Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. IV
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Monkey Business
It’s July in 1925 in a normally quiet town called Dayton, Tennessee. This is southern America, recently ravaged by both the War Between the States, and the Great War. This is the south at a time when women have legally been permitted to cast a vote for less than five years even though, after terrible wars, women outnumber eligible bachelors by nearly three to one. This is Tennessee in the time of temperance; the land famous for “Lynchburg Lemonade” during the Noble Experiment of prohibition. It is a south where segregation is the common practice even though not yet a codified legal practice.
Into this mix of social imbalance, a new debate hotly rages and the echoed shouts and epithets inherit the wind. The fireworks of the Fourth are dim echoes to the fireworks surrounding Dayton that summer. And in the heart of that normally sleepy county seat, the trail of the century is raging in the crowded courthouse.The southern summer broils with humid southern air one could almost wear. The courtroom is packed mostly with ladies — homemakers and shopkeepers and Sherrif’s Deputies and southern belles and debutantes and Sunday School teachers — fanning themselves in their sundresses and tisking their tongues and shaking their heads. For the prosecution, William Jennings Bryan has cited case after case, precedent after precedent, article after article of law — referring to the constitution of the great state of Tennessee and the nation, as well as conclusions set forth by such notables as the very first Supreme Court Justice.
Then, the infamous Clarence Darrow rises slowly to his feet like a gladiator facing his emporer. A tall and muscular man, he literally towers over his slender client, a somewhat nerdy little milquetoast school teacher who wears a bowtie when men simply no longer wear bowties, and affects rounded wire-frame spectacles that make his eyes look just plain enormous, approximately the size of his protruding Adam’s apple, behind the lenses. Scopes looks more like an albino amphibian than a man. He looks clammy and sickly. He looks every inch the wrongfully persecuted underdog — just as Darrow intended.
This is the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. It is a name that is both ironic and somewhat prescient because there was certainly some monkey business afoot in Dayton that summer.
Clarence Darrow affects a somewhat constipated look. He shakes his head as if pitying the sad ignorance of the prosecution. When he speaks, his trained voice, bass and rich and with perfect elocution, takes on a gentle timbre, as if he is on the very verge of bursting into a song, or possibly a sermon. For the record, he says, “We have only to look to the cavemen to know that man evolved from apes.”
Darrow refers back to the previous testimony of Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist who had recently and openly ridiculed William Jennings Bryan in the press, declaring that the miraculous Nebraska Man fossil find was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” and that it spoke “volumes of truth” about man’s evolutionary origin from apes. These barbs were particularly pointed since Bryan was originally from Nebraska. The jury and everyone in the gallery “gets” this reference. This is Tennessee in 1925. There are no televisions. All news is absorbed from newspapers and nearly everyone reads the papers. They even read the special “Extra!” editions that are routinely printed during the course of the trail.
In the courtroom, and for the record, Darrow vaguely cites the Neanderthal, Nebraska Man, and the indisputable Java Man.
Neanderthal, Java Man, Nebraska Man — and to that list we can add Piltdown Man, Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man, Taung African Man, Peking Man, Flipperpithecus, Orce Man, Nutcracker Man, Skull 1470, and Lucy the magic Australopithecine.
All are or were cited as “evidence” that man descended from monkeys and all of them bear one thing in common — FRAUD.
You read that correctly. The astonishing truth is that there is absolutely no real evidence that man descended from monkeys. Has anyone ever told you that? Every single one of these famous missing links and/or so called early apemen rely on outright fraud, deliberate misdirection, or baseless assumption at best. Think I am dead wrong? Then I challenge you to read on.
Nebraska Man
Nebraska was rather dull in 1922. One could look forward to days of the cattle lowing, the corntops blowing, and the smell of an aweful lot of manure.
In March 1922, rancher and layman hobby geologist Harold Cook allegedly submitted a single tooth to world traveler Henry Fairfield Osborn, then President of the American Museum of Natural History, stating that it might well be the first ever discovered caveman tooth in North America. Supposedly, Cook had stumbled upon the tooth in the dirt of his northwestern Nebraska ranch five years earlier in 1917 and only recently and very suddenly realized its scientific importance.
Osborn allegedly received the tooth on March 14, 1922. In a letter to Cook, he wrote, “I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: ‘It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid’.” Just one month later, Osborn announced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the “first anthropoid apeman from America.”
And that tooth, that amazing magical tooth, was named “Nebraska Man!”
Based on that one tooth, artist Amedee Forestier was commissioned by the Illustrated London News and instructed to create his “impression” of what the prehistoric figure whose jaw originally held this tooth must have looked like. He did so. In fact, he created, from just one single tooth, a picture of “Nebraska Cave MAN” and “Nebraska Cave WOMAN” and even some “Nebraska Cave CHILDREN.” Dear readers, that is dental forensics on a scale that modern orthodontists can only dream of one day achieving!
That Nebraska Tooth Fairy portrait circled the world. Everyone who saw it was amazed. Grafton Elliot Smith, one of the principles involved in publicizing “Nebraska Man” was even knighted by the King of England for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, 1922)
The tooth became known at that time as the “Apeman of the Western World.” Darwinist revisionists have since shortened this description to “Ape of the Western World” in an attempt to also minimize the depth of the attempted fraud. Smith made casts of the tooth and sent them to 26 institutions of higher learning throughout America and Europe along with a “scientific” paper about the so-called primate tooth and, interestingly, he also included reproductions of the Forestier drawing.
Nebraska Man’s picture, and his family portraits, were even referred to in an apocryphal way as evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Henry F. Osborn declared that the Nebraska Man tooth was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” speaking “volumes of truth” (H. F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103). At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after long and careful study, the Nebraska Man tooth was “definitely” from a species “closer to man than to the ape” (Science 55, May 5, 1922, p. 464).
All that from just ONE tooth. Amazing. Unbelievable. Incredible, even.
“… I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), …Until we secure more of the dentition [than this single tooth], or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae.”
Osborn 1922
Turns out the tooth belonged to a dead PIG.
For many years after the Nebraska Man pig-tooth fraud was fully uncovered in 1928, Darwinists continued to claim that — even though it wasn’t a so-called “primate” tooth — it was still a tooth from an “extinct prehistoric pig” which must have evolved into modern pigs.
In 1972, living pigs of the very same species were identified, alive and well, in Paraguay. You know. In South America. Paraguay. Where Sir Grafton Elliot Smith just happened to have recently visited before finding himself surrounded by corn, and cattle, and manure in the heartland of these United States.
Keep the beknighted name of Sir Grafton Elliot Smith in mind in the coming weeks. You’ll be amazed where that name might pop up again.
Fabricating an entire family of “cave people” from a single tooth? Claiming a pig tooth was from men, or from apes, or some other primate instead of a pig? Claiming the pig who originally owned the tooth was from a long extinct species of pig?
Fraud. Covered up by lies and followed up by more FRAUD.
Modern Darwinists do their best to minimize this episode in the fraudulent past of the evolution argument, but their arguments ring hollow in the face of the facts.
The Truth
The truth is that we are all one blood, all nations of men. We were placed here not as a mathematically impossible random act, but as an act of will. We serve a purpose. We are not animals. Our ancestors were not animals. As the Psalmist said, we are one step below Elohim. Created beings possessing of minds and emotions and eternal spirits.
If Darwinists were so obviously right, why all the Pious Fraud? Why ANY fraud at all? Why not let facts lead to unavoidable conclusions? Why add lies, misdirection, obfuscation, mendacity, fraud, and fabrication to the argument? Why is that necessary? What is the meaning of that? What do you suppose the intent, is?
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources: Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
Hi Gregg,
.
I don’t know where you got your description of the trial from, but it differs from everything I can find on it. My sources tell me that Scopes never testified in the trial since there was never a question as to whether he taught evolution. It also seems that Osborn did not testify in the trial, precisely because he had been caught out over Nebraska man. So it’s your sources against mine. Who’s sources are more reliable? To get to the bottom of this, we either have to go to the trial transcript or something close to it.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
I don’t see the fraud here.
.
.
About Cook, you said this:
” Supposedly, Cook had stumbled upon the tooth in the dirt of his northwestern Nebraska ranch five years earlier in 1917 and only recently and very suddenly realized its scientific importance.”
I think you are implying that this is not what actually happened.
However this is what Cook wrote to Osborn:
“I have had here, for some little time, a molar tooth from the Upper, or Hipparion phase of the Snake Creek beds, that very closely approaches the human type. It was found associated with the other typical fossils of the Snake Creek, and is mineralized in the same fashion as they are. I sent a brief description of this to Professor Loomis a short time before the Amherst meeting of this year, with a request that it be read at that time, if opportunity offered. The manuscript was returned to me here immediately after the meetings, but with no notation as to whether it ‘was read or not, or presented at that time in any fashion. Inasmuch as you are particularly interested in this problem and, in collaboration with Dr. Gregory and others, are in the best position of anyone to accurately determine the relationships of this tooth, if it can be done, I will be glad to send it on to you, should you care to examine and study it. Whatever it is, it is certainly a contemporary ‘fossil .of the Upper Snake Creek horizon, and it agrees far more closely with the anthropoid human molar, than that of any other mammal known.”
If Cook sent an account of the finding to Loomis earlier, it sounds to me as if he did not “very suddenly” realize its importance. Perhaps he had waited before sending it on to Osborn in hopes of finding more fossils of the same type.
.
.
Osborn and others looked at the tootth and thought it looked similar to a human or primate tooth. It was a new and unexpected finding so Osborn was excited. Should he have waited before giving it a name? Probably, although I don’t know what the normal procedure was for naming fossils at the time. Should he have waited for more fossils before he published about this one tooth? Maybe, but with what seemed like a very rare fossil, he could not count on finding another one of the same type, especially since Cook had not found others in the time since he found the tooth. However this is not fraud. He was reporting his honest opinions. What he said was this:
“The author agrees with Mr. Cook, with Dr. Hellman, and with Dr.Gregory, that it resembles the human type more closely than it does any known anthropoid ape type; consequently it would be misleading to speak of this Hesperopithecus at present as an anthropoid ape; it is a new and independent type, of Primate, and we must seek more material before we can determine its relationships.”
.
.
You yourself quoted that the newspaper article said that Forestier made a drawing not of anything to do with the tootth, but from an imagined idea of what a creature looking somewhat more ape-like than a human might have looked like. He used about the Java man for the picture. This was an article in the public press, not a scientific communication. This is not fraud – it openly said it was based on imagination.
Further, it was in a London newspaper. Do you have any reason to think it was published anywhere else at the time? If Smith sent copies to universities in the US etc, what happened to them? Do you actually know that they were reprinted anywhere? A number of creationist-supporting sites show this picture, as if it had some kind of huge effect. I have not seen anything about the picture being published anywhere else at the time except for that one day in a London paper. If that was the only time and place it was printed, how did it influence people in the US? I think your derision is misplaced.
As an example of making an artistic display of something for which there is no evidence, what about the Creation Museum in Kentucky which has dioramas showing people and dinosaurs living together?
.
.
You said this:
” At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after long and careful study, the Nebraska Man tooth was “definitely” from a species “closer to man than to the ape” (Science 55, May 5, 1922, p. 464).”
.
I am trying to read up on the Scopes trial and it sounds like there were NO tooth specialists who gave evidence at the trial; almost no scientific evidence was presented at all. And the Science article was of course not a reference for that since it was printed severl years before the Scopes trial. I think this sentence is bogus.
.
(And how do you even know that “Darrow affects a somewhat constipated look”? What’s your source for that?)
.
…..
You said this:
“For many years after the Nebraska Man pig-tooth fraud was fully uncovered in 1928, Darwinists continued to claim that — even though it wasn’t a so-called “primate” tooth – it was still a tooth from an “extinct prehistoric pig” which must have evolved into modern pigin 1927 s.
.
In 1972, living pigs of the very same species were identified, alive and well, in Paraguay. You know. In South America. Paraguay. Where Sir Grafton Elliot Smith just happened to have recently visited before finding himself surrounded by corn, and cattle, and manure in the heartland of these United States.”
.
.
First, you slid over the fact that it was reported that the tooth was from an extinct peccary in 1927 ONLY FIVE YEARS after the first Science article . During those five years there were two other reports published on the tooth, saying that other options had been considered, one possibility that it moght have been a bear’s tooth, but that had been rejected. So during those five years, people continued to evaluate the tooth, and continued to think that other options were possible besides that of a primate close to humans. It was also considered that the tooth might have come from an animal closer to a monkey. These articles were not at all saying that this tooth ‘definitely’ came from a human ancestor.
And in five years, more fossils were found that made it clear that the tooth was from a peccary. By 1927, the whole idea was over. This idea lasted five years during which time it continued to be evaluated by scientists, and when more fossils were found that showed Osborn’s identification had been incorrect, it was reported in Science, Nature, and the NY Times. That was 83 years ago.
Perhaps you could explain why you see this as a fraud? And maybe you could be precise in explaining why you think it is worth repeating yet again, if it was not fraud? I think you could legitimately say that it is a reminder to take new fossil discoveries with a grain of salt if they make large claims based on very incomplete amounts of materials. I suppose it could also be a reminder to read critically any splashy stories in the public press. Other than that, science worked the way it should. And nothing in this story detracts from the idea of evolution, nor from the idea that humans are primates with primate (and mammalian) ancestors. If you want to talk more about that, you might respond to Neil’s comment about the pseudogenes for an enzyme used to make vitamin C in the genomes of humans and other primates.
.
The tooth was found to be from a peccary. Apparently it was so worn down that it was similar in appearance to a human tooth. This is not the only case where a peccary tooth was originally thought to be something else – another peccary tooth was originally labelled as belonging to a whale. In that case too, the tooth was eventually correctly identified.
.
I have looked and I’m not finding any source for your statement that it was from the same species as a living species of peccaries.There was a new type of peccary discovered in Paraguay in 1972. It has a different taxonomic name from the fossil peccary found in Nebraska. It does not have the same species or genus name. I hope you will post your source for that idea. As far as I can tell, the fossil tooth was from an extinct species. I think you need to support this claim.
.
I think you imply in that paragraph that Cook did not find the tooth at all in Nebraska, but that Smith brought him a tooth from Paraguay. Are you imagining a fossil tooth or a tooth from that recently discovered species of peccary? You are implying this – maybe you should say up front what you imagine, because the idea makes no sense to me.
One reason it makes no sense is that I can’t imagine why you would think Smith would have a motivation to do that.
Another reason is that fossil peccary remains of this type WERE found in Nebraska – and also in Maryland and other places in the east. I think you have no basis for this paranoid implication except to claim fraud. If you have some basis for this, I wish you would post it up front.
I never said Scopes, himself, testified. He did not.
.
Also, I see where I was a bit unclear on Osborn who also did not testify. In court, Darrow referred to Osborn’s nearly constant (at the time) hounding of Bryan in the PRESS. He referred to the enormous amounts of media coverage, interviews, and reports of the day that paralleled the trail.
.
Try this experiment for the next week. Turn on your TV radar. Any time someone you speak with makes a reference that you would only understand if you had seen a popular TV show, make a note of it. See how often people do so throughout a single week.
.
That same kind of total absorption describes the “average” American’s newspaper addiction during the Scopes trail.
As always, HD, thanks for your opinions. I appreciate your remarks although I have no idea why it is so important to you to defend what are, in my opinion, fairly indefensible and deliberately fraudulent actions.
Well, it’s not important, just an interesting puzzle. I always learn things.
.
It seems to me that you would want to confirm that things you post are accurate, and the things you imply are reasonable. I think there’s a lot of innuendo in your post that is lacking any basis.
And I still don’t see why you think this was a fraud. Maybe we are using the word in different ways.
(I might not comment on the next few posts though – not the most interesting topic to me.)
Hi Gregg,
.
Sorry, I misread your post.
.
Anyway, I’d appreciate it if you could respond to my vitamin C post if you have the time.
.
May peace be with you, Neil.
Hi Gregg,
.
I’m not sure why you still think that the actions were deliberately fraudulent given what hd wrote. Where is the fraud in a picture which is openly said to be imagination?
.
May peace be with you, Neil.
Neil,
.
I would honestly like to respond but I honestly do NOT have time at the moment. I will be traveling home soon for a month during which I must also perform some military duty. However, I should some time then.
.
What I will discuss is the so-called “mitochondrial Eve” and how a DNA bottleneck could shed some light on things as well.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
I understand about you not having time. While it might be interesting to hear what you have to say on “mitochondrial Eve”, I’m concerned that it might not address the points I made about vitamin C because the pseudo-gene for vitamin C is in the nuclear DNA, not the mitochondrial DNA. It sounds like you want to introduce your own evidence rather than talk about the evidence which I’ve already introduced. If we both do that then we’ll end up getting nowhere. I don’t know if that’s what you intend to do, but can you at least say whether you think the vitamin C research was following the scientific method and if not how it failed to do that.
.
Maybe my hunch is wrong and “mitochondrial Eve” does have some direct relevance to the vitamin C research, in which case I apologize.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.