Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Razib has called me out on the ten assertions about evolution. I've already read his list so we won't be"blindly finding 'common ground.'" It was also kind of hard not turning it into "Ten assertions about paleoanthropology" but here goes (with occasional commentary added...
1) All life forms, including humans, are still evolving - the claim that culture somehow means humans are no longer subject to evolutionary forces irritates the heck out of me.
2) The fossil record demonstrates, unequivicolly, common descent.
3) Morphology is just as good of a tool as molecules for understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth.
4) Natural selection is one of a number of forces that create evolutionary change.
5) Species are real - though hard to define (corollary: people who study species concepts are a trifle odd and eccentric). The species concept is ratherlike the concept of "culture" in that regard, hard to define but we knows it when we sees it.
6) The mode of evolution and the tempo of evolution are completely different phenomena.
7) Mutations are random with respect to the environment in which they occur.
8) Mutations can be neutral with respect to fitness, or even be beneficial.
9) Contrary to the claims of creationists, a number of valid scientific methods exist for determining what happened in the past history of life on earth. We don't actually have to be there to witness it.
10) Most people do not understand punctuated equilibria...
While RPM kept drifting into culture wars stuff, I kept drifting into things specific to paleoanthropology and the list almost turned into a "ten common misperceptions about paleoanthropology" kind of list. A couple of things that didn't make the list but should have were assertions about cladistics and developmental biology...
Comments
9 of these 10 are fine assertions ... although one is that vaguely insulting "you aren't smart enough to understand so just trust me it's true" argument that enrages people who don't want to be big-leagued by scientists.
But that #2 is not an assertion at all ... you make a statement of fact. If this were a real fact we would never get into an argument with anyone about evolution. I have never heard a creationist dispute gravity, for example. I am not an expert in this field so help the rest of us out; when was the missing link discovered that demonstrates, unequivicolly, common descent?
Posted by: Cash | August 15, 2006 11:01 AM
There is no such thing as the "missing link". It is an erroneus concept based on the great chain of being - a concept of little utility in modern evolutionary theory. There are, however, a number of transitional fossils pertaining to primate and human evolution (and in general thousands of fossils that pertain to primate and human evolution). I don't ask that you trust me on that, but I do ask that you educate yourself. You can start with An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy then try Reconstructing Human Origins, Second Edition and then try Paleoanthropology . You might also consider Primate Evolution and this four volume series on the human fossil record and Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, People and Disease
Leaving aside the fact that you are reading way too much on whatever assertion offended you (and perhaps you could be more clear on that), the issue here is knowing what you are talking about. Let me put it to you this way. If I started a discussion about some theological issue pertaining to christianity by saying Luke was our "Lord and Savior", Abraham fought the battle of Jericho and Moses tried to sacrifice his son Isaac you would dismiss me as not knowing what I was talking about, right? You would expect that I have some basic working knowledge of what the bible actually says, before discussing, say, some difficult theological issue, right? You certainly would not take seriously any idea of mine predicated on Luke being the son of god, right? So why should I take seriously theories that display serious misunderstandings about paleoanthropology?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 15, 2006 1:09 PM
Afarensis:
Just to make things absolutely clear, you might just want to post a "10 common misconceptions about paleoanthropology list. Of course, it should be separate from this list, which I am going to link to my Palanthsci e-mail list. But if you did both, people wold have no excuses.
Anne G
Posted by: lagarvelho | August 15, 2006 1:13 PM
Be sure to link to Razibs's post (linked to above) as well so people can see what started the conversation. Palanthsci e-mail list? I'm intrigued, can you tell me more?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 15, 2006 1:35 PM
i believe it is a YAHOO group too (i was signed up when i had time to follow such things).
Posted by: razib | August 15, 2006 2:07 PM
I love #10. Of course, it doesn't apply to me ... does it?
--------------
Posted by: Larry Moran | August 15, 2006 2:38 PM
Afarensis, I am with you in spirit but you don't seem to realize why this doesn't convince more people. "Read these books I like on evolution as proof of why there is evolution" is only setting a home battlefield on which you can easily win. Your Luke analogy is quite elegant except there is only one Bible. There are multiple flavors of evolutionary theory and lots of books for and against. Requiring that someone read a lot of books or get a Ph.D. before they can understand an elementary concept is too elitist to gain acceptance - and you are interesting in convincing people or you wouldn't be writing here, you would be holed up proving evolution. I don't require that people read books or get a Ph.D. in order for me to prove gravity and my mother didn't require a Ph.D. to prove that she can bake a cake. A missing link would do this quite easily and it should be easy to find.
If there is no evolutionary chain required as proof of evolution, then you are using the word evolution but you think it means something else, right?
Posted by: Cash | August 15, 2006 2:43 PM
But what missing link is missing?
When are enough missing links not enough?
Posted by: Blader | August 15, 2006 4:19 PM
As Afarensis said, people require background knowledge to understand evolution. It just so happens that books are the best way to learn about evolution (besides taking classes); listing such ancestors as Afarensis, Africanis, Habilis, and Erectus, does little if you don't understand what those specimens are and where they fit. Ultimately, the knowledge is out there and easily accessible - we cannot be responsible if people don't pursue it.
No, looking at the fossil hominids one can see that there are many different specimens in varying places of transition that ultimately lead to ourselves - as evolution predicts.
However, there is no single specimen exactly between a chimp and a man. Simply put, this is because there are a range of small changes that occur of a wide-range of time.
First, many changes occur below the waist: early specimens have a valgus knee, changed pelvis, foramen magnum on the bottom of the skull, sigmoid spine etc. (specimens begin to walk upright). Later our shoulders, arms, hands, jaw etc. change; while also the brain increases in volume. Many specimen's document these changes, but if you don't study what we know then how can you judge evolution?
Posted by: Eric Irvine | August 15, 2006 4:37 PM
Cash:
Firstly, there are multiple flavours of evolutionary theory, but none of them deny common descent. And none of them are set up in such a way as to suggest that there exists a missing link.
Secondly, you don't have to get PhD to understand evolution. Neither was afarensis suggesting that you do so. He pointed you to a bunch of elementary textbooks, and there are any number of pop science books explaining the theory of evolution (by Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, etc) that are completely accessible to anyone with a grasp of the English language. For that matter, the Origin of Species is completely readable by any layman. The fact that you think there should be a missing link shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, not that you are ignorant of arcane details that only a PhD will expose you to. It is a misunderstanding that is frequently corrected in pop science books on evolution.
Thirdly, you may not need a PhD to prove gravity, but most people have no idea how to prove it, or how it was proved. Gravity, in the sense of a universal law that bodies are attracted to one another by an inverse square law proportional to their masses, actually has a rather involved proof. People don't know why the inverse square law is correct, or why it is universal -- they can't cite the evidence for it; they don't even have a shadow of an idea how Newton proved it. They just blindly accept that it's correct.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 15, 2006 5:04 PM
Cash, I did not say read these books as proof of evolution. I said read these books so you can have the background knowledge necessary to discuss the issue. Like it or not paleoanthropology has a large amount of data that can only be understood by gaining the necessary background knowledge. If we follow your arguement we would limit ourselves to, for example, discussing relativity without recourse to the mathmatical underpinnings. Like it or not, advanced science requires study and mastery of the basics. See here (the bit about knucklewalking) for how one can get into trouble when one doesn't know what one is talking about. Let me give you another example. How can you discuss this paper with someone who does not know what a protein or an amino acid is?
Larry - I don't know, but sometimes I think it applies to Stephen Jay Gould...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 15, 2006 5:35 PM
afarensie says,
Ouch!---------------------
Posted by: Larry Moran | August 16, 2006 2:50 PM
Here's a naive question regarding #4...
To me, the case for common descent is drastically clear. But what is the evidence (a few examples or links please) that natural selection and the other known evolutionary forces are the forces that cause speciation?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2006 6:14 PM
people who study species concepts are a trifle odd and eccentric
I'd be offended if it weren't true...
Posted by: John Wilkins | August 16, 2006 11:02 PM
anonymous - Try Natural Selection in the Wild, Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species and Speciation and references therein, for starters. (Genetics and the Origin of Species is also quite good, though somewhat out of date).
John - I say that about anybody who doesn't study bones...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 17, 2006 12:30 AM
I did my MA surpervised by someone who first made a name for himself writing stuff about species concepts. I must admit, while he isn't particularly odd, he is a little eccentric. Then again, I don't know a single academic who isn't at least a little eccentric.
That said, I personally do find some the arguments about the role of monophyly in taxonomy and the debate regarding naming conventions kind of interesting. Not interesting enough for me to contribute to them, but I do like following the literature.
I don't know what that says about me though.
Posted by: CK Loo | August 17, 2006 1:58 AM
On second thought I think replacing the word "eccentric" each time it appears above with "quirky" might be more accurate.
Posted by: CK Loo | August 17, 2006 2:01 AM
Your Luke analogy is quite elegant except there is only one Bible.
Hah.
Posted by: windy | August 17, 2006 12:28 PM