|
Lucy Falls out of Family TreeAverage Joe's Corner - Monday, April 30th, 2007 Ever since the discovery of the skeletal remains of a female hominid several decades ago, “Lucy†has been widely publicized as a significant branch in the evolutionary tree of human ancestry. We’ve all seen the compelling textbook sketches and authoritative descriptions. However, new jaw-dropping evidence appears to have pushed Lucy out of her tree. Fuz Rana reports in detail on Creation Update (and also provides a summary of the breakthrough in Today’s New Reason To Believe, April 29) that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy’s Latin biological name) is now considered—at best—a dead end or side branch. The evolutionary paradigm holds that A. afarensis lived about 3.3 million to 2.5 million years ago and gave rise to Homo habilus, from which modern humans ultimately emerged. Again, Fuz explains all the nomenclature—who gave rise to whom—but the point here is to note that a group called the robust australopithecines emerge as an evolutionary side branch from A. afarensis. In other words, the robust australopithecines are not part of the supposed human lineage. The original Lucy specimen discovered in 1974 included 40% of a complete skeleton but not much of a jawbone. However, scientists recovered an A. afarensis jawbone in 2002 and recent analysis of the specimen shows that it resembles a gorilla rather than a human. Another way to say it is that this “derived†jawbone anatomy would be expected if the family belonged to the line that gave rise to the robust australopithecines—meaning that it’s a dead end. Thus, the fossil record shows no evolutionary connection between Lucy (A. afarensis) and modern humans. For evolution to be considered factual there must be an evolutionary pathway. Proposed transitional intermediate forms demonstrating such a pathway in the fossil record seem to disappear as science progresses. Where then is the human lineage? Do we need to wait around for more data? That might help but we already have models that attempt to explain nature’s record. Which one best fits the facts? It seems self-evident that when looking at a model comparison, scientific advance continues to hack away at the roots of the human evolutionary tree and, therefore, of its model. Conversely, such evidence fits a biblical creation model that places these creatures in the animal realm—remarkable in their own right but distinct from human beings who alone bear the image of their Creator. |
Comments
It is written by a Truly
It is written by a Truly Authoritative Source that the heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
Night after night and day after day they pour forth speech and display the eternal power and divine nature of God.
I remember as a teenager touching the exposed rock layers in Olduvai Gorge where Louis and Mary Leakey made so many fascinating discoveries.
I remember even in the sweltering heat getting goose bumps at the thought of what might still be hidden in them.
I thank God for the men and women like the Leakeys who spent years laboriously sifting the sands of time looking for traces of long gone forms of life the Creator and Sustainer of all things saw fit to form according to His good pleasure.
Just in Jesus,
Steve
This reply is for Paul
This reply is for Paul above.
RTB science scholars would affirm that God is omnipotent. You’re right, he can do anything (except something that violates his nature, like sin). But what he can do and what he has done are two different things.
To date, and according to known laws of physics, science tells us that life requires water. There’s some speculation for ammonia-based life, for example, but no evidence for it. Additionally, RTB has pointed out repeatedly that water is merely one requirement, and its presence alone does not ensure life.
As for whether “it is arrogant to suggest that we are God’s only living creatures,†I assume you mean intelligent, advanced life other than all the creatures alive on Earth. I rub elbows with RTB’s science scholars daily, and they are men of integrity and humility—reticent to make pronouncements. As they investigate the created realm, they find no evidence for any kind of life—let alone advanced life—anywhere else in the observable universe.
While scientific advance continues to bear this out, RTB finds no room for arrogance. Instead, such knowledge rouses wonder at God’s majesty, his power and artistry, and why he did things the way he did. It should engender worship of God, not of self.
Having said all that, RTB’s analysis is primarily a scientific one, so—if I’ve understood theologians properly—your position does not violate any theological tenets. If it is “highly probable†that other human-type intelligent life exists, then perhaps we’ll know that in time. But that kind of statement—absent any evidence—leaves one open to skeptical derision.
Thanks for your post, Paul.
Bob, One of the
Bob,
One of the difficulties in written communication is that the reader can’t see the inflections, tones, and changes of pace that occur in actual conversation. Plus, while trying not to bore readers, I left out a couple of key words; namely, “and that.†The sentence you quote, “There’s no need for scientific inquiry when the Bible explains it all for you,†goes with the sentence immediately preceding it and is part of the skeptics’ charge that Bible-believing Christians would rather stand on (in the skeptics’ estimation) superstition than science.
It probably would have been more helpful if the portion you question read this way:
The excerpted sentence, “Do we need to wait around for more data?†plays into the skeptic’s notion that Christians blindly follow a mythical holy book that always trumps science, and that there’s no need for scientific inquiry when the Bible explains it all for you.
However, in context the statement is a challenge to compare models given data currently available.
Sorry for any misunderstanding on that point.
Regarding the second question on what makes a scientist “legitimate,†well, as a layperson I’m not qualified to answer the question. Also, I used the word “legitimate†reluctantly. I shouldn’t have had to qualify “scientist†when referring to RTB scientists. But because of the false perception that creationists garner their credentials through degree mills, I added that word.
RTB scientists have defended their theses and earned their degrees from well-known institutions. All have conducted postdoctoral research in their respective fields and all stay on top of the literature. They have published in peer-reviewed journals and interact regularly with other scientists in similar disciplines.
I really enjoyed reading
I really enjoyed reading Darwin’s 1st edition of Origin of Species.
Given his perspective (a deist? unaware of genetics?) it was a profound work that throughout acknowledged the existence of a Creator.
(Don’t waste words trying to vilify Charles Darwin - I won’t listen.)
Without in any way slandering the man, new evidences from sources in some cases only hinted at in Scripture have rendered his theory unworkable.
What I like about the creation model advanced at Reasons to Believe is that it can include any and all new evidence.
Both the Scriptural evidence and the creation evidence must match up for the God of Scripture to be True.
Just in Jesus,
Steve
Average Joe, Thank you
Average Joe,
Thank you for showing the fallacies in that "science" behind evolution and showing how the data conforms more beautifully to ID. Do not worry about people who grasp at straws to attempt to defeat your arguments. ID is full of science, especially in your model, and a few comments do not change that. Keep up the good work.
Taylor
Statements such as "life
Statements such as "life requires water" are incorrect. This puts a limit on God. Water is only required for life as we know it. I believe God is big enough to create life that could live on nitrogen, hydrogen, or any other substance. In fact, with the billions of heavenly bodies I think it is arrogant to suggest that we are God's only living creatures. I think other life, even human type of life, is highly probable.
Paul Williams, Fresno, Ca
The actual sentence I take
The actual sentence I take to task is "That might help but we already have models that attempt to explain nature’s record." But let's forget that one and move on to this gem: "There’s no need for scientific inquiry when the Bible explains it all for you."?
Are you serious when you say that?
By the way, what makes a scientist "legitimate"?
Thanks.
Bob, I think you’ve
Bob,
I think you’ve misunderstood my comments. The excerpted sentence, “Do we need to wait around for more data?†plays into the skeptic’s notion that Christians blindly follow a mythical holy book that always trumps science. There’s no need for scientific inquiry when the Bible explains it all for you.
However, in context the statement is a challenge to compare models given data currently available. Does Lucy better fit a model for human evolution or for special creation?
Reasons To Believe science scholars devote themselves to the pursuit of scientific investigation. I witness for myself how these guys love poring over the literature. They are legitimate scientists who know the scientific method. By no means would they say that it’s time to stop—we’ve made our case and the Bible says so.
But when you have one model that accounts for the data and another that does not, can you not make a judgment about the validity of either model?
"Do we need to wait around
"Do we need to wait around for more data? That might help but we already have models that attempt to explain nature’s record. Which one best fits the facts?"
You know we had models in Aristotle's time. They made a lot of sense too. Earth sinks, fire rises. The natural resting place of earth is at the center of the universe. Voila! Who needs data?
Average Joe, keep them coming. You are proving that creationism in all its guises is absolutely bankrupt of science.
Post new comment