Recently, an anti-evolution letter appeared in the Grantham Journal, my local paper. Here it is:
Sigh... It's so egregiously wrong in pretty much every claim it makes, that it's almost as amusing as it is depressing.
To go through the claims one by one: (click "Read more" link in post footer)
Wrong! It's the 200-year anniversary of Darwin's birth, not death. This sets the bar for the accuracy of what's to follow.
Wrong! In fact, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. Rather than detail all of it at length, Mr Barradine might like to check out Jerry Coyne’s new book, Why Evolution is True
We need to go through these one at a time:
Java Man
Java Man is the popular name for the partial remains of one of the first known specimens of the species now known as Homo erectus, found in 1891 at Trinil, East Java by Eugène Dubois. Dubois called his discovery Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning ‘upright ape-man’.
At the time of their discovery, the remains were the oldest hominid remains that had been found and many contemporary scientists suggested Pithecanthropus erectus was the direct shared ancestor of modern humans and the other great apes. The current view is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus, not the Asian populations, of which Java Man is one.
Some creationists, notably Duane Gish's Institute for Creation Research and Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis have attempted to imply that Dubois denounced his find later in life, claiming it was merely a large gibbon. The pro-evolution site Talk Origins comprehensively demolished the claims here and indeed the previously-cited Answers in Genesis article does appear to accept that Dubois did still think his find was a missing link.
Piltdown Man
Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912, by Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward. They had found a mandible and parts of a skull from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible bore signs of wear as one would expect from a human, but in structure, it was ape-like. The skull was like a modern human's, and together, these suggested to Dawson and Woodward a transitional fossil, halfway between man and the apes, one they believed was 500,000 years old.
Sadly, they were a bit too keen to believe they'd discovered the 'missing link'; Piltdown Man was a fraud. It was never universally accepted anyway, but it took until the 1950s, before it was firmly established that Piltdown Man was a fake. The fossil didn't gybe with the evidence from other hominid finds and the reason turned out to be that the jaw was from an orangutan, filed down to give the human-like wear with chimpanzee fossil teeth and fragments of a modern Homo sapien skull and then all stained to age them.
The prime suspect in the fraud is now considered to be Dawson himself, the man who originally found Piltdown Man. The problem with Piltdown Man is that it suggested that large brain size occurred before jaws adapted to a more human-like diet, and considerably resources were wasted as a consequence, including the ignoring of Australopithecine remains in 1920s South Africa, fossils which may well be a genuine ancestor of the Homo genus and in any case, is certainly transitional between hominids and apes.
Lucy
Lucy, more scientifically known as Australopithicus afarensis, is an East African hominid from between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago, and ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the Homo genus (which includes modern man). Creationists make some claims that Lucy’s knee, which is somewhat germane to whether she could have been bipedal or not (there is debate about whether Lucy would have been exclusively bipedal or arboreal, since her skeleton shows features associated with both modes), was found too far from the rest of her skeleton to be sure it is part. Lucy’s skeleton does not have any intact knees, however. The knee in question belongs to a different individual of the same species, and in any case, subsequent discovery of additional specimens rather torpedoes this supposed difficulty and additionally, the pelvis alone contained enough evidence to support at least bipedalism.
Neandertal man
For a start, it’s most commonly written “Neanderthal man”, but it’s possible the newspaper introduced this less common spelling. I have to presume that Mr Barradine believes the notion that Neanderthals were merely modern humans with rickets, but this is so comprehensively destroyed as an argument, that I want to be charitable and think it must be something else. Sadly, I am not aware of any other claims. Rickets, as an ailment, leaves very distinctive marks on the body, most notably a frailty of bones. Neanderthal’s bones are about 50% thicker than our own, which sort of pisses on that notion. And then flicks it the Vees for good measure. And then kicks it in the love spuds for good measure and spits on the crumpled remains.
Moreover, Neanderthals were contemporaneous with modern humans, so couldn’t possibly be missing links. DNA analysis shows quite categorically that Homo neanderthalensis is distinct from Homo sapiens.
Ah – smoking gun! Here we have proof of the religious motivation behind Mr Barradine’s claims. ‘Within their kind’ is exclusively used by those who believe in Biblical literalism. It derives from Genesis 1:11-24, in which God makes the plants, fish, birds and animals “according to their kinds”. It crops up again in the story of Noah, Gen:6:19-20 (“19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”).
The notion is that there are broad groups of similar animals that are ‘kinds’, so, for example, horses, donkeys and zebras can be considered a “kind”. Creationists refuse to be drawn on an exact definition of what “kind” actually means, but they nevertheless insist that evolution can take place within ‘kinds’, but that one would never see evolution between the species. Some, for example, the noted evolutionary dunce and evangelical preacher Ray Comfort will cite the fact that we’ve never seen a ‘croco-duck’ as proof that this is true, despite the fact that all evolutionary scientists would also be astonished if such a thing happened, since it is completely contradictory to the theory of evolution. They can be safely ignored because if you’re that stupid, you’re unlikely to be dangerous to anyone other than yourself. Those a little less embarrassingly ignorant will still fail to explain how they believe that ‘micro-evolution can take place within kind’ yet they can reject the notion that with enough micro-evolution and a long time you’d see the emergence of new species.
The quote derives from the end of the very first paragraph of Chapter Nine of ‘On the Origin of Species’, as so:
Firstly, we should note the reconstruction of the quote that has gone on. Some of it, we can charitably choose to believe is simply excised in the interests of space. However, it is difficult to excuse the restructuring that gives the impression that the quote stands alone. Moving the highlighted ‘must’ and the excision of the comma in the first sentence substantially changes the meaning. Worse still is the failure to report the last sentence. The quote is clearly intended to give the impression that even as he formulated it, Darwin knew of damning inadequacies in his theory, whereas in context, it is abundantly clear that he is anticipating a criticism and is clearly about to expand upon why that criticism is actually incorrect.
Of course, this further ignores the fact that the theory of evolution is not the same theory Darwin came up with. The neo-Darwinian evolution, or better still, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a hybrid of what Darwin got right – and he got a lot right – and the introduction of genetics, which was unknown in Darwin’s time. This is because creationists love to poison the well, and therefore over-emphasize the dependence of the theory on its creator. A favorite tactic is to make claims about Darwin’s racism. That these claims are pretty baseless – Darwin certainly holds some pretty unpalatable views on race by modern standards, but by his own age was an enlightened progressive who had a life-long ethical antipathy to the then commonplace practice of slavery – but ignores the fact that Darwin could have fucked and murdered babies and it still wouldn’t affect whether his description of a natural phenomena was right or wrong; it would just make him a cunt who had also described a natural phenomena.
Here is the letter I sent to the editor:
There's no real evidence to support the theory of evolution
Published Date: 27 March 2009
WITH the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's death, plus 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species, we have been bombarded in the media with his theory of evolution.
The fact remains however, that no real evidence has yet been unearthed to substantiate his theory.
The monkey/human missing links have proved to be well - missing, they are either ape or human or indeed fabrications.
These include the Java man, Piltdown man, Lucy and even now Neandertal man.
In the animal species there is evolution but within their kind but no evidence yet exists of evolution between the species.
Let's leave the final statement to Darwin himself.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links?
"Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated chain, and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory" - Charles Darwin.
EDDIE BARRADINE
West Willoughby
Sigh... It's so egregiously wrong in pretty much every claim it makes, that it's almost as amusing as it is depressing.
To go through the claims one by one: (click "Read more" link in post footer)
WITH the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's death, plus 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species, we have been bombarded in the media with his theory of evolution.
Wrong! It's the 200-year anniversary of Darwin's birth, not death. This sets the bar for the accuracy of what's to follow.
The fact remains however, that no real evidence has yet been unearthed to substantiate his theory.
Wrong! In fact, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. Rather than detail all of it at length, Mr Barradine might like to check out Jerry Coyne’s new book, Why Evolution is True
The monkey/human missing links have proved to be well - missing, they are either ape or human or indeed fabrications. These include the Java man, Piltdown man, Lucy and even now Neandertal man.
We need to go through these one at a time:
Java Man
Java Man is the popular name for the partial remains of one of the first known specimens of the species now known as Homo erectus, found in 1891 at Trinil, East Java by Eugène Dubois. Dubois called his discovery Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning ‘upright ape-man’.
At the time of their discovery, the remains were the oldest hominid remains that had been found and many contemporary scientists suggested Pithecanthropus erectus was the direct shared ancestor of modern humans and the other great apes. The current view is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus, not the Asian populations, of which Java Man is one.
Some creationists, notably Duane Gish's Institute for Creation Research and Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis have attempted to imply that Dubois denounced his find later in life, claiming it was merely a large gibbon. The pro-evolution site Talk Origins comprehensively demolished the claims here and indeed the previously-cited Answers in Genesis article does appear to accept that Dubois did still think his find was a missing link.
Piltdown Man
Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912, by Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward. They had found a mandible and parts of a skull from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible bore signs of wear as one would expect from a human, but in structure, it was ape-like. The skull was like a modern human's, and together, these suggested to Dawson and Woodward a transitional fossil, halfway between man and the apes, one they believed was 500,000 years old.
Sadly, they were a bit too keen to believe they'd discovered the 'missing link'; Piltdown Man was a fraud. It was never universally accepted anyway, but it took until the 1950s, before it was firmly established that Piltdown Man was a fake. The fossil didn't gybe with the evidence from other hominid finds and the reason turned out to be that the jaw was from an orangutan, filed down to give the human-like wear with chimpanzee fossil teeth and fragments of a modern Homo sapien skull and then all stained to age them.
The prime suspect in the fraud is now considered to be Dawson himself, the man who originally found Piltdown Man. The problem with Piltdown Man is that it suggested that large brain size occurred before jaws adapted to a more human-like diet, and considerably resources were wasted as a consequence, including the ignoring of Australopithecine remains in 1920s South Africa, fossils which may well be a genuine ancestor of the Homo genus and in any case, is certainly transitional between hominids and apes.
Lucy
Lucy, more scientifically known as Australopithicus afarensis, is an East African hominid from between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago, and ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the Homo genus (which includes modern man). Creationists make some claims that Lucy’s knee, which is somewhat germane to whether she could have been bipedal or not (there is debate about whether Lucy would have been exclusively bipedal or arboreal, since her skeleton shows features associated with both modes), was found too far from the rest of her skeleton to be sure it is part. Lucy’s skeleton does not have any intact knees, however. The knee in question belongs to a different individual of the same species, and in any case, subsequent discovery of additional specimens rather torpedoes this supposed difficulty and additionally, the pelvis alone contained enough evidence to support at least bipedalism.
Neandertal man
For a start, it’s most commonly written “Neanderthal man”, but it’s possible the newspaper introduced this less common spelling. I have to presume that Mr Barradine believes the notion that Neanderthals were merely modern humans with rickets, but this is so comprehensively destroyed as an argument, that I want to be charitable and think it must be something else. Sadly, I am not aware of any other claims. Rickets, as an ailment, leaves very distinctive marks on the body, most notably a frailty of bones. Neanderthal’s bones are about 50% thicker than our own, which sort of pisses on that notion. And then flicks it the Vees for good measure. And then kicks it in the love spuds for good measure and spits on the crumpled remains.
Moreover, Neanderthals were contemporaneous with modern humans, so couldn’t possibly be missing links. DNA analysis shows quite categorically that Homo neanderthalensis is distinct from Homo sapiens.
In the animal species there is evolution but within their kind but no evidence yet exists of evolution between the species.
Ah – smoking gun! Here we have proof of the religious motivation behind Mr Barradine’s claims. ‘Within their kind’ is exclusively used by those who believe in Biblical literalism. It derives from Genesis 1:11-24, in which God makes the plants, fish, birds and animals “according to their kinds”. It crops up again in the story of Noah, Gen:6:19-20 (“19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”).
The notion is that there are broad groups of similar animals that are ‘kinds’, so, for example, horses, donkeys and zebras can be considered a “kind”. Creationists refuse to be drawn on an exact definition of what “kind” actually means, but they nevertheless insist that evolution can take place within ‘kinds’, but that one would never see evolution between the species. Some, for example, the noted evolutionary dunce and evangelical preacher Ray Comfort will cite the fact that we’ve never seen a ‘croco-duck’ as proof that this is true, despite the fact that all evolutionary scientists would also be astonished if such a thing happened, since it is completely contradictory to the theory of evolution. They can be safely ignored because if you’re that stupid, you’re unlikely to be dangerous to anyone other than yourself. Those a little less embarrassingly ignorant will still fail to explain how they believe that ‘micro-evolution can take place within kind’ yet they can reject the notion that with enough micro-evolution and a long time you’d see the emergence of new species.
Let's leave the final statement to Darwin himself."The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links?
"Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated chain, and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory" - Charles Darwin.
The quote derives from the end of the very first paragraph of Chapter Nine of ‘On the Origin of Species’, as so:
“In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
Firstly, we should note the reconstruction of the quote that has gone on. Some of it, we can charitably choose to believe is simply excised in the interests of space. However, it is difficult to excuse the restructuring that gives the impression that the quote stands alone. Moving the highlighted ‘must’ and the excision of the comma in the first sentence substantially changes the meaning. Worse still is the failure to report the last sentence. The quote is clearly intended to give the impression that even as he formulated it, Darwin knew of damning inadequacies in his theory, whereas in context, it is abundantly clear that he is anticipating a criticism and is clearly about to expand upon why that criticism is actually incorrect.
Of course, this further ignores the fact that the theory of evolution is not the same theory Darwin came up with. The neo-Darwinian evolution, or better still, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a hybrid of what Darwin got right – and he got a lot right – and the introduction of genetics, which was unknown in Darwin’s time. This is because creationists love to poison the well, and therefore over-emphasize the dependence of the theory on its creator. A favorite tactic is to make claims about Darwin’s racism. That these claims are pretty baseless – Darwin certainly holds some pretty unpalatable views on race by modern standards, but by his own age was an enlightened progressive who had a life-long ethical antipathy to the then commonplace practice of slavery – but ignores the fact that Darwin could have fucked and murdered babies and it still wouldn’t affect whether his description of a natural phenomena was right or wrong; it would just make him a cunt who had also described a natural phenomena.
Here is the letter I sent to the editor:
Dear Sir,
Eddie Barradine's letter, "There's no real evidence to support the theory of evolution" (27th March 2009), contains so many falsehoods I could hardly correct them all in the space I could reasonably expect to be given in your paper.
To limit myself to just addressing two of the most appalling errors, while there have indeed been faked 'missing links', they do not disprove the evolution of man and ape from a common ancestor.
No one credible believes Neanderthal man is either a missing link (they were contemporaneous with Homo sapiens, so couldn't possibly be) or fake. The Darwin quote is actually incorrectly reported and consists of a hypothetical objection to his theory anticipated by Darwin himself in On the Origin of Species, to which he then responds.
Suffice it to say that Mr Barradine is entirely wrong to suggest there is no real evidence to support evolution. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory and I'd be delighted if Mr Barradine were to contact me and allow me the opportunity to share it with him.
Yours etc.
4 comments:
Not only did I get published, but there were two other letters also demolishing Mr Barradine's arguments.
And another load the following week. PWNed, as I understand the young people say.
Nicely done, sir. I must say, given that Darwin apparantly wrote his masterpiece fifty years after he died, it's no wonder that we all worship him as our god, is it?
(Smiley omitted due to being, hopefully, superfluous)
You say that, Paul. Next thing you know, it's up on Ray Comfort's site...
Post a Comment