[Christine McGourty: "Scientists hail stunning fossil" (2009/05/19) on BBC}それはそれで価値ある話だが、本題はそれに対する創造論者の反応。
The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US.
The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal.
The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives. ...
[PZ Myers: "Darwinius masillae" (2009/05/19) on Pharyngula]
This is an important new fossil, a 47 million year old primate nicknamed Ida. She's a female juvenile who was probably caught in a toxic gas cloud from a volcanic lake, and her body settled into the soft sediments of the lake, where she was buried undisturbed. ....
若い地球の創造論ミニストリAnsers in Genesisの反応は、「中間化石が見つからないから、進化論は誤りだ」という古典的な反応を捨てかけていて、面白い。
1. Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.「化石そのものは進化を証明しない」というのは正しい。このタイプの反応はわりと以前からあり、Mark Isaakの創造論者の主張では1985年のHenry M. Morrisの例がとりあげられている。
この化石は絶滅したキツネザルのよう動物以上のものではない。見た目はチンパンジーや猿人や人間とはまったく違っている。
2. A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
化石は進化を示せない。化石は死体の変化しない記録である。進化は生物の変化の過程だと主張される。化石は進化することを仮定することによってのみ示され、仮定された信条にしたがって解釈される。
3. Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
類似性は進化を証明できない。2つの生物の構造が類似していることは、2つの生物の構造が類似している以上のことを示さない。進化を前提にしない限り、類似性はデザインではなく進化によるものと言えない。さらに、中間形態は、少し似たところに注目され、大きく異なるところは無視される。
[Ida: the Missing Link at Last? (2009/05/19) on Answers in Genesis]
==>忘却からの帰還:創造論者の主張「進化論は証明されない」 (2008/11/10)
ただ、創造論者たちは「化石そのものは進化を証明しない」のラインで防衛線を築くという決断はむつかしいように見える。Tiktaalikの件では、インテリジェントデザイン運動があわてまくりだった。
- Tiktaalikにこだわる創造論者Casey Luskinのアフォ (2008/07/18)
- Tiktaalikは中間形態化石ではなく、モザイクだ by Discovery Institute (2006/04/11)
- TiktaalikをめぐるDiscovery Instituteの言い分 (2006/04/22)
なので、Ansers in Genesisの反応の後半は、古典的な創造論者の反応になっている。
4. The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jorn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood. Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”
5. If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.
6. Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
...
[Ida: the Missing Link at Last? (2009/05/19) on Answers in Genesis]
