And They Say We Believe in Silly Things

Way back in 2004, some scientists–I use the word advisedly–trotted out a theory that Homo erectus, formerly known as Java Man, had a really thick skull, much thicker than ours, because the males had a habit of popping each other over the head with clubs. This cartoon-like image was carefully dressed in the most posh scientific language ( http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/0204/0204_feature.html ), but when all’s said and done, it’s still a cartoon.

Working from scanty evidence, if we might be so kind as to call it that, scientists reasoned (if we may call it that) that Mr. Erectus evolved his thick skull because the other guys were beatin’ on him: in their words, a lot of Erectus’ anatomical features “evolved in response to interpersonal violence.”

I can’t tell whether this is bosh or tommyrot. Are they really asking us to imagine untold generations of Alley Oop conking each other on the noggin until thicker skulls “evolve”?

Yeah, yeah, I know, natural selection and all that: the lads with the thin skulls get clubbed out of existence, and only the ones with the thick skulls survive to make bambinos with thick skulls, chips off the old blockhead. Except DNA can be so uncooperative in that regard! It keeps on reproducing the same thing, unless somehow interfered with. But most of those random mutations are either harmful or totally without effect, so the great humanist god, Chance, is called upon to work miracles.

Loaves and fishes, no. Thick skulls from thin skulls, can you gimme halleluia?

Meanwhile it’s 50 degrees outside today on May 15 and there’s a frost warning on for tonight… and you can bet the house that sooner or later some government scientist is going to come along and declare that this has been the warmest May in recorded history, blah-blah-blah…

And they say we Christians believe in silly things.

 

15 comments on “And They Say We Believe in Silly Things

  1. The pseudo-scientists are so desperate to prove evolution vs. creation, that they devote their lives to constructing these absurd positions; not knowing that they are fools as described by the Creator. (Psalm 14 and Romans 1) “You can lead an atheist to the evidence, but you can’t make him think,” (quote from a book title) by Ray Comfort.

  2. You’re so right, Erlene. And all this happened after we crawled up out of the sea onto dry land. We’ve sure come a long way. Scientists are really only pretenders, hoping to hit on something once in awhile that they can point to as ‘fact’. They get paid to do this. Hmmm. . .

  3. Yeah, too bad we can’t all get paid for stories we make up. We could be rich based on how outrageous a scenario we could come up with.

    1. I get paid for the stories I make up. But I’m a long way from being rich. Maybe I don’t make up the right kind of stories.

    2. Your stories are wonderful, Lee, and the best thing – you don’t pretend fantasy is science!

  4. Just like the mainstream media, these pseudo-scientists will say anything to keep their funding flowing; Fortunately, they no longer have much of an audience. Perhaps the evil of these past 8 years is being turned into good, now that most of us are awake.

    1. I tried to link to some posts in that comment, but it didn’t quite work. The references are

      Balzeau, A., 2013. Thickened cranial vault and parasagittal keeling: Correlated traits and autapomorphies of Homo erectus?. Journal of human evolution, 64(6), pp.631-644.

      Cunningham, D.L., 2004. Dragon Bone Hill: An ice‐age saga of Homo erectus. American Journal of Human Biology, 16(6), pp.716-718.

    2. Well, we’ve all had links that didn’t work–that went missing, so to speak. 🙂 Sorry, couldn’t resist that.

      An interesting question which will probably never be answered is, could H. erectus interbreed with Homo sapiens?

    3. Well, we’ve managed to get DNA from half a million years ago; so I wouldn’t be too sure we’ll never get an answer. There was H. erectus around at that time after all.

      Of course, we don’t need direct DNA to answer this question. We already know it was very difficult for us to interbreed with Neanderthals. H. erectus would be even further apart, so would have been even more problematic; if not down right impossible.

    4. Are we sure we “know” it was very difficult for H. sapiens to interbreed with Neanderthals? Not that I have any way of judging its accuracy, but I’ve heard much to the contrary.

      As for H. erectus, consider the skeleton of “Lake Turkana boy.” As a creationist, of course, I’m very skeptical of the dating. But anyone can look at a photo, and I expect the anatomists who put the skeleton together knew what they were doing. Mistakes would be possible, but big mistakes, unlikely.

      Anyhow, from the neck down, it would be hard for a layman to tell this erectus skeleton from sapiens.

      Interesting–always interesting.

    5. Most Neanderthal genes linked to reproduction have been purged from a genome; indicating they were deleterious and would have decreased the fertility of resulting hybrids. The Neanderthal Y chromosome has been lost entirely. That’s how we know it was hard for us to interbreed.

      As for Narikotome boy (or Turkana boy, I do wish people would make up their mind) most of the diagnostic features are in the skull. You’re right about that. However, whilst the postcranium is remarkably modern, it’s not all the way there yet. As such, you can still tell the difference if you look hard enough. Their femur is slightly flatter, there arms slightly straighter, and their bones slightly thicker.

    6. I see by your blog that you believe in evolution. I used to.

      I’m glad to hear the head-thumping theory wasn’t unanimously held. It made quite a splash at the time, though: getting an article published in Natural History usually does. I heard the authors on the radio, too.

      Human prehistory is fascinating, whether one is a creationist or not.

  5. Evidence of evolution?! Check out “12 April 2015 Walking Chaunax” on youtube, at 1:54, the bottom dwelling anglerfish starts walking on his feet, I mean fins, or are they feet? See for yourself.

Leave a Reply