Faithful Ancestors

A weird kind of creature strode across the eastern African landscape from around 4 million to 3 million years ago. Known today by the scientific label Australopithecus afarensis, these ancient ancestors of people may have taken the battle of the sexes in a strange direction, for primates at any rate. True, no one can re-create with certainty the court and spark that led to sexual unions between early hominids. Nothing short of a time machine full of scientifically trained paparazzi could manage that trick.

All is not lost, though. Scientists are looking to fossil remains of A. afarensis to provide, as a prehistoric tabloid would, a revealing exposé of the hominid's intimate tendencies. A statistical analysis 2 years ago indicated that A. afarensis males exhibited only a moderate size advantage over females, rather than the larger difference seen in gorillas. According to Owen Lovejoy and Philip L. Reno, both of Kent (Ohio) State University, who directed that study, the size similarity implies that A. afarensis adults of both sexes favored long-term relationships, which arose as a matter of survival, not morality. Sleeping around just didn't cut it during hominids' start-up era.

That view has generated controversy, which comes as no surprise to the Kent State scientists. They themselves had unabashedly dismissed other researchers' earlier work that depicted A. afarensis males as the considerably larger sex, with the fiercest male fighters monopolizing the mating game.

However, some recent work provides evidence for A. afarensis sex differences that were considerably greater than those in modern people and that approach those in gorillas, according to J. Michael Plavcan of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and his colleagues. They report their analysis in the March Journal of Human Evolution. Large sex differences would indicate a mating style similar to that of modern gorillas.

Lovejoy and Reno, however, stand by their earlier conclusions. "It's entirely possible that much of our sexual physiology and anatomy had already evolved in australopithecines," Lovejoy says. "That set the stage for massive brain growth in our later fossil ancestors."

Anthropologists discovered evidence of A. afarensis, including the partial skeleton dubbed Lucy, in eastern Africa more than 30 years ago. The bones seemed to fall into two size categories. At that time, researchers butted heads over whether these bones represented two species of human ancestors that lived at the same time or one species that included males with big, bulky bodies relative to those of females.

After noting similar shapes of the larger and smaller remains, proponents of the one-species view won out. Using measurements of people's bones in relation to body weight as a reference, investigators then estimated that A. afarensis males weighed an average of 98 pounds, while their female counterparts tipped the scales at only 65 pounds. That's a much greater sex disparity in weight than is found in people today but approaches that measured among gorillas and orangutans.

Many researchers concluded that in Lucy's species, as among gorillas, the toughest males dominated the mating scene. Gorilla males tend to fight among themselves, baring daggerlike canine teeth. Winners do the lion's share of mating with available females, whom the dominant males guard from skulking suitors.

Demonstrating another lifestyle, chimps exhibit virtually no size differences between sexes, but males retain large, fanglike canines, Lovejoy notes. A female typically mates numerous times with several partners during periods of sexual receptivity, which she advertises via temporarily swollen breasts and hindquarters.

According to Lovejoy, though, behaviors of gorillas or chimps can't serve as a model for Lucy and her comrades. In 1981, he proposed that they were descendants of a new kind of primate built for what he calls social monogamy. A. afarensis males blended an upright stance and unusually small, nonthreatening canine teeth. And the female anatomy masked signs of ovulation through features such as permanently enlarged breasts, he says.

Given this species' million-year run of success, Lovejoy theorizes, its males probably obtained food consistently by forming working alliances, mainly among close relatives. Each successful provider thus upped his chances of being accepted as a female's sole mate, the best way to ensure that he would become a dad. From the female perspective, a steady mate would be a good bet not only to bring home food but also to assist in child care.

However, modest size differences between the sexes typically characterize mammals with a penchant for soul mates, rather than the gorillalike pattern that had been proposed.

Ten years after Lovejoy set forth the idea of social monogamy among australopithecines, evidence continued to pile up supporting a substantial size difference between males and females. In 1991, Henry M. McHenry of the University of California, Davis published estimates of large weight disparities.

Lovejoy countered that those calculations used as a reference point the sex differences observed in modern people, which he says probably don't correspond to those of 3-million-year-old hominids. He also pointed out that McHenry's analyses rested on a small number of fossils that covered a time span of at least 500,000 years and were unearthed at sites separated by nearly 500 miles. The specimens could have come from populations showing a variety of unique male-female anatomical contrasts.

Finally, cursed with a scarcity of pelvic remains that could clearly distinguish wider-hipped females from slimmer-hipped males, McHenry simply assumed that big bones came from males and small bones came from females, Lovejoy says.

In 2003, Lovejoy and his coworkers employed a novel statistical method to simulate skeletal-size differences between ancient sexes without trying to gauge their weights. The enterprise hinged on using measurements of Lucy's partial skeleton to estimate sizes of crucial but missing bones for a set of A. afarensis individuals known as the First Family. These fossils, which represent as many as 22 or as few as 5 individuals, were unearthed near the spot where Lucy was found and, like her, date to 3.2 million years ago.

The researchers first measured the width of Lucy's well-preserved femur head, the ball of the upper-leg bone that fits into the hip joint. They then determined the size of various other parts of Lucy's arm and leg bones relative to femur-head width. Lovejoy focused on femur-head size because it's considered a reliable indicator of overall body size.

Next, the scientists measured the First Family arm and leg fossils that corresponded to those for Lucy. Armed with Lucy's skeletal dimensions, the team calculated femur-head sizes. They tagged individuals with big femur heads as male and those with small femur heads as female. In further studies the researchers found that femur-head sizes accurately predict sex and overall body size in people, chimps, and gorillas.

Whether the First Family included two dozen or only a half-dozen members, males exhibited a moderate size advantage over females, close to that observed in people, Lovejoy's team found.

Moderate, humanlike size differences between A. afarensis males and females accompanied both an evolutionary shriveling of males' canine teeth and a shift of sexual physiology away from chimplike ancestors and toward humans, Lovejoy asserts. For instance, he suspects that that's when ovulation became concealed and males evolved physical accommodations to mate regularly rather than for short, intense periods during ovulation. The new-style males produce modest amounts of sperm continuously rather than larger amounts timed to ovulation, as do gorillas.

Australopithecines, as highly mobile creatures locked into a socially complex mating game, lit a fuse of brain expansion that exploded in ensuing Homo species, Lovejoy proposes. Ironically, large brains unleashed cultural evolution, resulting in a plethora of human sexual and mating practices that go far beyond anything Lucy could have imagined, he says.

The Kent State scientists' portrayal of A. afarensis sexes has received some positive reviews. Robert G. Tague, an anthropologist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge calls Lovejoy's method of estimating skeletal-size differences "a promising one" and suspects that Lucy's kind indeed preferred social monogamy.

Lovejoy's findings indicate that early hominids "may have been more humanlike [than apelike] in their basic social behavior," comments Clark S. Larsen, an anthropologist at Ohio State University in Columbus.

But other researchers contend that the accumulated evidence supports striking size differences between A. afarensis sexes. These scientists reject Lovejoy's unconventional approach. To begin with, says Plavcan, the First Family consists mainly of large-bodied males and thus fosters an underestimate of size differences.

Plavcan and his colleagues determined the relationship between various skeletal measures and body mass for 658 people from eight populations in different parts of the world. With those correlations, the team made new calculations of femur-head size and body mass for seven A. afarensis specimens not in the First Family and assigned sex on the basis of size.

This work reveals sex differences considerably greater than those in people and approaching those in gorillas, according to Plavcan's team.

Particularly fierce males in Lucy's species probably monopolized mating, although how they did so without sharp canines remains unclear, Plavcan says.

Mating-minded A. afarensis males, McHenry theorizes, literally took up arms. An upright posture freed their hands for punching, throwing rocks, and other mayhem. The best fighters thus defended their exclusive sexual access to adult females.

It's risky to judge a hominid's body weight by the size of its bones because nutrition and other factors influence the amount of muscle and fat, says Christopher Ruff of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. He discounts Lovejoy's conclusions, arguing that an individual's skeletal size often bears little relationship to body weight.

UC-Davis' McHenry is sticking with his earlier calculation that A. afarensis males were about 50 percent heavier than females. Humanlike size proportions for the sexes evolved much later, around 1.7 million years ago in Homo erectus, McHenry argues. Men today are about 15 percent heavier than women.

Other scientists express a mix of chagrin and disdain at the amount of energy that researchers have expended on trying to separate fossil boys from girls. Investigators need to drop their obsession with the sex of fossils and examine how individual differences in skeletal anatomy arise, contends Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide in Australia. For body weight and many skull measurements, including braincase size and facial width, individuals within each sex usually differ far more from each other than average members of opposite sexes do, he argues.

Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis also derides efforts to identify the sex of ancient bones. Sex assessments always begin with the unjustified assumption that bigger bones must belong to males and smaller ones to females, he says. And the numbers of individual specimens of A. afarensis and other ancient hominid species are too few to generate reliable estimates of male and female size ranges, in his opinion.

Louisiana State's Tague doesn't go that far, but he notes that even the pelvis, the body part regarded as the gold standard for telling apart primate sexes, is surprisingly tough to read. His work shows no consistent pattern of the pelvis being larger in females than in males.

The shape of Lucy's partially preserved pelvis leaves her sexual identity unclear, Tague notes. Her diminutive size led Tague and Lovejoy in a 1998 paper to peg Lucy as female.

Reports on new fossil finds of A. afarensis and even older hominid species are expected soon. Lovejoy plans to factor skeletal data from these discoveries into a larger examination of ancient sex differences.

From Lucy's era to our time, the battle of the sexes appears destined to rage on.

There's a double-standard, but not the one as you suggest. Evolution is backed by an extensive history of multiple lines of evidence. The Genesis account...is written in the Bible. That's about it. It isn't our fault that a literal reading of the Genesis account is contradicted by observed reality, and it isn't our responsibility to "disprove" an assertion not supported by evidence in the first place, yet many Biblical creationists insist that their creation story -- out of all the others -- somehow be given "equal treatment" with evolution despite the total disparity of evidence.

A literal reading of Genesis is refuted by observed reality? Since when is the creation all life on earth an observable event? Origins is just not something that can be observed and replicated.

Why should the Genesis account of creation be accounted special treatment over Darwinism and all the other faith-based explanations for the unobservable? The Genesis account should not get special treatment. As the verse in I Thessalonians states, we are to prove all things. The Bible itself doesn't demand special treatment for itself. But how do you prove the Genesis account? You can't prove it directly no more than you can prove that creation came from a big primordial elephant or that millions and millions of mutations arose out of a can of magic primordial soup. Origin stories are just not amenable to the scientific method no matter what the source. But we can prove if the Bible is true or not from evidence that can be logically evaluated. Is the quality of Biblical teaching the work of charlatans or is it the truth? Is the unity of Biblical teaching arising from a work of many authors merely an accident or is it unified because it is true? Is the large amount of the New Testament devoted to the mundane topic of verification of the word typical of the work of religious fakers?

The question for all claims is whether it true or false by the rules of logic. The relevant question concerning the Bible is whether it is true or false. Once we accept it as truth in that which it is possible to observe and deduce, then we must accept it as truth in describing that which cannot be observed by any mortal man-the beginnings of life. To say that the Genesis account is false in that which is unobservable is to say that the Bible is false. But how can a man who is not willing to examine the evidence in favor of the validity of the Bible be so presumptious to say that he knows that it is false? Blind faith indeed.

A literal reading of Genesis is refuted by observed reality? Since when is the creation all life on earth an observable event? Origins is just not something that can be observed and replicated.

So you're saying that a literal reading of Genesis is not inconsistent with the earth being 4.5 billion years old, with life originating from common ancestry, with evolution in general?

Why should the Genesis account of creation be accounted special treatment over Darwinism and all the other faith-based explanations for the unobservable?

I don't know. You're the one suggesting that biologists work to "disprove" Genesis, even though it's not their job to disprove every religious myth that is at odds with the conclusions of science.

The Genesis account should not get special treatment. As the verse in I Thessalonians states, we are to prove all things. The Bible itself doesn't demand special treatment for itself. But how do you prove the Genesis account? You can't prove it directly no more than you can prove that creation came from a big primordial elephant or that millions and millions of mutations arose out of a can of magic primordial soup.

When people start referencing a "magic primordial soup", you'll have an argument. Until then, please stick to what's actually been concluded, and try to at least pretend to address the evidence put forth for it.

Origin stories are just not amenable to the scientific method no matter what the source.

So you're saying that the scientific method can never be used to draw conclusions about past events?

I take it that you discount forensic science completely.

But we can prove if the Bible is true or not from evidence that can be logically evaluated.

Uh, no. You can only prove individual statements. If some statements in the Bible can be logically evaluated and others can not, then you can only make meaningful conclusions about the truth value of the statements that can be logically evaluated.

Is the quality of Biblical teaching the work of charlatans or is it the truth?

What do you mean by "quality" and how does it relate to truth value?

Is the unity of Biblical teaching arising from a work of many authors merely an accident or is it unified because it is true?

Or maybe it's because it was put together -- with conflicting segments omitted or edited -- by people who wanted to push a specific set of beliefs. Is the large amount of the New Testament devoted to the mundane topic of verification of the word typical of the work of religious fakers?

I can't even understand what you're trying to say here. Not only that, but demonstrating that claims of the New Testament are true would not demonstrate that the claims of Genesis are true.

The question for all claims is whether it true or false by the rules of logic.

And each statement gets its own truth value. You can't demonstrate the validity of Genesis by demonstrating the validity of a different statement.

The relevant question concerning the Bible is whether it is true or false.

What if some parts are true and some parts are false?

Once we accept it as truth in that which it is possible to observe and deduce, then we must accept it as truth in describing that which cannot be observed by any mortal man-the beginnings of life.

Illogical conclusion. The truth value of statement A is not confirmed by demonstrating the truth of statement B when the two statements only share a relationship by being in the same collection of books.

To say that the Genesis account is false in that which is unobservable is to say that the Bible is false.

It is to say that Genesis is false, nothing more. It has no bearing on the truth value of other unrelated statements within the Bible.

But how can a man who is not willing to examine the evidence in favor of the validity of the Bible be so presumptious to say that he knows that it is false?

Because evidence of activity on ancient earth contradicts the claims of Genesis. You want to put Genesis up as a challenge to evolution, then you're going to have to put forth evidence for Genesis. Whining that we can never know what really happened in the past just makes you look like a sore loser when you don't have any evidence of your own. Evidence has been presented for evolution. If you don't like the conclusions, then address the evidence and explain what's wrong with it, stop pretending that we can't ever know anything about the past by studying the present. It's false, and only a moron or a liar claims otherwise.

So you're saying that the scientific method can never be used to draw conclusions about past events?

I take it that you discount forensic science completely.

Forensic science deals with phenomena that occurs in the here and now. Not a one time, never to be repeated event.

I am told that there is evidence for the Darwinist theory. But I just don't see any evidence that cannot be just as easily reconciled to the Genesis account. For instance, why can't Lucy be merely the daughter of other Lucy's and merely the mother of other Lucys until the Lucys died out? A Lucy skeleton is only a snapshot of one particular point in time and not a motion picture of a process.

I do think it is important to look at the Bible as a whole. For instance you throw out Genesis, you throw out Jesus for in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the Genesis account as fact. A lot of people aren't prepared to throw out Jesus and wish to have a foot in both camps. So I maintain if the Bible is only partially true, it is false. I believe the discipline of logic refers to a law of the excluded middle.

What do you mean by "quality" and how does it relate to truth value?

What I meant by quality is whether it was from good men or from fakes and religious hucksters. I maintain that history shows that it was a truth that many were willing to die for and that suggests, but does not prove within itself, that this is valuable teaching. It is another brick on the scales in favor of Biblical truth.

The mention of the space devoted to verification in the New Testament is a reference to the New Testament principle that God does not require men to accept anything without evidence. Mark 16:15-20, Acts 1:8 and Hebrews 2:2-3 are just some of the references to the work of verification of the words of the apostles. I believe that one who studies this will see a highly refined system of logical support for apostolic teaching that is not present in other religious systems in which the prophet says merely "believe me because I come from God" with no account of how his new truth was revealed and verified.

I fear we will not come to agreement. This subject begats rough speech and I appreciate the time you have spent to answer me. I just want to say that I have found the Bible to be a book of a unified logic. The more I study it, the more I find it fits together and the more impressed I become with the wisdom behind it. I think people would be better of to give it a thorough and honest study rather than worrying about fitting scientific evidence to a non-scientific story.

I am told that there is evidence for the Darwinist theory. But I just don't see any evidence that cannot be just as easily reconciled to the Genesis account.

My favorite line of evidence is retroviruses. From what I've understood about it, and experts are sure to correct me on the details, it goes something like this:

When a virus attacks, it will try to include its genome in the victim's DNA. Its goal, of course, is to make the cell produce copies of itself instead of doing its regular job. Sometimes this fails, and while the virus includes genome it might, for example, target a section of the victims DNA that isn't active. We're then left with a cell who does its job, but has viral DNA embedded.

In rare occations this can happen to a gametocyte cell, like an egg or sperm. If this happen, the viral insertion will spread to the organism's offspring. As the insertion doesn't necessarily have a negative effect it can spread across a whole population (neutral drift). Chances of all these things happening are of course extremely low.

Scientists have used this to 'test' the theory of evolution. They argued that species thought to be related to each other should also share these viral insertions (eg. the type of insertion and the placing). What do you think they found? That's right, they match the evolutionary tree.

Of course, this doesn't "prove" evolution (as nothing in science is proven) - it's merely strong evidence for it. It is after all not impossible for each species to get separate insertions that in the end match what we'd expect from evolution. I wouldn't want to calculate the probability of something like that happening though!

A better post, by Ichneumon, on this subject can be found here. It includes some nice graphics too.

"The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) "

Well lets go! In Genesis there are two creation stories : J=Gen 2:4 to 2:23, P= Gen 1:1-2:3. In one, plants are created first, man last. In the other man is created first, woman last, after plants and animals. There are two flood stories, in J Noah takes seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean, but in P Noah takes one pair of each animal. J has Noah sending out three doves at the end, in P he sends out a raven. J=40 days and 40 nights, P has the flood lasting 370 days. This is all in the first book of Moses, Genesis. Why ?? Because J+P were written at different times by different people.

J+E were written in the early period, during the two split kingdoms Judah and Israel. P was written later as a alternative prior to the Babylonian exile. Both had an oral origin mixed with the current religious beliefs of the writer.

I find the history of the Israelies very interesting. But this is not a biological science. It can never be. And creationists do not talk about the origin of their creation stories while claiming it is an alternative so creation is a smokescreen.

"Um, excuse me, but isn't there light visible from objects a LOT more than 3 million light years away? Um, excuse me, but if that light was shining when you were born, don't you think it might be wise to leave "3 million light years away" an open question? "

I addressed that in post 70. The creationist game is a fun child's got-ya game. Nothing can be figured out according to the game rules. Let me re-post my little try at creationist nothing can be figured out logic(post 70):

Well the evolutionists came up with the distance to the stars using circular reasoning, assuming an old universe. But in fact if we go back to when the creator said, 'Let there be light' and multiply a short time times the speed of light we can prove the stars are a few feet way. The distant star theory is just another plot by atheists. It is now common fact (except for those evolutionists) that the stars are orbiting the earth at close range.

Now let's re-write the science books

Well lets go! In Genesis there are two creation stories : J=Gen 2:4 to 2:23, P= Gen 1:1-2:3. In one, plants are created first, man last. In the other man is created first, woman last, after plants and animals. There are two flood stories, in J Noah takes seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean, but in P Noah takes one pair of each animal. J has Noah sending out three doves at the end, in P he sends out a raven. J=40 days and 40 nights, P has the flood lasting 370 days. This is all in the first book of Moses, Genesis. Why ?? Because J+P were written at different times by different people.
J+E were written in the early period, during the two split kingdoms Judah and Israel. P was written later as a alternative prior to the Babylonian exile. Both had an oral origin mixed with the current religious beliefs of the writer.

I find the history of the Israelies very interesting. But this is not a biological science. It can never be. And creationists do not talk about the origin of their creation stories while claiming it is an alternative so creation is a smokescreen.

I see no contradiction in the first two chapters in Genesis. I see the an elaboration, supplementary detail, given in chapter 2. Chapter one gives the order of creation, if we accept that the order is thus established, we know that Genesis 2:19 is not a a statement of order as was plainly laid in chapter one. There is an axiom in hermeneutics that states:

"An assertion of truth necessarily excludes that to which it is essentially opposed and no more."

The statement in Genesis 2:19 excludes any being other than God creating animal life and it excludes any other method, but as to time it only asserts that the formation of these creatures was before this incident.

To apply the documentary theory to this account is ridiculous, because what compiler would put two contradictory stories side by side and at the first of their work at that? This idea not only denies God but charges the ancient Hebrews with gross stupidity toward the level of total insanity.

The documentary theory has no evidence except in the fertile imagination of scholars who start off from the assumption that there is no God. I think these people could spend their time better if they honestly examined the Bible in it's totality instead of manufacturing speculations in their mind.

I see no contradiction in the Noah account either. The general instruction was pairs for all kinds, supplementer by the additional instruction that the number of clean beasts would be seven. The later verse(Genesis 7:9) merely said that the actual entering in was by pairs without reference nor denial of the differing number of pairs of clean beasts.

The rain lasted 40 days. The longer period of time was for the lowering of the water level.

I suppose you see it differently, but I don't see the hint of contradiction or multiple authorship here.

Apparently your knowledge of History is about as good as your knowledge of Evolution.

You said "People too easily become mental slaves to "conventional scientific wisdom". It wasn't too long ago that conventional scientific wisdom stated that the world was flat."

Only if you consider the ancient Greeks to be "too long ago". Heck, according to young earthers that's almost half the age of the universe.

The Alexandrian philosopher Eratosthenes not only knew the world was spherical; he took a measure of its circumference.

It was this measurement that Christopher Columbus argued with; not against the notion that the world was flat. In fact Columbus was wrong, and Eratosthenes made a quite accurate measure.

If one is applying the Scientific method, the model of the flat earth isn't that bad, your only off by less than a foot per mile, that inaccuracy just keeps piling up in the same sloping direction.

More importantly, if your using the Scientific method, one is open to discussing that inaccuracy and willing to entertain other, more accurate, models. Such as the spherical earth. Turns out that the spherical earth theory is also inaccurate; the earth is flatter at one end. So we are now with the "misshapen sphere" model, and it is the most accurate yet.

If one is using the "Creationist method" rather than the Scientific method, one would quote the "four corners of the Earth" part of the Bible and be unwilling to change their model, and burn anyone at the stake who suggested that the Earth was not flat and/or the immovable center of the universe.

Giovanni Bruno, who reminds me of the Italian journalist who was killed by Islamofascist scum whose last words were "Now I show you how an Italian dies!"; was burned for just such an offense. His last words were "Nonetheless IT MOVES!" So does conventional scientific wisdom, and it moves to a more accurate model.

"Um, excuse me, but if that light was shining when you were born, don't you think it might be wise to leave "3 million light years away" an open question? "

No, not an "open question" just a question subject to the scientific method.

"It wasn't all that long ago our forefathers figured out light was not of infinite speed, and even then it took over 53 years of grueling scientific banter to "figure it out." "

Using the scientific method, infinite speed is a good initial model to start out with, and within the accuracy of their measurements. And it took them awhile to arrive at the most accurate measurement because of limitations in creating a vacuum, not bantering.

"Have you lived long enough and observed enough to know for certain that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vacuum?" Preach it if you wish, but don't be surprised if scientific progress, as much as it has slowed down since Charles Darwin, eventually knocks you out of the pulpit."

I know that nothing has been observed to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. And I think I can assume that light in a vacuum travels the speed of light in a vacuum. Scientific progress has not slowed down since Charles Darwin and it continues to advance at an exponential rate. So why don't you go Fester, and then Chug a brew, and then read some basic book on science and the history of science. You'll be a better person for it.

His last words were "Nonetheless IT MOVES!"

I've heard that those were the words supposedly muttered by Galileo, not Bruno, after his heresy confession, as they hauled him off to live under house arrest for the remainder of his life. It's a good story either way.
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. The heresy confession.
Trial of Galileo Galilei in 1633.

As for Eratosthenes, yes, he computed the size of the earth. But before him, it was Aristotle who concluded that it had to be a sphere. This was based on his observations of lunar eclipses, during which the earth's shadow was always a circular disk. From this, he concluded that earth was a sphere, because that's the only geometric shape that always casts a circular shadow.

Before the Greeks, there was no science, so scientists never thought the world was flat. But creationists love to tell it wrong, so they can tell themselves that they're not the only goofballs around. Sorry, but they're wrong. As usual.

I'm late! As usual.

When I used the term observable, I meant a process operating in the here and now that can be seen operating in the here and now. I'm not talking of insects giving rise to generations later to pesticide-resistant insects or the such like. I'm talking about generations of insects eventually giving rise to generations of something else. The original article stated this: "

There is a reason we don't observe change in organisms that is considered above the species level. That reason is the rate of change. I realize that most creationists require a rat to change into a horse within one generation but that does not and can not happen. The rate of change is never quick enough for us to directly observe unless we are the natural in natural selection.

Lest you believe this gives your contention validity, be aware that the evidence compiled by evolutionary scientists comes from a number of different co-verified sources, including disciplines such as geology, geophysics, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology and others. Through intelligence, logic, scientific methodology, hard work and the critical comments of peers, the evidence is correlated, analyzed, tested and verified. From this evidence, a talent humans have in abundance - the ability to extrapolate - , is used to give credence to the ToE. This is no different than any other field of scientific study.

"What a touching display of blind faith in their fable of what happened in the long long ago in the by and by. These people state that this "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. I have as much scientific basis for saying that Lucy was only the ancestor of later generations of Lucys and was only the descendant of earlier generations of Lucys. In fact considering what we observe in the here and now, I think I have more scientific basis because all we observe in the here and now is creatures reproducing their own kind as the Bible states."

To take your statement down to a ridiculously extreme analogy just to make a point, what you are saying is that if you were to come across spore left by some animal, you could not definitively determine which species it came from because you were not a witness to the event. Remember that the point of the analogy is that not directly observing does not negate the validity of forensic analysis.

"But the article stumbled on one bit of truth, the need of a time machine to prove these things. I wish those indroctinated in the Darwinist fairy tale would at least abandon the pretension that they have reason on their side and the believes in the Bible merely operate on "blind faith". When we're talking about something that supposedly happened so long ago and something that happened over such a long time ago we're talking faith at best. Faith being the acceptance of evidence of things unseen to give substance to things hoped for as described in the book of Hebrews."

"Nothing in the world should be accepted blindly.

I agree with this as do all evolutionary scientists. The evidential basis for the ToE is an amalgam comprised from many other sciences and adheres to the scientific standard. The creationist bias is not based on logic but on the desire to prove their own beliefs correct. Their frequent claim of bias and faith in science, and it really is all science, not just evolutionary, is foundless and simply serves to redirect doubt from their own faith to what they consider the greatest threat.

"As I Thessalonians 5:11 states:" "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

"The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) Why can't the typical Darwinist hold their faith to the same standard?"

"Another nice bit of scientific foreknowledge is contained in Leviticus 17 where the principle that the life is in the blood."

ad hoc ergo propter hoc. You are putting the horse before the cart. The observation of death following extensive bleeding preceded the biblical statement. Do you really believe that people would not have realized that losing all our blood kills you?

"Whether you believe Moses wrote that or whether is was written by J, E or double naught, that is pretty impressive. Too bad George Washington's doctors didn't consult that before they bled George toward death. It would not be the last time that learned doctors disdained the Bible."

Two problems with this claim. First - the doctors knew very well that loss of blood leads to death, whether they had read the bible or not. Second - mistakes made in the past are not vindication of claims of incorrectness now. You are attempting to poison the well rather than make convincing arguments for your position.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.