Monday, March 19, 2007

New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories

This is an article I found on a website http://www.hyahya.org/articles/70New_Fossil_Discovery_sci32.php#aa

"A newly found fossil skull in Chad has confounded the proponents of the theory of evolution. Darwinist scientists confess that this fossil has rocked the very foundations of the theory of evolution. The fairy tale of "an evolutionary chain stretching from ape to man" has once again collapsed.
This new ape fossil found in Chad turned all evolutionary theses upside down.
The new fossil skull found in the central African country of Chad has dealt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the origin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that "man evolved from ape-like creatures" so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution." (1)
Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb." (2)
The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor."
Ever since the 1920s, evolutionists have claimed that some characteristics of the Australopithecus genus resembled those of human beings, for which reason they have portrayed these extinct creatures as "man's most primitive ancestor." A great deal of evidence disproving that thesis has emerged. For instance, research in the 1990s revealed that Australopithecus did not walk upright, as had been claimed, but walked with a stooped posture just like other apes. The newly-discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, another ape species that lived 2 million years before Australopithecus, is actually more "human-like" according to evolutionary criteria. In other words, it demolishes the "evolutionary scheme."
The essence of the matter is this: There are a large number of very different ape species that once lived in the past and are now extinct. The skull or skeletal structures of some of these show similarities to those of man. Yet those similarities do not mean that these creatures have any relationship to man. Evolutionists line up the skulls from these extinct species in a manner required by their theory and try to come up with "a ladder from ape to man." Yet the deeper research into the subject goes, the more it is realized that there is no such ladder, simply different species of ape lived at different times in the past.
Moreover, it emerges that man came about all of a sudden, with no evolutionary process behind him: In other words, that he was created.
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated. (3)
The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. (emphasis added) (4)
"THE VERY IDEA OF THE MISSING LINK, ALWAYS SHAKY, IS NOW COMPLETELY UNTENABLE."Henry Gee, editor of Nature
In brief, the drawings of the "evolutionary ladder that stretches from ape to man" that we so frequently encounter in newspapers and magazines have no scientific value at all. They are merely propaganda from certain circles that are blindly devoted to the theory of evolution. At the same time as this propaganda is carried out, evidence that conflicts with the theory of evolution is kept hidden away. In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, which caused a great stir in America when it was published in 2000, the U.S. biologist Jonathan Wells summed up that propaganda mechanism in these terms:
The general public is rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, we are simply fed the latest version of somebody's theory, without being told that paleoanthropologists themselves cannot agree over it. And typically, the theory is illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or human actors wearing heavy makeup. (5)
The Darwinist myth is now finally about to collapse. The mistaken nature of Darwinism, itself merely a 19th century superstition, is becoming ever clearer as science advances. The world of science is arriving at the most important truth of all: It was God who created the universe we live in, and everything, living or inanimate, within it.
___________________________________________
(1) John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002(2) D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins", National Geographic News, July 10, 2002(3) John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002(4) The Guardian, 11 July 2002(5) Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 225"

Author is "HARUN YAHYA"

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of Bologna! The source is questionable with conclusions that are not farther than ever from the truth

First this find is claimed to be the ancestor of the chimpanzees, not humans. But even if it was, it wouldn't make any difference since at some point in the past 7million years chimps and humans departed trees
The third option is that this might have been one of the evolutionary MANY dead ends. As evolution doesn't work in a straight line but more like a tree. It starts from a specific root and branches out. Some branches are shorter, or much shorter than the trunk leading to the very top of the tree!

The source has religious ties as I can see... so I would question many things
PS, when scientist talk about BREARKTHROUGH and amazing, nuclear explosion level discovery, it probably means to us that "x" was "y" and in the whole alphabet soup

M Kilany said...

Qwaider,

It's true that the website has religious ties, so what? Does it provide a solid case for discussion... lets see... I believe it does... We can agree and disagree but lets do it in a civilized manner...

Why base a whole argument on the basis that no God exists and lets come up with a theory...

No need to be more royal than the king, and we can always discuss this in a civilized manner... you presented your case no need to be offensive to anyone else, whether it is a website with religious ties or not... I never thought you were the type of person to to start a comment with a "what a bunch of Bologna!"... take it easy...

Look again at the sources and where the headlines were published:
"(1) John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002(2) D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins", National Geographic News, July 10, 2002(3) John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found", Nature, 11 July 2002(4) The Guardian, 11 July 2002(5) Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 225"

The website raises so many questions, the author is only human, he has some excellent articles and others that might not be as good, but to assume that the source is questionable is a hasty decision...

One question that was always on my mind is... if between every two species there are numerous mutations and intermediate species, where are they? And why aren't there enough fossils to show all the transitions from one species to the next...

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with God or not Kilani. You know I'm the biggest supporter for Faith, but not in this idiotic way.
Let me tell you why, because sooner or later someone is going to crack the mystery and, believe it or not, it will be a stronger argument for evolution in the Anti-god way.

Look at what they're saying it's from 2001 (6 years ago) many strides have been made since then. But that's not everything.
The fossil is not for a Human family, it's thought to be an ancestor of the human family. Possibly a joint ancestor with the chimpanzees OR an ancestor of chimpanzees only.
There's another theory that says it's of a female member of a guerrilla family. So it doesn't even have ties to the human race except way older than 7 million years.

The whole article (although looking professional) is a bunch of bologna trying to play on people's emotions instead of scientific fact.

Give it some time, and you'll see for yourself
Civility has no place in science. You either prove it, or not. People WILL critique and challenge everything you say. And that's their right

It has been like this for thousands of years my friend. It'll not change now. This is not a school debate :)

PS: Islam, has no firm position on this.
PPS: The scull had a volume of 350cc for the brain, (much smaller than the 1300cc of the current human brain) so the WRONG conclusion to draw is "Human was like this all along", and the right conclusion MAY be one of the two. (a) Human race older than previously thought. or (b) Skull found is for ......[other than human]. Case (a) is what the scientists are talking about. And not case (c) Proof found that Human has always looked the way it looks now.

M Kilany said...

Qwaider,

I don't mind anyone questioning what I say and critisizing it as long as it's polite... don't put words into my mouth...

As for the points you made, I don't mind if someone cracks that mystery... if he is right and has enough proof why not?! but there are many questions that need answers and not hypothetical ones...

There is an endless debate between creationists and evolutionists... never mind the spelling...

Fossils for intermediate species is one of them?

Another one is related to mutations questioning the very foundation of evolution, if evolution is based on mutations and natural selection, as far as I know mutation of any complex being, even if it is controlled in labs will always produce a deformed being? I don't know of a single incident where a human being was subjected to radiation or mutation (Say Japan's Hiroshima and Nagazaki, or Russia's nuclear reactor) that resulted anything other than deformations and cancer cases, and I’m talking about humans, animals and insects in those parts of the world, which might have had so much exposure to radiation in huge numbers and man those are millions of people, not a couple of hundreds living in villages... The only mutations that resulted in a better race of complex beings are Spiderman, mutant Ninja Turtles… Now to produce a new species, is a whole different story...

There are so many questions to be answered... some might be answered clearly, some might require investigation and more understanding some might prove the theory to be on shaky grounds... Either way it doesn't hurt to show all sides of the story... Whether you think it is idiotic or not…

Anonymous said...

Ya 7abeebi Ya kilani, Allah yirda 3alaik, No one is insulting you here. We're discussing a specific matter and all words are in that area. Ya sidi, if you feel offended by my comment. I apologize, and will be more careful in the future. Wala tiz3al.

Now to the points. How can anyone be hypocritical when science is discussed. It's not a matter of beautifying the evidence or anything.
No one knows for sure, that's the beauty of exploration. No body knows how things were before humans, historians documented the history of the world. So everyone is coming up with these theories to help us understand the world we live in. It's really a remarkable feat to even attempt to reconstruct the history before we were even born. But this science is based on so much intelligence and thinking outside the box. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.

Now with that little speech out of the way, I agree with you, there's this HUGE debate going on, fuelled most recently with right-wing pro-bush religious right. In fact, most scientists (I would go as far as saying more than 90% of all scientists believe in evolution)

I would go back to Quran on this and say, "People who fear god the most and the scientists/people of knowledge"
Now I understand that our knowledge is limited. But the last thing our Islamic rulings should do is follow the foot steps of the catholic church which alienated scientists and prosecuted them for their ideas which lead eventually to the church's demise.

As for recent mutations, you can notice the following in people. The percentage of people developing wisdom tooth has increased. Due to the fact that it's no longer needed. There is a lot of scientific research going on right now
Don't mix science fiction with science fact. I love both, and although there is a thin line between the two, that line still exists.
In the case of mutations, it's a well known fact that many are evolutionary dead ends, but the ones that DO survive, might end up even better than the original species. Think about that for a little bit :)

Anonymous said...

Ya abu el Kilany, Tawel Balek 3ala Qwaider ya zalameh...waal

M Kilany said...

Tayseer, roog ya man... hmmm I think I know you... shoftak betseid fel mayyeh el 3ekreh gabel yawmein... sa7 :)

Qwaider,
:) 3ala rasi Ya man... mesh za3lan, I know you mean well...