Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

USA TODAY ^ | 8/18/2003 | Tim Friend

[demlosers]

Human body lice appear to owe their origin to the invention of clothing, and the types that reside on our bodies appear to have hitchhiked along as modern humans migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago.

Mark Stoneking and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made the connection between the origin of clothing and the rise of human body lice by checking so-called molecular clocks found in the cells of all living creatures.

[whattajoke]

I just noticed you posted this regarding your quote soup:

"it is incumbent upon you to show how they are out of context"

Huh? What's next, you're gonna tell everyone I beat my wife? In my world, it is incumbent upon he who posts bs not to post bs, period.

You can easily find out plenty (if you cared) about those quotes and the people who said/wrote them. Google.com and skip over the myriad of creationist resources to get to the actual quotes themselves. One word of caution: Ellipses are big Red Flags with these things, and you have one quote (Colin Patterson) which contains 5 of them.

[js1138]

Post 112 is admirable for sticking to the issues and bring up things that need answers. But it is a prime example of the scattergun approach to argument: Bring up so many topics at once that even if some have clear and definitive answers, those answers get lost in the fog. It would help if thery were at least numbered so we could keep track of which have been answered.

I believe someone has already requested some focus on a managable number of issues from you. I suppose your response will depend on whether you want to have a discussion or whether you want to score points.

[DittoJed2]

Theistic evolution leaves the door open for a law giver, but cuts off his legs from the Bible by allegorizing the beginning. Darwinism says we were here by chance random processes. No law giver.

[Dimensio]

You once again insist that Biblical literalism is required for a foundation for morality.

Not every theist is a Christian. Further, not every Christian is of the mindse that the Bible be literally true in every chapter.

However, I've seen that you've invoked Godwin's Law earlier, so further discussion is pointless. You've alredy conceded the argument.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’" — S. J. Gould

I'll respond to this one, by posting what Gould really said, in context:

"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

"I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

"Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

"I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them."

[DittoJed2]

I complied with that approach but it didn't help.

[js1138]

I have a Masters degree in History and a Masters degree in Theology and have studied them as well.

I think you ought to step away from the keyboard for a moment and think about how this sounds (along with your 106% grade in German History) to the vast internet audience that can't verify your age, gender or any other aspect of your existence. Frankly, even if you have published college texts, you still have to demonstrate that your ideas are correct. Better to demonstrate your abilities than to trumpet them.

[DittoJed2]

And my scattergun was the response to Aric's assertion of how solid the evidence was in many different areas of study.

[js1138]

I complied with that approach but it didn't help.

What would your definition of "help" be -- everyone bowing immediately to your superior intellect and erudition? How about having a discussion with someone instead of trying to pummel them?

[DittoJed2]

js, I was responding to Aric's alleged expertise. I don't care how the vast internet audience takes that. It is the truth and establishes that I'm not blowing smoke out my rear when I'm discussing these topics. I have done some study. If Aric hadn't brought it up, I likely wouldn't have either. He's the one trumpeting his expertise, I trumped his, then RWP had to chime in "well I'm a professor". Unless he has spent his entire life studying the Bible, his professorship was a little irrelevant at that point.

[js1138]

Stick around. Folks will get to your list.

[DittoJed2]

No. On the other thread, I brought up 4 subjects to discuss. 1000 posts later, I was still being accused of refusing to follow their demands. Two of the subjects had been partially discussed, as I recall, and two hadn't even been touched. I comply and am still ganged up on and called names. It all gets quite boring.

[js1138]

If Aric hadn't brought it up, I likely wouldn't have either.

Oh please. You started in with your 106 in History within your first dozen posts. I merely ask you to think about how this sounds on the internet.

[DittoJed2]

How about having a discussion with someone instead of trying to pummel them?
WOW!!!!!! You all are so bad! It's like the democrats who go out and do something and then accuse the Republicans of being the ones who do it. I've been trying for, what, 2600 posts to have a discussion with you folks and have been called every name in the book. My intellect has been attacked, I've been called a troll, I've been accused of "spamming". Y'all are acting like babies, start throwing food and then cry to mama that I was throwing food at you. For the record:

A history of my posts on this thread.

Originally pinged by f.Christian regarding ideological principles... Post 20

I respond to f.Christian Post 26 by also referring to ideological principles (incidentally defending evolution against the thought that it spawned communism). I go out of my way to contextualize what I am saying.

post 28 engaged by Right Wing Professor

post 30 respond to RWP

post 31-38, a series of exchanges between myself and js1138, initiated by js1138.

39, balrog666 chimes in.

41-43 exchanged between myself and balrog.

balrog tells me to start my own thread in 45.

46-47, I respond.

51, RWP posts to me again.

52, RWP posts a long post about Martin Luther's antisemitism. A post completely irrelevant to my point (which was actually simple).

53-54, I respond.

55 RWP responds

56, I respond to RWP

57, RWP still harpin' on Luther

58 & 59, I respond.

60 jennyp engages me with something from somebody who believes in geocentrism.

61 jennyp further discusses my earlier post about Hitler's use of Darwin.

65 & 67-I respond.

72 jennyp furthers the discussion.

76, I respond with quotes that prove my point.

77 I respond to an earlier post of Juniors regarding the origins of STDs (doesn't have to do with lice, but I didn't bring it up).

78, Aric comes in with insults against me trying to strongarm jennyp into not posting to me.

79- I respond to Aric.

80 Aric continues his hysterics by peppering me with self-contradictory unsubstantiated assertions and name calling.

83 RWP jumps in and calls me a troll.

85 Junior responds to my post to Aric and attacks biblical literalists while still claiming to believe the Bible.

87 I respond to Aric.

88 I respond to RWP's name calling.

89 Aric promises to put me on IGNORE while hurling more insults.

91 Aric shoots his mouth off again, badmouthing me to RWP.

92, I engage Alamo Girl regarding some behavior I find odd, and regarding an earlier post she made regarding my original posting.

93 I respond to Aric

94 I respond to Junior.

96 & 97 more dialogue between Junior and myself.

98 Aric promises that this is his last post to me.

99 Aric badmouths me to Junior.

100 balrog666 joins in the fray and accuses me of wanting to spit in the face of God. (I at this point lose my breakfast).

102 Aric makes one of the few legitimate insults on the thread. :o)

105 Lurking Libertarian brings up why Christians celebrate the Sabbath.

106 Aric again, need I say more?

107 Junior starts talking about marrying a 7th day adventist (unless she was also a lice, it wasn't exactly relevant to the topic).

108 Aric wonders about why Jewish people don't accept Jesus as Messiah.

110 Alamo Girl answers me.

112 I answer Aric's assertions with evolutionist quotes.

113 answer Lurking Libertarian's Sabbath questions.

114 answer Aric.

115 and called willfully ignorant by Aric

116 I tell him he doesn't want to go there.

117 Post articles by world renouned specialist William Lane Craig on the historicity of the Bible (as well as other pertinent items to Aric's post).

118 Aric responds to my quotes post.

119 Aric throws up his months in Turkey and uses them to support his expertise on the origins of world religions.

120 Aric jumps with glee at the thought of trying to pick apart William Lane Craig's articles.

121 I compare my credentials to his and question his study in Turkey as being a good indicator of making him expert on anything.

122 Think Please asks me where I got the quotes from.

123 I laugh at Aric.

I tell Think Please to check the net (got them from several places).

125 RWP is still talking about non-lice related material.

127 I'm accused of making a whacky claim regarding a S.J. Gould quote and it is inferred that my posts should follow the same standards as a Masters Thesis- sheesh!

128 What A Joke accuses me of posting out of context quotes, but provides not proof they are out of context.

130, RWP calls me a Troll again and uses his professorship as something that supposedly trumps my credentials in my answer to Aric's credentials. Trys to get me to go to a separate thread to discuss a point I wasn't even making.

131 Dimensio engages me regarding how the theory of gravity doesn't make moral claims.

132 I answer RWP by wondering what his point was since I never said that evolution was the sole influence on Nazism.

133 I answer Dimensio by showing where I believe gravitation is different than evolution.

134 -135 I answer Think Please and Whatajoke.

136 BMCDA gives a page with evolutionist quotes.

137 RWP makes a poor attempt at a power play.

138, I respond accordingly.

139 Dimension asks me to show how evolution gets rid of the moral law giver.

141 What a joke responds to me.

The rest you can read for yourself as it is fairly recent to this post.

[DittoJed2]

My Masters degrees were in response to his alleged expertise due to study in Turkey. My 106 final grade at a secular institution was to show I have studied the subject and learned it well. Nothing more.

[js1138]

Boring is having to respond to the same old out of context quotes from Gould and others, year after year. UI will give you a clue as to how to avoid being humiliated by out of context quotes: If you have a statement from a noted scientist that seems to undermine the basis of his science -- check it out first. It will save you the embarrassment of having the full context shoved in your face.

[DittoJed2]

Gould's transitions are examples of micro evolution, not Macro. My original quote of him stands. I never said and explicitly said he retains his evolutionary stance.

[DittoJed2]

Do I look humiliated? Not quite.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”- Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

Would it surprise you to find out that Dr. Patterson says he was misquoted?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Gould's transitions are examples of micro evolution, not Macro.

Gould's examples were, in his own words, of transitions "between larger groups," not mere species. The specific example he gives is the line of transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. Is that what you call "microevolution"?