Posts Tagged ‘museum’

Darwin and the Journey of Evolutionary Theory

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

I recently had the pleasure of attending a lecture by historian of science Dr. Michael Shermer, paleontologist and geologist Dr. Donald Prothero, and biologist Dr. Joel Smith. These men provided insights into the life of Darwin and how evolutionary theory, and the methods by which we study it, have changed since Darwin’s time. I would like to share a bit of my experience and what I learned at this event, but since I am far from a scientist, I must implore the reader to consider any errors herein to be my own misunderstanding (or poor note-taking) and not the errors of these great minds.

Dr. Prothero can speak about as quickly as he can think, and he managed to fit an enormous amount of information into his brief allotted time. Dr. Shermer later quipped that Prothero is the only man he knows “who can fit a three hour lecture into thirty minutes!” Dr. Prothero took us on a frenzied tour of the entire history of evolutionary theory, from Darwin to today. During Darwin’s life and the following years, evolution was widely accepted as fact in the scientific community, but acceptance of Darwin’s method by which it occurred, natural selection, was hard-won. Even after the importance of Mendel’s findings in the field of genetics was realized in the early 20th century, the majority of scientists still did not view natural selection as plausible. George Gaylord Simpson’s book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, began to change this view by demonstrating a consistency between the facts of paleontology and those of natural selection and genetics. However, Simpson believed that genetics alone was sufficient to explain what was observed by paleontologists.

By the late 1950s, there was little controversy or dissent about the methods by which evolution occurred, but in science this is not a good thing; science gets better through being challenged. This challenge came in the 1970s, when the theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought to fruition, demonstrating the inaccuracy of the “Galapagos finch” idea that organisms are infinitely flexible in their ability to adapt, evolving in one gradual, smooth line. Rather, long periods of stability are observed, even during extreme environmental changes. In fact, there was close to no observable response to the largest climate change in the last 65 million years, the Oligocene cooling event. Darwin’s friend, Hugh Falconer, actually warned Darwin that stability of Ice Age Mammoths through glacial cycles was common. The majority of Pleistocene mammals display stasis. Yet, this does not mean that the concept of phyletic gradualism is entirely incorrect. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a form of gradualism, and when huge geological time scales are taken into consideration, the tiny incremental changes from one generation to the next become apparent.

According to Prothero, Neo-Darwinism, and the idea inferred by George Gaylord Simpson that genetics has made paleontology somewhat obsolete, still dominate in classrooms. To paraphrase the late Stephen Jay Gould, ‘A revolution has occurred, but the textbooks don’t show it!’ Neo-Darwinists don’t distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, and geneticists working with fruit flies simply can’t take into account the massive time scales that paleontologists and geologists work with. When “species sorting” is considered to be on a different hierarchical level than individual natural selection, a much more accurate picture can be drawn.

Next up was Dr. Joel Smith, who gave us a peek into systems biology and some of the work he has been doing with genome sequencing, gene expression profiling, and perturbation assays. Systems biologists are able to graph the genes of an organism, knock out or “perturb” one individual gene, and observe the effect. In working with sea urchin embryos, they have been able to synthetically recreate evolutionary change. Sea urchins and sea stars share a common ancestor and at some point, sea stars ceased to develop larval skeletons, while sea urchins did not. By transplanting the regulatory sequences of a sea urchin’s genes into a sea star embryo, they have been able to cause the sea star to develop a larval skeleton. Dr. Smith believes that this method of experimentation may help us draw more general rules for how evolution takes place and help us make predictions about how evolution will occur in the future.

The delightful Dr. Shermer finished up the event, beginning by showing photos from his recent trips to Darwin’s stomping grounds in the Galapagos Islands and England, and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He shared some of the “wisdom” he acquired at the Creation Museum, such as the real age of the earth (4004 B.C. – about the same time the Mesopotamians invented beer), the real reason we have viruses and diseases (The Fall), and the real reason T-Rex had such fearsome and sharp teeth (so that it could crack coconuts!)

In Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, Dr. Shermer visited Darwin’s home and school, and he shared some of Darwin’s life story with us. Darwin’s mother died when he was eight years old and, since his father was very aloof, he was essentially raised by his sisters. Although his father wanted him to follow in his own profession, medicine, Darwin was distressed by the fact that, at that time, surgery was a bloody, screaming affair, without benefit of anesthesia. Darwin had a fairly liberal religious upbringing, and while studying at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became engrossed with many of the then popular works of natural theology, which sought to unite nature with religion. Later in life, Darwin lamented on the “cruel works of nature,” and this observation of cruelty, in addition to the death of his young daughter, led him to disbelief. He adopted the label of “agnostic,” which was a term coined by his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley.

Although it is commonly believed that Darwin discovered the theory of evolution while he was in the Galapagos, he did not begin to put together these ideas until much later, in the years following his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle. In fact, rather than noting the differences in the various tortoises while there, Darwin ate these tortoises on his journey! At that time, it was commonly believed that all truth could be derived from merely thinking about it. Testing and observation were not the norm.

Darwin was a gentleman scholar, but he was also competitive. He had planned to postpone the release of On the Origin of Species until after his death, in part to protect the sensibilities of his evangelical Christian wife, but after he became aware that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached similar conclusions about natural selection, he decided to proceed with the announcement of his findings. His theory was given its first public exposure at the Linnean Society meeting of 1858, and its legacy has endured.

As many of you know, Darwin would have been 200 years old this month, and I can only imagine how awestruck he would be to see the journey his theory has taken. Happy Birthday, Darwin!

-Laura

Hardcore Atheist List

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

I first saw this list on Tangled up in Blue Guy’s blog, but it was originally posted at Friendly Atheist’s blog. I’ve been procrastinating, partially because I had some bones to pick about some of the specific items, but apparently Friendly Atheist has made some edits. Now I’ll try again, with my sometimes extended commentary. If you have a blog, copy the list (the clean list is on FA’s site) and post an answer of your own, bolding the ones you’ve done (or cheating, like I do), and comment below with a link! If you don’t have a blog, or you just don’t want to put this on your blog, do a list in the comments!

How much of an atheist am I? Let’s find out. The challenge is to boldface the ones I’ve done, and elaborate, if I choose.

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
-I’m giving myself half a point on this one. I’ve said the words (over and over), but I haven’t made a video and posted it on the YouTube version of the Blasphemy Challenge. I’ll say it again: fuck the holy spirit.

2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
-Yeah, right.

3. Created an atheist blog.
-You’re lookin at it.

4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
-And the invisible pink unicorn, and the flying teapot, and whatever else gets the message across. Lately, it’s ingesting sand.

5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
-I don’t like the way this one is phrased. I don’t get offended. I will correct someone, but I won’t get offended. I don’t think a real atheist would.

6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
-Well, that would be included in unable to watch anything with that idiot in it.

7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
-To be fair, I don’t know that many Christians. Most are family. I’ll give myself half.

8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
-That, and my atheist hint book. But why bother with paper when you can have the skeptic’s annotated bible?

9. Have come out as an atheist to your family.
-The ones that matter.

10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.

11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.

12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
-This one I’m particularly proud of.

13. Donated money to an atheist organization.

14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
-I will if you send me the $$ to facilitate that. But I’d never limit it to one author. Dawkins is great, but he’s not god. ;)

15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
-Best friend in high school went all Mormon, and I also lost the friendship of about half of my family.

16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.

17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.

18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
-Kinda, but I don’t actually display anything.

19. Attended a protest that involved religion.

20. Attended an atheist conference.

21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.

22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.

23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.

24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.

25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
-I’m having trouble with this one. It sounds extremely shallow and pointless, but perhaps I’m missing something. Why would doing that make me “Hardcore”?

26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
-Actually, I think about this kinda stuff all the time. I am very careful not to scream anything during sex, lest I offend or distract. I’ll give myself half.

27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
-I’d be working for the ACLU right now if that were the case.

28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).

29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.

30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
-I usually say nothing. Why bother, when 90% of the people around me are of the inclination already to do it. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I were in an elevator with just one person, and that person sneezed. God would probably smite the poor bastard.

32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
-Hahah, I like this one. Yes, and no to this one. I’ve refrained from doing so, and I’ve also kept my hands clasped on purpose just to see if people would regard me differently (while I keep my eyes squinty).

33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
-Heh, yep. And radio, too.

34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.

35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
-Yes and no. I’m not really me on anything public. yay. I’ll give me half.

36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).

37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)

38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.

39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
-For this one, I’m also going to count writing a letter to a government representative.

40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
-“New Atheist”? Is that the name of the book, or are you saying “Not a book by Bertrand Russell? And I’ve given a lot of my own “book” away, in a sense. The Atheist Hint Book.

41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
-Yeah, everything that doesn’t say “pro-God” is my pro-atheist garb. Yay.

42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
-Heh, yep. Also, I stood on the stoop outside the other day, during the amazingly freezing weather, just to talk to a few young Mormons (called, oddly enough, “Elders”) for two hours! I even told them straight to their faces that their chances of converting anyone on my block were none to less than none.

43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
-In a sense. I’ll leave it at that, and half it.

44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).

45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
-How about I tell people not to send me Christmas presents?

46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
-In general.

47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
-Well, that, and I like to be mysterious. ;)

48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
-Close to #46.

49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
-Almost every time, except when I’m nodding off.

50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.
-Yeppers. Can’t stand them quasi-religious non-church churches.

Friendly Atheist’s ranking system:

0-10: Impressive, but not too far from agnosticism.
11-20: You are, literally, a “New Atheist.” But you now have something to strive for! Go for the full 50!
21-30: You are an atheist, but babies aren’t running away from you. Yet.
31-40: You are the 5th Horseman! Congratulations!
41-50: PZ Myers will now be taking lessons from you.

Looks like I scored a 30.5.

yay?

StOP

Mormonism Unearthed: Part 2 of 3

Thursday, November 22nd, 2007

Mormons view the Old and New Testaments as divinely inspired and also have additional books in their scriptural canon, i.e., the Book of Mormon (where the term Mormon is derived), the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The vast majority of the content found in these additional books was dictated by Joseph Smith, Jr., and nearly all his teachings had some root in the King James Version of the Bible, or his interpretation of it.1

The historicity of the Book of Mormon has been widely disputed. The consensus among geneticists is that the Native American people descended primarily from north-east Asian stock. However, the Book of Mormon says that the Native American people descended from groups of Semitic people, including Israelites, who emigrated from the Old World by ship. The book also refers to things such as steel, horses, and elephants that are not known to have existed in the New World at the relevant time.

Another point of contention is Smith’s method of translation. Among other artifacts found with the plates, Smith wrote of interpreting devices called the Urim and Thummim. He described them as a pair of stones, fastened to a breastplate joined in a form similar to that of a large pair of spectacles. The Urim and Thummim, or “seer stones,” are what Joseph claims to have used to interpret the writings on the plates.2 Joseph’s first wife, Emma, was the first person to act as his scribe. She later recounted the following to her son Joseph Smith III: “In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”3 David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, gave an address in 1887 in which he stated, “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”4

Given these and other descriptions, it is easy to draw a correlation with Joseph’s early career as a “Glass Looker” who would be hired to locate buried treasure in exchange for fees in various areas of Western New York during the 1820s. To do this, he would place his “peep stone” into a hat and look into it to have the location of the treasure revealed to him. In 1826, he was arrested for this, under the charges of being “a disorderly person and an imposter.”5

In 1835, Smith purchased some Egyptian papyri containing hieroglyphics and four mummies from a traveling exhibition.6 He later translated the papyri in the same method he used with the Book of Mormon. He called it the Book of Abraham and in it recounted the story of Abraham’s early life and of a vision in which God revealed to Abraham much about astronomy, the creation of the world, and the creation of man. It was originally published in 1842 and is now an official book of the Pearl of Great Price.

Although the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, it had not yet been completely deciphered. Translations of the Egyptian language were not widely available until the 1850s, and by this time the original papyri were considered lost. However, in 1966, twenty-two fragments of it were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists confirmed their authenticity and that these documents were in Smith’s possession. This discovery raised some major issues. First, the papyri can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60, which is much too late for Abraham to have written it. Of course, it could be a copy, or a copy of a copy, but that brings us to the second issue. When the text of the book of Abraham is compared with the translations of the original papyri, they are clearly not the same. In fact, they were discovered to be funerary texts containing passages from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which were commonly buried with mummies.7

The LDS Church has given two possible explanations for these contradictions, neither of which are very satisfactory. One explanation given is that Smith might have been translating a different portion of the papyrus rolls, a portion that remains lost. The other explanation given is that we must take into consideration what Joseph meant by the word translation. Receiving revelation through the Urim and Thummin is a much different process than translating a text using the tools of scholarly research.8 I can only concur.

-Laura

  1. Joseph Smith’s Wentworth Letter, 1842 [<]
  2. Joseph Smith-History, Pearl of Great Price [<]
  3. History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols., Independence, Missouri, 1951, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma” [<]
  4. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887 [<]
  5. D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987) [<]
  6. History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 17, p. 236 [<]
  7. Jay M. Todd, “Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered,” Improvement Era, January 1968: 12–13 [<]
  8. Michael D. Rhodes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1988, 51 [<]

Lucy, You Got Some ‘Splainin’ To Do

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

This is the conclusion of my interview with Dirk Van Tuerenhout, Ph.D., Curator of Anthropology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. The first half of the interview is titled I Love Lucy.

Dirk, here’s a question from an associate; he mentions that creationists usually say that none of the other hominin species we know about today have anything to do with humans. According to them, fossils like Lucy are not the remains of a related species, let alone a direct human ancestor, but merely “some ape gone extinct”. So how do scientists arrive at the genealogical trees we all know from biology text books?

This is a question that requires an extensive answer. This question has shades of a favorite creationist line to critique/attack on Darwinian evolution. “Darwin says we all came from monkeys. Can you believe that?!”

Here is what we can say to that:

  • Darwin never said we evolved from monkeys.
  • However, we do share with other apes a common ancestor (ultimately also with monkeys, but much more remotely in time).
  • We are as humans also part of the family of Great Apes.

In order to ascertain what links might exist between us and Lucy, we need to define what constitutes a modern human and then see which traits if any we can find with Lucy. Scientists have identified four traits that define a modern human:

  • Walking upright all the time (a.k.a. habitual bipedalism)
  • Making and using tools (complex tools especially)
  • Having a large brain compared to one’s body size
  • Having the ability to communicate (especially complex communication)

Having these traits make us modern humans human. When, however, do we see these traits appear in the fossil record?

Take Lucy, at 3.18 million years ago. She only had one of these traits: she walked upright all the time. In other words, Lucy, like us, was a habitual bipedal creature. That is a significant trait to have and one that separates her from the other apes (living or extinct), because they did not.

Moreover, and equally important: genetic data help us make that distinction more clear cut as well: based on comparing DNA from modern human beings and that of our closest non-human primate relatives (a complicated way of saying: chimps, gorillas and orangutans) we differ very little with these guys. The genetic difference between us and a chimp is about 1% in our DNA. Scientists have calculated that it may have taken about 7 million years for that 1% difference to accumulate over time.

While this number is certainly subject to revision and further study (nothing is black and white in science, there is a continuous questioning of what we know), based on what we know today we can say this:

  • Lucy is a habitual bipedal creature (we know this because of her hips, hip and knee joints) and so are we.
  • Lucy dates to 3.18 million years ago. This postdates the split between our lineage and that of the other Great Apes by about 3 to 4 million years. So in that regard Lucy also belongs on our side of the tracks.

In other words, both her bones and modern DNA data make Lucy a distant relative of ours and not one of the extinct non-human apes.

So how does one put a family tree together?

Initially the family tree was put together based on observed similarities between organisms. Specifically, this led to the development of a family of Hominoidea, of which we are the only member as this time and the family of the Pongidae in which the chimps, gorillas and orangutans are placed. This classification, or taxonomy, goes back to that devised by Linnaeus. He classified based on what he could see.

Nowadays, we classify also based on genetics. That has resulted in the coning of the term hominin, rather than hominid, in which both humans and chimps are placed together (because they are so closely related genetically), with the gorillas and orangutans left in the remaining niche.

In image form, this is what we are talking about:

The traditional view first, based on observed similarities:

traditional

 

 

 

Here chimp, gorilla and orangutans are categorized together, because they look a lot more like each other and not that much like a human.

The more recent classification next, based on genetic relationships:Recent

How do we know that the various hominin species are related and, more importantly, how do we know in what way they are related to each other?

How do we determine the degree of relatedness among extinct hominins? While it is a human trait to want to see everything classified and neatly placed in a pigeon hole, it is not always possible to do this – at least not right away.We always work from the known toward the unknown. At this stage, when a fossil is found, it is compared against known fossils. “Known” here means that we know where they are from, how old they are and where they are placed in the family tree. A new fossil also has a location where it was found and eventually will also have a date assigned to it. What remains (far from simple) is to determine where your fossil fits in. Again you have to work with the known, or in this case: what did you find? If you have a complete skull, it might be much easier to make this determination than if you have found a foot or wrist bone. You compare morphologies and suggest degrees of similarities (and therefore old fashioned taxonomic relationships – see above) to establish a place in the family tree.

Remember, however: science will continue to subject any finding to future insights which might require revisiting and fine-tuning previous conclusions.

When we want to assign a fossil a spot in the genealogical tree, do we have to rely on inferences from bone morphology alone or are there other means of supporting our model?

Given that most fossils (with the exception of H. sapiens and Neanderthalers) do not have extractable DNA in them, we have to rely on morphology, place of discovery and dates to assign a place on the family tree (or family bush as we are calling it today).

What, on the other hand, would we expect to find under the creationists’ hypothesis?

The way in which this is phrased is too kind to creationism: hypothesis belongs in a scientific framework. Creationism or its “scientific” clone, I.D., does not work with hypotheses – no matter how much they would like to disagree with this. In the end, they already have their conclusion: an intelligent creator, or God made everything and here is the evidence for that line of thinking. Creationists/I.D. people are very good at casting doubts on scientist’s interpretations, producing a prodigious amount of materials everywhere to disseminate this perception that scientists do not really know what they are talking about. In reality what they are picking up on is the debate inherent in science on the manner in which evolution has proceeded in the past, not a discussion about the existence of evolution itself. Small detail with important repercussions.

In order to make the point that creationists do not really work with scientific hypotheses but that they prefer to cast aspersions on other people’s thinking to push their agenda, I refer to a point raised earlier: “creationists say Lucy is not an extinct human ancestor but rather an extinct ape.”

By framing the discussion a priori they have – in their mind – already won the battle. They have effectively removed Lucy from our lineage and so more doubt and scorn can be heaped on any arguments to the contrary. One needs to go back to the very crux of the matter and prove that their assertion of where Lucy belongs is wrong in the first place. Having reconstituted a level playing field, then you can proceed by proving that she is indeed an early human ancestor.

As best as I can tell then, a Creationist could not care less about what these fossils might look like and where they belong. In the end, they all see them as evidence of a creation by a Creator to confuse us or to make us marvel at the creation we live in. This is not a form of logic I can follow, but that seems to be their line.

Dirk Van Tuerenhout leverages his time to provide educational opportunities about the Lucy fossil to museum visitors while also teaching at the University of Houston-Clear Lake during the summer. If you are in the Houston area, I encourage you to visit the Houston Museum of Natural Science, and of course, Lucy.

Further Reading

Lucy Exhibition

Australopithecus Afarensis

PBS Humans: Humankind Evolution

I Love Lucy

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

Upon reading the news that A. Afarensis Lucy was “on tour” with her world premier in Houston, I eagerly awaited the exhibit’s opening. On a beautiful September morning, Mom (me), Dad, and the kids climbed into the car to see this famous 3.2 million-yearLucy-old fossil. We prepared our children with the expectation that Mom and Dad would be “taking a very long time” reviewing the entire exhibit. And we did. The exhibit is incredible.

Dirk Van Tuerenhout, Ph.D., Curator of Anthropology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science is the man behind this news-breaking exhibit. I had the opportunity to interview him, with questions related to Lucy, evolution, and human ancestry.

Dirk, the foremost question on my mind is in regard to the Australopithecus Afarensis “Lucy” exhibit at our local museum in Houston. I have had the unique opportunity to see this fossil. Lucy is the grand finale to the Ethiopia exhibit on display until April 2008 at the museum. I remain impressed by the entire exhibit, and plan on visiting a few more times before April arrives.
If I remember correctly, a section of the Lucy exhibit contains fossils of early hominids, including homo sapiens. There are also educational time-lines present in the exhibit, assisting the visitor in gaining perspective of how very removed we are from 3.2 million years ago. These help trace what we currently know about human evolution.

Have you received criticism from proponents of “Intelligent Design” or those that reject evolution? If so, do the critics engage you in dialogue?

I have received reactions from people who are proponents of Creationism and ID. They come in many formats, ranging from comments left in our guest books, as well as emails sent to the museum. I engage these individuals in a dialogue when possible – none of those who leave comments in our guest books leave a phone number or email. Occasionally I also hear from our docents that ID proponents will come through the exhibit and challenge the docents.

Have you anecdotes of a particularly amusing or volatile conversation?

I have received emails from school groups and teachers who either have been to the exhibit or have heard of it. In the latter case, there was one email from a Christian Academy in Scottsdale, AZ. The questions they raised were: did we share with our visitors the facts that

a. One of Lucy’s knee joints was found 1.5 miles away from the rest of the skeleton and

b. Some of the remaining bones were said to have been found 50 feet down.

I replied asking where these allegations come from – this is always step one: please identify your sources. The answer was vague but informative enough: “books written by creationists.”

I checked in with the website TalkOrigins and very easily found an outline of these allegations and rebuttal materials. Specifically, it amounted to two favorite tactics used by creationist proponents: incorrect representation or conflation of the information at hand. The knee joint turned out to be another knee joint, also belonging to an A. afarensis [but not Lucy], which was found by Johanson in 1973. He never made the claim that it was Lucy’s knee joint, but creationist sources clearly did. What we have here at best is an unintentional conflation of a Lucy knee joint and another A. afarensis knee joint (a Lucy-like joint) and at worst…? The reference to “50 feet down” does not mean that they were digging 50 feet down, although it does imply it, but rather that the archaeologists went up and down the slope over a distance of 50 feet.

I sent this information to the teacher and she was very appreciative of the fact I had sent her an answer. Typically, she indicated, people do not bother (read: the scientific community. I am sure that any creationist source would be bending over backwards to answer promptly and exhaustively). She went on to say that she had printed out the document I had sent and that she would spend a class period on the topic. That is all I can ask for: please take the scientific data and share it with your students.

What are your favorite strategies when having these discussions?

I make it a point to always answer any questions. This needs to be done, because otherwise we run the risk of being accused of not having an answer or being unwilling to respond. I also make sure to stay away from engaging in a discussion regarding religious topics – many emails are replete with Bible quotations – preferring instead to zero in on specific scientific statements. Any statements in this regard tend to suffer from conflation or misquotation and are much easier to refute, point by point. I tend to get answers back that abound with more Bible quotes and very little science. Usually I will reply one or two more times. Then I end the conversation with a polite thanks to the other person.

As I viewed and participated in the exhibit, I wondered: “this history – all that science has shown us of these fossils – is this enough to turn the minds of those that reject evolutionary theory?”

I don’t think that one can change the mind of those who favor creationism. That is not my goal either. What I do want to achieve is to reply to every single email and allegation that comes my way. We cannot afford to not do this, or else we go the way of the dodo in the court of public opinion.

Next week, I will post the remainder of the interview, which will focus on human ancestry.

-Mutha