Missing link found?

[PotLuck]

I'm posting this question in another thread so as not to disrupt the flow of the original thread.

Anyway...
Is this to say the "missing link" or links have been found?
If so then why has this extraordinary news not been made public or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm posting this question in another thread so as not to disrupt the flow of the original thread.

Anyway...
Is this to say the "missing link" or links have been found?
If so then why has this extraordinary news not been made public or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

It was made public. There has not been a "missing link" for decades.

 

[PotLuck]

So this is the proof of ape to man?

 

[seebs]

It's not "proof", any more than a series of pictures of Montana are "proof" that one traveled through it. Which is to say, you can always demand proof that the car ACTUALLY went from milepost 86 to 87, rather than, say, the car and camera being destroyed just after milepost 86, and a similar car with a camera full of film being created just before milepost 87, the better to show God's glory.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So this is the proof of ape to man?

No. Science doesn't do proof.

It's proof that the statement "there are no transitionals between the common ancestor and modern man" is false, which is often stated in support of creationism.

 

[PotLuck]

If there's no proven transition between primate and man then how can anything be labeled transitional?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If there's no proven transition between primate and man then how can anything be labeled transitional?

Because it has features of both the ancestral and the modern species. That is what a transitional is.

 

[Aeschylus]

You have to understand the differnce: the fossil evidnce clearly demonstares the transistion of a common ape ancestor to humans, yet not everything is known about this transistion so there are certain transitionals that sceintists would dearly like to find in the fossil record, not tpo prove the transistion of man from it's earlier ancestors as that can be regarded as scirentifically 'proven', but to know more about this transistion.

 

[seebs]

If there's no proven transition between primate and man then how can anything be labeled transitional?

Look at my analogy with the signposts again. I show you pictures of Maryland, North Dakota, and Washington (state). I say "we drove from Maryland to Washington". You observe that there's no proof. So, I post pictures of Minnesota and Montana. You say "how do I know you went from Minnesota to North Dakota"? I post a picture of the border. You say "how do I know you went through North Dakota"...

I can't prove it, but I can get to the point where questioning it is looking sort of ludicrous. We're well past that point on transitionals. You can't call it "proof", because the standard of proof is infinite... But the evidence is as about as good as our evidence for heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, and so on.

 

[PotLuck]

To search for something one must first assume it exists.

 

[seebs]

To search for something one must first assume it exists.

There are two ways to go.

1. Start with data, try to guess what it is. "Hey, guys, is this a human skull, or an ape skull?" "Gee, I dunno. I mean, it's a bit like both, really."

2. Start with a hypothesis, make predictions, test 'em. "Hey, guys. If humans evolved from some kind of other primate, we should find skulls which are sort of intermediate between huuman skulls and primate skulls." And sure enough, we do.

Both are at least potentially valid science.

The thing is... We have no good explanation for why you can find skulls of creatures midway between humans and older primate skulls, but only fossilized and well-buried, and there are no creatures in the world today which make such skulls, unless they really are transitionals.

At this point, we have the equivalent of several time-stamped photos from each state on the road trip. I can't prove the road-trip happened, but it's really hard to come up with another good explanation for the observed data.

 

[RVincent]

Man: "Oh, you're the missing link!"

Curly Howard (Curly Q. Link): "No, I'm the found link! Nyuk nyuk nyuk! *smack!*

 

[herev]

Man: "Oh, you're the missing link!"

Curly Howard (Curly Q. Link): "No, I'm the found link! Nyuk nyuk nyuk! *smack!*

I love these guys

 

[adam149]

I'm posting this question in another thread so as not to disrupt the flow of the original thread.

Anyway...
Is this to say the "missing link" or links have been found?
If so then why has this extraordinary news not been made public or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

The fact that this comes from TO is enough to reject it out of hand. I have investigated many of their claims and determined that they have no interest in being honest. Just of their bungles can be found below:

TO CLAIMS:It [Eugenics] is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding. [Numbers 1992, 222-223]

REALITY: They cannot even understand their own references, apparently, because Numbers does not support their contention.
Yes, Tinkle probably did advocate both eugenics and selective human breeding, but contrary to Talk.Origins’ assertion, he was not a Young-Earth Creationist, at least in the orthodox sense, as is documented in the very source Talk.Origins cites, clearly indicating that they knew of Tinkle’s unusual and unorthodox position of scientific creation and called him a YEC while intentionally knowing otherwise in order to poison the creationist well.

William J. Tinkle was not a young-earth creationist. The reference TO uses (inacurrately) demonstrates this as such on the very pages they reference, meaning that TO should have known better. Tinkle did not accept Flood Geology nor the YEC 6,000 years of history for the universe and earth. [1]

Numbers also states that "he [Tinkle] cared little about the details of a person’s creationist beliefs—as long as he or she did not include macroevolution," [2]. In fact, Tinkle was an old-earth creationist, because, as Numbers points out, he accepted "the old catastrophism of the French naturalist Georges Cuvier," and was often "far from consistent in his reading of the rocks," and that he tended to "believe that the earth had undergone a series of cataclysms rather than just one," (something which is completely foreign to Scripture) and accepted long ages because "regardless of how he juggled cataclysms, he still needed far more time than flood geology allowed," [3].

Was Tinkle an advocate of eugenics? Unfortunately, he was, promoting such ideas in his book, Principles of Zoology. But, as the preceding paragraphs have demonstrated, he was not a Young-Earth Creationist due to his refusal to accept Flood Geology and the time-scale of the YEC position. In fact, that he supported Eugenics is more of a chastisement on the OEC position than the YEC.

Also see http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=tomisrep

Does this make you want to trust them?

References:
[1] R. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, 1992, pg. 222.

[2] Ibid, pg. 223

[3] Ibid.

 

[seebs]

The fact that this comes from TO is enough to reject it out of hand. I have investigated many of their claims and determined that they have no interest in being honest.

Even if we were to believe you, this would still be an ad hominem fallacy.

Anyway, if we're dismissing people on that, the ludicrously awful response to my concerns probably dismisses Answers in Genesis completely.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So TO got a YEC confused with an OEC.

Obviously they're wrong about everything.

 

[GenemZ]

No. Science doesn't do proof.

It's proof that the statement "there are no transitionals between the common ancestor and modern man" is false, which is often stated in support of creationism.

The transitionals should have been better able to survive than what they were leaving behind. Yet, we find plenty of those left behind in fossil form, yet the transitionals? Since they were better equiped to survive? It makes no sense that evolutionists must scratch and peck to find only a pittance of anything they can even begin to claim is a missing link. These links should be just as plentiful, or even more so, since they were better equiped to survive after the change. The fact that anything that can be used to be called a transitional is scarce, is bad logic.

Tell us... What will be the transitionals for the following new creation?

"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD." Isaiah 65:25 niv

God says it will be a new creation. Just as what we see before us with our very eyes is a new creation. You believe God? Or, the rationales of scientists that leave God out of the equation?

"When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth." Psalm 104:30

It says, "created." Not changed. When, he "renews."

"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17 niv

God replaces old creations, with new ones. That is what scientists who leave God's Word out of the equation will always being searching to prove their theory. If they ignore God, they will never come to a knowledge of the Truth.

".....always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth."
2 Timothy 3:7 niv

Patiently waiting for someone to have a light go on......

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[seebs]

I don't see why you think there are so few transitionals. Nearly every fossil is a transitional between older things and newer things, with rare exceptions, such as sharks, that seem to have found their niche and adapted to it pretty much flawlessly.

You're shifting the goalposts here; no matter how many mileposts I show pictures of, you just say "well, where's the transition from milepost 88 to milepost 90".

 

[GenemZ]

I don't see why you think there are so few transitionals. Nearly every fossil is a transitional between older things and newer things, with rare exceptions, such as sharks, that seem to have found their niche and adapted to it pretty much flawlessly.

You're shifting the goalposts here; no matter how many mileposts I show pictures of, you just say "well, where's the transition from milepost 88 to milepost 90".

Nice try....
GAP, GeneZ

 

[seebs]

Nice try....

There are two possibilities, I see here.

One is that this is sarcastic, derisive, and ultimately a totally inappropriate post, and very poor Christian witness, and simultaneously a testimony that you have absolutely no intention of entering into an honest discussion of this issue; that you're simply going to stick with an unsubstantiated claim and insult anyone who disagrees.

The other is that I have no idea at all what you're trying to say.