Opposable Thumbs

Past Issues - Issues that ran before this

Linkage - Other sites that are way more

Opposable Thumbs

Opposable thumbs, to us, are not the short thick first digits at the end of the front limbs of the human animal which are modified for grabbing.

They are people - people who exhibit a tenacious veracity in defending their atheism/evolutionism.

They oppose the Christian/creation world view and leave their indelible imprint on us.

They leave with us a thumbnail sketch of where they are coming from in their thinking.

We here at the Institute for the study of Atheianity appreciate their pressing need to pin us down on issues. We respect that.

And we would like to honor an Opposable Thumb here . . .

There is another dimension beyond that which is known to evolutionists.

It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.

It is the middle ground between wolf and poodle, between junk science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of one's claims and the summit of their logic.

This is the dimension of imagination.

That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop . . .

The Transitional Zone!

This month's Opposable Thumb is:
"April"

(Who was born in July.)

Editors note: April being born in July isn't the only fuzzy logic going on with our aspiring writer guest. This time we are going to play a game. Find the green sentences and try to figure out the common element.

Also, the underlined bold type indicates the most memorable moments of this dialogue.

Hi there, yours is the only site I've seen that makes such a valiant attempt to mock atheism. You did a fine job at it and generated a lot of laughs from this here dyed-in-the-wool Atheist.

I have to cringe though, at what you expect of evolution. You expect transitional half & half looking "transitional" fossils. It doesn't work that way. Show me the transitional dog breed between a wolf and a bulldog and you'll see my point.

Yes yes, I know wolves and dogs are the same species, but since we're talking about physical appearences, it doesn't matter. So, where is the breed of dog that looks 50% wolf and 50% bulldog? (it's cheating to breed the two together to get this result, because any "missing link" breed would have to be around before bulldogs were on the scene).

Where's the missing link breed between dalamation and chihuahua? Between Afghan Hound and pitbull? Ponder this for a while and you'll see that "change over time" doesn't produce half & half stages, be it for breeds or species. Evolution happened (and IS happening), and I'm sure Jesus is spinning in His grave! :)

Cheers,
April

Greetings April,

My birthday is in April, so I already feel a cosmic connection to you and therefore I already like you right off the bat.

Also I appreciate the fact that you note that I mock (make fun of / celebrate the folly of) atheism rather than atheists. Sometimes this distinction gets blurry, but I try to adhere to this guidline. We all know that God loves the atheists but hates the atheism. Therefore I should love the "ists" and hate the "isms".

As for transitionals, I don't expect an exact 50% hybrid between two species, but there should be some major hybrid characteristics, such as is noted on the evolutionary TalkOrigins Archive:

"A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage..."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Maybe you should also write these evolutionists and tell them that they are wrong too? :-)

Anyway, I have to ask you where "transitionals" fall into the whole evolution debate.

What would be a true transitional fossil if it doesn't look like a hybrid? How would you know it was a transitional otherwise?

Can transitionals be used to support evolution?

Should we expect to find any? If not, is it "scientific" to believe in them if they can't actually be observed?

Is there a "missing link" between primate and man?

If there are no transitionals, what is the scientific evidence for evolution (the emergence of entirely new and more "advanced" features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits)?

I also have to disagree with the illustration of canine inbreeding (especially prominant in Tennessee) that you have adopted. This is, in fact, the crux of the matter.

(BTW, I have seen transitionals between wolves and bulldogs. They're called "trial lawyers").

Using your example, I researched the history of the Bulldog which is not complete. I traced it back to what is called an "Allaunt" which was derived from the "war dogs" (broad mouth dogs of Briton) which were used in Roman times. That's as far as the history can be traced.

So it is inconclusive as to what the transitional(s) is(are) and looked like. So I can't answer your enquiry about the transitional(s) of Bulldogs from wolves.

As for the other dog kinds and their transitionals such as the dalmation and chihuaha, we have to first verify that they are both indeed on the same branch and that one came after the other. But I was way too fat, slothful and lazy to look into this and maybe you will.

It is possible that they are on two different branches in the canine family thus not being directly related one from the other (though having a common ancestor). If this is the case, the example is not relavent to the discussion.

The biblical model is that God created animals in certain "kinds" to breed with one another. They can never breed with different kinds because they are not related.

There IS change within species due to outside influences and genetic variation (these variations are selected or reshuffled from an already diverse gene pool wisely made diverse by God so that animals and humans could adapt to a broken and fallen world where conditions change constantly and sometimes drastically).

The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go. Things were created to reproduce true to their kind.

Visualise our two views this way: In your molecules-to-man evolutionary view, there is one big "tree" (like an Oak or Christmas). At the bottom life started out as say, an amoeba-like thing-a-ma-bob. As time goes by the tree grows and sprouts various species limbs - dog limb, cat limb, monkey limb, etc. At the top are the most complex animals, the human animals.

In the biblical view, there are many different trees planted by God. A canine tree, a feline tree, a primate tree, a human tree, etc. These trees also grow different branches of variation within their kind, but they are always the same kind.

I apologize for my rambling and the length of my reply. I hope it is somewhat helpful - you know, like maybe you had insomnia and reading all this put you to sleep - that kind of helpful.

As for Jesus spinning in his grave - if anyone had ever found His body, I'm sure we could varify your claim about that ;-)

Cheerio,
Editor in Chief

P.S. - I believe your self-described "dyed-in-the-wool Atheist" comment to be humorously divinely prophetic. Wool comes from sheep. Jesus is known as the Great Shepherd. Therefore one day you will become one in His flock and become a Christian. I look forward to having you on board!

April's response . . .

Hello Editor in Chief, and thanks for your reply concerning my evolution
points. Good to know that God loves atheists, not the "ism"! Similar to how
He hates evil, but not the evil-doer?

Oddly enough, I was born in July, not in April!

Also oddly, I think evolutionists are wrong the way they throw around the
terms "missing link" and "transitional"; these are misleading terms.. How
can a species have "major hybrid characteristics" between two lineages when
evolution doesn't know the future?

It's kind of hard to explain, but how can a goaless process produce traits "leading up to" a species that lies in the distant future?

Like in your humorous/clever morphage of a hedgehog with a pineapple, how
could a critter have so much of another specie's traits, when one of the
species isn't even around yet? Truth is, "missing links" don't look the part.

Every species alive today could be considered a potential "missing link" towards some future life-forms, but we don't go around saying a bear looks like a transitional. Take a time machine back millions of years, and again, none of the creatures will look like "missing links".

So no, we shouldn't expect to find classic transitionals. I know this flys in the face of what evolutionists say, but it makes sense. Instead, the fossil record shows a series of "similar yet different" species, much the way the dog breed tree consists of similar yet different breeds, all with a common ancestor.

Strangely, all the "missing links" seem to go extinct. Evolution burns its bridges as new forms develop. I'm glad you view evolution as a branching process. Many see it as a linear stages type path.. .

There were many species between primate and ape, but alas, they're extinct. (similar to how most of the car models between Model T's and SUV's are no longer popularly in use. Evolution creates extinctions as it moves).

Ha ha, trial lawyers are the wolf-bulldog link! good one! So when you tried to trace the bulldog history back far enough, at some point it ended in uncertainty. Note how most dog breeds "suddenly appear" in the records, just like species "suddenly appear" in the fossil record!

And dalmations, poodles, labs, the reason it's so hard to find a transitional breed between any two arbitrarily-chosen breeds is because the common ancestor breed is not going to look the part.

No wooly poodle-type dog breed with a trace of dalamation spots,, or no wooly poodle-type dog with a chihuahua's small size. Thecommon ancestor breed will just vaguely look the part, and you wouldn't know it even if it bit you on the nose!

The Biblical "Kinds", and allowing for variations within species.. that's adaptation, or micro-evolution, but really, if you accept micro-evolution, you get macro-evolution for free! What is the barrier that limits one species from producing a branch to another future species?

Man could do this if given enough time. Isolate some bulldogs, breed them for hundreds of thousands of years, and do the same with some isolated wolves.. Eventually the wolf and bulldog DNA would have drifted so far apart that they couldn't inter-breed. This has almost happened with horses and donkeys. They produce sterile mules.

Amoeba to Man. It happened! But humans aren't at the top of the limbed tree.
It's more of a bird's-eye view of a very gnarled bush, with humans and every
other species on the tip of their own twig.

Oh, Jesus' body is around here SOMEWHERE! :)

I too was more lengthy than planned. So I hope it cures your insomnia too! I suppose you think the wool is pulled over my eyes! I like the idea of Jesus the Shepherd, but I'm going to have to disbelieve in evolution before I become a Christian.

I hope I hear from you again. Your well-versed on the evo subject, and you
write in a style that is clear.

baaaaaa!
April

Hello again born-in-July, April:

My wife-unit was born in July also, so you and I still have that cosmic connection thang goin' on.

It appears that we agree that transitionals haven't been and never can be scientifically confirmed - it's just that we believe this for two very different reasons. Can you feel the love?

However, your logic for believing that transitionals won't share hybrid characteristics is, I believe, flawed. The reasoning for verifiable transitionals is that they are (should be) a trail back through the history of an organism.

That is, of coarse, unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium which you seem far too intelligent for.

Let's see . . . You don't believe in transitionals as evolutionists claim them to be. And you don't accept the classic evolutionary tree. You are an evolutionary maverick! You go girl (woop woop)!

The tree illustration was adopted because it's supposed to represent the history of life from the original life form which was the least complex. As life got more complex through time, it would be higher on the tree with humans on top 'cause our brains have been said to be more complex than the universe itself.

I can work with your gnarled bush concept, though I don't really accept it. The original simple one-celled life form would be at the center of this bush. The branching out would represent time/complexity. The branch with humans on its tip would extend out the farthest because of our complexity (especially females - sheesh!).

Do you see that your acceptance of missing links is based on faith rather than scientific observation? They can't be observed because they don't look the part, according to your last post.

The scientific evidence for you is the visually verifiable process which you call micro-evolution. I disagree with this term because "evolution" claims not just change, but change that increases the genetic information (whether macro or micro - or mecro, mocro, mucro and sometimes mycro for that matter).

The correct term should be "adaptation" or "speciation". Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which only gets rid of already existing information as observed thus far) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA (life's genetic programming code) information.

These changes are always the result of horizontal changes in information, or a result of a mutational defect with a loss of information. Such as the steril hybrid examples you have given.

This scientifically verifiable evidence (as well as some others) seems to fit the biblical model (which I outlined in my first response) better than it does the 'goo-to-you' evolutionary model.

And you don't have to disbelieve evolution to become a christian. There are "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation" christians, although I don't agree with them fully on those stances.

Christianity stands or falls on its own merits. It relies on the validity of the claims and deeds of Jesus Christ.

BTW - if Jesus' body IS around there somewhere, would you return it? There are many people trying to find it.

Sincerely,
Editor in Chief
Blind Fools

April's response . . .

Hi, enigmatic Editor!

If your wife was born on July 26th, I'll really be wowed.

Yes, we agree that transitionals have never been found, nor will they be. We agree they cannot be found, but for two very different reasons!

I agree that it seems there ought to be a "trail" back through time showing the fossil sequence path an organism took as it evolved, composed of hybrid traits of both past and future, but in reality, this can't be the case. Why then do no species alive today resemble missing links to the future, say, 20 million years from now?

All of today's species have the potential to start a new branch. But weasels, koalas, lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) don't look like potential missing links, do they. See my point? A slice of the past is the same as a slice of the present: nothing will resemble a missing link/transitional the way we expect.

Punctuated equilibrium, bah phooey. Just a poor attempt at explaining why there are no gradual stages in the fossil record. I guess I am a bit of an evolutionary maverick. But I'm just going by common sense. Oh, the "transitionals" are out there, but it this case it's hard to see the trees through the forest.

A species that fits my bill of a "transitional" is the civet. It resembles a cat, yet clearly is not a cat (similar to how a rottweiler resembles a doberman, yet is clearly not a doberman), but is a species in its own right. We gotta group everything into tidy little "species" (or breeds), which is a big part of the problem in expecting "missing links".

Yes,I guess I have faith that the "links" are out there even if they're never identified.

Our brains may be the most complex things in the universe, but why does human DNA contain only a little more code that a worm's DNA? While we are VASTLY more intelligent than chimps, why is our DNA 97% of theirs? You'd think there'd be much more of a difference, on account of our incredible brains.

The human branch on the "bushy tree" would not extend further out than the others. All life alive today would be on the same length branch because it was successful enough to survive to the present.

We have super-duper neato brains, but other species have their own neato stuff. We can't squirt ink like a squid, or send sonar signals out with our voices like bats can, we can't jump super-high like a flea, run like a cheetah, or spin an intricate spider web in three minutes.

Adaptation IS evolution. There is no new info produced as complexity increases, it is simply the same four DNA letters shuffled in different combos. The info is modified, hence the other term for evolution: "descent with modification".

"goo to you"? ha ha. Never heard it put that way before!

The Biblical model is merely an observation of simple life preceding more complex life. Theistic evolution makes no sense whatsoever. Why would God need to use a process at all, when He could zap everything in simultaneously???

If Jesus were mistaken about how life got here, (Jesus believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, where God makes species each to their kind, no evolution allowed), then what else was he mistaken about? :)

If Jesus' skeleton were found, no one would believe it. And without a DNA match from a lock of his hair or osmething to compare with the bones, true proof is out of reach.

There a far more reasons why I don't believe in God besides evolution. The oodles of paradoxes for example. Can God see himself in a mirror? Can He kill Himself? Can He make a second God equal to Himself? Can he change His mind? Does God have free will? Does God have faith? (If not, He's an atheist). I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you!

Have a great weekend!
Nobody's fool,
April

Dear April,

This shall be the last broadcast to April Land from the Valley of the Blind. I've enjoyed chatting to an April Rainbow rather than to an April Shower.

I will only comment on your naming the civet as a species that fits the bill of a transitional based on its appearance. You've spent quite an amount of time shattering that sort of reasoning.

Here are some articles you may like to read on some points you brought up:

DNA/Information Theory
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2p50.asp#box
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v10n2p181.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

Human/Chimp DNA
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

God contradictions
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hgodrock.html

Take care and God bless,
Editor in Chief
Blind Fools

April's response . . .

Ok Editor in Chief, it's been an interesting brief discussion. Leaving so soon? I must have really stumped you, eh? :)

(Editors note: She's right folks. I couldn't argue against her logic. Not in a million years.)

Thank you for the links, I will check them all out eventualy. The God contradictions looks especially interesting.

One last thing. The civet was not meant to be an example of a missing link. There are NO missing links. Evolution leaves similarites in its wake. The civet is just such a similarity.

It vaguely resembles felines, and it vaguely resembles weasels and other carnivores, and is in fact considered to be related to the hyena. The hyena is quite cat-like, and the cheetah, which is also related to the hyena, is quite canine-like.

Evolution produces these kinds of similarites, not hybrid freaks that have distinct traits of each species. So sure am I of my view, that I'm planning to write a book on it to clear up the "missing link" fallacy once and for all.

(Editors note: Please do, April. Please do.)

Best Regards,
April May June July

April, as an opposable thumb, you are...
A-OK!

BONUS

An alert BF reader sent me a letter concerning this topic of dog breeds (hint hint) and transitionals. It was very informative and worth repeating here . . .

Dear Editor in Chief,

It's me again! Seems that lately a lot of things are showing up that cause much controversy in my own private petting zoo, or as I like to think of it "Rejects R Us".

Opposable thumb April (born in July) wants to see a transitional fossil showing the conversion from wolf to bulldog. Sorry kiddo it ain't gonna happen.

I also was born in April (must have been a good month for Fundies) and the simple truth is that the reason these breeds and all the others seem to just show up is that they do just that. Picking dogs' transitional fossils was a very poor example.

I have done much research on dogs and dog breeds because in addition to taking in birds that are unwanted and/or abused, I also take in dogs, rabbits, fish and whatever else has had a bad time of it and needs love, medical care and emotional rehabilitation.

However regarding the subject at hand; man figured out very early on that the feral dogs he had tamed would from time to time pop out a mutation of one sort or another.

Not being slow on the uptake he also saw how these differences in build shape etc. made the dogs useful in areas the standard version wasn't.

Over time, it became obvious that this sort of thing could be controlled and done deliberately to try a get a dog with the desired characteristics.

The simple truth is that there never was a transitional fossil for any breed of dog. They are not a product of evolution or natural selection.

The dogs we know today are here in all their marvelous variety simply because they are truly "man-made".

There is no canine on the planet of the domesticated variety that achieved it's particular appearance, temperment or anything else naturally.

Dogs as we know them are the oldest deliberately manipulated life-form existing on planet earth. Cats are the second oldest.

By the way, I read the interview to my canine buddies Freya, Foxy and Peabody. They laughed harder than I did!

Sincerely, your Fundy friend;
D.J.

Table of Contents