tgamble

this was posted on another message board and can be found on a few creationists websites. Namely, answersingenesis.org and creationists.org

"With this Australopithecus I was told to re-create something that was a big "maybe", and then make it look believable. I was told to make he more ape-like, or more "transitional" in appearance. 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."

Ronald J. Ervin, Medical Illustrator

Since there are med students here and no doubt some professors who teach in med school, I'd like to know just how accurate such accusations are and what exactly they mean. Thanks.

Since the accusations come from groups such as answersingenesis, I consider them highly suspect.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

MrDarwin

I've concluded that many creationists have learned everything they know about evolution by looking at pictures in books and magazines.

Something similar came up with the "walking whales" discussion some time ago. And you know what? It could very well be true, but it's not the big deal that the creationists are making it out to be. It's a bit like criticizing map makers for depicting different countries in different colors, when we all know that those countries are not really those colors!

All reconstructions of extinct organisms are subjective. We have no way of knowing what the living creatures really looked like (especially when it comes to soft parts like skin, or ephemeral qualities like color), so all representations of them as such should be taken with a grain of salt. Scientists understand this; but I suppose the general public doesn't, and creationists sure don't seem to.

The real meat, the real science, is in the things that are actually examined, and in the descriptions written about them, and the conclusions reached about them. Pretty pictures are just that; pretty pictures. Read the descriptions. Read how the scientist reached his or her conclusions. And if you still have a problem, go examined his materials for yourself.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

hezekiah jones

This thread is months old; I recall it vaguely. I don't know if it's of any use or not, but there should be a few laughs in there somewhere, considering the idiot that started it:

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/18630.html" target="_blank">Evolution is in the Eye of the Beholder, by N. Petreley</a>

tgamble

I realize that but the fossils show at least a bit of what they looked like right? So the implication of the accusation is that the artist was told to make the known features more transitional than they actually were.

Perhaps this is a request to revise his drawings to make them more accurate? Maybe he played down the transitional features so that Lucy looked more ape like than she was and was told to revise.

Of course, when drawing a full featured skeleton out of a less than complete skeleton, of course you're gonna have to make stuff up. Preferably on the basis of logical inferance.

It's kinda lends itself to an amuseing scenario.

Evil lying christian persecuting god hateing commie evilutionist: The drawings aren't transitional enough. We need to make the students believe that this ape was actually transitional.

Nobel honest God fearing perfect Christian: You want me to falseify my drawings?

Evil lying christian persecuting god hateing commie evilutionist: YES!

Nobel honest God fearing perfect Christian: I can't do that!

Evil lying christian persecuting god hateing commie evilutionist: If you don't, we'll make sure you never mind work again. Ever! We control everything! All the books, all the media. Mess with us and we'll fuck up your life like you wouldn't believe!

Nobel honest God fearing perfect Christian: Ok ok, I clearly have no choice.

Evil lying christian persecuting god hateing commie evilutionist: Damn right. Make sure you fabricate as many transitional features as possible. Lucy is obviously just a chimp but our goal is to deceive students and lead them away from GOD'S TRUTH! HAIL SATAN!

Valentine Pontifex

Do they have an actual citation for the quote so its context can be checked?

But in any event, it is besides the point. It is not the artist conceptions that makes a fossil transitional. I saw an unreconstructed first generation cast of Lucy in Tempe, AZ last year and its transitional nature seem really obvious to me.

Albion

Has anybody tried to verify this with him? Isn't this the sort of thing that NCSE usually follows up on? (like all those scientists who were being misquoted as saying that they didn't accept evolution after filling in a Discovery Institute questionnaire whose questions had double meanings)

Edited to say - having looked at some of those sites, he's the one who's saying thi sin the first place. Maybe the interesting thing would be to go back to the people who allegedly told him all those things.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

The Lone Ranger

It's entirely possible that the quotation is genuine.

Maybe the medical illustrator in question (consciously or unconsciously) mis-represented the likely look of the living creature. If he himself is/was a Creationist, he might have deliberately de-emphasized features that would have made its transitional status clear to the average viewer.

Cheers,

Michael

Albion

Well, the article makes a big deal of him being a Christian, which probably does mean he's a creationist since it's from one of the evolution-equals-atheism websites. That's why I'd be interested in the publisher's side of this story too.

Jack the Bodiless

...Waaaait a minute...
The standard cretinist position is that Lucy and the other austrlopithecines were "just apes". But this guy was making her look more human than the scientists wanted her to look?

And this shows the hand of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy how, exactly?