There were a stream of posts on the anthropology blogs about Ardipithecus ramidus, the 4.4 million year old fossil hominid originally discovered by a team led by Tim White in Ethiopia between 1992-1993. I really wanted to get in on it but barely had time to read some of the reports and none to offer up a post until now. So what can I say that others in the blogosphere haven’t already pointed out? Probably not much, but I thought I’d highlight some of the reactions by creationists
(Agnopithecus creationus» ).

Chris Esparza, a writer for the Dallas Christian Living Examiner, made some comments that may or may not be from the creationist point of view, but certainly call into question what the find means to “Christians^[1].

Esparza gets a little heat in the comments section for his mis-quoting the age of Ardi to “3.2 million years ago” rather than the 4.4 mya date arrived at by the research team. This is interesting since it reveals the dedication the author had in the science, perhaps symbolic for the dedication that creationist and the 40 percenters» have for science: they read the headlines, skim for key words, and pick out the bits they feel support their conclusions -even if that latter bit means twisting the words or even re-inventing them. Esparza goes on to say about the “theory of evolution:”

[it's] idea of the missing link is that somewhere way back when, there was a primate who almost seemed to be half monkey and half human, proving that there was at some point an evolutionary split. A recent discovery in Ethiopia disproves that theory.

Not only did Esparza get wrong the concept that the Nat. Geo. quote was trying to convey, he conveniently reshapes the quote into his own pre-conceived notion that evolution is questionable to begin with and probably that “only” belongs in front of theory whenever talking about evolution. It doesn’t. What the National Geographic article^[2] was pointing out is that there *is* a common ancestor to chimpanzees and modern humans, but it might probably isn’t something that would be “half-chimp / half-human,” rather it is an ape that exhibits a mix of derived and primitive characters, appearing very different from any modern primate (i.e. chimps, gorillas, humans), but still ancestral.

In another online Christian publication, Michael Foust of the Baptist Press^[3] quotes Answers in Genesis, headed by cult leader Ken Ham, as saying Ardi has “relatively little in common with humans.” What’s interesting with the AiG stance is that they at once criticize the methods by which the analyses were done:

“And we can’t forget that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape.”

Then align with a quote mined from the National Geographic article quoted above in their dismissal of Ardi as a human ancestor:

“Instead, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior — long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors — is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings,” National Geographic science writer Jamie Shreeve wrote. “Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas.”

AiG is relying scientific analysis to dismiss a scientific conclusion because a result of the analysis appears to fit their preconceived conclusions. Yet they don’t think the analysis is accurate! And, they get the implications of the result wrong to begin with! Agnopithecus creationus! In its natural habitat.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oldest “Human” Skeleton Found, kiss that “Missing Link” goodbye. (KKKristians go bezerk) (news.nationalgeographic.com)
• Ardipithecus ramidus (scienceblogs.com)
• Ardipithecus FAQ (johnhawks.net)
• Science Publishes 11 Papers on Ardipithecus (anthropology.net)
• All That We Know About Evolution is Wrong (tuibguy.com)

1. http://www.examiner.com/x-10272-Dallas-Christian-Living-Examiner~y2009m10d1-Oldest-human-skelton-disproves-missing-link-theory
2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
3. http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=31389

Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution, is due to hit the shelves on September 22nd but he’s written an article in the Times Online, a U.K. news outlet, which appears to be an excerpt from the as-yet-to-be-published text, probably the preface. Here’s an excerpt of the excerpt:

The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

I’m looking forward to his book and hope it’s released on Kindle as well as hardcover, but it doesn’t seem to be coming out in that format right away. If his article/excerpt is any indication, the book promises to be a good read. In the link above, Dawkins refers to the “40-percenters” -that 40% of the United States that believes the history of the Earth is measured in thousands of years rather than billions and that human life began with two humans named “Adam” and “Eve” who didn’t have navels. While Dawkins doesn’t intend Greatest Show to be a “antireligious” book, I’m sure that’s exactly how many of the “40-percenters” will take it.

But I hope they read it anyway.

This will definitely be a book I’m going to purchase with the intent to loan out from time to time. Time will tell if I’ll loan and recommend it more than Carl Sagan’s A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Click the link in the book title or in my picks on the sidebar if you want to pre-order The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution from Amazon for over $10 off the cover price (as of today’s date anyway).

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dawkins on evolution (timesonline.typepad.com)
• Does Francis Collins’s Faith Have Any Benefits for the NIH? (usnews.com)
• Unscientific America, the gift that keeps on giving (scienceblogs.com)
• As a Recipient of Science Communication (tuibguy.com)
• “Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.” (wilwheaton.typepad.com)

None have fought better, and none have been more fortunate than Charles Darwin. He found a great truth, trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots, and ridiculed by all the world; he lived long enough to see it, chiefly by his own efforts, irrefragably established in science, inseparably incorporated with the common thoughts of men. . . . What shall a man desire more than this?^[1]

These words by T.H. Huxley still ring true today, in spite of the ignorance that continues to demand that superstition be given precedence over the fact of evolution. The accomplishments of Darwin, after all these years, are nothing short of a pain in the backsides of religious fundamentalists who want to find ways to insert their religious doctrine and superstition into public schools.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of Darwin’s accomplishments and contributions to so many disciplines of science. So I thought I’d offer an additional quote -a passage from The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals which appeals to me as an anthropologist:

Our early progenitors, when indignant or moderately angry, would not have held their heads erect, opened their chests, squared their shoulders, and clenched their fists, until they had acquired the ordinary carriage and upright attitude of man, and had learnt to fight with their fists or clubs Until this period had arrived the antithetical gesture of shrugging the shoulders, as a sign of impotence or of patience, would not have been developed. From the same reason astonishment would not then have been expressed by raising the arms with open hands and extended fingers. Nor, judging from the actions of monkeys would astonishment have been exhibited by a widely opened mouth; but the eyes would have been opened and the eyebrows arched. Disgust would have been shown at a very early period by movements round the mouth, like those of vomiting,–that is, if the view which I have suggested respecting the source of the expression is correct, namely, that our progenitors had the power, and used it, of voluntarily and quickly rejecting any food from their stomachs which they disliked. But the more refined manner of showing contempt or disdain, by lowering the eyelids, or turning away the eyes and face, as if the despised person were not worth looking at, would not probably have been acquired until a much later period.^[2].

Thank you, Charles Darwin, for your courage, your brilliance, and your fortitude in the face of significant objection.

Related articles by Zemanta

• On the Origin of Darwin by Means of Extreme Summary, or The Abbreviation of A Voluminous Life in the Struggle for Brevity (wired.com)
• Charles Darwin at 200: Exact replica of his HMS Beagle cabin goes on show (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Vatican Agrees With Darwin (takepart.com)
• Darwin 200 years later: Evolution by selection of quotations (sciam.com)

1. Huxley, Thomas Henry (1882). Charles Darwin. Nature 25, p. 597.
2. Darwin, Charles (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray