Missing evolution link surfaces in Africa

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 12, 2003 | Peter N. Spotts

[aculeus]

In a discovery that several colleagues describe as "spectacular" and "extraordinary," an international team of researchers has uncovered fossils in Ethiopia that fill a crucial gap in the record of human evolution.

Judged by their physical characteristics, the 160,000-year-old-fossils - nearly complete skulls of two adults and a child found near the village of Herto - teeter on the razor-thin edge of change between anatomically early and modern humans. The team also found skull pieces and teeth from seven other individuals.

The discoveries dovetail with an expanding body of genetic evidence indicating that modern humans first evolved in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Over the years, paleoanthropologists have gathered fossils that open windows on key periods in the history of human evolution in Africa dating back millions of years, notes Tim White, co-leader of the team that made the discovery. But "the record has been mute" on what was happening 150,000 years ago, he says.

"We're opening the first window on the continent in this time period," he adds. And the view from the window is "very consistent with the predictions made by genetic evidence" that modern humans originated in Africa.

Combined with existing fossil and genetic evidence, researchers say, the new find seriously undermines hypotheses that modern humans evolved roughly simultaneously in different regions of the world and that in Europe, Neanderthals gave rise to anatomically modern Europeans.

In one sense, the finds at Herto come as little surprise to some paleoanthropologists who work in Africa.

Given the pattern of development in fossils that date to either side of the Herto group, these are the kind of hominids one could expect from that time and that region of Africa, according to Curtis Marean, professor of anthropology at Arizona State University's Institute for Human Origins.

What makes them special, he says, is their "outstanding state of preservation" and their tightly defined dates. The technique that Dr. White's team used allowed it to date the fossils between 160,000 and 154,000 years ago. The age of other potential near-modern human fossils, such as those found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, is more uncertain.

The White team, which details its results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, first came across the site where the fossils were found on Nov. 16, 1997. It's a landscape that today looks as much like a Martian plain as anything on Earth.

Pebble-strewn, virtually treeless, scorchingly hot, the terrain along the rift valley containing the site stretches in subtle undulations toward distant mountains. But 160,000 years ago, when much of the Northern Hemisphere sagged under a sheath of ice two miles thick, this patch of Africa was the site of a shallow freshwater lake teeming with catfish, crocs, and hippos, researchers say.

According to White, he noticed a butchered hippo skull and related artifacts in an eroding slope near Herto. Eleven days later, he and colleagues returned to survey the site.

As White worked on a shaded enclosure for a lunch break, he says, "I sent two people off to begin the survey near where we had found the hippo." When they came back about a half hour later, both had found hominids, he says.

And the painstakingly slow process of collection and excavation began.

Of the specimens included in Thursday's report, the child's cranium presented perhaps the biggest reconstruction challenge. More than 200 pieces were scattered over some 4,300 square feet of the valley floor, presenting Ethiopian scientist and team member Berhane Asfaw with a 3-D jigsaw puzzle to assemble.

In addition to the hominids, stone tools also emerged from the team's excavations that signal a shift in toolmaking technology to the flake-based features of the Middle Stone Age. Moreover, one of the adult skull fragments shows evidence of parallel surface cuts that could indicate some form of primitive burial rites, the team reports.

[Tamar1973]

You sound like a conflicted am I a Christian/Jew/Muslim? form a look at your homepage.

No, I am a Messianic Jew. The reason you see one Muslim site on my site is that I like their clothes.

I have nothing against Muslims, just the ones who want to blow up innocent people.

[Aric2000]

Watch it now, the bible is a spiritual book, NOT A LITERAL ONE.

Get used to it....

[Aric2000]

LMAO!! Good one!! LOL

[annyokie]

You should stop calling me a liberal. I am anything but. His holiness is not being inconsistent with (you incredibly vast knowlege) of the Church in speaking his pronouncements about Evolution. There is no dicotomy there.

Know what you are talking about before you stick your toe in the snare.

[Coleus]

bttt

[f.Christian]

Evangelical Christian (( born - raised catholic )) ...

Daniel and the Coming King

Chapter 16

The Gospel In Daniel 9:24

By Dr.Desmond Ford

"It would be tragic if we contented ourselves with an analytical examination of this passage of Scripture. It is not merely a scintillating gem to be admired, but the bread of life to be eaten. It consists of 'the everlasting gospel' in minature."

"That which should concern us all the more than the issues of hermeneutics is the issue of life---our life. Not minutiae of phrophetic interpretation, but sin, sorrow, and death constitute our problems. Daniel 9:24 assures us that the world is a ship and not an iceberg, that God is intensely interested in our dilemma, and, best of all, that He has done something to extricate us from the apparent cul-de-sac of existence. In Christ, the Melchizedekan King-Priest, He has brought in everlasting righteousness, freely offered to all who believe."

Chapter 14

Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9

By Dr.Desmond Ford

"Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of scientists prior to the modern period, wrote a commentary upon the prohecies of Daniel and Revelations. He desribed Daniel 9:24-27 as "the foudation-stone of the Christian religion" because centuries in advance it gave the time of appearance of the Messiah and His death, as well as a comprehensive description of His saving work in heaven and earth. The prophecy likewise tells what would be the fate of the Jews consequent upon their rejection of the One whose coming they had long anticpated. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, foretold in Daniel 9:24-27, was history's testimony that the offerings and services of the sanctuary had met their fulfillment in the advent of the promised Messiah."

Newton, Isaac. Observsations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalpse of St. John. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733 (Isaac Newton)

Chrystalk ...

"All of this while the book itself says it is sealed up, and never will be understood until the End of Days --- which we are living in ... "

Chapter 14

Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9

by Dr.Desmond Ford @ ... GNU (( link )).

Seal Up the Vision

"The expression 'to seal up the vision' (v.24) should be considered. This expression, 'the vision', occurs eleven times in Daniel 8:1 to 10:1, and in all these cases it refers to the vision described in the eighth chapter of Daniel. The reader is advised to read again the entire passage. In pictorial, symbolic form the prophet was shown the unfolding of all future centuries till the second advent of Christ. The famous empires, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, which long oppressed the people of God, are described; but particular emphasis is given to the persecution of the church during the Christian era and also to the supremacy of the couterfeit, apostate religion over most of that period. Christ's mediatorial ministry in heaven is alluded to, but its eclipse from men's mind through a counterfeit system is fortold. The sanctuary mentioned refers both to the church temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit on earth, as well as Israel's typical sanctuary. No doubt Daniel was dazed by this revelation of the apparent triumph of evil. In his lifetime he had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, the center of true religion, and the carrying into captivity of the people of God by an idolatrous and desolating nation. Now in vision he is informed that this state of affairs is to continue on a much greater scale throughout most of the earth's history. It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and wrong forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."

"Now in the revelation of 9:24-27 the mourning seer is told that there is a greater Prince of the house of Judah, a greater atonement, a greater sanctuary, and a greater redemption than any ever before experienced by Israel. The long-awaited Messiah, the Prince, a Priest-King, will take away the sin of the world and end earth's dark night. Thus 9:24 and 8:14 point to the same reality---the kingdom of God ignaugurated at the first advent and consummated at the second.

[annyokie]

Spank 'em, Aric. Atta boy!

[annyokie]

You sound like you went over the edge like my high school friend who was always watching "pray tv". Where did your Priest fail you?

[annyokie]

Terrific: Religion as a fashion statement. Good-bye.

[qam1]

You should stop calling me a liberal.

I have always found hard core creationist and Liberals to be different sides of the same coin.

When they can't argue facts they just go to repeating a same false soundbite over and over again.

Instead of "Tax cuts only for the Rich" it's "Evolution is only a Theory"

or instead of "Republicans are working against Social Security" it's "Evolution works against the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

[Aric2000]

LMAO!!!

[Aric2000]

And you need to figure out the difference between science and opinion.

[annyokie]

LOL! Thanks!

[annyokie]

Glad to make your Wednesday lighter!

Anny

[Aric2000]

Damn, why do I do that?

Sorry, my mistake, I blew it, I ACTUALLY agree with you...

Damn, LONG day..;

My apologies!!!

[Aric2000]

It was perfect,TOTALLY perfect, I wish that I could do that!!

[Ichneumon]

[Then how, in your simplistic worldview, do you explain the millions of scientists who accept evolution and who also believe in God?]

Theistic evolution, which is what you are basically proposing, is an oxymoron. If people actually read the Bible from cover to cover and believed it, they would quickly realize it's utterly and completely incompatible with evolution.

I didn't ask you whether you felt it was "inconsistent" or not. I asked you how you reconciled your claim that:

Evolution is the folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d.

...with the fact that there are many, many people who believe in God (and thus presumably are hardly the sort who "don't want to believe" in Him), but who nonetheless accept evolution anyway?

Clearly, something is missing from your description of evolution as merely "folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d", since many people who *do* believe in God find reason to accept it anyway, *apart* from your "one motive fits all" claim.

Please explain.

Theists who believe in evolution are intellectually inconsistent.

Does not address my question.

Read my post #53, where I quote an article that goes into more detail on the issue of theistic evolution and it's logical inconsistencies.

Again, this does not address my question.

[f.Christian]

Where did your Priest fail you?

"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself .. was preparing and evolving a power --- which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain ... (( not // link )) ---."

[Tamar1973]

Your analysis of Gen 2 is wrong.

There are no contradicitons between chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis.

This is an exerpt from:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html

If, with the NIV, we read 'Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east . . .' (Genesis 2:8) and, 'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field . . .' (Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20-25. Dr Henry Morris comments:

"It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20 - probably the domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24, which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields." [1].

Concerning the names of geographical sites, we have no idea what the configuration of the land or the rivers was before the Flood, because the pre-Flood world was completely destroyed. The land areas and rivers named before the Flood do not correspond to similarly named features after the Flood.

The purpose of Genesis 2:18-25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was 'a living soul' whom God had created 'in His own image' (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Him. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution.

There is therefore enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4b-5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth.

The next section is from 5:1b to 6:9a, and deals with the line from Adam to Noah, ending with, 'These are the generations [or origins] of Noah.'

The next section is from 6:9b to 10:1a, and deals mainly with the Ark and the Flood, ending with, 'Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.' The wording of this subscript suggests that this portion was written by one of Noah's sons, probably Shem, as Moses was descended from Shem. These chapters read very much like an eye-witness account because of the intimacy of detail which they contain. Consider Genesis 8:6-12 and note how this contains that ring of authenticity which is characteristic of an eye-witness account. It may even have been Shem's diary!

Genesis 8:6-12 (KJV):

And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony.

There is thus a substantial body of evidence that these portions of Genesis were written by the persons named therein, for the purpose of making and passing on a permanent record.

[Tamar1973]

His holiness is not being inconsistent with (you incredibly vast knowlege) of the Church in speaking his pronouncements about Evolution.

However, the pope is certainly being inconsistent in regards to upholding G-d's word. It is infallable, the pope is not.

[Tamar1973]

Terrific: Religion as a fashion statement. Good-bye.

If dressing in modest attire as the bible teaches us is a "fashion statement" so be it. I just happen to think that the muslim attire on that website I have linked from my site is more consistent with my belief in Y-shua than what passes for "church clothes" some people wear to church these days.

Muslims don't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on long skirts, long jackets, long sleeves, no revealing slits and high necklines.

Quite frankly, I just got tired of shopping at the mall to try to find maybe one modest outfit worth buying.

[Tamar1973]

Clearly, something is missing from your description of evolution as merely "folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d", since many people who *do* believe in God find reason to accept it anyway, *apart* from your "one motive fits all" claim.

People can believe what they are going to believe but it doesn't change the fact that one has to ignore a lot of facts about the theory of evolution as well as the facts as stated in the bible to even attempt to reconcile them into one package since they are mutually exclusive.

Theistic evolutionists are fence sitters, like agnostics. They really are not sure what to believe. At some point they will have to take the plunge one way or the other.

[Aric2000]

MEEP!! Sorry, wrong answer!!!

The bible is spiritual, NOT literal, until you get that into your head, you will have amazing problems figuring it out....

[Tamar1973]

The bible is spiritual, NOT literal, until you get that into your head, you will have amazing problems figuring it out....

Why? Because YOU say so?@!

[Aric2000]

No, because god says so...

We were made in gods image, you think that god is human?

[qam1]

No, I think it's pretty clear

Genesis

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;

According to G2 there couldn't have been plants before man because there was no rain and man came from dust of the ground and when is the ground dusty? When there are no plants.

As for the Animal part.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

What part of "every" don't you understand, It's kind of like Bill Clinton and his definition of "Is"

Also Adam named every living creature, I know he lived 900 something years but that still wouldn't be enough time for one person to name all the million+ species of beetles nevermind the rest of the insects and mites and bacteria.

And it's to late to go into the whole flood story and all the craziness there, But I just want to say you creationist demand proof of evolution and we provide it, OK granted we don't have all the answers and there are many unanswered questions but we are finding new stuff all the time and learning more as time goes by, But at the same time you demand all this proof you expect everybody to buy this whole flood story and yet there isn't one sherd of evidence anywhere be geological, archeoloical that a world wide flood ever took place.

[Tamar1973]

But at the same time you demand all this proof you expect everybody to buy this whole flood story and yet there isn't one sherd of evidence anywhere be geological, archeoloical that a world wide flood ever took place.

The evidence is in the fossils themselves but you refuse to see it. The dinosaur fossils you see in eastern montana and other places were buried very quickly by something very powerful. The marine fossils people have found on top of very tall mountains were put up there somehow. The most logical culprit was a worldwide flood.

The facts are the existence of the fossils, interpretation comes in with asking how they got there.

[jlogajan]

Another reason why I am not Catholic....

I'm not actually interested in your weird belief systems. My point was that the Catholic Church cannot credibly be claimed to be anti-God, even though you asserted that anyone who accepts the possibility of evolution of the species is necessarily anti-God. The Catholic Church, having to apologize to Galileo posthumously is in no mood to cross swords with science again.

Obviously the Catholic Church is not infallible -- otherwise they would have endorsed Galileo right off instead of sticking to the literal "sun revolves around the earth" proclamations in the Bible.

Any serious student of the Bible would realize it is a man written book capturing the "scientific" knowledge of society at the time. Scientific knowledge has advanced since then. We now know that the earth isn't flat. However, even to this day there are fundamentalists who believe the literal flat earth theory and reject the sphereical earth as a Satan created hoax.

Creationists are cut from that same cloth.

[Ichneumon]

[Moths do rest on trees, and houses, and whatever else is warm and available.]

No. they don't, at least not during the daytime when their colour would actually matter.

You seem awfully fond of Answers In Genesis, so it truly pains me to have to be the one to inform you that they are a very poor source for scientific information. On the contrary, I've seen far too many real howlers there, as well as such skewed and selective presentation of information that it's hard to escape a conclusion of willful bearing of false witness. They're so eager to find "flaws" in evolution that they'll swallow just about anything without double-checking anyone's claims against original sources, as long as that person claims to be "disproving" evolution in some fashion.

You say that "No. they don't [rest on trees], at least not during the daytime when their colour would actually matter." You cite AiG as your source. But note what they cite as their only source:

"But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere." (Cyril Clarke)

The best AiG can quote is someone who quite clearly says, "gee, I dunno, I've never found them *anywhere* other than in my traps, except for the two I found on tree trunks or walls"

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about them *not* being found on tree trunks? AiG's own source says that while he's never found many resting in the wild (for lack of looking, presumably, since Clarke's work merely examines the ones which arrive in his traps), he *has* still seen one or two on a tree.

It's also curious that AiG would cite Clarke's "I don't know" statement as "support" for their flat-out claim that "Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day", when there is far more specific literature on the Peppered Moth they could have looked at, such as, for just one example, the work of M.E.N. Majerus, who has spent decades doing *field* work on the Peppered Moth (instead of Clarke's much more limited "trap and count in his own backyard" work). If AiG had bothered looking *there*, they would have found:

Any questions?

Gosh, that's just a little (*cough*) different from what AiG would have us believe based on their highly selective "choice" of "experts", isn't it?

As you wisely advise in another post, "Don't take anyone's word for anything. Examine everything carefully." And yet, you show no sign of critically examining AiG's material at all, and you simply "take their word" for it.

Why do you suppose AiG "forgets" to mention those more comprehensive studies, and continues to list only Clarke's "I don't really know" quote as "support" for their incorrect claim?

Regrettably, many creationists "have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘[dis]proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths".

I will now include some excerpts from www.talkorigins.org's excellent page on problems with Well's book "Icons of Evolution", which includes a lenghty treatment of his chapter about the Peppered Moth, much of which is relevant here (since creationists tend to naively repeat each other on this topic instead of ever looking to the primary literature itself).

So many things are wrong with Wells' treatment of peppered moths (Biston betularia) that it is hard to list them all; but I will try. The authoritative reference on this topic is M.E.N. Majerus' 1998 book Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action. This book includes two long chapters on Biston. The first chapter, "The peppered moth story," recounts the basic story of melanism in Biston, and relates how this story was pieced together by Kettlewell and others. The second chapter, "The peppered moth story dissected," gives a thorough critical review of the basic story, considering aspects and details of the basic story in the light of research (by Majerus and others) post-dating Kettlewell.

Crucially, however, Majerus clearly and explicitly concludes that, in his view, Kettlewell got things basically correct. At the beginning of his second peppered moth chapter, Majerus writes,

First, it is important to emphasize that, in my view, the huge wealth of additional data obtained since Kettlewell's initial predation papers (Kettlewell 1955a, 1956) does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth (Majerus, 1998, p. 116).

Majerus is so clear on this point that one suspects that he was anticipating that his critique would be misinterpreted by non-peppered moth researchers. It seems that there is a "too good to be true" quality about the peppered moth story that leads people to interpret any hint of criticism as a sign that the whole basic story is crashing down. Scientists are by no means immune to this tendency, and indeed they may be more prone to it given the regularity with which popular ideas have been overturned throughout the history of science. The press has an even greater tendency towards snap judgements and oversimplifications when it comes to scientific discussions. Antievolutionists, on the other hand, have always been stuck muttering "it's just microevolution within a species." While this is true, the rapidity and obvious adaptiveness of the change effected by natural selection still seemed to give antievolutionists discomfort. Therefore, it is understandable that when Wells and his fans sniffed a scientific controversy over peppered moths (in truth it was a fairly marginal kind of controversy), they blew things way out of proportion.

And:

Peppered moth photographs, staged and otherwise. Wells raises a fantastic stink about the fact that the photographs of peppered moths in textbooks, showing light-colored typicals next to dark-colored melanics on differing backgrounds, are staged. But the point of such photos is not to prove the truth of the 'classic' story, it is to illustrate the relative crypsis of moth morphs on different backgrounds. Those who feel that their innocent faith in insect photography has been betrayed should consider the fact that most photos of insects in textbooks are probably staged; insects are, after all, small and difficult to photograph. The facts that peppered moths are sparsely distributed and, well, camouflaged also make them difficult to photograph.

But as it turns out, the differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal. Readers who wish to see unstaged photos of peppered moths are advised to look up Majerus' Industrial Melanism. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged. Readers should consult the figures which are listed below. It may be possible to get permission to include the photos, but until then descriptions shall have to suffice.

(See the above link for the lengthy descriptions of the figures. But the point is that even the "posed" photos are hardly misrepresentations of wild settings.)

Even so, there are several photos that show peppered moths, on tree trunks, on more-or-less matching backgrounds. And guess what? These photos look no different than 'staged' photos of moths on tree-trunks. The most 'staged' aspect about a 'staged' photo is that two differing moth forms are shown side-by-side, but Majerus' first two photos from Plate 3 indicate that even this is not impossible. So the entire photo issue is a mountain made of a molehill.

It should also be noted that several (four) of these unstaged photos have some (minor but noticeable) degree of blurring (e.g., part of the moth will be out of focus). Insects in the wild do annoying things like move and fly away, and are often encountered in poor-light conditions, resulting in less-than-perfect photos. As scientific documentation of observations this is unimportant, but flawed photographs are exactly the kind of thing that are avoided in textbooks, and this is precisely why staging insect photos is a common practice for textbooks (as well as things like nature shows).

American peppered moth researcher Bruce Grant has many complaints about Wells' (and similar creationists') misrepresentations of the Peppered Moth case:

Wells' Chapter 7 is pretty similar to his earlier ms. "Second thoughts about peppered moths" that he posted on the web, and published in abridged form in The Scientist. I sent you my comments about that version about two weeks ago. My general reaction to this latest version is about the same. He distorts the picture, but unfortunately he is probably pretty convincing to people who really don't know the primary literature in this field. He uses two tactics. One is the selective omission of relevant work. The other is to scramble together separate points so doubts about one carry over to the other. Basically, he is dishonest.

He immediately launches the claim "that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks" (p. 138). This is just plain wrong! Of course they rest on tree trunks, but it's not their exclusive resting site. He quotes Cyril Clarke's lack of success in finding the moths in natural settings, but he omits mentioning Majerus' data which reports just where on trees (exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, trunk/branch joints, branches) Majerus has found moths over his 34 years of looking for them.

[...]

It is true that the photos showing the moths on trunks are posed (just like practically all wildlife pictures of insects are) but they are not fakes. No one who reads Kettlewell's paper in which the original photos appeared would get the impression from the text that these were anything but posed pictures. He was attempting to compare the differences in conspicuousness of the pale and dark moths on different backgrounds. Nobody thought he encountered those moths like that in the wild. At their normal densities, you'd be hard pressed ever to find two together unless they were copulating. I have always made a point of stating in photo captions that the moths are posed, and I think textbook writers have been careless about this. But they are not frauds.

[...]

On page 151 Wells claims Kettlewell's evidence has been impeached. This is nonsense. It has not. But I have argued, that even if it were entirely thrown out, the evidence for natural selection comes from the changes in the percentages of pale and melanic moths. It is this record of change in allele frequency over time that is unimpeachable. It is a massive record by any standard. (I can send a jpg file with graphs, if you'd like.) I have pointed out, and he quotes me, that no force known to science can account for these changes except for natural selection. Yet, he scrambles the ingredients here. He claims (top of p. 153) "...it is clear that the compelling evidence for natural selection that biologists once thought they had in peppered moths no longer exists." Of course the evidence for natural selection exists! That evidence is overwhelming. Wells, by attempting to discredit Ketttlewell's experiments about predation (and clearly there are things wrong with Kettlewell's experiments) doesn't stop at saying we can't be altogether sure about bird predation because of problems with Kettlewell's experiments. No. He says, instead, that the evidence for natural selection no longer exists. This is just plain wrong. He cannot support this sweeping statement, but he spins it into his conclusion by building a case against Kettlewell. This is what I mean about his tactic of scrambling arguments. He wields non sequiturs relentlessly.

Peppered Moth researcher M.E.N. Majerus likewise finds great fault with the standard creationist claims about the Peppered Moth:

Evidence of selective predation in the peppered moth is not lacking. It is just not provided in the quick text book descriptions of the peppered moth. How can it be. I have read some 500 papers on melanism in the Lepidoptera. In total, these papers probably amount to about 8000 pages, and the story is condensed into a few paragraphs in most textbooks for schools. Even in my own book, I could only give a review of the case covering about 60 pages including illustrations.

[...]

End-note: It is difficult to have an informed discussion of a complicated ecological system with those who have little or no experience of the system. My advice to anyone who wishes to obtain a fully objective view of this case is to a) read the primary papers that I based my review upon, and any other relevant papers, and b) gain some experience of this moth and its habits in the wild. Of all the people I know, including both amateur and professional entomologists who have experience of this moth, I know of none who doubts that differential bird predation is of primary importance in the spread and decline of melanism in the peppered moth.

In a review of a book about the Peppered Moth, researcher Bruce S. Grant states even more clearly the scientific validity of the Peppered Moth example:

Mark Twain once quipped that reports of his death had been exaggerated. Recent reports exaggerate the death of industrial melanism as an exemplar of natural selection.

[...]

Population geneticists define evolution as a change in allele (gene) frequency. Adult peppered moths come in a range of shades from mottled gray (pale) to jet black (melanic). We know from extensive genetic analysis that these phenotypes result from combinations of multiple alleles at a single locus. Changes in the percentages of the phenotypes in wild populations are well documented. The changes continue and are observable even now. The steady trajectory and speed of changes in allele frequencies indicate that this evolution results primarily from natural selection. J. B. S. Haldane's original calculation of a selection coefficient was estimated from the number of generations it took for the melanic phenotype to effectively replace the pale phenotype during the 19th century. More detailed records document recent changes. For example, near Liverpool, England, the melanic phenotype declined from 93 to 18% in 37 generations (one generation per year); this change is consistent with a 15% selective disadvantage to genotypes with the dominant (melanic) allele.

[...]

Fortunately, science assesses the correctness of work by testing its repeatability. Kettlewell's conclusions have been considered in eight separate field studies, of various designs, performed between 1966 and 1987. Some of the design changes--such as reducing the density of moths, randomly assigning moths to trees, altering locations on trees where moths were positioned, and positioning killed moths to control for differences in viability and dispersal--were made to correct deficiencies identified in his original experiments. L. M. Cook's regression analysis of fitness estimates from these experiments plotted against phenotype frequencies at their various locations shows the studies to be remarkably consistent (1).

Other mechanisms of selection have been proposed. An inherent physiological advantage of melanic over pale phenotypes is consistent with the rise and spread of melanism, but the widespread decline in melanism that followed the Clean Air Acts obviates that interpretation. Although the possibility remains that physiological differences might be facultative (changing with conditions), so far no experimental work supports this idea. To date, only selective predation by birds is backed by experiment.

[...]

The history of melanism in American peppered moths--which are conspecific with Kettlewell's moths, not a separate species as Hooper indicates--closely parallels what has occurred in Britain, and melanism is correlated in like manner with levels of atmospheric pollution (2). The American studies corroborate rather than contradict the classical explanation.

The case for natural selection in the evolution of melanism in peppered moths is actually much stronger today than it was during Kettlewell's time.

As is unfortunately common, a creationist attack on a scientific position (because it provides support for evolution) is yet again found to be biased, misleadingly selective, conflates minority scientific disagreements into images of total refutation, totally fails to acknowledge findings which undercut its argument, selectively quotes authorities in ways that the authorities themselves take strong issue with, and in general tears down scrawny straw-man misrepresentations which give grossly misleading impressions about the great volume of study and evidence behind the item the creationists are attempting to hand-wave away.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if you're getting your "scientific" knowledge from creationist sources, then odds are you really have no true idea what science is really about, or how much evidence there is for/against something. Trying to get a straight view of science from creationist sources is like trying to learn about conservatism from Tom Daschle.

[Ichneumon]

[Clearly, something is missing from your description of evolution as merely "folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d", since many people who *do* believe in God find reason to accept it anyway, *apart* from your "one motive fits all" claim.]

People can believe what they are going to believe but it doesn't change the fact that one has to ignore a lot of facts about the theory of evolution as well as the facts as stated in the bible to even attempt to reconcile them into one package since they are mutually exclusive.

You've already clearly established that you feel that way. I'm not interested in arguing that point with you, although clearly many people would.

Again, however, you are not addressing the point I would like to see you address.

You claimed that, "Evolution is the folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d". I asked you how you reconciled your claim with the fact that many people *do* believe in God and yet still accept evolution, and thus at least *their* motivations can't be explained as simply as you have explained them. Please respond.

[Ichneumon]

Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony.

Erm... With all due respect, "Gone With the Wind" contains a lot more "meticulous detail" than Genesis does.

By that measure, must GWTW have been "authentic eyewitness testimony"?

[Ichneumon]

You know that you are going to rot in $%^^, don't you? At least you'll be my neighbor!!

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

[Ichneumon]

Not one piece of evidence has ever been found to support evolution. Ever.

Never ever ever, not even once, eh? I hope you understand just how incredibly overgeneralized and grandiose that claim is. Then what's this stuff? After you explain away each and every one of those, I've got a few thousand more for you to chew on.

Now if you want to do what many anthropologists do and gather scattered bones from a 2 or 3 mile radius and assemble them claiming that they all come from the same person/animal, you could come up with some real doozies to support evolution.

Sigh, I see that, um, someone has been reading creationist sources again -- and making the mistake of believing them. You're clearly referring to the creationist "tall tale" (I'm being kind) about "Lucy's knee joint". Creationists just love to sit around, slapping their legs, laughing about those silly scientists who, according to one creationist version, found a knee joint "sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" from other skeletal remains, then tried to pass them off as a single fossil find.

Yeah, that *would* be cause for eyebrow-raising if that's what the scientist did, but since it's not, this is actually a really good case study in how dishonestly creationists misrepresent the truth, and how hard it is to get them to correct their mistakes.

Yet again, I really must caution readers against believing what they read on creationist sites, at least when it comes to what the creationists have to say about science, since the creationists have a proven track record of either grossly misunderstanding the science they're attempting to critique, or grossly misrepresenting it despite being corrected over and over again. Turning to creationists for science information is like asking Tom Daschle about conservatism.

Now, would you like to try to offer any further support for your claim that "many anthropologists do and gather scattered bones from a 2 or 3 mile radius and assemble them claiming that they all come from the same person/animal" -- like providing specific names and examples, if you think you can -- or would you care to retract your "bearing false witness" accusation?

[Ichneumon]

My point was that the Catholic Church cannot credibly be claimed to be anti-God

The Death Cookie

Oh, wait, you said "credibly". Never mind. ;-)

[chasio649]

I am amazed that adults believe in fairy tales....all this bible talk makes me wanna go take a dump...later thumpers ;)

[TheCrusader]

"no one person is in the position to say that Bigfoot is indeed a hoax."

The hardest evidence for Big Foot that the cult followers ever came up with was the photographs of the big, fuzzy ape-man. After the photographer died and made his bucks with these bogus photos his wife admitted it was all a hoax. All that remains is the word of a few superstitious North American Indians from long ago. When you claim there is a 7-foot tall ape-man, I say you need proof.

[TheCrusader]

"As the understanding of genetic code expands so will this ability. You ain't seen nothing yet..."

Truer words were never spoken, --- I ain't seen nothing yet. And neither has anyone else; just a long history of hoaxes, and the dashed hopes of the pseudo scientists drooling over their bogus "discoveries". All these egotiscal people are doing is taking the longest road to Truth possible. They will leave no stone unturned in the ifinite sphere of error before they finally grow old and die in their useless search. Pick up a Bible, man, and save yourself a lifetime of wasted effort.

[4CJ]

The Flood happened. Lot's wife was turned into salt. Shadrach and the boys stood in the fire and were helped by God. Daniel lived through the lions den and Jesus Christ actually existed and did what the Bible said He did, died and resurrected for our sins.

This isn't theology, this is what happened. Historical, factual what happened.

Bump for the truth!

[TheCrusader]

"This evolution hoax has been going on for a hundred years. That must be where the moon landing hoax project learned how to screen all their people to carry their stories for so long."

It's been going on for almost 2,000 years. I just bought an antique book that quotes some early Christian bishops and saints who were debating the Greek philosophers about the "evolution of man" and the origin of the universe. Seems those who reject God have been at this game a long time..... and that's why they're so good at it. To me, creation itself proves their is an omnipotent God, just as a great masterpiece proves their was an artist. The evolutionists would have us believe that the universe was created by chance, that all the perfect order, harmony, and beauty of the solar systems, galaxies and infinite expanse is the result of a massive, chaotic "bang". You would think that math itself would prove to these idiots that they are wrong. According to their believes everything is always changing, evolving, morphing. Then why is that 2 + 2 is always four? If these creeps are right then how can they calculate anything with certainty; for by their own beliefs 2 + 2 could be five by next week? Who was it that said "what fools these mortals be"?

[Nebullis]

It was a hoax because pepper moths in the wild do not rest on the sides of trees. It was an unnatural set up and not presented as such.

The demonstration of that experiment was a hoax, discovered by other scientists and roundly criticised by the scientific community. What was not a hoax, however, was the evolutionary evidence of natural selection that the peppered moth provides. It is still a prime example of the change of allele frequency over time. We know much more about it today and it is clear that Kettlewell's conclusions were correct.

[Gunslingr3]

Truer words were never spoken, --- I ain't seen nothing yet.

In this age where information is so readily available you shouldn't keep yourself deliberately ignorant.

And neither has anyone else; just a long history of hoaxes, and the dashed hopes of the pseudo scientists drooling over their bogus "discoveries".

So you think the genome is a hoax? What is bogus about mapping the genome of the fruit fly and learning what the impact of changes and interaction of the code with itself render? Surely you're aware that thousands of people are stricken by ailments that are the result of aberrant genes? Do you think we should look into how to cure and prevent those disorders, or leave'em cripple like god made them?

All these egotiscal people are doing is taking the longest road to Truth possible. They will leave no stone unturned in the ifinite sphere of error before they finally grow old and die in their useless search.

Useless search? You seemingly have no concept of how study and understanding of genetic code has impacted your life. The food you eat has had it's genetic code modified to make it more resistant to disease and even some insects. This has led in consequence to more bountiful harvests and reduced food costs while improving quality.

Pick up a Bible, man, and save yourself a lifetime of wasted effort.

Which version of the Bible?

[TheCrusader]

"Which version of the Bible?

For you? Any version will be a good start. But since you have a scientific mind that tends toward finding truth and the origin of things, why not start with a Catholic Bible, the only Church that has a traceable, unbroken line of successors back to Saint Peter? You should also try studying history, those who escaped early childhood disease or death by violence generally lived to be much older and healthier than today's people do. During the Civil War there were many survivors of the Revolutionary War still hanging around, (and they weren't vegetating either, they were still mobile and mentally alert). Granted science can be used for the good of mankind, such as curing various illnesses, there is no doubt --- but it has never replaced good old fashioned Mother Nature, and never will. Science cures certain illnesses, and new ones pop up that defy medicine; and old ones return that defy the original "cures". Science prolongs the life of the 'average' American a few years, and it creates air pollution, water pollution, greenhouse gasses, harmful 'processed' foods, atomic bombs, asbestos poisening, lead paint poisening, the destruction of privacy with "smart cards", tiny computer chips etc. Now there are abortion pills, on and on it goes, ad infinitum. Science is only beneficial when it is used properly and ethically, and not abused, as it so often is today. The next generation of "the miracle of science" will be the introduction of GPA devices in all human beings, under the guise of "finding kidnapped children, alerting doctors to medical problems, tracing criminals", etc. But because scientists have no ethics or morality anymore, and refuse to accept God as He revealed Himself to mankind, these devices will also be used by governments to help control entire populations. The more we rely on science instead of God, and the more we abuse science instead of using it to our real benefit, the deeper into the sticky web we entangle ourselves. Something inside tells me that you already know these things, but refuse to acknowledge them. God's blessings.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But since you have a scientific mind that tends toward finding truth and the origin of things, why not start with a Catholic Bible, the only Church that has a traceable, unbroken line of successors back to Saint Peter?

It helps to be very specific on these threads. Are you referring to the Vulgate? And whose translation do you use?

I prefer the Revised Standard Edition myself.

[MEGoody]

"I know some people who believe that dinosaurs were killed before Adam and Eve were made and their remains were left there to "test our faith".

Nah, God made the dinos so we'd have oil.

[Tamar1973]

You claimed that, "Evolution is the folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d". I asked you how you reconciled your claim with the fact that many people *do* believe in God and yet still accept evolution, and thus at least *their* motivations can't be explained as simply as you have explained them. Please respond.

I did address it, you simply chose to ignore it because I am not saying what you want me to say. The truth of the matter is that anyone who claims to believe in G-d as revealed in the Tanak are being intellectually dishonest.

What motivates them to live that way? Well, a misunderstanding about what evolution really is and isn't. For example, natural selection is a part of some people's definition of evolution. Many people think the two terms are synonomous, when they are not.

Another greater motivation is a desire not to appear closeminded in the eyes of those around them. Peer pressure can be a very powerful motivator and shaper of opinion. The idea of "if the majority believe it, it must be right" is very strong in our society, especially if the "majority" have a bunch of intials by their name. Even in Christian circles, you have people like Hugh Ross, who believe in theistic evolution.

The truth of the matter is that such people have not taken the time to look into the full ramifications of their beliefs. They don't understand that their position is intellectually dishonest because evolution and theism are polar opposites adn the very phrase "theistic evolution" is oxymoronic.

[Tamar1973]

Obviously the Catholic Church is not infallible -- otherwise they would have endorsed Galileo right off instead of sticking to the literal "sun revolves around the earth" proclamations in the Bible.

That fact is not obvious to people to are actually Catholic. To be Catholic, one must believe in the infallability of the pope. You and I both can see examples in history where the Catholic Church was NOT Infallable, but Catholics are bound to believe the pope is infallable.

[TheCrusader]

"It helps to be very specific on these threads. Are you referring to the Vulgate? And whose translation do you use?"

Since Saint Jerome, (a Roman Catholic), assembled the Latin Vulgate at the request of Pope Damasus, and it was translated from the Hebrew and Greek originals extant in those times, and it was accepted and codified at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., (the exact same canon as permanently Canonized in the 16th Century at Trent), and his contemporary Saint Augustine wrote in "City of God" that the Jews of those days were impressed with the precision and exactness of it, then I'd say that's the one to use. I myself am not a Latin expert, so I read the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, which is a word-for-word English translation of the Latin Vulgate. ~ Blessings.

[jlogajan]

That fact is not obvious to people to are actually Catholic. To be Catholic, one must believe in the infallability of the pope. You and I both can see examples in history where the Catholic Church was NOT Infallable, but Catholics are bound to believe the pope is infallable.

This is a hoot coming from someone who claims the obviously flawed Bible is infallible. But anyhow, Papal infallibility is restricted to certain areas. I don't think Catholics need to educated on this by non-Catholics.

[f.Christian]

Do you think that evolution is Truth and the Bible is fairy tales ?