(find article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cus-sediba) (I hope no one has done this already...)
The writer of the article, Marvin Lubenow, clearly fancies himself as a bit of an expert (although he appears to be in desperate need of a spellchecker), and spends the first few paragraphs prattling on about ‘verification’ (ie. the verification that is required to ensure that a plane is safe, before passengers can fly), which is perhaps somewhat ironic considering his article is on AiG.
Having said that, he goes on to say:
‘It is nothing short of amazing that we do not demand this type of verification for our spiritual safety.’
Surely not! A sensible(ish – not entirely sure what he means by spiritual) sentence! Have the AiG team realised the error of their ways? I decided to give Marvin the benefit of the doubt, and read on.
Mistake.
Sadly, Mr Lubenow chooses ignorance, and follows this sentence with:
‘God seems to be more concerned about our spiritual safety than we are. God verifies! The miracles performed by Jesus and his resurrections of people from the dead were witnessed by thousands of people. In fact, God does extreme verification! He reveals the one area that human will never be able to know: the future. There are hundreds of prophesies [sic] in the Bible that have come true—with great specificity and detail. God, Himself, states that this is how we can know that He is the One and True God (Deuteronomy 18: 21-22). God has done everything possible to verify Himself, His Word, and His work.’
Woah there, Marv! That sure is a lot of assertions. Let’s try and verify some of these claims.
‘God seems to be more concerned about our spiritual safety than we are’
Examples? What is ‘spiritual safety’?
‘The miracles performed by Jesus and his resurrections of people from the dead were witnessed by thousands of people’
Right, which is why there’s so much extra-Biblical evidence for all these miracles… You’d think at least one of the ‘thousands of people’ who apparently witnessed these ‘miracles’ would have written about it at the time, as opposed to say, writing about it decades after the event.
‘He reveals the one area that human will never be able to know: the future. There are hundreds of prophesies [sic] in the Bible that have come true—with great specificity and detail’
And yet Marvin fails to provide examples! Extraordinary claims…
‘God, Himself, states that this is how we can know that He is the One and True God (Deuteronomy 18: 21-22)’
Oh! How silly of me. I should have known that the Bible proves God’s existence without a shadow of a doubt. Let me get this straight, then. The Bible is true, because the Bible says so…makes sense.
Funny, isn’t it, that Marvin finds it appropriate to apply scientific scrutiny to the infinitely more likely theory that human beings evolved from ape-like species, but fails to apply the same method to his unfounded fundamentalist beliefs. How can anybody be fooled by the circular reasoning demonstrated above?
He then goes on to say that:
‘The concept of evolution has not ever been verified and cannot be verified. No one has witnessed the evolution of life from non-life. Nor have they witnessed the evolution of multi-cell life from single-cell life, or the evolution of fishes from invertebrates, or the evolution of amphibians from fishes, or the evolution of reptiles from amphibians, or the evolution of mammals from reptiles, or the evolution of primates from mammals, or the evolution of humans from primates. Nor has anyone witnessed even one of the millions of steps necessary between these major categories.’
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Incredibly, stupendously and ridiculously wrong. These are the claims that fundamentalist ‘role-models’ make to their naive and unsuspecting followers. Sadly, the majority of the followers accept these lies without question.
Evolution has been demonstrated. The fossil record demonstrates it; genetics demonstrates it; thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed articles and studies demonstrate it.
If no one has witnessed ‘even one of the millions of steps necessary’, then what is all this variation that we see in dogs, for example? Humans have shaped thousands of breeds of dogs in just a couple of thousand years; imagine what would happen given billions? Changes can be much more dramatic with artificial selection, and natural selection is a more subtle process, but the concept is the same. No matter how much Creationists try to assert that microevolution and macroevolution are different, and that they can accept microevolution, but not macroevolution, the fact still remains that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Minor changes eventually build up to a point where speciation occurs. It’s a true and demonstrable and logical pathway.
Marvin eventually reaches the point of his article. Australopithecus sediba. He says:
‘The exact nature of these creatures is determined by one’s worldview. If biblical creationism is true, then Au. sediba is just one of the many variant apes created by God. If evolution is true, then there is a problem.’
Actually, no. The exact nature of these creatures is determined by what is true! Scientists don’t pick and choose what qualifies as real science if it doesn’t support their worldview (a technique favoured by Creationists).
They make a hypothesis, and test it to determine whether it can be accepted or rejected. So what is this problem that he raves about?
‘An editor of Science explains: “Our genus Homo is thought to have evolved a little more than 2 million years ago from the earlier hominid Australopithecus. But there are few fossils that provide detailed information on this transition.” The Science editor is much too modest in stating the problem. The problem is not that there are “few fossils that provide detailed information on this transition” [emphasis mine]. The real problem is that there are no fossils that provide detailed information on this transition.’
No, the problem is that there are FEW fossils that provide detailed information on this transition, and the other problem is that Mr Lubenow constantly makes wild assertions without any knowledge of what he’s talking about.
There are some very well preserved fossils, but there are many more that are not well preserved. However, all of these fossils provide supporting evidence that some sort of intermediate between apes and humans existed millions of years ago.
Australopithecus sediba resembles in many ways, a late Australopithecine, but also closely resembles early Homo. After a quick look at it, it seems to have a flatter face and a larger cranial capacity than earlier Australopithecines, but is perhaps not quite as humanlike as early Homo. Marvin kindly demonstrates this fact with a few pictures (including a picture of a gorilla skull and a neanderthal skull – not sure why).
He proceeds with quoting various articles on the subject, and quotes Donald Johanson (discoverer of Lucy) as saying:
‘The transition to Homo continues to be almost totally confusing’.
Correct, but not because of the reason that Lubenow is implying. Because there are so many Australopithecines: it is difficult to determine which ones are actually ancestral to the genus Homo. It is also difficult to know when to place a specimen in ‘Australopithecus’ and when to place a specimen in ‘Homo’, when late Australopithecines are so similar to early Homo specimens. A. sediba looks remarkably like H. habilis. In fact, there is debate whether H. habilis is a member of genus Homo at all, since it is so similar to the later Australopithecines.
Lubenow greatly simplifies and plays down the huge body of evidence that exists to support human evolution, and betrays his ignorance on the subject
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
‘To date, there are no legitimate candidates for this position [of link between Australopithecus and Homo]‘.
Whilst the A. sediba fossils may not actually be ancestral to genus Homo, as they are perhaps too young for this role (according to the current standards of classification), the fact remains that hominid fossils provide undeniable evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like species.
Mr Lubenow seems to think that he’s undermining the whole case for human evolution with his supposed ‘missing link’ between Australopithecus and Homo. The fact is that there isn’t a missing link. As I keep reiterating; late Australopithecines link in quite smoothly with early Homo. The difficulty lies in knowing when to end one category and begin another.
Lubenow uses this opportunity to plug his book, then rants on about verification a bit more. Berger (discoverer of A. sediba) apparently suggests:
‘that earlier, yet undiscovered, members of Au. sediba could be the ancestors of Homo.’
(So now Marvin gives away that his problem with A. sediba is not at all justified, since it becomes evident here that Berger didn't actually claim that A. sediba is ancestral to genus Homo in the first place)
Marvin responds to this quote:
‘How would one go about verifying that fossils not yet discovered are the ancestors of the genus Homo? Berger and his team have raised the concept of non-verification to a new level!’
It’s called a suggestion. He’s not making any grand claims that the ancestors of A. sediba are definitely ancestral to genus Homo. That is a foolish thing to say, and would never make it through the process of peer review. However, if these ideas and suggestions aren’t made in the first place then hypotheses can’t developed and tested. Again, Marvin seems to be confusing the scientific method with the creationist method.
Lubenow continues to try and score points against Berger et al:
‘Berger and his team just condemned their own fossils because their Au. sediba fossils overlap Homo erectus just as the Homo habilis fossils do.’
Again, he lies about what Berger has said about his fossil discoveries, and cannot source a direct quote from Berger claiming that A. sediba is ancestral to genus Homo.
So, just what is A. sediba, asks Mr Lubenow. He claims the cranium looks ‘strikingly like a chimpanzee’, and yet fails to provide a picture of a chimpanzee skull, and merely says that it has been confirmed in his own mind and the readers can find a picture for themselves. Although something tells me that his readers wouldn’t bother, and that he knows that as well.
Anyone who has compared a late Australopithecus skull with a chimpanzee skull will know that Marvin is lying, once again. For a start, late Australopithecus skulls indicate a brain roughly twice the size of an average chimp skull, but just for the record, I have inserted some pictures:
Lubenow then goes on to talk about non-human primates, claiming that all hominid fossils are actually just non-human primates. Right, non-human primates that walked on two legs and looked strangely like humans...:
‘Many have observed that while there are thousands of fossils of humans and their alleged human ancestors, there are relatively few fossils of non-human primates. The reason is quite simple: when a non-human primate fossil is discovered, it is not recognized as such, but is instead claimed to be an evolutionary ancestor of humans.’
Wrong, again. Yet another poorly illustrated point. You're doing well, Marvin.
Firstly, there are also thousands of fossilised remains of non-human primates, but they are not as widely recognised or publicised as people are far more interested in human evolution. Only a few people are interested in other primates. All people are interested in people. Secondly, there are probably very many more fossils of non-human primates, which have not been found as people aren’t looking for them as thoroughly as they are looking for the fossils of human ancestors, for the same reason.
We are now nearing the end of the article, and of course, Marvin has to get in some ridiculous, nonsensical information about his precious Bible:
‘Studies reveal that the biblical word, kind, used ten times in Genesis 1, is a much broader word than the scientific word, species.’
Which studies? No citations here. What is the relevance of this information anyway? Do tell, Marvin. And he does. He concludes his pathetic article in a pathetic manner, true to form:
‘The most parsimonious explanation regarding Australopithecus sediba is that it and Australopithecus africanus are both extinct varieties of the original Genesis ape kind.’
He uses scientific words and pretends to be using the scientific method to try and gain some authority over the subject. Note that he uses and abuses these methods when it works for him, and concludes that the specimens mentioned are varieties of the ‘ape kind’ from Genesis. Yes, that’s right. The well-known ape kind. What, don’t you remember that from the Bible?
So what have we learnt from this article? Well, it is a sloppy piece, made up entirely of quote-mining, creationist insanity and crackpotisms, and just plain lies. He could have tried a little harder. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit. He probably did try hard.
