New "evolutionary" Find! Being Called A Missing Link. Hmph

[Ukulelemike]

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-fossils-ancestor-rhinos-horses-india-02293.html

 

So, once again, evolutionary scientists have discovered bones of an animal they are crowing about, calling it a missing link, or an transitionary specimen, that links Rhinos, Horses and Tapirs.

 

Their primary evidence for this seems to be wrapped up in this statement from the article:

 

“Many of Cambaytherium thewissi‘s features, like the teeth, the number of sacral vertebrae, and the bones of the hands and feet, are intermediate between Perissodactyla and more primitive animals. This is the closest thing we’ve found to a common ancestor of the Perissodactyla order.”

 

So, some teeth, bones and feet are similar to some other animals-so it MUST be evidence that modern animals with an uneven amount of toes on their back feet all evolved from these. never a thought of the possibility that it just might be a unique animal.

 

I also like how they have scientifically painted a picture of what it looked like, to include hair and color patterns.

 

I get so aggravated lately, what with Bill Nye the Science so-called Guy declaring that children tqaught creation can't be good citizens of the next generation, because their understanding is stunted, and there can never come any good science from creationists, while all the time ignoring that he and other scientists, (he isn't one, by the way) stand on the shoulders of creationists who discovered the various LAWS of the universe, not just theories, and even today, we have people like Damadian, a six-day creationist that invented the MRI scanner, one of the greatest recent medical breakthroughs to assist in treatments.

 

Bill Nye, the guy who holds a BACHELOR'S in Mechanical Engineering, is now one of the go-to-guys for proof of evolution. Its funny-now, I realize that someone doesn't need big credentials to study and understand such things as science, but if a creationist scientist who holds anything less than a Ph. D in one of the accepted evolutionary sciences tries to stand for scientific creation, they will be ignored and called worthless as a proponent, because he doesn't have good enough credentials.

 

yet, here's Bill Nye, with his bachelors in mechanical engineering, NOT an evolutionary science, I believe, but he sure is a rock star with the evolution set.

 

By the way, in his debate with Ken Ham, which I was sorely disappointed with because the debate forum was poorly designed for an actual debate, Nye didn't bring up anything that hasn't been dealt with and well-answered before.

[Alimantado]

Their primary evidence for this seems to be wrapped up in this statement from the article:

 

“Many of Cambaytherium thewissi‘s features, like the teeth, the number of sacral vertebrae, and the bones of the hands and feet, are intermediate between Perissodactyla and more primitive animals. This is the closest thing we’ve found to a common ancestor of the Perissodactyla order.”

 

So, some teeth, bones and feet are similar to some other animals-so it MUST be evidence that modern animals with an uneven amount of toes on their back feet all evolved from these. never a thought of the possibility that it just might be a unique animal.

 

What the paper does is proceed from premises that are given at the start of the paper--i.e. theories from which the piece of research proceeds. All scholarship is done like this. Open up any journal of biology, chemistry, physics, history, mathematics, theology etc. etc. and you'll find papers that will briefly 'set the scene' in their introductory sections by referencing the prior research/scholarship that they are using as a basis.

 

Moreover, if the point of a particular paper is to present some new research and advance or modify a theory, it's perfectly reasonable for the authors to stick to what they want to say about that alone. They might choose to reference and argue against competing scholarship (particularly if what they are proposing goes against the grain), but there's no need to do so. Anyone else is free to write another paper assessing the same evidence and offering a competing theory and anyone is free to write a review paper that sums up all the different positions.

 

Either way, there's no requirement for the authors to start from first principles or to do a compare and contrast with every other piece of research out there. The paper just needs to do what it says on the tin, i.e. what the title says.

[Ukulelemike]

So, they have some fossils. How do you go from there to being able to assume, and it IS assumption, that is is related in some way to completely different animals? All you can do with bones is look at them and look for similarities to other animals. Hey, it has four legs! So do lots of other animals? And like other animals, it has a single head and two eyes, two nostrils, a mouth, teeth, etc. Seriously, there's nothing else that realistically can be done. They aren't even bones, from which can be drawn DNA-its fossil, rock, minerals have completely replaced the organic matter. Honestly, even the date is pure speculation, to make it fit where they want it to fit.

 

And even through the various articles I have read on this specific find, the scientists are quoted as "we believe" or, "We think", in terms of what it is , and how it related to anything else. All speculation at the end of the day.

[Alimantado]

All I was pointing out was that it's unrealistic to expect folk to start from first principles when they publish an academic paper within an established discipline.

[Ukulelemike]

I get that. Of course, they can't really deal with first principles, if I understand your meaning, because they don't really know it. Its all guess work, and it always changes.  I mean, seriously, when your idea of dating something is to be between 54-58 millions years, (not this specific one, but we see this kind of time span a lot in various datings), I mean, we're talking differences of MILLIONS of years. Not exact science.

[Alimantado]

I get that. Of course, they can't really deal with first principles, if I understand your meaning, because they don't really know it. Its all guess work, and it always changes.  I mean, seriously, when your idea of dating something is to be between 54-58 millions years, (not this specific one, but we see this kind of time span a lot in various datings), I mean, we're talking differences of MILLIONS of years. Not exact science.

 

No, I don't mean that at all. We're talking complete cross-purposes unfortunately. I'm just trying to point out that most journal papers are not treatises and for that reason they will not start from first principles. Doesn't matter whether it's a paper on evolution, medicine, theology, whatever.

[John81]

This is nothing new. They grasp at every straw which blows in the wind to try and find some elusive missing link they've never been able to find. Each new "here it is" find is eventually proven to be false. Typically, it's only the assertion of finding proof of evolution that gets press coverage; when they assertion is proven false, the doesn't cover that part of the story.

[Miss Daisy]

I remember watching the Bill Nye, Ken Ham debate. Dull! Ken Ham maybe right about everything he said but he's monotone and dull and hope he doesn't have another debate. The guy in prison is a great debater, name evades me at moment.

[Alimantado]

I remember watching the Bill Nye, Ken Ham debate. Dull! Ken Ham maybe right about everything he said but he's monotone and dull and hope he doesn't have another debate. The guy in prison is a great debater, name evades me at moment.

 

Kent Hovind. He makes good use of humour in his talks--at least the one or two I've watched.

[John81]

I saw a news report yesterday claiming scientists have found the bones a new "humanoid species".

 

Thus far over the decades they found several "new humanoids", "missing links", "humanoid branches" which have all come to be proven hoaxes, misidentified remains of animals or the remains of humans just like us.

 

They try so hard, yet fighting against God they cannot prevail.

[282Mikado]

I also like how they have scientifically painted a picture of what it looked like, to include hair and color patterns.

 

They got the below from a pig's tooth. If these people are anything at all it is imaginative and artistic.

 

[John81]

These people are great at making "science fiction"!