“The only thing certain about the missing link is that it’s missing.” –G.K. Chesterton

Evolution, we’re told, is dogma.  Strangely, when every other area of modern science admits to being subject to revision, evolution is held dogmatically.  It can’t be disproven.  The evidentiary holes and logical leaps used by evolutionists are to be ignored and unchallenged.

Yet, every so often, as today, there’s a report that rattles the bones of evolutionists and shakes up their “conventional wisdom” like a student playing with a laboratory skeleton. . . . .

“Lucy” is not the common ancestor of chimps and humans. They’ve found a 4.4 million year old skeleton that has human-like features that apes do not have.  They emphasize that “apes evolved differently,” of course. 

But, the real point is that every direct human ancestor they can find points to the idea that humans at least separated from other primates a *long* time ago. 

Here’s a legitimate question: how do they know these things had hair?

3 responses to ““The only thing certain about the missing link is that it’s missing.” –G.K. Chesterton

  1. Chesterton was great at social commentary from a Catholic perspective, but he was not a scientist. Also, his time was a century ago, and science has undergone several mini-revolutions since then.

    Evolution is not scientific “dogma.” There is no scientific “dogma” because unlike faith, science is not revealed by God. It’s subject to our limitations, both in terms of what we can observe and how our minds interpret those observations. Scientists know this and hold no model or theory sacred (although, due to his own admitted ignorance of the meaning of the word “dogma,” Francis Crick infamously called one of his hypotheses the “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.”)

    Evolutionary theory today is quite different from its intellectual ancestor, Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Now it incorporates observed phenomena like genetic drift, variations in the rate of evolution, and habitat tracking. And evolution is falsifiable in theory; it just hasn’t been falsified, even after 150 years of study.

    I am completely at a loss as to why you think that studies of fossil hominids somehow damage or disprove the theory evolution. The age of the most recent common ancestor of apes and humans does not have anything to do with whether evolution happened and still happens.

    Whether Ardipithecus had hair is speculation. But there is no reason to think it did not have hair.

    Also, your link is broken.

    • Did I say they damage or disprove? I said they don’t prove anything, because it’s all guesswork. If you take off the hair, that thing looks very human to me.

      Evolution is not scientific “dogma”???? Ask the average biology teacher that! Evolutoin is the one thing you can’t question: witness your own impassioned defense thereof.

      I personally could care less about evolution, one way or the other. Fact is, God made us. Whether He did it exactly as described in Genesis or by evolution is irrelevant to me.

      What disgusts me is the importance people put on something that is ultimately irrelevant, that we ultimately will never know for certain, when the whole agenda is to make people doubt the existence of God–which, again, is really irrelevant to the question of evolution. An intelligent design compromise–which would seek to show how even the process of evolution indicates a Creator–is cast out as “creationism.”

      We cannot know these things for certain because we cannot witness them first hand. Evolution is just as much a matter of belief as is acceptance that Moses parted the Red Sea or Jesus rose from the dead.

  2. You do not need to be a scientist to tell one.

    A man who looks at Mars and says “Mars rotates at an angle making Deneb its polar star” is a scientist. A man who looks at Mars and says “oh, since it is in the ascendant a baby born here and now will seem warlike” is not a scientist. For the simple reason that the conclusion is not something discreetly hidden in the observation, but something totally unrelated.

    Now, a man who says Ardapitecus had / or had not / the ability to walk upright after examining talon bones if they are extant is so far a scientist. But a man who claims “we descend from Ardapitecus” is not a scientist.

    Chesterton was, as said, not a scientist, but he knew the difference between a scientist and a crank who beliefs anything he choses to treat as proof actually proves what he looks for.

    Fr. Bryan Houghton did get into scientific detail when rebutting atheism, and he did mention both Mendel and Chromosomes were banned in France because of anti-evolutionary implications.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s