Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Back to Reading...
A friend of mine gave me a copy of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward, who is a professor of theology, communications and the history of science at Trinity College in Florida. I will let you know.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Top 10 Evolution Articles
New Scientist has another list: the Top 10 Evolution Articles. It is a fun list, with complete articles behind every headline. One of them, Evolution, What Missing Link? is written by Donald Prothero, author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. It boils down some of the more dramatic examples of transitional fossils. Lots of information.
Red-Headed Neandertals
The Telegraph has a story about research into the Neandertal genome that suggest that at least some of them had red hair and even freckles. The article states:
After analysing the fossil bones found in a cave in north-west Spain, the experts concluded they had human blood group "O" and were genetically more likely to be fair skinned, perhaps even with freckles, have red or ginger hair and could talk.
The investigating team from Spain's government scientific institute, CSIC, used the very latest forensic techniques to remove the bones for analysis to prevent them getting contaminated with modern DNA.
Presumably they found FOXP2 (oddly truncated from "Forkhead Box P2"), one of the genes responsible for the capacity for speech. The article doesn't say. So, it looks like the northern European dermotype traits go back a ways.
After analysing the fossil bones found in a cave in north-west Spain, the experts concluded they had human blood group "O" and were genetically more likely to be fair skinned, perhaps even with freckles, have red or ginger hair and could talk.
The investigating team from Spain's government scientific institute, CSIC, used the very latest forensic techniques to remove the bones for analysis to prevent them getting contaminated with modern DNA.
Presumably they found FOXP2 (oddly truncated from "Forkhead Box P2"), one of the genes responsible for the capacity for speech. The article doesn't say. So, it looks like the northern European dermotype traits go back a ways.
New Book
Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending have a new book out called The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. I don't have enough money for all of these books!!
Monday, December 29, 2008
New Scientist Has an Article on Evolution and Unwisely Tackles Religion
I missed this during the year. New Scientist had an article on the 24 myths and misconceptions regarding evolution. It is separated into "shared misconceptions" and "creationist myths," which is aptly named. Each misconception links to an article on the topic and it is very thorough, with links to other articles included. Unfortunately, there is a subtle anti-religious tone throughout which sometimes manifests itself thusly:
So are religion and evolution incompatible? It depends who's judging. The idea that many religious people find most satisfactory - that a deity intervened in and directed the evolutionary process - cannot be disproved but is not supported by any evidence. The interpretations that are most compatible with what we know - that God did not intervene in evolution after creating the universe, or God is nature - are ones that many believers find unpalatable.
Of course, some biologists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are well known for dismissing all theistic religions. However, the question of whether religion and evolution are compatible is not the same as the bigger question of whether any theistic religion is compatible with reason and rationality.
This sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand a religious perspective. Whether or not it can be supported depends on what you take as evidence. Are the arguments in Evidence that Demands a Verdict worthy of consideration? I doubt that this author would see them that way. The last statement quoted above is simply gratuitous. I suspect St. Augustine or C.S. Lewis would be able to argue circles around Mr./Dr. La Page on theological issues. We have seen how well Richard Dawkins has fared in this regard.
Take what you need from the evolution sections. The theology, on the other hand is a tad facile.
Pleistocene Park Redux
The idea of resurrecting critters from long ago is picking up interest. A story out of Canwest suggests that genetics has been traveling apace.
Would you pay $100 to see a woolly mammoth munching on grass? How about Neanderthals building a fire, or a sabre-toothed tiger streaking across the prairie? The genetic blueprints for such extinct creatures and humans are emerging from labs around the world. U.S. researchers recently unveiled the mammoth genome and a German team is putting the finishing touches on the genome of our Neanderthal cousins, which is expected early in 2009. Scientists, who once dismissed reviving extinct creatures as little more than science fiction, now find themselves with the tools that might make it possible.
Still not sure it is a good idea. We already have a biome that is optimized for the planet at this time. Other ideas won't work, no matter how much Michael Crichton might have had us believe:
Dinosaurs are too far-gone -- degradation of the DNA over millions of years should keep Tyrannosaurus Rex on the shelf indefinitely. The more recently vanished dodo bird, great auk, and ancient bears, wolves and tigers are possible candidates for revival, as is the Neanderthal, which died out about 30,000 years ago.
May we live in interesting times.
Would you pay $100 to see a woolly mammoth munching on grass? How about Neanderthals building a fire, or a sabre-toothed tiger streaking across the prairie? The genetic blueprints for such extinct creatures and humans are emerging from labs around the world. U.S. researchers recently unveiled the mammoth genome and a German team is putting the finishing touches on the genome of our Neanderthal cousins, which is expected early in 2009. Scientists, who once dismissed reviving extinct creatures as little more than science fiction, now find themselves with the tools that might make it possible.
Still not sure it is a good idea. We already have a biome that is optimized for the planet at this time. Other ideas won't work, no matter how much Michael Crichton might have had us believe:
Dinosaurs are too far-gone -- degradation of the DNA over millions of years should keep Tyrannosaurus Rex on the shelf indefinitely. The more recently vanished dodo bird, great auk, and ancient bears, wolves and tigers are possible candidates for revival, as is the Neanderthal, which died out about 30,000 years ago.
May we live in interesting times.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
New Studies in Biopoesis
According to a study out of the University of Montreal, the last common ancestor to all life lived around 3.8 billion years ago. The story, in eScience, notes:
The study changes ideas of early life on Earth. "It is generally believed that LUCA was a heat-loving or hyperthermophilic organism. A bit like one of those weird organisms living in the hot vents along the continental ridges deep in the oceans today (above 90 degrees Celsius)," says Nicolas Lartillot, the study's co-author and a bio-informatics professor at the Université de Montréal. "However, our data suggests that LUCA was actually sensitive to warmer temperatures and lived in a climate below 50 degrees."
The early world would have originally contained only organisms with RNA, rather than DNA and that, when DNA evolved, it allowed organisms to move into warmer environments.
The study changes ideas of early life on Earth. "It is generally believed that LUCA was a heat-loving or hyperthermophilic organism. A bit like one of those weird organisms living in the hot vents along the continental ridges deep in the oceans today (above 90 degrees Celsius)," says Nicolas Lartillot, the study's co-author and a bio-informatics professor at the Université de Montréal. "However, our data suggests that LUCA was actually sensitive to warmer temperatures and lived in a climate below 50 degrees."
The early world would have originally contained only organisms with RNA, rather than DNA and that, when DNA evolved, it allowed organisms to move into warmer environments.
Neandertal Discoveries of 2008
Yahoo News has a list of the top Neandertal discoveries of 2008. The story is fairly short but interesting.
Robert Sibley on "Why Faith Matters."
Robert Sibley, writing for the Ottawa Citizen asks "Why Faith Matters." In it, he takes on the new atheism, promulgated by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others. He makes the following observation about the new movement:
By all appearances atheism is deeply embedded in the contemporary mind. Modern philosophy, natural science and psychology are, more often than not, atheistic in outlook. So, too, are many of our social and political institutions. It is a virtual taboo for a Canadian politician to refer to his or her religious faith in public life. The school system teaches students about sex and drugs, but classroom prayers have largely been cancelled.
Mr. Sibley's central tenet, one that I have long thought to be true, is that it is the upbringing of these new atheists rather than their science that has shaped who they currently are. About the new atheism's take on religion, he writes:
It would take an encyclopedia to fully analyze the new atheists' attack on religion. It is perhaps sufficient here to note that while their arguments have proven popular in terms of book sales and media attention, their grasp of theology, philosophy and, in some cases, science has been criticized as superficial.
"The treatment of religion in these tracts consists mostly of breezy overgeneralizations that leave out almost everything that theologians would want to highlight in their own contemporary discussion of God," says John Haught, a professor at Georgetown University. "Rather, the new atheism is so theologically unchallenging. Its engagement with theology lies at about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature." In other words, the militant atheists are no better than the religious fundamentalists they attack in terms of theological substance.
Touche. While evolution poses some problems for certain readings of the Bible, it does not for many others. Read the whole thing.
By all appearances atheism is deeply embedded in the contemporary mind. Modern philosophy, natural science and psychology are, more often than not, atheistic in outlook. So, too, are many of our social and political institutions. It is a virtual taboo for a Canadian politician to refer to his or her religious faith in public life. The school system teaches students about sex and drugs, but classroom prayers have largely been cancelled.
Mr. Sibley's central tenet, one that I have long thought to be true, is that it is the upbringing of these new atheists rather than their science that has shaped who they currently are. About the new atheism's take on religion, he writes:
It would take an encyclopedia to fully analyze the new atheists' attack on religion. It is perhaps sufficient here to note that while their arguments have proven popular in terms of book sales and media attention, their grasp of theology, philosophy and, in some cases, science has been criticized as superficial.
"The treatment of religion in these tracts consists mostly of breezy overgeneralizations that leave out almost everything that theologians would want to highlight in their own contemporary discussion of God," says John Haught, a professor at Georgetown University. "Rather, the new atheism is so theologically unchallenging. Its engagement with theology lies at about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature." In other words, the militant atheists are no better than the religious fundamentalists they attack in terms of theological substance.
Touche. While evolution poses some problems for certain readings of the Bible, it does not for many others. Read the whole thing.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Earliest Tool Use at 2 Mya in South Africa
According to a story in Canada.com researchers out of the University of Toronto, working at the Kuruman Hills in South Africa, have discovered stone tools use in layers dated to around 2 million years ago:
"Geological evidence indicates that these tools were deposited in the cave by human ancestors, not washed into the site from the outside," said a University of Toronto statement on Friday announcing the discovery. "The combination of stone tools indicating the presence of human ancestors, and the dating of the lead levels, to the conclusion that human ancestors were in the cave two million years ago. This is the earliest evidence for intentional cave occupation by human ancestors."
Smarter than we thought.
"Geological evidence indicates that these tools were deposited in the cave by human ancestors, not washed into the site from the outside," said a University of Toronto statement on Friday announcing the discovery. "The combination of stone tools indicating the presence of human ancestors, and the dating of the lead levels, to the conclusion that human ancestors were in the cave two million years ago. This is the earliest evidence for intentional cave occupation by human ancestors."
Smarter than we thought.
National Geographic's Top Ten Discoveries of 2008
This is an interesting list, including dinosaurs, sea creatures and modern fauna. The best one is the "Frog from Hell" that I included in a post here.
The Guardian interviews Adnan Oktar
The Monday issue of the Guardian carries an interview by religious correspondent Riazat Butt with Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar, who writes under the name Harun Yahya. He is responsible for the Atlas of Creation, Volumes 1-3, a huge effort that was mailed to science teachers the world over last year. Richard Dawkins had this to say about the content of the Atlas of Creation:
I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?
Oktar doesn't say:
Oktar, squeezed into a white trouser suit, declines to reveal how the Atlas industry is funded, nor will he say how much he is paid, or indeed whether he is paid at all. Challenged to explain the apparent contradiction between his beliefs and his plush surroundings, he responds: "I want to resemble Prophet Solomon. Prophet Solomon was like this. He used to be well dressed. He liked being well dressed. His palace was beautiful; there were beautiful people around him. Allah is beautiful. Allah loves those who are beautiful, wants everywhere to be beautiful. Paradise is also beautiful. [The] aim of a Muslim should be beauty."
Surely he knows that at that point in Solomon's life, he was having some issues with his faith:
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done. 7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. (1 Kings 11: 4-8 NIV)
No matter. Onward. The interviewer notes:
I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?
Oktar doesn't say:
Oktar, squeezed into a white trouser suit, declines to reveal how the Atlas industry is funded, nor will he say how much he is paid, or indeed whether he is paid at all. Challenged to explain the apparent contradiction between his beliefs and his plush surroundings, he responds: "I want to resemble Prophet Solomon. Prophet Solomon was like this. He used to be well dressed. He liked being well dressed. His palace was beautiful; there were beautiful people around him. Allah is beautiful. Allah loves those who are beautiful, wants everywhere to be beautiful. Paradise is also beautiful. [The] aim of a Muslim should be beauty."
Surely he knows that at that point in Solomon's life, he was having some issues with his faith:
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done. 7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. (1 Kings 11: 4-8 NIV)
No matter. Onward. The interviewer notes:
What he thinks, unashamedly and unapologetically, is that Darwin was lying and that there has been no evolution. He repeats this point throughout the interview.
"Almost 100 million fossils have been unearthed so far. All of these show that plants, animals, humans and insects have never undergone evolution whatsoever and they were all created in the same way by God. We can see this fact in each fossil we come across. There is no fossil proving the contrary. If they can show one, I will reward them 10 trillion Turkish Lira [£4.4 trillion]."
Around a minute later he adds: "There exists no fossil to prove the Darwinian theory. If they can show a few fossils, I will reward them 10 trillion. But there are almost 100 million fossils proving creation. In Turkey, we have exhibited thousands of them."
Although somewhat guarded in their response to these claims, the writer quickly points out:
How does he reach these conclusions, I wonder, imagining him to have laboratories and researchers at his disposal. Oktar himself, by his own admission, has no scientific experience or background. He is not an academic. He studied interior design.
Interior design? That is as bad as having a degree in hydraulic engineering. On his site, there is a section on Letters of Appreciation written by individuals who have received the book. There are no biologists, palaeontologists or geologists listed, only politicians, cultural ministers and ambassadors. Meet the new face of creationism.
Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones on the MORI Poll
See the post below this for more details.
Both Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones, also writing in The Guardian, weighed in on the MORI poll results today. Jones is professor of genetics and heads the biology department at the University College of London, where Michael Day also works. He writes:
Both Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones, also writing in The Guardian, weighed in on the MORI poll results today. Jones is professor of genetics and heads the biology department at the University College of London, where Michael Day also works. He writes:
I find this very depressing. Do those teachers believe that they should also teach the possibility that water is H3O, that Bacon wrote Shakespeare and that babies are brought by storks?
The logic is exactly the same: and there is just as little, or as much, scientific controversy about the idea of evolution as there is about those of physics and chemistry.
Dawkins is a tad less charitable:
If 29% of science teachers really think creationism should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution, we have a national disgrace on our hands, calling for urgent remedial action in the education of science teachers. We are failing in our duty to children, if we staff our schools with teachers who are this ignorant – or this stupid.
I agree with Dawkins on very little when it comes to theology, but as far as science goes, he is right this time.
Poll: 29% of Specialist Science Teachers Support Teaching Creationism
Great Googlymoogly! The first couple of paragraphs in the story in the Guardian read:
Almost three out of ten specialist science teachers believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons, according to a national poll of primary and secondary teachers.
The survey also reveals strong support for the views of Michael Reiss, the Royal Society's former director of education. Reiss resigned from that position in September over his views on how to include creationism in science lessons. Some 73% of science specialists endorsed his position that creationism should be "discussed" in science lessons.
However, the finding that a large minority of science teachers advocate the active teaching of creationism will dismay many scientists who believe that supernatural explanations for the origin of life and the universe have no place in science lessons at all. At the height of the row over creationism teaching, two Nobel prize winners and Fellows of the Royal Society – Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts – publicly called for Reiss to be sacked over his views.
Never mind that Reiss was no creationist and wanted to teach it in class so it could be shot down. One wonders what "specialist" science teachers are, since the article does not exactly say. As far as bringing up creationism just so that it can be shot down, the article continues:
The Ipsos/MORI poll also canvassed support for the more hard-line position of only mentioning creationism in the context of dismissing it. It found that 26% of all teachers and 46% of science specialists agree with the views of Prof Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham, who is quoted as saying "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."
Only 46%. that may be misleading, though, because it may be that the other 54% don't want it brought up at all. This is nothing short of astounding and suggests that the problem in England is much worse than here in the United States, where the numbers are much lower. It also suggests that, like here, the teachers are being taught how to teach, rather than what they are teaching. I don't think that is going to change any time soon.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Completely Off-Topic: Continuity Error in Star Trek Trailer
My son Marcus pointed out a continuity error in the new J. J. Abrams Star Trek trailer. The trailer has a young James Tiberius Kirk driving a roadster out in the (presumably) Iowa countryside. He is clearly very skilled at doing so. I showed this trailer to my son, who said "but dad, in [the second season episode] A Piece of the Action, he doesn't know how to drive a car." In fact, it looks as if he has never even seen a car. People don't forget things like that in twenty years.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Creation Moments II
The ICR page has an article written by Brian Thomas, a science writer, on why Neanderthal Men Were Modern Men. It is an object lesson on how to misread the fossil evidence. Here is how it starts:
A set of fossilized human remains has been discovered in Iberia that shows partial Neanderthal characteristics, proving again that Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern men.1 This adds to a growing list of evidence, consistent with biblical history, that demonstrates Neanderthal to have been fully human, rather than an evolutionary transition.2
The first cited article is Walker et al. (in press). Here is the conclusion from that article:
The human remains from the Sima de la Palomas in southeastern Iberia therefore document the presence of Neandertals, relatively late in the Middle Paleolithic. They help to substantiate that the Middle Paleolithic of the region was the product of Neandertals, even though diagnostic human remains associated with the very latest phases of this technocomplex in Europe remain elusive. At the same time that the Palomas humans exhibit a suite of derived Neandertal features and archaic Homo configurations long since lost among early modern humans, their morphological variation indicates that they deviate from the expected Neandertal ranges of variation. This pattern may be result of genetic drift in relative isolation, directional change or, perhaps more likely, population contact to the north. (emphasis mine)
The Palomas Neandertal remains do not represent "partial" Neandertal characteristics. They show a Neandertal population with some modern characteristics. Does this mean that they were the same species? Maybe, maybe not. This does not change the fact that they were clearly different from modern humans in appearance. As Dave Frayer has pointed out, even though there are traits present in modern Europeans that are reminiscent of Neandertal traits, there are no modern humans with the full suite of Neandertal characteristics. If you saw a Neandertal on the subway, you would know good and well he wasn't a modern human. They might be Homo sapiens, but they were certainly not modern humans.
Onward.
He also writes:
Anthropologist Marvin L. Lubenow has shown that Neanderthal, other than having a larger cranial capacity, was anatomically the same as Homo erectus.3 Their fossils do not fit into the depiction of a linear evolutionary ape-to-man transition that is iconic today, but were simply comingling variations of humankind. Furthermore, a fossil elbow (KP 271) and the Laetoli footprints of Neanderthal man are indistinguishable from modern man, and both have been dated by evolutionary scientists at 4 million years or older—predating the earliest Neanderthals!4 Thus, within the published evolutionary dates, “anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus [as well as Lucy-like Australopithecinces] all lived as contemporaries.”3
I have read Lubenow's book. It is not good and that is being charitable. This paragraph suffers from what Hugh Ross characterizes as "failure to consider alternative explanations." To Lubenow, the presence of a fossil elbow with some modern characteristics proves that modern humans and australopithecines coexisted because he chooses to look at the elbow in isolation, instead of with the rest of the fossil assemblage at the site. Here is a list of what was found at that site:
KNM-KP 29281 1, 2 Holotype mandible & L temporal fragment
KNM-KP 29282 — LM1 or M2
KNM-KP 29283 3 Maxilla
KNM-KP 29284 4 RC & RP3 germs
KNM-KP 29285 14, 15 R proximal & distal tibia
KNM-KP 29286 5 Mandible fragments & associated dentition
(RI1, L & RI2-M3)
KNM-KP 29287 6 Mandible with teeth
KNM-KP 30498 7 L & R maxillary fragments & associated dentition
KNM-KP 30500 8 Mandibular fragments & associated dentition
KNM-KP 30502 4 Associated mandibular tooth fragments
KNM-KP 30503 16 Proximal manual phalanx
KNM-KP 30505 4 Partial M germ
KNM-KP 30942 — 5 tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31712 9 Associated juvenile mandibular & dental fragments
KNM-KP 31713 10 R mandible with tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31714 4 Ldm2
KNM-KP 31715 — LM1 or M2 fragment & two other tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31716 — P3 or P4 fragment & C/ fragments
KNM-KP 31717 4 LM3, RM3 & LM2 fragments
KNM-KP 31718 — R Mandibular fragment (M2–3)
KNM-KP 31719 — I1
KNM-KP 31720 — Maxillary M fragment
KNM-KP 31721 — RM2 & M3 partial crowns
KNM-KP 31723 4 RM3
KNM-KP 31724 17 L capitate
KNM-KP 31726 4 RP4
KNM-KP 31727 — RC
KNM-KP 31728 4 LM1
KNM-KP 31729 4 Rdm2
KNM-KP 31730 4 LM2 & RP3
KNM-KP 31732 — Tooth fragments
KNM-KP 34725 11 Associated juvenile dentition and skull fragments
KNM-KP 35838 — LM3
KNM KP 35839 12 Associated LI1, RC & LP3
KNM-KP 35840 — LM3 & maxillary M fragments
KNM-KP 35841 — M crown
KNM-KP 35842 4 R maxillary M
KNM-KP 35844 — M fragment
KNM-KP 35845 — M fragment
KNM-KP 35847 4 LM2
KNM-KP 35850 — Maxillary M fragment
KNM-KP 35851 — LM2 or M3 fragment
KNM-KP 35852 4 LC
KNM-KP 37522 — L mandibular molar
KNM-KP 37523 — M fragment
KNM-KP 37524 — Tooth fragments
Here is the conclusion from that article:
Australopitheus anamensis predates all other taxa that have been assigned to Australopithecus, and in most ways it appears to be more primitive than any other. Although it is readily distinguishable from A. afarensis, this is because A. anamensis is generally more primitive in all except its uniquely large maxillary canine basal tubercles and rounded inferior contour of the external surface of its mandibular symphysis. The possibility that A. anamensis represents an
ancestor of A. afarensis is not precluded by the evidence available to date. (Ward, Leakey and Walker, 2001)
That was their conclusion after looking at all of the data, not just one bone. Why didn't Lubenow look at all of the fossil data before making his conclusion that modern humans lived with australopithecines? I will venture it is because Lubenow has dismissed evolutionary scenarios out of hand. Since he has done so, it is inconceivable to him the fossil remains that the individuals at this site represent mosaic evolution. He must view them independently. Therefore, to him, it looks like there are several different species of hominid present at the site, which validates his premise that evolution is false. The problem is that he can't see the forest for the trees. The data doesn't disprove evolution, it supports it.
This also presents a perfect example of the creationists' catch-22 claim that there are no transitional forms. Taken in total, the material from this site shows, as the conclusion above notes, that this form is intermediate to what came before (perhaps Ardipithecus, perhaps Sahelanthropus, perhaps Orrorin or none of the above), and what came after, A. afarensis. Yet, by claiming that one of the bones represents a modern human, Lubenow has effectively said, "there's no transitional form here, just a collection of different hominids." Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It reminds me of what Frank Sherwin said about Tiktaalik, the intermediate form between the late fish and early tetrapods—that it wasn't an example of a transitional form because it was incomplete. This despite the fact that every part of the fossil that was complete screamed "transitional form!!!"
Conveniently lost in the ICR's interpretation of this material is that these fossils are found in strata that are over three million years old and that there are no Neandertals anywhere at this depth, just as there are no australopithecines in the same strata as Neandertals. What you do find is that just above the strata containing the last australopithecines, you find early archaic Homo. Above strata containing these hominids, you find Homo erectus/ergaster. Above strata containing these hominids you find archaic Homo sapiens, and above them you find modern humans. The important thing to remember, though, is that many of these species overlap and, perhaps, coexist across the landscape. That is how evolution works. Unfortunately, the folks at the ICR will never see that.
Citations:
Walker, M., Gilbert, J., Lopez, M. et al. (in press) Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. n.p.
Ward, C., Leakey, M., and Walker, A. (2001) Morphology of Australopithecus anamensis
from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution. 41: 255-268.
A set of fossilized human remains has been discovered in Iberia that shows partial Neanderthal characteristics, proving again that Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern men.1 This adds to a growing list of evidence, consistent with biblical history, that demonstrates Neanderthal to have been fully human, rather than an evolutionary transition.2
The first cited article is Walker et al. (in press). Here is the conclusion from that article:
The human remains from the Sima de la Palomas in southeastern Iberia therefore document the presence of Neandertals, relatively late in the Middle Paleolithic. They help to substantiate that the Middle Paleolithic of the region was the product of Neandertals, even though diagnostic human remains associated with the very latest phases of this technocomplex in Europe remain elusive. At the same time that the Palomas humans exhibit a suite of derived Neandertal features and archaic Homo configurations long since lost among early modern humans, their morphological variation indicates that they deviate from the expected Neandertal ranges of variation. This pattern may be result of genetic drift in relative isolation, directional change or, perhaps more likely, population contact to the north. (emphasis mine)
The Palomas Neandertal remains do not represent "partial" Neandertal characteristics. They show a Neandertal population with some modern characteristics. Does this mean that they were the same species? Maybe, maybe not. This does not change the fact that they were clearly different from modern humans in appearance. As Dave Frayer has pointed out, even though there are traits present in modern Europeans that are reminiscent of Neandertal traits, there are no modern humans with the full suite of Neandertal characteristics. If you saw a Neandertal on the subway, you would know good and well he wasn't a modern human. They might be Homo sapiens, but they were certainly not modern humans.
Onward.
He also writes:
Anthropologist Marvin L. Lubenow has shown that Neanderthal, other than having a larger cranial capacity, was anatomically the same as Homo erectus.3 Their fossils do not fit into the depiction of a linear evolutionary ape-to-man transition that is iconic today, but were simply comingling variations of humankind. Furthermore, a fossil elbow (KP 271) and the Laetoli footprints of Neanderthal man are indistinguishable from modern man, and both have been dated by evolutionary scientists at 4 million years or older—predating the earliest Neanderthals!4 Thus, within the published evolutionary dates, “anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus [as well as Lucy-like Australopithecinces] all lived as contemporaries.”3
I have read Lubenow's book. It is not good and that is being charitable. This paragraph suffers from what Hugh Ross characterizes as "failure to consider alternative explanations." To Lubenow, the presence of a fossil elbow with some modern characteristics proves that modern humans and australopithecines coexisted because he chooses to look at the elbow in isolation, instead of with the rest of the fossil assemblage at the site. Here is a list of what was found at that site:
KNM-KP 29281 1, 2 Holotype mandible & L temporal fragment
KNM-KP 29282 — LM1 or M2
KNM-KP 29283 3 Maxilla
KNM-KP 29284 4 RC & RP3 germs
KNM-KP 29285 14, 15 R proximal & distal tibia
KNM-KP 29286 5 Mandible fragments & associated dentition
(RI1, L & RI2-M3)
KNM-KP 29287 6 Mandible with teeth
KNM-KP 30498 7 L & R maxillary fragments & associated dentition
KNM-KP 30500 8 Mandibular fragments & associated dentition
KNM-KP 30502 4 Associated mandibular tooth fragments
KNM-KP 30503 16 Proximal manual phalanx
KNM-KP 30505 4 Partial M germ
KNM-KP 30942 — 5 tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31712 9 Associated juvenile mandibular & dental fragments
KNM-KP 31713 10 R mandible with tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31714 4 Ldm2
KNM-KP 31715 — LM1 or M2 fragment & two other tooth fragments
KNM-KP 31716 — P3 or P4 fragment & C/ fragments
KNM-KP 31717 4 LM3, RM3 & LM2 fragments
KNM-KP 31718 — R Mandibular fragment (M2–3)
KNM-KP 31719 — I1
KNM-KP 31720 — Maxillary M fragment
KNM-KP 31721 — RM2 & M3 partial crowns
KNM-KP 31723 4 RM3
KNM-KP 31724 17 L capitate
KNM-KP 31726 4 RP4
KNM-KP 31727 — RC
KNM-KP 31728 4 LM1
KNM-KP 31729 4 Rdm2
KNM-KP 31730 4 LM2 & RP3
KNM-KP 31732 — Tooth fragments
KNM-KP 34725 11 Associated juvenile dentition and skull fragments
KNM-KP 35838 — LM3
KNM KP 35839 12 Associated LI1, RC & LP3
KNM-KP 35840 — LM3 & maxillary M fragments
KNM-KP 35841 — M crown
KNM-KP 35842 4 R maxillary M
KNM-KP 35844 — M fragment
KNM-KP 35845 — M fragment
KNM-KP 35847 4 LM2
KNM-KP 35850 — Maxillary M fragment
KNM-KP 35851 — LM2 or M3 fragment
KNM-KP 35852 4 LC
KNM-KP 37522 — L mandibular molar
KNM-KP 37523 — M fragment
KNM-KP 37524 — Tooth fragments
Here is the conclusion from that article:
Australopitheus anamensis predates all other taxa that have been assigned to Australopithecus, and in most ways it appears to be more primitive than any other. Although it is readily distinguishable from A. afarensis, this is because A. anamensis is generally more primitive in all except its uniquely large maxillary canine basal tubercles and rounded inferior contour of the external surface of its mandibular symphysis. The possibility that A. anamensis represents an
ancestor of A. afarensis is not precluded by the evidence available to date. (Ward, Leakey and Walker, 2001)
That was their conclusion after looking at all of the data, not just one bone. Why didn't Lubenow look at all of the fossil data before making his conclusion that modern humans lived with australopithecines? I will venture it is because Lubenow has dismissed evolutionary scenarios out of hand. Since he has done so, it is inconceivable to him the fossil remains that the individuals at this site represent mosaic evolution. He must view them independently. Therefore, to him, it looks like there are several different species of hominid present at the site, which validates his premise that evolution is false. The problem is that he can't see the forest for the trees. The data doesn't disprove evolution, it supports it.
This also presents a perfect example of the creationists' catch-22 claim that there are no transitional forms. Taken in total, the material from this site shows, as the conclusion above notes, that this form is intermediate to what came before (perhaps Ardipithecus, perhaps Sahelanthropus, perhaps Orrorin or none of the above), and what came after, A. afarensis. Yet, by claiming that one of the bones represents a modern human, Lubenow has effectively said, "there's no transitional form here, just a collection of different hominids." Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It reminds me of what Frank Sherwin said about Tiktaalik, the intermediate form between the late fish and early tetrapods—that it wasn't an example of a transitional form because it was incomplete. This despite the fact that every part of the fossil that was complete screamed "transitional form!!!"
Conveniently lost in the ICR's interpretation of this material is that these fossils are found in strata that are over three million years old and that there are no Neandertals anywhere at this depth, just as there are no australopithecines in the same strata as Neandertals. What you do find is that just above the strata containing the last australopithecines, you find early archaic Homo. Above strata containing these hominids, you find Homo erectus/ergaster. Above strata containing these hominids you find archaic Homo sapiens, and above them you find modern humans. The important thing to remember, though, is that many of these species overlap and, perhaps, coexist across the landscape. That is how evolution works. Unfortunately, the folks at the ICR will never see that.
Citations:
Walker, M., Gilbert, J., Lopez, M. et al. (in press) Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. n.p.
Ward, C., Leakey, M., and Walker, A. (2001) Morphology of Australopithecus anamensis
from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution. 41: 255-268.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Marvin Lubenow's Site
Marvin Lubenow, the author of Bones of Contention, a treatise on the human fossil record that will form the basis of my hopefully soon to be written book Bones of our Ancestors, has a section of the Answers in Genesis site that asks that you support the Creation Museum by giving a message and your name and email. This was my message:
I am afraid that I cannot support the creation museum because I firmly believe that it does not teach an intellectually honest account of the creation of the universe. As a Christian and as a scientist, I am troubled that this world view is seen by scientists and lay people alike as the equivalent to that of support for a flat earth. As Davis Young has said, we do harm to the Christian cause by promoting a view of science that is indefensible. Please accept this dissent in the spirit in which it is meant. Yours in Christ, Jim Kidder
I then put down my name and email address. I wonder what sort of response I will get.
I am afraid that I cannot support the creation museum because I firmly believe that it does not teach an intellectually honest account of the creation of the universe. As a Christian and as a scientist, I am troubled that this world view is seen by scientists and lay people alike as the equivalent to that of support for a flat earth. As Davis Young has said, we do harm to the Christian cause by promoting a view of science that is indefensible. Please accept this dissent in the spirit in which it is meant. Yours in Christ, Jim Kidder
I then put down my name and email address. I wonder what sort of response I will get.
Nuts and Bolts Study Group
Here is another blog called the Nuts and Bolts Study Group that deals with the same kind of issues that this one does. I believe they come at things from a pro-ID perspective but I need to read more. The boiler plate is considerably more well-thought out than mine:
Welcome to this forum where you can join our journey through the intersection of faith and science. We want to explore the state of current human knowledge and examine how it impacts traditional theology, and build a framework of belief that maintains intellectual integrity and theological consistency.
There are four contributors, at least one of which has read The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, a book that EVERY CHRISTIAN should read. Read up.
Welcome to this forum where you can join our journey through the intersection of faith and science. We want to explore the state of current human knowledge and examine how it impacts traditional theology, and build a framework of belief that maintains intellectual integrity and theological consistency.
There are four contributors, at least one of which has read The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, a book that EVERY CHRISTIAN should read. Read up.
Friday, December 19, 2008
A Francisco Ayala Plug for Michael Dowd's Book
Michael Dowd, who has been nothing but gracious since I questioned his Christology a few posts back, sent me this little blurb by Francisco Ayala about his book Thank God for Evolution:
"Thank God for Michael Dowd! That was my reaction as I finished reading Thank GOD for EVOLUTION. How wonderful that a Christian pastor takes the time to understand evolution and discovers that evolution and religion need not be in conflict. Rather, much religious inspiration can be drawn from contemplating the immensity of the universe and the magnificent beauty and diversity of the living world. More yet, Michael Dowd is dedicating his life to preaching that the dialogue between evolution and religion can be fulfilling, surely for people of faith, but also for scientists." —FRANCISCO J. AYALA, PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, AND AUTHOR OF DARWIN'S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION
High praise indeed.
"Thank God for Michael Dowd! That was my reaction as I finished reading Thank GOD for EVOLUTION. How wonderful that a Christian pastor takes the time to understand evolution and discovers that evolution and religion need not be in conflict. Rather, much religious inspiration can be drawn from contemplating the immensity of the universe and the magnificent beauty and diversity of the living world. More yet, Michael Dowd is dedicating his life to preaching that the dialogue between evolution and religion can be fulfilling, surely for people of faith, but also for scientists." —FRANCISCO J. AYALA, PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, AND AUTHOR OF DARWIN'S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION
High praise indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)