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.

51 posted on 07/29/2002 11:02:35 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Creation by whom? "

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."

52 posted on 07/29/2002 11:07:58 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
"Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?"

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.

53 posted on 07/29/2002 11:33:47 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jwh_Denver
Interesting you bring up missing links. My problem with that whole idea is like as you say. The idea of taxonomy has conflicting problems. Using the fish example, suppose two fish fossils appear to have evolved one from the other. This would probably be based on the physical appearances. But with living animals sometimes they find that relationships are not based on appearances but by genetic similarities.

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.

54 posted on 07/29/2002 11:46:12 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco

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. :-)

55 posted on 07/30/2002 12:10:45 AM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All

Some useful references:

Major Scientific Problems with Evolution

EvolUSham dot Com

EvolUSham dot Com

Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution

The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote

"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

Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.

Creation and Intelligent Design Links


Evolutionist Censorship Etc.


Catastrophism

Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.

Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places

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.

Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.

Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities

Whole books online


56 posted on 07/30/2002 4:22:24 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
You'd think on first blush that a semi-major screwup like this one would embarass the evolutionists; in real life, evolutionists don't embarass easily. They've now had over 100 years worth of training in dealing with embarassment.
57 posted on 07/30/2002 4:29:48 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwh_Denver
”My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?”

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.

58 posted on 07/30/2002 4:36:51 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
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?"

59 posted on 07/30/2002 5:10:45 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
They reject God without evidence.

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.

60 posted on 07/30/2002 5:38:56 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
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.

61 posted on 07/30/2002 5:47:01 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
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.

62 posted on 07/30/2002 5:56:53 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
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?

63 posted on 07/30/2002 5:59:13 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
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.

64 posted on 07/30/2002 6:04:14 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
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.

65 posted on 07/30/2002 6:08:55 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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.

66 posted on 07/30/2002 6:30:39 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
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.

67 posted on 07/30/2002 7:13:51 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
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.

68 posted on 07/30/2002 7:19:09 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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.

69 posted on 07/30/2002 8:07:35 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
the medium in which light waves supposed were waving

Supposedly, that was an adverb.

70 posted on 07/30/2002 8:09:29 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
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

71 posted on 07/30/2002 8:12:32 AM PDT by thedilg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
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

72 posted on 07/30/2002 8:14:27 AM PDT by thedilg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Mark placer.
73 posted on 07/30/2002 8:14:51 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
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?

74 posted on 07/30/2002 8:15:35 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

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

Godspeed, The Dilg

75 posted on 07/30/2002 8:17:55 AM PDT by thedilg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
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. :-)

76 posted on 07/30/2002 8:23:20 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

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

Not to me. You think that's rational?

77 posted on 07/30/2002 8:24:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: thedilg
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.

78 posted on 07/30/2002 8:47:55 AM PDT by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
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.
79 posted on 07/30/2002 8:57:16 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
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.
80 posted on 07/30/2002 8:57:32 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
Great. A post that size, and I do it twice. I'm right up there with Medved.
81 posted on 07/30/2002 8:59:01 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
I don't know who Mr. Behe is and he may be great at debating and twisting logic. So are a lot attorneys. That doesn't necessarily make their clients innocent.

The preponderance of fossil evidence for the evolution of horses, whales, and other animals is overwhelming. So too, in my mind, is the evidence for the evolution of the human body as well as that of lower primates. I can't see how anyone can possible challenge this. Pointing out flaws in our interpretation of that data does not necessarily translate into a rejection of the entire concept.

82 posted on 07/30/2002 9:02:58 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
There is a lot more information -- and controversy -- than Jeff Farmer prints.

Well, you know - if you can't trust the arts community to get this stuff straight, who can you trust?

83 posted on 07/30/2002 9:10:26 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
...but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

It is the latter that makes these types of threads virtually unreadable. There is little as arrogantly vile as the attitude of an evo.

84 posted on 07/30/2002 9:16:59 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Science can be wrong for decades; the Bible is wrong forever.
 
Really? And the proof for such a sweeping statement is... ?

85 posted on 07/30/2002 9:24:14 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
"as arrogantly vile as the attitude of an evo"

It's not arrogance, it's childishness. Ann Coulter makes a good point about Democrats when she points out that they argue by calling their enemies names. At some point in this thread, some Atheist will call a Christian "penis head" and conclude that he has made a brilliant point.

86 posted on 07/30/2002 9:33:03 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
It's not arrogance, it's childishness.
 
Or both.
 
When it comes to the origin of life,
there are only two possibilities:
creation
or spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago,
but that leads us to supernatural creation.
We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds;
therefore, we choose to believe the impossible,
that life arose spontaneously by chance.
 
Dr. George Wald, Nobel co-winner in Science, 1967

87 posted on 07/30/2002 9:50:27 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation.

What's that got to do with evolution?

88 posted on 07/30/2002 9:59:57 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
A nice series of posts. Thanks for the info.
89 posted on 07/30/2002 10:01:25 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 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.

I can see where atheism, being a rather positive statement that God does not exist, takes faith. But if, while you were an atheist, some kind of anti-evolutionary propaganda knocked you completely out of evolution and atheism, you didn't make much of an investigation of the subject. I can't imagine anyone with unimpaired critical faculties reviewing the evidence for evolution and deciding that some sort of invisible magical being is a better explanation.

90 posted on 07/30/2002 10:06:43 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
What's that got to do with evolution?

Is not the theory of macro-evolution predicated on a belief in spontaneous (i.e. non-directed) generation? (Y'know... the rain, the rocks, the soup?)

91 posted on 07/30/2002 10:07:22 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Is not the theory of macro-evolution predicated on a belief in spontaneous (i.e. non-directed) generation? (Y'know... the rain, the rocks, the soup?)

Nope. That's why I asked the queston in the first place.

92 posted on 07/30/2002 10:09:06 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; AnnaZ; thedilg
"I can't imagine anyone with unimpaired critical faculties reviewing the evidence for evolution and deciding that some sort of invisible magical being is a better explanation."

Didn't have long to wait: "you are a penis-head" dressed up and with lipstick.

93 posted on 07/30/2002 10:11:27 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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?

You mean that if one atheist anywhere becomes a deist, as thedilg has cited for his own story, do they all experience the same revelation? Perhaps you've noticed my response to him. I can't imagine where he got the input to his decision or how he evaluated it. And it's not as if he found evidence of creation. I'm aware of none. No, he somehow became an evolution skeptic. How? He doesn't say except that it involved "the evidence."

Huh? I've seen a huge spectrum of anti-evolutionary nonsense in the last 3 1/2 years. I shake my head at the credulity of the people who fall for such bunk.

94 posted on 07/30/2002 10:13:52 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Old universe, old earth, no global flood ever, inconsistencies in the Genesis story, pi not being 3, the earth not being flat or the center of the universe . . .
95 posted on 07/30/2002 10:25:34 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
Didn't have long to wait: "you are a penis-head" dressed up and with lipstick.

It's an integral part of the delusional system: No one can tell you that you are not following the evidence, that your belief system is irrational.

96 posted on 07/30/2002 10:27:28 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior
Did I miss it? Has anyone posted the latest Ultimate Resource link yet?
97 posted on 07/30/2002 10:30:55 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [Revision 18]
98 posted on 07/30/2002 10:38:07 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; *crevo_list; PatrickHenry
Has anyone even linked the crevo list or pinged Patrick?
99 posted on 07/30/2002 10:40:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Marker.
100 posted on 07/30/2002 10:42:37 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,251-1,265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson