“Missing Link” unveiled! Darwinian theory of evolution proved!
(But wait—hasn’t it already been proved? Isn’t Darwinian evolution already an established fact with which no rational person can disagree? If it has only been proved now, doesn’t that mean that the Darwinians were lying to us for all these years when they kept declaring with utmost authority that it was already proved? See comments following main entry.) The scientific enterprise, which once had a certain integrity and seriousness, has, like most everything else in the modern West, mutated into shameless self-promotion. Here is the incredibly hyped story at Sky News, with my interspersed comments in brackets. (Indeed, the hype—organized by the scientists themselves—is so extreme that even the New York Times has critically commented on it. The Times article is quoted further down in this entry.)
Scientists Unveil Missing Link
Supposedly, a missing link was found.Steve D. writes:
By now, you may already know about this. Just in case this is new to you, go to Sky News and watch the breathless video about the new fossil that will “debunk creationism” and possible “question religion itself.” It’s a small lemur-like animal that, supposedly, is an ancestor to primates. To those making the video—and apparently to those examining the fossil—finding a “transitional species that developed into a fully-fledged [sic] primate” is the same thing as proving that humans evolved from lower primates. Take note: this is not, supposedly, one of our “primate ancestors,” but an “ancestor to primates.” Darwinism is the world’s richest mine of intellectual dishonesty.Ian B. writes:
I heard about this on the news today. “Hoo boy,” I thought, “Yet another so-called “missing link” finding being distorted.”LA replies:
Thank you for this powerful statement. Like the rest of the elite of the contemporary West, the science establishment has shown itself to be a bunch of whores, out for money, fame, and ideology. You may remember that when I called Richard Neave’s “reconstruction” of the “first European” as an African Negro a fraud, a reader strongly objected, saying how dare I make such a serious charge about a reputable scientist? That reader was still living in some past world where scientists could be trusted to have a minimal degree of intellectual probity. Well, if the scientists want people’s respect, they will have to earn it back.A reader writes:
No. Serious people have not said that Darwinian evolution has already been “proved.” Indeed, serious people note that it is a “theory,” one that has remarkably strong predictive power but without a proof. Rational people are routinely encouraged to come up with a better alternative theory, but in the meantime, science relies on Darwin because it works. [LA replies: You write: “serious people note that it is a ‘theory,’ one that has remarkably strong predictive power but without a proof.” LA replies: You write: “serious people note that it is a ‘theory,’ one that has remarkably strong predictive power but without a proof.” This is not true. As circumstances and self-advantage dictate, the Darwinian promoters constantly veer back and forth between saying that Darwinism is just a theory with high predictive power but not proved, and saying that Darwinism is the established truth and that anyone who disagrees with it has shown that he is intellectually incompetent and even insane. In the present circumstances, you’re are seeing just the Darwinian good cop. But the Darwinian bad cop is always there as well.]Karl D. writes:
But wait! Next we will be told that “Ida” was not a monkey indigenous to Europe, but an African monkey proving once and for all that whites have no claim to the continent. I am only half joking.Gintas writes:
One thing has always puzzled me about “missing links.” They always look for these fossils, but where are the living, breathing links? At the left end of the timeline is an ape. At the right end is man. There are supposedly x number of transitional beings in between. Where are they? Are they so unstable that none of them has survived? The ape has survived, why couldn’t they? If they couldn’t, what made them “more fit” than the ape to begin with? Why can’t we suppose that we should see a continuum of beings—right here, right now—from ape to man, other than that falsifies Darwinism in less than a New York minute?LA replies:
First, everyone keeps missing the point that “missing link” is not a link between species A and species B, but the most recent common ancestor of species A and species B.LA continues:
Here’s why the above Darwinian scenario that I presented is flawed. Let’s say that there were (conservatively) 100 transitional stages between fish and frog. As the Darwinians are always telling us, it’s not a whole species that changes into a new species, but one subgroup of that species. So, for each transitional species to change into the next one, a subgroup of the main species has to get separated into a different environmental niche where there are new selective pressures. The subgroup evolves, while the main group, remaining in the familiar niche where it was well adapted, remains as it was. There should therefore be 100 transitional species still extant between fish and frog. In reality, there aren’t any transitional species. So that explanation fails.LA continues: The Darwinians will reply that I’ve completely misunderstood their theory. There is nothing so dramatic as a fatal change in the environment, they will say, but rather a constant survival of the slightly more fit in each generation, resulting in the slow but constant spread through the species population of the slightly more fit allele, resulting in the extremely slow but constant disappearance of the most recent transitional form.Gintas writes:
You wrote:LA replies:
It’s just one of those things. A phrase, a slogan, which does not describe reality correctly, enters the language, and once it’s entered the language it becomes “fixed” and is repeated by everyone ad infinitum, with no one ever thinking about what it actually means or is supposed to mean. We could compile a list of such phrases.LA continues:
But get this. In Wikipedia’s discussion of the term “missing link,” there is no reference to the meaning of common ancestor of apes and humans. It means transitional form. Here is Wiki’s article on transitional forms. But of course there are many transitional forms, missing and otherwise. In what sense, then, would today’s newly announced discovery, Darwinius masillae, be “the” missing link? If they don’t mean “the” missing link as the common ancestor of apes and man, then they mean “the” missing link between animals and man. But Darwinius masillae lived over 40 million years before the first man-like creatures appeared. So what is D. masillae “the” link between? Confusion still reins.[(ADDED May 20: The point is, even if missing link simply means a link between an ancestor and a descendant, its use in this case is completely wrong, because, as even the scientists are admitting, “Ida” is not an ancestor of the human race. Yet David Attenborough and mainstream nespapers, not to mention blogs, are calling her the missing link.) LA continues:
The article states: Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 19, 2009 01:17 PM | Send Email entry |