'Missing link' revisited

Ed Pardo, Forrest Lake, PA — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:37:22 GMT

Beginning with the correct terms, Archaeology is digging for manufactured products, Paleontology is digging for fossil remains of something that once was alive. Paleoanthropology is Paleontology strictly involving homonids. An ape is an ape but so is Man. The question is where should we draw the line since some apes are apparently more intelligent than some humans.

'Missing link' revisited

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Arlington TX — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:53:58 GMT

"Nothing makes a better headline than the phrase "Missing Link Found" -"

Not necessarily so. "Scientists (find/search for) Holy Grail of XXX" makes at least as big a splash. Leaving aside the argument as to whether scientists or journalists are more to blame for the prevelance of such cliches, the Annals of Improbable Research has turned the latter into the focus of ongoing humor. Considering the reactions of the readers, perhaps you could adopt the former for the same purpose.

Now, when cases of scientific misconduct start getting called Somesuch-Gate, we'll know to blame the journalists. We scientists only abuse certain cliches.

'Missing link' revisited

Alan Boyle — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:15:59 GMT

Awwww, Dennis ... you want to spoil all the fun! I'll try to ease up on the "holy grails" (you can only chase so many grails simultaneously), but at least no one (except maybe a rabid "Da Vinci Code" fan) believes the much-sought goal is an actual Holy Grail.

'Missing link' revisited

Greg Fournier, Storrs, CT — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:19:59 GMT

Simply because the fossil resembles modern waterfowl does not imply that "modern" birds evolved that early on. Rather, it demonstrates the idea of "convergent evolution" wherein useful forms reappear independently several times. Even if birds radiated into many forms that coexisted with dinosaurs, very few species probably survived extinction. All modern birds would then be descended from these few survivors, which would then evolve to fill available niches--be it waterfowl or otherwise. Even in existing bird groups we can see that aquatic characteristics have evolved independantly several times. Why should ancient birds not follow the same pattern?

'Missing link' revisited

Bret Bezona — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:38:45 GMT

Amazing how many scientist wrote in debunking evo. Wow! I thought biology was science and no evo. no biology. So if you don't believe in evo. you don't believe in science. When I have a question about science I read what the National Academy of Science has to say, I figure maybe the most brilliant scientist in the world might know more than the individual who takes parables literally

'Missing link' revisited

Toni Bourlon — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:48:11 GMT

Well I've always had trouble with evolutionary theory. Every time I try to read a book on evolution I just put it down and ask, do they really expect me to believe this? I see I'm not alone in this thought, as another poster says "Just what does this really tell us, other than evolution occurred rather dramatically before 110 million years ago but then seems to have slowed down considerably since then - at least as far as birds are concerned? If that is true, why?" Evolution occurs randomly and dramatically, but I'm supposed to believe this is all "natural" and has nothing to do with a Creator. And they say I believe in fairy tales! I'll take Genesis over Evolution any day of the week.

'Missing link' revisited

paul van gent leiden the netherlands — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:27:27 GMT

If Gansus yumenensis is a hoax so is the Apollo space
program and so is America itself. You really believe Columbus ever found another continent? The earth is and will always be flat and you all know it.

'Missing link' revisited

Kyle, Wichita Falls, Tx — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:47:13 GMT

This is a great find for scientist, and any scientist that doesn't know evolution is real science is crazy. You can't be real scientist and "believe" in intelligent design. Will the religious freaks please stay out of scientific progess.

'Missing link' revisited

Paul Shirley, DeRidder, La — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:09:43 GMT

I love how the posts are saying "evolution happened dramatically 110 million years ago but is slow now." The sheer inability to scale time in their minds is amazing. In 110 million years there are now over 10000 identified species of birds from what is likely a select few ancestors. How is this evolution slowing down? Because transitions take time and are occurring constantly it's hard to "witness" evolution in real time. The inability to see a process working is not the same as it not existing.

At least there is substantial evidence for evolution, other... "theories" lack anything approaching that.

And wow, Noah’s ark, yea… aquatic bird caught in flood, got ya… I guess the dumb bird should have got on the boat...

'Missing link' revisited

Gregory Neel, Houston, Texas — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:11:06 GMT

I was once an evolutionist. However, there are many problems with the "theory". The largest problem with evolution in a macro sense is that there is an absence of transitional forms. On a biochemical basis, there are many problems with the "theory" (evolution is really not a theory in that the theory cannot be tested in an attempt to replicate the same things in a lab; ironically, that has been evolutionists' gripe against intelligent design, touting the issue that i.d. cannot be tested). There are a lot of smoke and mirrors with evolution "theory", and people would be wise to question the theory and form their own opinions.

'Missing link' revisited

Mark, Largo, Md — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:19:57 GMT

I have trained as a scientist, took course work in evolution and USED to believe that evolution in the macro sense was fact. My intelliectual journey started when I read an article entitled "Geologists, Help!" by another scientist who wanted an explanation of how geologists could justify their circular logic in their attempts to "prove" evolution by the geological record. (To oversimplify, geologists date rocks by assuming geological evolution is a fact, and then point to their dating sequence to say, "See, evolution is proven".)

I went on to further reading by scientists, not creationists, that discussed the numerous and as yet unsolved problems with evolutionary theory.

I also found statements by evolutionists that displayed intellectual bias against any other explanations offered for the data. For example, the former curator of the London Museum of Natural History (I think I remember that correctly) stated, "We do not believe in the theory of evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming, but because the only other explanation, Special Creation, is clearly unacceptable." THAT does not sound like science to me and is NOT how I was trained to approach scientific research.

A theory, even one like Darwinian evolution, can be tested 2 ways. The "Scientific Method" is based on creating repeatable tests that should show expected results if the theory is sound. This is how Einstein's Theory of Relativity was verified.

A second testing method is historical - the theory predicts what should be found in historical records (geology, fossils, etc.) and is considered "not invalidated" if expected results are found. (This kind of testing never really proves a theory, but renders it more or less likely to be true.) If expected results are NOT found and/or if contrarian results ARE found, the theory is considered to be proven false.

THAT is science. Yet, contrary findings to evolutionary theory are constantly being made AND IGNORED OR EXPLAINED AWAY. Scientists who dare to "buck the system" are punished professionally and academically. That is NOT science; it is philosophy.

I recommend reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe for some details on the latest scientific problems with the theory of evolution.

'Missing link' revisited

Alan Boyle — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:32:26 GMT

"Darwin's Black Box" is certainly a popular number for those who doubt Darwin, and there are also newer crops of books on both sides of the evolution debate (which is more of a cultural debate than a scientific debate). I addressed this in an earlier posting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9787346/#051023a ... and as long as we're on the subject of reference works, I always recommend http://www.talkorigins.org as a good one for answering the kinds of questions raised by "Darwin's Black Box" and other such works.

'Missing link' revisited

Tom Howard Dallas Tx — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:56:46 GMT

I see little if any serious, logical argument on either side of this. Anyone who throws out the idea that evolution is/is not happening because no one has seen a new species evolve is being too subjective. We still don't know what causes stable mutations, the most probable source of new species, so we still don't know what to look for. Also, consider the life span of a typical species in the fossil record. Specific forms of animals seem to last from 2 to 8 million years on average. Some last much longer, but they are exceptions. We have had serious scientific thought and observation for about 2400 years. This may be just too short a time frame. I have no problem with the Catholic form of Creationism, which accepts the Big Bang and several billion years of time involved. The Bishop Usher idea that the universe was made a few thousand years ago, with all the geological formations made just to mess with our heads, shows a Deity too weird to be plausible.

'Missing link' revisited

Mike Hoos, Long Island, NY — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:09:19 GMT

"Evolution occurred rather dramatically before 110 million years ago but then seems to have slowed down considerably since then."
Why do people use this as proof against evolution? Evolution is not a steady process, there are many factors including climate, mating pressure, food, predation, disease, competition, etc that all come together to act on the genes of a population to produce the effect we call evolution. No one ever said it was a neat process. Some animals remain fairly unchanged over millions of years (crocodiles, sharks, many arthropods) while others are under seemingly constant change or are fairly new. Evolution does not "slow down," there are probably many species to have evolved from this original creature that moved into niches quite different from water fowl and look nothing like this fossil. There are also probably several modern relatives that are strikingly similar. Convergence must also be considered.
And to suggest that this bird fossil actually proves that birds did not evolve from dinosuars simply because the animal was alive during the time of the dinosaurs is really simplistic.

'Missing link' revisited

Chris Lee, Poughkeepsie, NY — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:11:54 GMT

Scientific Method: "How do we alter our theory to fit the hard facts?"

Creationist Method: "How do we alter the hard facts to fit our theory?"

'Missing link' revisited

Mike Hoos, Long Island, NY — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:23:48 GMT

Another point: To say that both evolution and intelligent design cannot truly be tested is wrong. While one may lack the technique or sophistication to carry out an experiment, if the hypothesis (evolution) aims at real world phenomena then it can eventually be designed and performed. However, to prove or disprove the existance of God is a purely metaphysical endeavor and no technique can be used to experiment on this.

Also, just because something is not known does not make it unknowable. How life came to be as it is would definitely fall into this category! Could you imagine where we would be if everything that was ever unknown was simply put up to the supernatural and left undiscovered? (oh yeah, we'd be in the Old Testament)

'Missing link' revisited

Jon Smith, Lawrence, Kansas — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:21:09 GMT

Mark, you are indeed oversimplifying too much in describing how geologists use fossils to date the geologic record.

Firstly, geologist noted that different strata or layers of rock contained different fossil assemblages well before the "Origin of Species" was published. In fact, geologists were using fossils to relatively date and correlate rock units for over 60 years before its publication, without any need to invoke evolution or descent through modification.

Geologists separated and named these rock layers or groups of layers based on the fossils they contained (biostratigraphy). Logically, rocks and fossil below a given layer were interpreted as older, those above the layer were interpreted as younger. This is called relative dating. Certain fossil may persist in one or all of the rock layers, but others would only occur in one layer, thus they could be used to correlate and bracket the layers into different time units.

Keep in mind, this was all done without knowing how old the rocks/fossils were or how/why they changed from layer to layer. The pattern persists regardless of the explanation.

As more and more fossils from across Europe and North America were described and compared with those first examined in England, it became possible to divide rock units into three or four distinct Eras of time (for example, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic) each with their own suite of fossil organisms.

We now know that evolution and repeated episodes of mass extinctions are the cause of these patterns, but relative dating and rock correlation using fossils would continue to be used today to successfully explore for petroleum and many other geologically derived natural resources, even if the process was not understood.

As an aside, I find it disheartening when people confuse evolution with natural selection. Natural selection is the theory by which Darwin proposed to explain the many species observed in the world. Darwin himself, understanding the scrappy nature of the fossil record, did not like the idea of using the fossil record to study evolutionary processes, he has an entire chapter in Origins on this topic. People should understand that natural selection, because it concerns and is based on the observations of living organisms, cannot be validated or invalidated by the fossil record. Evolution, as in the idea that organisms change through time, can be tested by using the geologic record and has not been invalidated by any fossil thus far.

'Missing link' revisited

Jim, Lancaster, PA — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:54:53 GMT

And I like to recommend these websites as good ones for answering the arguments against Darwin's Black Box.
http://www.trueorigin.org/

And of course, there is Discovery.org which most people are familiar with.

The consensus of evolutionists seems to be that the public is too stupid to grasp the truths of evolutionary science. This condescending attitude doesn't help win converts. Granted we non-scientists can get lost in the scientific jargon at times, but we don't all feel the need to support Darwinism at all costs. Not everybody is into naturalism.
The verdict is still out on this "duck". I'm willing to bet it is a genuine find though and not a manufactured find like we have seen from China in the past. But it doesn't mean everything the evolutionists try and make it out to mean. Everyone is pretty quick to swallow the evolutionary story that this modern-looking bird that can both swim and dive(sound like a duck to anyone else?) somehow underwent extremely fast periods of change so that very early in the line of evolving birds we have this well-developed bird. And everyone seems to be just accepting the line that all these soft tissues, feathers, etc were fully preserved for over 100 million years. Maybe it is just me, but that seems to be stretching things a bit.

'Missing link' revisited

Misha Griffith, Redding, CA — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:44:23 GMT

The term "Missing Link" is clearly a tactic used by journalists to grab an audiences' attention. Scientists would not use this term.
However, I appreciate that the intelegent design backers have revealed their new strategy--all fossils from China are hoaxes. So I am to believe the Chinese can easily create mineralized fossils, but that some bits of wood on a mountain in Turkey are absolute proof of the Ark. Did anyone ever question why the Turkish authorities were eager to keep scientific expeditions away? Sounds too much like an "Indiana Jones" movie to me.

'Missing link' revisited

Daniel, Norfolk VIrginia — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:46:58 GMT

Why is it people have no problem believing a physics professor when he says an electron can be two places at the same time, but will insult, berate, and attack a biologist who says that if those tiny changes we see go on long enough it will turn into something different?

'Missing link' revisited

JC, Denver, CO — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:57:29 GMT

Well Daniel because electrons in two places do not threaten the very basis of how many people live their lives. Evolution, theory or not, does. Who has more to lose? If a creationist convinces an atheist that God exists, no one loses (whether God exists or not). If an atheist convinces a creationist there is no God, the former creationist realizes that his whole belief system was made up by people long ago and was maintained through the fear of retribution by a fictitious magical being. Scientists as a community are always ready to hear the facts that change a theory and in fact I believe they are their own worst critics - even Einstein got left behind when he wouldn't accept quantum theory, but science moved on -- keeping what worked and throwing out what doesn't.

What I find even more interesting is the overwhelming evidence that religion itself evolves over time too. Perhaps that's a whole other topic to be handled on other websites.

In the meantime, my hat is off to those paleontologists who so diligently continue their search for the wonderful secrets of our past world. Since I was a small child I've always enjoyed hearing about their new discoveries and have always enjoyed visiting museums where they display what they've found. Please ignore all the rants and ravings and pointless bickerings of the rest of us, and thanks for your continued research!!

'Missing link' revisited

Joe L. Solis, Noblesville,In — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:27:39 GMT

When man gets so SMART that he stopd asking the questions of matters that he doesn't understand or look for ways to better himself by learning from his mistakes and-or his misgivings, that's when we'll stop our natural progression and stagnate in our Evolution, if you're a Creationist or Atheist Evolutionist.

'Missing link' revisited

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:34:54 GMT

The following are not science websites:
Trueorigin.org
christiananswers.net
answersingenesis.org

They are pseudoscience websites.

There are real science websites:
http://talkorigins.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

The difference is that these guys are real, practicing scientists who have made actual contributions to science. In fact, miraculously, their contributions to actual science outweigh their contributions to the theological community - imagine that!

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is nonsense and is rightly rejected by the scientific community. That's why he has to take his show to the ignorant public.

I love these stories that begin, "I used to be an evolutionist, but then I studied evolution..."

Then the person goes on to make statements that demonstrate unequivocally that they haven't done one iota of actual homework on the subject. Then, they get all indignant and use misdirection and lies: "OH, YEA! So I have to be ignorant, just because I disagree with your atheistic evilututionary religion!"

No, you're ignorant of evolution, because nothing you write conveys the slightest understanding of the subject.

The critics of evolution are like 16 year old know-it-all tyrants, stamping their feet and screaming, "Well! NOBODY can tell ME that higher math is any good for anything! I've STUDIED IT!" when every sentence he utters reflects he hasn't even got his times tables straight.

Wherever you find a person who rejects evolution, you will find a person who
1) has a comic-book understanding of science, and
2) has a "knowledge" of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip.

'Missing link' revisited

Barbara, Pompano Beach, Florida — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:53:42 GMT

This is addressed to "Kyle," who posted this: "You can't be real scientist and "believe" in intelligent design. Will the religious freaks please stay out of scientific progess." Really? Some 'religious freaks' (i.e., persons who believed in the existence of God) in science: Galileo Galilei Isaac Newton Louis Agassiz Those three are just off the top of my head. There are certainly more. Care to explain why we should throw away the findings of those scientists who happen to believe in God? And this is addressed to 'TheFalliableField" who posted this: "Wherever you find a person who rejects evolution, you will find a person who 1) has a comic-book understanding of science, and 2) has a "knowledge" of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip." Here's a challenge for you, then. Some time ago, 100 scientists from many different universities and fields of study published a two-page advertisement under the heading "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Prove to me that ALL those scientists fit your description of having a comic-book understanding of science.

'Missing link' revisited

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:32:52 GMT

The list is over 600 now. Six hundred...that's a pretty paltry number. Very few of them have made substantial contributions to their fields. Have you ever heard of project Steve? Look it up. Guys like Dembski and Wells and their cronies are on that list. Dembski abuses the NFL theorems of David Wolpert who IS a real expert on the subject (having co-discovered them). Fundamentalists reject the real experts like Wolpert in favor of the guys who have made no contribution to science like Dembski. They reject the real experts like Mayr and accept the know-nothings like Wells. I don't have to prove anything to you, Barbara. I doubt it would be possible to prove anything to you. But my observation is based on many dozens of first hand encounters with creationists, including myself. And the numerous encounters I have with them since coming to that conclusion have only confirmed it. What I'd like to see is one clear counter-example.

'Missing link' revisited

Jim Collins, Wagener, South Carolina — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:51:42 GMT

I was greatly encouraged and surprised that so many writers have enough common logic to know that Macro-evolution NEVER happened. However, if those who still believe in evolution fairytale want to win this argument, all they need to do is; get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

'Missing link' revisited

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:31:08 GMT

Jim C. The task you set is irrelevant:
1) The fact of evolution doesn't rely on our being able to duplicate it.

2) Being able to duplicate life would not not prove evolution.

Therefore your task is irrelevant. Scientists cannot create a sun or a planet and yet we know they exist. We can, perhaps, create microscopic black holes, but we cannot create pulsars or supernovae - and yet we know they exist.

Try to understand what science is and how it works. Try to understand what evolutionary theory actually says.

'Missing link' revisited

HENRY WALLING MIAMI FL. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:25:39 GMT

I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RELIGION BASED POINT OF DISCUSSION, SOME HOW I MISSED THE RELIGION PART OF THIS COLUMN SAY.WHAT DOES DARWIN, SCIENCE, PLANETS, EVOLUTIONS WITH HEAVEN, HELL, SALVATION, ETERNAL LIFE, FAITH, ETC.