Meet Selam

| 87 Comments | 1 TrackBack

One of the more hilarious absurdities of the creation/evolution debate is as follows: creationists love to hop up and down and point at gaps in the fossil record (sometimes real, often not), but for the one species that creationists would dearly love to be specially created, human beings, we are actually swimming in a stunning set of transitional fossils. The hominid fossil record isn’t even especially “jerky” when examined quantitatvely at fine-scale resolution, so the creationists don’t even have their usual incompetent misconstrual of punctuated equilibria (which is actually about morphologically small gaps between closely-related sister species) to rely upon.

The poor creationists can’t even agree on which fossils are human and which are ape, and even Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute has tried his hand at this (proving he is a creationist, by the way), arguing that the genus Homo is a specially created “basic type”, except for the inconveniently transitional Homo habilis, which he removes from the genus by creative citation, thus proving that there is a gap between Homo and other hominins! Because of course everyone knows if you switch the label on a fossil, it’s transitional features disappear and it can be safely ignored! (If you are counting, Luskin’s position appears to be closest to that of the creationists in the middle column, including Gish and others, which appears to be the median creationist position.)

As if designed to ruin Luskin’s weekend, Nature has just published yet more hard fossil evidence of human evolution:

In today’s issue of Nature, an Ethiopian-led international team reports the discovery of a juvenile skeleton of the species commonly known as ‘Lucy’, or Australopithecus afarensis. The researchers have named her Selam, after an Ethiopian word for ‘peace’.

The specimen, which is the oldest and most complete juvenile of a human relative ever found, has features that stand as striking examples of part-way evolution between primitive apes and modern humans.

Although many other samples of A. afarensis have been found before, this is the first one reported to come complete with a whole shoulder-blade bone (scapula). In modern humans the scapula has a ridge running horizontally across the top of the bone; in apes the scapula’s ridge reaches further down the back, where it can help to throw more muscle into arm action, as would be needed to swing from trees. In the young A. afarensis, the scapula looks to be part-way between.

“The animal was losing its capacity to be arboreal — heading right toward being human,” says anthropologist Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio.

Other hominins have been found before with traits that similarly show a cross between a life in the trees and one on the ground. A. afarensis, for example, has previously been found to have hips and knees thought to be adapted to standing upright, but curved fingers suited to grabbing branches.

But ‘little Lucy’ is a particularly striking example of this sort of mosaic of evolution, says Zeresenay Alemseged, lead researcher on the paper and a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology at Leipzig, Germany.

“These hominid fossils clearly show evolution in the making,” he says.

Terminological note: according to the infallible omniscience of wikipedia:

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini, a hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae, a hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, and a hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea.

According to their graphic:

So, hominins (humans+chimps+fossils that share their common ancestor) are a subgroup of hominines (includes gorillas) which are a subgroup of hominids (includes orangs) which are a subgroup of hominoids (includes gibbons). To sum up, all of the Homo and Australopithecus fossils can be called hominins, hominines, hominids, and hominoids and you’re not technically wrong, so don’t worry about it and stick your tongue out at anyone who says otherwise.

Update: Nature now has a news blog where people can discuss its stories.

1 TrackBack

For some time I have been annoyed that charts of the changing cranial capacity of fossil hominin skulls are not more common. There is this chart online at the Talk.Origins Fossil Hominids FAQ, derived from this 1994 PNAS paper,... Read More

87 Comments

This is so cool! Unfortunately, if you are an IDiot like Luskin, it just creates 2 more God of The Gaps opportunities. You can lead a creationist to the fossil, but you can’t make him think.

Fancy that! And wouldn’t you know, over at Answers in Genesis they posted a wonderful discussion this morning on the lack of evidence for human evolution by Parker. It’s the same old BS, but it has a few real gems. Of particular note: there is a poorly copied drawing of a Neanderthal skull superimposed on a fully modern tracing of a human face wearing a hat. WoW! PROOF that if you put a hat on a Neanderthal (well, a modern human, but that’s not important now…), it looks human (and apparently gains a chin too). The references are deeply impressive too - mainly Time magazine quotes from 3 decades ago.

This article, as well as recent articles about patterning the nervous system with BMP, and one other about the last Neanderthals highlighted for me - a non-scientist- how much freaking work is done to add tiny pieces to the overall picture. Here, five years to excavate one skeleton; to excavate the Neanderthal site (60 sq. ft.) - five years. The BMP experiments - five years. No IDer has the appetite for this kind of effort. Better to read the work of others, crosscheck the Bible, and spew.

Spew. Hmmmmm. Now THERE’s a word that really captures the essence of creationist “research” on human evolution.

doyle,

Sadly, IDers have covered that base too. If you mention the amount of detail done, IDers will argue they “don’t have to match your pathetic level of detail.”

Your point though is valid - this is about solid investigation and careful work. The level done really is quite impressive.

Nick -

Nice post. The link to Casey Luskin trying his hand at hominid fossil indentification–which I would dearly love to read–appears to be a dud.

In the immortal words of John Wayne Gacey - “The hardest part is getting rid of the bodies”

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini, a hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae, a hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, and a hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea.

I suspect we could have been a little more diverse with the whole naming of the family tree thing.

Nick - both the “tried his hand at this” (as already pointed out) and the “infallible omniscience of wikipedia:” links take us back to site.

Bob (and feel free to delete this post once hte links are fixed)

hominin Hominini hominine Homininae hominid Hominidae hominoid Hominoidea

anyone else thinking of Ed Norton?

Hum.

Superfamilia: Hominoidea

Familia: Hominidae

Subfamilia: Homininae

Tribus: Hominini

Subtribus: Hominina

Genus: Homo

( http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homo )

Yes, if I’m going to say homins (?), homininas (?), hominins, hominines, hominids, and hominoids I’m quite sure I will end up sticking out my tongue.

It was also noted that the infants relatively low cranial capacity could be a transition to more human-like slow childhood brain growth. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/[…]/5363328.stm )

Of course, for a cretin that means australopithecines are chimps: “In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed: ‘Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain.’ That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized within the chimp family.” ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]lawrence.asp )

It would be nice to once if they would consider a confirmed evolutionary prediction to strengthen evolution, or if ‘there is business as usu.. eh, no evidence at all’.

Ermh! australopithecines - australopithecines nice to once - nice for once

I have never heard of the biological classification term “tribe” previously. Sort of spoils the usual mnemonics, like “king Philip calls out for good sex”, doesn’t it? When was it introduced? Is it so each branch point on the tree can have its own term? (Like the “sub-“ stuff?)

Re “A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini,…”

That could be taken for an ad hominin argument? :)

Tribe has been around a good long time, but isn’t often used. It is equivalent to “infrafamily” (the sub of a subfamily), given it’s own name if more detailed divisions help clarify relationships, skipped over if they aren’t.

I have fixed the links. Those responsible for checking the links have been sacked, yadda yadda.

I have never heard of the biological classification term “tribe” previously. Sort of spoils the usual mnemonics, like “king Philip calls out for good sex”, doesn’t it? When was it introduced? Is it so each branch point on the tree can have its own term? (Like the “sub-“ stuff?)

The “tribe” rank is commonly used in plants, where there are just way too many nested groups to use only the species-genus-family-order and “sub” and “super” prefixes.

(plants, and now, hominins/ines/ids)

We are seeing kind of a hybrid between cladistics, which would just name the groups without bothering with the ranks, and Linnean taxonomy, which would approximate phylogeny with the ranked taxa, but they would not always be monophyletic. Once you insist on monophyly you end up with way too many groups.

Nick

Keith Douglas Wrote:

I have never heard of the biological classification term “tribe” previously. Sort of spoils the usual mnemonics, like “king Philip calls out for good sex”, doesn’t it? When was it introduced? Is it so each branch point on the tree can have its own term? (Like the “sub-“ stuff?)

Which is why standard Linnaean classification is so outdated. These arbitrary rankings give the false illusion that they are meaningful, but they really are not. What does Family actually mean. One might assme that the rank of Family denotes a certain evolutionary distance from species, but it doesn’t. You cannot pick some arbitrary number of rankings and expect all species to fit meaningfully within that arbitrary depth. Classification should reflect ancestry, and I think it is time we do away with these ranking which have outlived their usefulness.

I’m sure others here can support this point of view more elegantly.

I saw an interesting comment in a separate news article about this find, to the effect that this specimen is particularly important because it is so young. The idea seemed to be that with the ability to compare things like the bone structure of a young “person” to an older and closely related “person” of the time (like the infamous Lucy), we’d learn a lot about the evolution of human development. Can anyone elaborate on this further?

I forgot to mention one of Steve Reuland’s best lines:

One creationist says that all fossil hominids are 100% ape, and another says that all but one are 100% human. The other creationists are, um, transitional between these two extremes. Which means that the creationists are 100% nuts.

Cladists want things to be simple, when in fact evolutionary history is complex and messy. The terms are meaningful if they accurately reflect what we know about the relationships among taxa. If they fail in this, they are worse than worthless.

Dang, as I reread that paragraph, it reminds me of something Bruce Phillip would write. Shorter though.

Of particular note: there is a poorly copied drawing of a Neanderthal skull superimposed on a fully modern tracing of a human face wearing a hat. WoW! PROOF that if you put a hat on a Neanderthal (well, a modern human, but that’s not important now…), it looks human (and apparently gains a chin too).

More than 20 years ago I was applying to graduate school at a southern Cal. univ. (not USC). One of the profs that I interviewed with had taken the cover of a magazine (Time/Newsweek/Sci. Am.?) that had a bald reconstruction of a Neanderthal on it. The prof had scribbled in a beard, some scraggly hair, and glasses, and it looked exactly like he did. During the interview, I could not look at him without laughing - it made the interview rather difficult!

It would be fun to plant a story about finding that there were hominids which shared 95% of their DNA with chimps and wait to see the cdesign proponentists ask ‘Why not class it with the chimps, then, instead of humans!’

Nick Wrote:

The poor creationists can’t even agree on which fossils are human and which are ape, and even Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute has tried his hand at this (proving he is a creationist, by the way), arguing that the genus Homo is a specially created “basic type”, except for the inconveniently transitional Homo habilis, which he removes from the genus by creative citation, thus proving that there is a gap between Homo and other hominins!

What a second!

Luskin in Icons Still Standing (2002) tells us:

Of the precious little that is found, the bottom line there are basically 2 types of hominid fossils: those of the genus Homo and those of the genus Australopithecus. Everything of the genus Homo (Homo erectus, habilus [sic], neanderthalis, sapiens, etc.) have skulls and body shapes which are very similar to modern humans–often to the point that they could be within the possible range of modern human genetic variation. Everything else from the genus Australopithecus (from which the famous fossil “Lucy” is derived), looks much more like a chimpanzee (Australopithecus means “southern ape”) There are “robust” forms of Australopithecus which are not very chimp-like, but these also look absolutely nothing like Homo, and evolutionists do not believe they are on the human line.

Luskin in Human Origins and Intelligent Design: Review and Analysis (2004):

Regardless of the preferred categories and hypodigms of paleoanthropologists, H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus differences from Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) are real, but most can generally be explained as microevolutionary effects of “size variation, climatic stress, genetic drift and differential expression of [common] genes,”2 leading paleoanthropologist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer to classify these species together as members of a distinct basic type. Thus, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens are reiterated here as members of a separately designed basic type: Homo (Figure 2). Following Wood and Collard32 and others,55 fossils now classified as H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are probably better classified under the genus Australopithecus. Following Hawks et al., the origin of humans represents rapid and significant genetic changes among hominid populations, reflecting the very, “quantum or discontinuous increase in specified complexity or information”4 stated by Meyer et al. as an indication of origin through design. This seems to satisfy the condition for safely concluding a basic type from fossil evidence: the alleged australopith precursors are very different from the earliest members of Homo, Homo appears suddenly and distinct in the fossil record from any earlier forms, and subsequent forms of Homo are variants of and very similar to the initial forms of Homo.

Homo habilis obviously a human according to Luskin. Homo habilis obviously an ape according to Luskin.

So Nick is right creationists can’t agree with each other on what is human and what is ape. In this case one disagrees with himself. What is happening is that in 2002 he used some previous creationist on what is H. habilis was but by 2004 had discovered that current creationist party line was that H. habilis was an ape often using the “Human Genus” paper by Wood and Collard to justify it.

And since when is Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer a “leading paleoanthropologist”? (That she is one of the few ID people who has published in the peer-reviewed journals is almost certainly why.)

Given the similarities to the Taung child (Australopithecus africanus of South Africa), they missed out on a naming opportunity … they should have been Pebbles and Bam Bam.

Speaking of names, as the topic of “hominin” came up, here is my explanation from Understanding Human Evolution (5th ed., p. 76): Humans belong to the family Hominidae. Traditionally this taxon has been restricted to modern humans and their non-ape fossil ancestors, with the apes belonging to sister taxa, the Hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs) and the Pongidae (great apes). Although it has been the norm for paleoanthropologists to write about “hominid” evolution when referring to the lineages leading to modern humans and their evolutionary cousins, as in previous editions of this text book, taxonomists now use lower-level designations (subfamily and tribe) to categorize living and fossil higher primates. There are two reasons to rearrange our taxonomic designations. The first is that humans, chimps, and gorillas are genetically and morphologically closer to each other than any are to the orangutan. Thus it would make more sense to separate out Pongo (orangutan), the type genus of the Pongidae. However, a second consideration makes it more compelling to divide the taxa into lower-level designations — that is to make our family divisions more consistent with the level of variation and relatedness found among other families of the primates (Delson et al., 2000) Thus the trend among paleoanthropologists is to use the family Hominidae to refer to the great apes and humans, the subfamily Homininae to designate chimps, gorillas, and humans (with the orangutan in the Ponginae), and the tribe Hominini to isolate humans and their fossil ancestors.

I Wrote:

What is happening is

What probably happened…

The fossil is another example of an add homonym argument.

She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain.’ That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized within the chimp family.”

She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a tangerine.’ That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not catagorized within the citrus family.

Realizing that “Lucy” was named for the Beatles’ Lucy (see lysergic), and not for TV’s Lucy (Lucille Ball)–and realizing also that (IIRC) in TV-land, Ricky and Lucy only had a son, “Ltttle Ricky,”–my vote for a “popular” appellation for our newest little ancestral darling would still follow that model to “Little Lucy.”

Or maybe “Li’l Lucille,” with music and lyrics to be supplied by Chuck Berry.

But “Pebbles” would definitely be my runner-up!

Don’t be so hard on Luskin. If it were that easy, a cave man could do it.

Seriously , we apologize —we had no idea you IDers were still around. … .

Henry J:

Maybe where he lives the air is thicker? :)

Where PBH lives, something is definitely thickening the air–whew!

Perhaps emanating from that material piling up ever deeper around him.

Pierce, I might be your man. Most Darwin-tied evolutionists seem to be intent on rebuilding a geocentric universe, apparently by cheering wildly when they rediscover some obfuscating non-evidence such as this one, which merely confirms that which was known before Darwin - there is spectacular potential adaptive capability built into species, without which species wouldn’t last 5 figurative minutes. As for the source of this adaptability or yet the fact that species cannot be classified with certainty from fossils alone, we hear nothing. Whatever is being accoladed or applauded here, it doesn’t have much to do with either empirical observation or the origin of the species. I do have a small section on human history, dating methods and so on at www.creationtheory.com .

Hey Philip, you must be a Christian, so maybe you can answer a question that’s been driving me crazy for years: Could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?

Re “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?”

I dunno how Philip might answer that, but thought I’d point out something - if it gets hot enough to melt, He might have to drink it. Or if hot enough to evaporate, inhale it. :)

Or, if hot enough to plasma-ize it, he might have to silver surf it!

I had a run-in with Dr. Hertwig-Scherer years ago at the annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. She was offended when, in a talk on sexual dimorphism in hominins, I pointed out that the upper range of her estimates of body mass would place A.afarensis on a par with elephant seals in terms of dimorphism – something that would have profound implications for hominin evolution. She wrote me a letter saying she was offended, feeling that I was mocking her. I apologized, and said I did not intend to offend her (I did not). Nevertheless, that *is* what her analysis implied, and my point was that there was a wide range of size estimates, some of which were fairly unlikely. I could not help it if the audience laughed.

The paper that was in question is a legitimate piece of work published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in 1993 (92:17-36). It is not widely cited. Apart from that, I do not recall her name coming up very often in my conversations with other hominid people, and I was actually quite surprised to hear that she is in the Young Earth Creation camp. I believe that her Ph.D. adviser was Bob Martin at Zurich (at the time). Martin is an outstanding primatologist.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 89, byte 89 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Are u damn communists/evolutionists sayin we’re all part of the HOMO (homosexual) species? (snark snark ;)

Hey “Dr Martin”, would you please pick an identifier and then stick with it?

Geez.

Patick, I think you may have come in just about as the bar is closing and what’s left is mostly what I would call the Health and Beauty Department. Could be wrong. See some of the near-above. Quote: COMMON SENSE IS NOT USED IN SCIENCE. Quote: I DID SAY “SCIENTIFICALLY BASED” (Contributor quoted here is telling the world what category of technical publication he patronizes). This second contributor is so swithed on, he knows more than all the Internet’s search engine advizors, who have classified the publication he says is not scientifically based, as, quote, “agreeing with mainstream science”, and have done so for the last five years - from the outset. But at least he is being consistent with the first contributor quoted. Who swears vehemently that human genetics aren’t being gradually de-clarified by such things as cosmic radiation, and on the basis of a puissant puffer fish or something of that order, overthrows what I think most of us understand as a general consensus about such things - the deleterious effects of genetic damage are indeed passing on from one generation to the next. I hope I’m wrong. If any of them actually consulted with the item they claim to be criticizing, they are distinctly low on cognitave skill. And I’m only giving a short overview of the entries an honest man can read, without feeling physically ill. Here’s some questions to the many gentlemen & seekers of knowledge who patronize the site: About a century ago, there were the twin problems of black box radiation and speed of light constancy irrespective of the measurer’s speed. These problems were addressed through the development of quantum theory and relativity theory, respectively. Both require counterintuitive thinking, in at least some sense of that word. At the same time, they are common sense, and fundamentally concur with basic concepts held by Man for thousands of years. How so? Which concepts?

Quantum theory, with its uncertainty principle, opened the door to a new era of informatiomn technology. (A particle that is concurrently a wave cannot be located in terms of its centre of gravity. Quantum particles can in some instances be multiple “objects” whilst concurrently being one “object”. Etc.) Right now, we have the problem of speciation. Species have this spectacular ability to adapt. Yet there are innumerable groupings of (adaptable) organisms that reproduce only “after their kind”. Then again, we can see that it wouldn’t take much to trip one species to transform into another (provided new information was activated from somewhere), and that is what happened in the past - as an aspect of nature. So we have all this remarkable adaptive ability, we have distinct species as genetically self-contained units, we have strong evidence of very close genetic etc. similarity between species, we could turn one species into another if only we could talk the correct information language to it .…… To quote someone who was flood-minded at the time; See where I’m going with this? Well, we don’t Noah exactly just yet, but, ‘ark, we shall know soon enough. Sorry, it’s getting late here. People never jumped the gun about science, did they? We haven’t even begun to dabble our toes in the ocean of quantum information systems and the way they might manifest their outcomes in nature. Any wisdom re. quantum information and the known facts of life would be valued.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the answers. You might get to pick up a few lads and put them to bed. Bless them all.

‘nother question. Do you suppose the puissant puffer fish was in the ‘ark?

Looks a little like Man Coulter. Sorry Selam, didn’t mean to offend.

PatricktheDutch Wrote:

There is a difference between the I.D. movement. And creationists.

A big difference.

I.D. movement is not saying evolution doens’t excist. Creationism is saying that.

I.D. movement is saying, well as shown in biochemistry, there are questions that are impossible to fill in with evolution, so something intellegent has layed at least the verry first steps of life. I.D. officialy says: there could be evolution.

So, there’s no difference.

Creationists and IDers are identical. They all accept that there is some evolution, but that there is some mythical limit beyond which evolution cannot progress. Creationists call them ‘created kinds’ or ‘baramins’, but it doesn’t matter. IDers don’t call them anything, but they nonetheless tacitly accept the same concept.

Evolution up to some vageully defined limit: Good.

Evolution beyond vaguelly defined limit: Clearly impossible despite not a shred of evidence.

Mechanism limiting evolution: None ever proposed, just asserted to exist without any evidence.

The difference between ID and creationism boils down to semantics. IDers use more words to disguise the same old lies.

IDers use more words to disguise the same old lies.

But they do say, in their Wedge Document, that the goal of ID is to “support traditional doctrine of creation”.

Which means all the arm-waving, by both IDers and creation ‘scientists”, that they are different, is pure unadulterated BS.

My eyesight’s going a bit; did someone just write something like, There was cheering and armwaving by ID creationists & scientists when I got a different, pure unadulterated BSc? It sure is getting late.

Hey Heywood, you’re blithering again.

Philip: “the deleterious effects of genetic damage are indeed passing on from one generation to the next”

Yes, mutations, even harmful ones, may pass on. But your claim is that the genome always deteriorates. There is no such observation. See CC CB101 & CB120( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB120.html ).

“Both require counterintuitive thinking, in at least some sense of that word. At the same time, they are common sense,”

Read that again and you will understand why common sense isn’t used in science.

“Right now, we have the problem of speciation.” Speciation and species are fields of work, AFAIK. But see CC CB805 for your specific concern ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html ). You can also take a look at John Wilkins blog where he has discussed the species concept ( http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/ ).

(If you think I’m handing you over to the experts you are right. I have no qualifications to make this correct, nor the patience. But I trust that you will see my points.)

“the ocean of quantum information systems”

Ah, the woo-woo of the quantum!

Since biology so far is about classical systems, we don’t need to concern ourselves with that. Sure, radiation and cell chemistry depend on QM to different degress (what doesn’t?), but in the coarsegraining of body functions and evolution there is so far only classicality observed.

I think the lesson we can learn from PatrickTheDutch and Phillip Bruce Heywood is that if we are unsuccessful in keeping the creationists out of the schools no one will ever make sense again.

RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I R TEH MISSING LINK

euh euh euh before you angry post a comment, read the: black box of Darwin, and come to your own conclusions find answers first, and then you are able to post something about this.

we did read it.

then, after the wave of nausea passed, followed by a fit of rolling on the floor in laughter, we moved on.

so should you.

“infallible omniscience of wikipedia” Is Wikipedia incorrect or not? If it is then it needs to be corrected.

Posted by M.L on September 24, 2006 07:56 PM (e)

RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I R TEH MISSING LINK

No, one of my old college roomates - the one we affectionately named “Lurch” - was the missing link. And I have the photos to prove it.

Sorry folks, it’s just another ape:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]926selam.asp

sorry Peter, it’s just another AIG lie you bit into.

how’s it taste?

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 60, byte 60 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 161, byte 161 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

So if you guys think you know everything, explain to me how birds could evolve from a wingless creature?

Well, it seems Mr. J Ervin can’t be bothered to do any research on his own.

For one thing, we don’t claim to know everything. We leave false pretenses of ultimate knowledge to our opponents.

For another, wings have evolved four times (insects, bats, pterosaurs and birds). Are you asking about a specific case or generically?

For a third, is google too difficult for you to use? I’ll help: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&[…]ion+of+wings

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on September 21, 2006 7:36 AM.

You are here was the previous entry in this blog.

An Excellent Law Review Article on Creationism Law is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter