The article Missing link found? Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae, published in the New Scientist, reports that the missing link has been found. So what’s the link? Well, some dinosaur/possum thing that was found just outside of Frankfurt in 1983. Yes folks, it has taken scientists 25 years to come to the miraculous conclusion that what you see in the picture above is indeed the missing link. Scientists claim that the possum/dinosaur thing had “opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws” and that the creature’s “hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright”. It is thus the missing link – our “grand, grand, grand aunt”. **applause** So fingernails and some vague reference to hind leg ability equals missing link. Why something so obvious in its human-likeness was not reported back in the 80s, when the discovery was made, is anyone’s guess.
So here’s my problem: ‘the missing-link’ is the animal that is placed between apes and humans, and aunty possum/dinosaur thing seems to be placed before apes. Why would an ape, that has nails rather than claws and significantly well developed hind-legs, evolve into a cat-sized possum/dinosaur thing and then into human? Surely the logical progression is from ape to something more um … human? The heralding of this fossil as the missing link seems completely illogical in accordance with the theory of evolution. According to the ‘missing link theory’, this discovery denotes regression as opposed to evolution. The discovery of Darwinius masillae has been hailed “the eighth wonder of the world”. A tad presumptuous perhaps? Which leads me to the following question: why do advocates of evolution try so desperately hard to prove the theory? Theory. An interesting word. Theory refers to propositions used as principles of explanation. It is very different from the notion of fact. Yet Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been written and canonised as fact in text-books and classrooms worldwide. The ironic thing is that scientists do not need to prove evolution as it is considered a fact by a majority of the population, making the efforts of scientists redundant. They are preaching to the converted. Yet the the world of science continues to grasp at straws in a quest for evidence? It seems likely that more than evolutionists trying to prove evolution, they are trying their utmost to disprove the contrary to evolutionary theory, which is the Christian principle of creation. Evolutionists are trying to disprove God. Ridiculous postulations, as the one in question, merely serve the evolutionary purpose of reminding the world that there is no God. And the world is ready and willing to believe. The world rarely challenges evolutionism and somehow ignores the connotations of the word theory that comes attached to evolution. Why? Because in an age of relativism, human rights and ‘tolerance’ it is not easy for man to submit to the fact that the God of heaven and earth is the creator of the world and is a mighty King who holds mankind in the palm of His hand.
Charles Darwin was aware that his theory of evolution was exactly that … a theory. Darwin, in The Origin of Species highlighted one of the central flaws in his theory of evolution that relates to the concept of “vestigial organs” that has often been used to ‘prove’ the evolution theory: “There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give”. In the words of the father of evolution: “Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give”.
Interesting Links:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (New Scientist)
The Unmasking of Piltdown Man (BBC News)
Howdy,
Little clarification, the “aunt possum dinosaur thing” is the missing link in the evolution of PRIMATES. Little mix up in the terminology here…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
This species represents the link, and I throw one quotation mark here, between “igher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.”
The link between humans and apes has already been proven scientifically. Homo Erectus provides an irrefutible link between humans and the higher primates, the missing link was further down the line.
” Yet Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been written and canonised as fact in text-books and classrooms worldwide.”
Evolution as such has been proven, at least in so far as that from Apes to Homo Erectus to Humans.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2005/04/flores-hominids/map-interactive
This little bugger however, was found from 47 Million years ago, it’s the link in the chain from a lot longer period of time back than the one we’re accustomed to. When on the topic of HUMAN evolution. This isn’t the evolution into man as such, what science was looking for was a link between members of the primate family that eventually became Homo Sapiens.
“Evolutionists are trying to disprove God. Ridiculous postulations, as the one in question, merely serve the evolutionary purpose of reminding the world that there is no God. And the world is ready and willing to believe. The world rarely challenges evolutionism and somehow ignores the connotations of the word theory that comes attached to evolution. Why? Because in an age of relativism, human rights and ‘tolerance’ it is not easy for man to submit to the fact that the God of heaven and earth is the creator of the world and is a mighty King who holds mankind in the palm of His hand.”
This last is a statement of OPINION, not fact, which is why scientists and the world of science are so set on throwing proof into everyone’s face is
1 – Without proof and a method of validation, science would be conjecture, it would be a world of dreamers and it would not be functional. To lay blame at the feet of science for freaking out over new, exciting and relevant facts would be like being surprised at seeing an alcoholic hanging around an open bar at happy hour….
2 – Of course Evolutionists are trying to disprove “God”. Jews disprove Jesus as the son of god, Christians firmly believe the contrary. Saying “it’s a matter of faith, and i believe XYZ” or quoting from scripture are direct proof of this, as for what reason would you be doing as such would it not either be for
A – Explaining one’s own belief through reference to a source other than your own word of mouth or
B – Defending that self-same belief as a result of the contradictory views of others…
In essence i think the only difference between any and all of these groups is their reasoning or interpretation, and methods for substantiation thereof. Stupid example, and please don’t be offended, but how is your above post anything but an attack on the contradictory thoughts of those of a different perspective than your own, and MORE so than that, how is this post any different.
Not only am I outright opinionated, I’m an admitted hypocrite, which I’m sure everyone (Darwinian, Christian or In-Between) will say is the result of the human condition.
If theory of evolution is true, what will humans turn into next considering this is a non-stop chain event?
Thanks for your comment! The article does not state that it is a link between primates BUT between humans and apes! “47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes”. This is the ‘missing link’ that Scientists are so desperate to prove.
There are many Christians who do believe in evolution – there is a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. To put it in layman’s terms, macro-evolution is evolution across species and micro-evolution occurs within a species. Many Christians support the Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution. Christians do not necessarily argue against the ‘big-bang’ theory, rather they quuestion Scientists in their proposal tha matter merely existed to create this ‘bang’. It defies the principles of evolution for matter to merely exist, which in itself undermines the theory. There are some Christians who even support the ‘big-bang’ theory but on the premise that GOD created that matter, GOD created those cells. Interestingly, Christianity does not seek to disprove evolution, merely to assert the the existance of God. Personally, as a Christian, I do not support the big-bang thoery or macro-evolution but I do thing that micro-evolution occurs. And of course I know that Jesus is God – fact. But that is not the point of this argument. Consider this: is Christianity taught in schools as fact or merely one of many religious options, which are all ‘right’? Answer: it is not taught as fact. Is evolution (a theory) taught as fact? Yes. WHY? Why this incesant need to disprove God. Why is evolution, along with Creationism not taught as one of many theories – one of many options. You claim that evolution has been proved. How? Where’s the missing link? And why do scientists need to assert their proof if evolution has already been proved. It’s like overkill.
And another reader has posed a very good question. What will we evolve into next, and why haven’t we?
Cool beans, i get where you’re coming from your perspective and your interpretation based on your experiences, however my interpretation’s a little different.
Don’t take this the wrong way, cos it might step on the sense of appropriate of any Christian, but the reason scientists freak out over facts, especially with regard to religion, is that science is BASED on fact and religion, although tying in to world events and anomalies, can’t provide them. There’s scientific proof of a flood of immense magnitude in years gone, but proof that it was sent by god as opposed to melting polar caps? There’s proof of the flight of the Jew’s from Egypt, proof of them all getting through the desert without one dying? There’s a hell of a lot of stories of the bodies of the fleeing Jew’s being found by the Egyptians however. There are MANY records alluding to an influential figure around the time of Jesus Christ. Proof he was the Son of God?
That forms the kernel of the argument between science and religion at large, not just against Christians… Science bases all of it’s views on it’s interpretation of unchanging facts… Religion places all of it’s views on the current generations interpretation of the view’s of the generation before that, which in turn placed ITS interpretation on the interpretation on that of it’s preceeding generation, and so on, and so forth… You cannot tell me that Christianity TODAY is the same as it was 1000, even 400 years ago. People were being burnt at the stake for contradictory views BASED ON IRREFUTABLE FACT. Gallileo Gallilei for instance….. Another example is the change from the wide-held belief in the 7 day creation cylce depicted in genesis, In The Bibile, to the belief that the Big Bang was possible but God set it off. It’s an undeniable change in interpretation of the same event as more facts, more time and more information becomes available… who’s to say that hasn’t been happening for thousands of years?
You argue that Christianity in schools are presented as theory… Do school’s start their teachings with the precursory statement “the following isn’t fact and we can’t prove it, we just think it’s right as a matter of faith.” How will a child in first grade be able to differentiate between theory and fact without it?
Please note, I don’t NOT believe in something, just i also don’t not wonder…
P.S. The article does not state that it is a link between primates BUT between humans and apes! “47 million-year-old primate they say represents the long-sought missing link between humans and apes”.
Where’s the missing link? I can’t show you how we are evolved from Apes. Can you show me how we are not without using biblical resources?
Topic you might be interested in for the blog:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2520024,00.html
It’s been under discussion at a forum i spend a bit of time at. Note, these are predominantly Openly Christian members commenting on this forum. Some aren’t, but it’s still an interesting read.
http://www.systemshock.co.za/forums/index.php?showtopic=30010&st=0
You havn’t offended me at all if you were worried about stepping on toes! I totally repect your difference in opinion and the ability to debate our different views, and that’s why I write on a blog – to stimulate conversation and thought.
You are totally right about Christianity and it being very difficult to prove – I won’t say impossible because there is science that proves Christianity biblical events (as you have mentioned) and i am not sure it it can prove that Jesus is the son of God…I wouldn’t imagine so. Christianity is based on faith and I cannot argue its truth based on science, although I absolutely, with every fibre of my being believe it to be true. What I will say is that because something is not tangible that does not mean that it is not true – results and reactions speak volumes eg. wind, gravity etc. we can’t see those things but we knoe that they exist based on the way they interact with the environment…we cannot see gravity but we can see how it works through its interaction with matter (as with wind). Christians have a very real relationship with God and although he is not a physical tangible being on earth, his effect is seen and felt.
In terms of biblical interpretations changing, they are exactly that…interpretations (this is another conversation) but the point is this: no matter what one’s interpretation of genesis and creation is, Christians believe the same thing, that it is God’s creation…no matter how he breathed it into life. This essential truth, which binds Christians together, will not change no much information is discovered as time passes.
As for how schools teach Christianity, I have no idea. I think many schools have erased ‘religious instruction’ from the syllabus and so it is not taught at all. In the schools where it is taught (excluding Christian schools or schools of a particular religious orientation) I would assume that the characteristics of each religion are merely presented to students, which will be done in a manner that accomodates the developmental level of each learner. So if religious instruction was taught to a first grader, perhaps a very basic ounderstanding of each religious group would be imparted. But evolution is just taken for granted as fact – in history textbooks and geography textnooks in particular. On BBC/National Geographic/nature documentaries etc … evolution is the presumed fact. Anyway I think we have already discussed this.
My primary wish is that people would challenge and question ideologies (including Christianity) as you do. It is just the apathy of people who just exist in the world like amoebas. It is so pointless and so dangerous! And on this point I think that we will agree :)
Great topic for a blog! Thanks for this!