Evolution is in the eye of the beholder

npetreley · Jul 17, 2002

I don't have time to discuss this, but I couldn't help but post some quotes from this fascinating article about a medical illustrator who was commissioned to create "artist's conceptions" of Lucy, neanderthals, and other so-called "tranisitionals."

This ought to lend some real credibility to all the pretty pictures and plastic/clay models you evolutionists in Barney-land love to post here as "evidence" of evolution.

I'm hoping some disgruntled evolutionist will eventually ask an artist to make textbook illustrations look like we all evovled from the tooth fairy. I can't wait to see those pictures show up here with claims that we creationists are ignorant and uneducated if we don't agree that these transitionals clearly constitute evidence for common ancestry with the tooth fairy. Now if only you can claim the tooth fairy is an invertebrate, you'll finally have some evidence to present from 99.9% of the fossil record.

http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html

"With this Australopithecus I was told to re-create something that was a big "maybe", and then make it look believable." He originally drew this Australopithecus as too human-like for the book's authors. "I was told to make he more ape-like, or more "transitional" in appearance", he said. "I had been given a cast of a skull, and I was shown some drawings the artists had done of "Lucy", and was asked to improve on these to make them look more transitional. I had to make some things up, while keeping the anatomical bones intact, like the temple bone and other features which are standard.

Ron points out that the soft parts of a body, such as lips, nose, skin colour, and hair, are impossible to re-create with certainty from bones. He was asked to alter his picture of "Lucy" to conform with the evolutionary transitional creature which the biology
textbooks authors wanted. "I added more body hair, and did another sketch. "No", they said, "she"s got to have more this and more that." I just kept adding and subtracting until I got what they wanted." Although Ron produced the drawing which the authors and publisher wanted, he did get his own subtle comment into it for fun.

"To give her an "attitude", I had her carrying a big stick. She is looking right out at you, and to me she is saying the same thing as so many modern-day women - "I walk softly and carry a big stick!" The whole evolutionary thing is just like illustrating fiction anyway. It has to be "made up", because there"s no fact to it. He said this is something he wants to emphasize to students in particular. "They can't believe everything they see in textbooks, because it"s not always the truth."

Ron was also asked to re-create a Neanderthal man. He said he had been told that if a Neanderthal was walking down Main Street in a three-piece suit he wouldn't even be noticed. "So that"s the way I started to do the drawing. There's nothing that says it looks like this or it looks like that. As a matter of fact, the drawing I did of Neanderthal man had a pretty good likeness to a fellow who goes to my church. We all remarked, "Wow, he looks like one of our guys.""

Jerry Smith · Jul 17, 2002

I doubt it. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

AtheistArchon · Jul 17, 2002

- Is this supposed to be some kind of ammunition against drawings of changes in fossils?  Like the jawbone we saw recently?

D. Scarlatti · Jul 17, 2002

What's the point of this? Who would expect Ron Ervin to be an expert in a. afarensis reconstruction? That's a multi-disciplinary endeavor. No wonder the scientists were telling him what it should look like, despite his Christian sensibilities being offended. And of course scientists can adduce "soft parts" from the structure of their supporting skeletons. What a ridiculous statement.

Much of Raven and Johnson's Biology can be found here:

Biology

Perhaps petreley can point out the numerous errors. It must be riddled with them.

I wonder if Ron, in his newly minted career as a freelancer, has had any contracts with creationists, happily drawing dinosaurs, koalas, and 350,000 species of beetle boarding the ark. That would be so much more accurate than rendering "soft parts" based on archaeopteryx fossils.

Jerry Smith · Jul 17, 2002

My take on it, from reading Ervin's quotes, is that he was misquoted or is a liar. "...was asked to improve on these to make them look more transitional" - ...

Ha ! Ha ! It just occurred to me who that sounds like! Nick, do you have an alter ego who does free-lance illustrating for a living?!

LiveFreeOrDie · Jul 17, 2002

OOoooo. Those wascawy evowutionists!

I can't bewieve that they would ask an awtist to awter his dwawings to match what paweontowogists think the cweatures wooked wike!

Jerry Smith · Jul 17, 2002

I used to have a Raven & Johnson's (back in the '80s)... I wish I could go back & look at it now.. I'd love to see this illustration Ervin may have drawn for them. I wonder how you can "improve" on australopithecus in order to make it look "more" transitional?

D. Scarlatti · Jul 17, 2002

My question is: Why does petreley put so much faith in the veracity of whatever creationist garbage he manages to dredge up on the internet, but Mayr, Futuyma and Gould et al are automatically lying anti-god conspiracists that have devoted their lives to hoodwinking the American public into unwittingly worshipping the dark lord Satan.

Is it so his empty headed acolytes randman, gunnysgt and Sabbath can drop by and type, "Great post petreley! You are my hero!" and then disappear in a puff of troll smoke?

AtheistArchon · Jul 17, 2002

Is it so his empty headed acolytes randman, gunnysgt and Sabbath can drop by and type, "Great post petreley! You are my hero!" and then disappear in a puff of troll smoke?

- I would say 'Right on, great post, Scarlatti!" but... um...

D. Scarlatti · Jul 17, 2002

Worship me, heathen acolyte!

D. Scarlatti · Jul 17, 2002

*bump*

I would still like my question answered.

How do ignorant deadbeats like Jonathan Sarfati, Ken Ham, and the rest of the cheap liars stalking around AiG and other creationist websites assume intellectual authoritativeness over people that actually study biology, genetics, and paleontology for a living?

D. Scarlatti · Jul 17, 2002

double post

Jerry Smith · Jul 17, 2002

Just a note. I e-mailed Dr's Raven and Johnson to inform them of the accusations being made against them. They may already be aware of it, but on the other hand, they very well may not be.

Morat · Jul 18, 2002

  If they're not American, they probably won't care. Even if they are, they probably won't care. It'd be fun to see AiG sued for libel, though. Given that they make their living off the accuracy of their work....

 

Jerry Smith · Jul 18, 2002

I think it was Creationscience.org not AIG (although AIG also had a blurb?).. Ervin himself, an American, seems to be making most of the accusations, perhaps at the behest of cs.org. Anyway Raven and Johnson are both at Washington University in St. Louis, so they are American too.

I don't know if there is a libel suit in it, but there is definitely the potential for a publicized rejoinder.

Evolution is in the eye of the beholder

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Be alert. We need more lerts.

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Science Officer

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Be alert. We need more lerts.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency