Luke asked:

Please email me your response if possible. I don’t want to categorize myself as a evolutionist or creationist. I was visiting the other website I think it was creationist or similar, your guys arch enemies; anyways I was trying to find proof to support modern man evolving from ape, and they had an extensive article written about the human knee and how it has sixteen parts and minus just one and its useless. Apes have non locking knees and because of their makeup you aparently can’t evolve it into a locking one you have to start from scratch. Evolution and mutations from what I’ve read only allow for small changes no mutation can allow for the formation of a complex organism with sixteen moving parts? The knee would have to be built all at once it couldn’t evolve or it would have no use. How do you suggest that apes dumped their knees and immediately mutated new ones with sixteen brand new parts? I would like to believe it could happen just seems far fetched?

This argument originates from an article (Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint) published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999) by a British engineer named Stuart Burgess.

From my reading of the article it seems to be highly flawed, especially in its almost total lack of discussion on the comparative anatomies of living non-human apes (gorillas & chimps etc.), extinct hominins (australopithecines, early Homo) and modern humans. This lack of attention to comparative anatomy (and physiology) is typical of anti-evolutionists and it leads them to continually talk about the anatomy/physiology of various organisms as if they exist in a vacuum (examples: The woodpecker or The bombardier beetle). They focus on some extreme example of organ or system in a particular species as if it is totally unique to that species. The fact is that when one looks at other closely related species one usually finds that there are variations on the extreme example that the anti-evolutionists have focused upon.

For instance the bombardier beetle that anti-evolutionists often cite is just one species of a whole group of beetles (“Ground beetles”, Family Carabidae) many of which have some variation on a chemical defense mechanism, using the same basic chemicals (which exist in many beetles in varying amounts), but used in differing ways. The specific example that anti-evolutionists cite sprays an explosive mixture out of its abdomen in a fairly well aimed stream at its attackers, however there are other Carabid beetles that spray with less accurate aim, and others that merely excrete bad tasting chemicals out of their abdomens when attacked. There is a whole spectrum from fairly simple to fairly complex defense mechanisms. Anti-evolutionists only talk about the more complex variant.

This discussion of the human knee is another example of this sort of argument in a vacuum.

While I am not an expert in the comparative anatomies of the living non-human apes and humans, as far as I am aware there is no material difference between them. That is, every bone, muscle, ligament, tendon, and cartilage in the human knee has its corresponding representative in the knee of chimpanzees and the other great apes (and presumably in the knee of their concestor). Yes they are shaped somewhat differently. Yes they are proportioned differently. But as far as I know all the same parts are there (if there are any primatologists or physical anthropologists out there, please correct me if I am wrong).

As for fossil hominins, the knees of more derived types like Homo erectus (which are either “fully human” or “just apes” depending on what anti-evolutionist you talk to) seem to be virtually identical to those of H. sapiens. As for the knees of the more basal species of Homo (H. habilis) and the australopithecines these become increasingly like those of living non-human apes the farther back in time one goes. Exactly the sort of thing one would predict if humans evolved from an “ape-like” ancestor. The knee of Australopithecus afarensis (which most anti-evolutionists say is “just an ape”) retains a number of “ape-like” features but also has characteristics like those of later hominins including H. sapiens. In other words it is an intermediate form in this regard.

The knee bones of a modern human, an australopithecine and a chimpanzee.

See The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor for more comparative photos, or refer to any good text on human evolution for comparative illustrations.

Burgess does mention living apes briefly but only to dismiss them as being poor bipedal walkers. However this is a problem for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), at least as I understand Michael Behe‘s (the person responsible for the recent popularity of this term) definition of the term, in that while the knees of living non-human apes are slightly different in form, and are not as efficient for use in bipedal walking as those of humans, they do work, and they can walk bipedally.

Note: please remember that evolutionary theory does not postulate that humans are descended from other living apes, like chimps or bonobos, rather we share a common (ape) ancestor with those species.

So, assuming that knee joints of the ancestor of later hominins was essentially the same as those of the living non-human apes and could, like them, walk in a bipedal manner at all, then it would be possible for there to be a selective advantage for any slight modifications in their descendants which lead towards an increase in efficiency of bipedalism.

The human knee seems to me to be a poor example of an IC structure.

Some of Burgess’ other arguments just seem nonsensical to me. For example he states:

The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans – the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint. (Burgess, 1999)

I fail to understand Mr. Burgess’ challenge here. Knee joints did not evolve from elbow, shoulder, or hip joints. Rather knee joints have been knee joints since their origin in the first tetrapods. The same applies to the other types of joints. So why would we expect to find “intermediate forms” between them? That Burgess even posses this as a supposed problem for evolution demonstrates a significant lack of understanding about evolutionary theory and the fossil record.

Ichthyostega; an early tetrapod and its hind leg bones. Its “knee” was the joint between the femur and the tibia and fibula.

It is a curious thing that Behe’s principle of IC as an argument for design turns the traditional argument from design on its head. It used to be argued that those features of organisms that seem perfectly sculpted to suit their needs, or seem well designed from an engineering point was evidence for design. Now, under Behe’s IC principle of design, it doesn’t matter how clunky, ungainly, and poorly designed from an engineering point of view something is, it only matters that it is supposedly irreducibly complex.

Apparently the “Designer” under this new design “theory” is a (supernatural) cosmic Rube Goldberg.

Related Links

• Lucy’s Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists’ Willingness to Admit their Errors by Jim Lippard

Here are a few of the new people:

Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists who was famously challenged by Bill O’Reilly to explain how every day the tides go in and go out with “never a miscommunication”.

Aron Ra, a very popular YouTube anti-creationist and veteran of the talk.origins newsgroup. I had three people think I was him, before he arrived, though I’m not sure why. Considering how many things we share in common, it is somewhat surprising it took this long for us to run into each other.

And last but actually First the Lord Himself…

Mr. Deity, AKA “El“, AKA the very funny Brian Keith Dalton. If you don’t know who Mr. Deity is, go right now to his YouTube channel and start with episode one. See also the official Mr. Deity website.

The end of the conference came late Sunday afternoon just as a partial solar eclipse started and the organizers had two telescopes set up with special filters to allow us to safely view it. One of the scopes just showed the sun as a white disk with the moon cutting into it but the other actually allowed you to just make out the filaments of the many loops, flares and prominences in the corona of the sun. I have seen many pictures and films of these phenomena before but this was the first time I actually saw them with my own eyes. Incredible.

A NASA photograph showing solar prominences etc.

Once again I have a really great time and all the people I talked to, especially those at our table were a lot of fun. Thanks to Aaron for organizing our contingent and to the other members of our group for being such good company! My only regret is I got a bit distracted and got out of there kind of quickly at the end and didn’t get a chance to say a proper goodbye to them or to my friend and colleague Barbara Forrest (who was one of the speakers). Hopefully I’ll get to see them all again soon.

If you’re interested you can watch a streaming video or buy a DVD of the event from the O. C. Freethought Alliance (look for the guy in a black t-shirt with the long hair near the front) and if you live in the area consider attending the 4th Annual O. C. Freethought Alliance Conference in 2013. You just might see me there in person.

I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

See: Discovery Institute to LA Family Forum: “Repeat after me: ‘The LA Science Education Act is *NOT* a creationism law.’”

Filed under: Antievolution, Creationism, Defending evolution, Education, Intelligent design, Law Tagged: Barbara Forrest, Creationism, Intelligent design, Louisiana Academic Freedom Act, Tennessee ]]> http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/17/pay-no-attention-to-the-creationists-behind-the-id-curtain/feed/ 0 Troy Britain http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/17/the-annual-orange-county-freethought-alliance-conference/ http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/17/the-annual-orange-county-freethought-alliance-conference/#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 09:02:30 +0000 Troy Britain http://pigeonchess.com/?p=2577 ]]> I will be attending the Third Annual Orange County Freethought Alliance Conference this weekend and am looking forward to meeting people whose work I have admired (Aron Ra, Mr. Deity) as well as getting a chance to see friends and colleagues I’ve met in the past (Michael Shermer, Barbara Forrest). And on off chance any of my readers are attending, I hope to get a change to met you to. Just look for the guy with long hair and a goatee, that isn’t Aron Ra (see his pic below).

Hopefully I’ll have some photographic evidence of event to share with everyone next week.

Stolen from Facebook.

Previous Carnivals of Evolution:

• CoE #46
• CoE #45 CoE #44 CoE #43 CoE #42
• CoE #41 CoE #40 CoE #39 CoE #38
• CoE #37 CoE #36 CoE #35 CoE #34
• CoE #33  CoE #32 CoE #31 CoE #30

If you missed any of these you’ll definitely want to go check them out!

Reading it immediately brought to mind the words supposedly* whispered by Thomas Huxley as he rose to respond to Samuel Wilberforce in their exchange at the 1860 Oxford evolution debate:

“The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands”.

The reason this came to mind was that it is clear from his comments that he has not bothered to educate himself on the subject and is just mindlessly repeating tired, long refuted creationist clichés on the subject of horse evolution.  In other words, he’s lobbing softballs at defenders of science like me.

Alright, without further ado let’s saddle up and ride forth into the mind of Ham:

The Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington, Kentucky, (an hour south of the Creation Museum) is—from what I hear—a very good tourist attraction. Opened in 1978, the park takes up 1,229 acres and is home to around 115 horses. Many people who come to visit our Creation Museum make the drive to visit the Kentucky Horse Park as well. 

Unfortunately, however, even though the park has many great attractions, it also promotes (outdated) evolutionary ideas—to both adults and children. (Ham, 2012)

As opposed to Mr. Ham’s “museum” which promotes a sectarian interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth, written down (in its current form) around the 6^th century B.C.E., as cutting edge science. But never mind that.

Many of us will remember seeing the supposed “horse evolution” series in our textbooks many years ago.  However, this idea has been basically thrown out—even by many secularists. It is simply not true.  The flaws have been exposed many times, but sadly, that doesn’t always stop some museums and science textbooks from regurgitating this old idea. (Ham, 2012)

The only thing that has been “thrown out” regarding the evolution of the horse—or any other organism—was the idea of anagenesis as the primary mode of evolutionary change.

Anagenesis is the hypothesis that all the members of a parent species simultaneously evolve into a daughter species which would tend to cause lineages to evolve in a linear, or ladder like fashion, with each successive species representing a higher rung in a ladder of progression.

The more extreme form of this idea is orthogenesis wherein certain lineages progress in definite directions as if they were preordained. And while this concept is still sometimes inadvertently conveyed in popular illustrations and museum displays, it was generally abandoned by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists in the 1950′s.

Modern evolutionary biologists prefer illustrations like the following that more accurately reflect the complex, bushy, branching patterns of evolutionary changes (see: cladogenesis) that are usually seen in the fossil record:

Unfortunately despite the efforts of scientists and educators the idea of anagenesis still dominates popular thinking about how evolutionary changes occur (especially amongst creationists).

Surprisingly, the Kentucky Horse Park still promotes this false idea. (Ham, 2012)

If Mr. Ham’s were merely claiming that the Park’s displays convey the misleading anagenetic view of horse evolution, then his criticism would, though perhaps a bit pedantic, be valid. I doubt however that is his meaning. Rather it seems clear that he is attempting to convince his readers that the fossil evidence for horse evolution has somehow been discredited and thrown out entirely. If so, it is Mr. Ham not the Park that is promoting a “false idea”.

It has a display called “Evolution of the Horse,” which uses a mural on the wall of the Kid’s Barn to teach children about horse evolution. It begins by claiming that the horse Eohippus (sometimes called Hyracotherium) lived 60 millions years ago, and was the horse Equus’ (what we would recognize today as a modern horse) earliest ancestor. (Ham, 2012)

I guess it’s my turn to be pedantic. Hyracotherium, barring a shift in scientific opinion—which may be in the works—is sometimes called eohippus, not the other way around. This is due to the rules of zoological nomenclature wherein the generic name for an organism—living or fossil—that is published in the scientific literature first gets priority. The name Hyracotherium was published prior to eohippus and later when the fossils these names were given to were reevaluated and decided to be similar enough to be placed in the same genus, the name eohippus was subsumed into Hyracotherium. Though as I indicated this might be changing again.

However, Robert Owen, the discoverer of this species, named the original specimen Hyracotherium because it resembled a rabbit-like creature. So this supposed evolutionary ancestor of the horse was not a horse at all! (Ham, 2012)

Whether we call Hyracotherium a horse depends on how we want to define our terms. If the term “horses” is defined as referring only those animals belonging to the genus Equus, then no, Hyracotherium wasn’t a horse. However the term horses is usually defined more loosely including not just living members of Equus, but also all members of the Family Equidae, then yes, Hyracotherium is a “horse”.**

Here we go! Once again regular readers of this blog are forced to endure the repetition of these facts but come hell or high water, every time they repeat the lie I am going to correct it. 

Richard Owen (not Robert!) clearly stated in the paper in which he described Hyracotherium that he wasn’t saying that was all that similar to a hyrax—Ham’s “rabbit-like creature”:

The general form of the skull was probably intermediate in character between that of the Hog and the Hyrax. The large size of the eye must have given to the physiognomy of the living animal a resemblance to that of the Hare and other timid Rodentia.

Without intending to imply that the present small extinct Pachyderm was more closely allied to the Hyrax than as being a member of the same order, and similar in size, I propose to call the new genus which it unquestionably indicates, Hyracotherium, with the specific name leporinum. (Owen 1841, emphasis mine)

Did Owen, at that time, consider it the ancestor of later horses? No, but he only had a partial, crushed skull to work with. Not to mention all the other fossils intermediate between Hyracotherium and modern Equus which had not yet been discovered. So why would his inability to see that Hyracotherium has a relationship to later horses carry any special significance?

The display at the Kentucky Horse Park walks visitors through the evolution of the horse, stopping next at Mesohippus. One popular belief in regard to the horse evolution series is that as horses supposedly evolved, they got bigger. Eohippus is listed as 14 inches tall, while Mesohippus is listed as 24 inches tall. The next two horses in the display, Miohippus and Merychippus, grow steadily bigger. (Ham, 2012)

It is not a “belief” that there was a trend towards larger sizes among certain equids; it is simply an observation of the fossil evidence.

What’s the problem, though, with the belief that horses somehow evolved into larger and larger animals? If that were true, shouldn’t we see only very large horses today? But we don’t—horses vary in size from the Clydesdale to the much smaller Fallabella (just 17 inches tall). (Ham, 2012)

As to whether we should only see large horses today, this would only be true if we were to insist that a trend in one lineage had to be matched by all lineages, however there is no biological reason to do so. Also by Mr. Ham’s reasoning one could argue that populations of humans known as pygmies may not have descended from a common ancestor with other, taller, human populations.

Surely Mr. Ham doesn’t believe that?

As for the existence of miniature horses, I fail to see how the fact that humans have created, through selective breeding, a few breeds of horses that are smaller than wild types of Equus, is somehow a mark against the evidence for the evolution of the horse.

All the horses to this point in their exhibit have three-toed hooves. (Ham, 2012)

Well, Hyracotherium had three on the back foot and four on the front, but then Mr. Ham doesn’t believe it’s a horse so I guess we can let that pass.

But shortly before visitors reach the end of the display, they see the horse Pliohippus, which is claimed to have existed 10 million years ago. The horse Pliohippus had some controversy surrounding it. Evolutionists have tried to say that Pliohippus was supposedly evidence of a transition from three toes to one toe in the evolutionary process. Their claim was based on the 1981 discovery of two fossilized hooves found together in a volcanic eruption, both from Pliohippus. But what does this discovery really prove? That three-toed and one-toed horses existed at the same time! (Ham, 2012)

What an odd statement. It is additional evidence—not proof, science doesn’t deal in proof—that modern single toed equids descend from ancestors that had multiple toes. You know, evolution.

Further evidence is the fact that living horses are occasionally born with atavistic toes.

Gould 1983, p. 178

I don’t know why Mr. Ham would make an issue of this given that many YEC accept that living single toed horses are related to fossil multi-toed ones.

For example there are YEC, who having apparently realized that their standard position on horse evolution is untenable, have admitted that there is in fact good evidence for there being a descent relationship between the various fossil equids and are instead arguing the equally untenable position that these fossils represent rapid post Flood diversification of the horse “baramin“—creationist new-speak for “kind”:

Even though many creationists have strongly criticized the equid fossil record, our present baraminological analysis actually supports the validity of this stratomorphic series. Using the baraminic distance correlation method of Robinson and Cavanaugh [21], we find significant similarity among all nineteen fossil horse species in our study [a fairly standard line-up from Hyracotherium to Equus – T.B.] but we find no evidence of discontinuity. Although some species in our dataset are negatively correlated, the linear structure of the equids as revealed by 3D ANOPA accounts for these negative correlations. We conclude that all nineteen species included in our analysis belong to the same monobaramin, which we interpret as a record of post-Flood intrabaraminic diversification. (Cavanaugh et al. 2003, p.147, emphasis mine)

In other words, according to these YEC, all the fossil horses that Mr. Ham finds so objectionable, including Hyracotherium, are all one “kind”. Why doesn’t Mr. Ham go argue with them about how “Robert Owen” thought Hyracotherium was a hyrax?

Moreover Ham even has a picture of a hypothetical “Ark equid” (which I presume is the supposed ancestor of all living horses that survived the Noachian Flood in the Ark) in his museum, which from the—admittedly low resolution—copy I have looks like it has multiple toes!

This children’s display ends with Equus, which evolutionists will claim emerged 4 million years ago. The adult version of the display, located in the International Museum of the Horse, looks a lot like the Kid’s Barn display—except the adults see fossil displays instead of paintings.

It’s sad to see that the Kentucky Horse Park has not only compromised with millions of years and the idea of evolution, but it’s also teaching a disproved idea to children and adults.  (Ham, 2012)

And there goes another irony meter! A man who believes that humans lived with dinosaurs like in the Flintstones, who doesn’t even know the name of the long dead scientist whose authority he is appealing to and who has dedicated his life to spreading half-truths and misinformation, is lamenting the fact that scientific evidence is being presented. Nice.

You can read more about the problems with the idea of horse evolution in the article on AiG’s website: “What’s Happened to the Horse?” (Ham, 2012)

Yes, in that article the author (Hastie, 1995) claims that Richard Owen thought that the Hyracotherium skull he was describing looked like a “fox’s head” rather than being “rabbit-like“. Which is it Mr. Ham?

Then there are the killer arguments like this:

If it [horse evolution] were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed ‘earliest’ horses have been found at or near the surface. (Hastie, 1995)

[Facepalm]

All fossils, with the unusual exception of those found in mines, are found at or near the surface. That is how they are found at all! You see there is this geological phenomenon known as erosion…

Or this gem:

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly ‘intermediate’ stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. (Hastie, 1995)

Except that vertebrates vary in the number of ribs they have even with a species! For example humans normally have 12 pared ribs, however occasionally individuals are born with 11 or even 13 pairs. Likewise in modern horses we find that they can have 17, 18 or 19 pairs of ribs.

Clearly, if individuals within a species can vary in how many ribs they have, the fact that they vary between fossil species cannot be used as evidence against a descent relationship between them.

Also, you can read Dr. John Morris’s book The Fossil Record, which also discusses horse evolution. (Ham, 2012)

And I suggest you read the several posts where I show that Dr. Morris either doesn’t know what he’s talking about with regards to paleontology and evolution, or is being less than honest with his readers:

• There’s something fishy about that fish
• ‘O Oysters, come and walk with us!
• More scientific ignorance from Dr. John Morris
• You can tune a piano but you can’t tunicate…

This example of a poor, unscientific display at the Horse Park is just another good reason why you need to visit a place that will tell your children the truth—the Creation Museum! (Ham, 2012)

I think the fact that creationists like Ham keep on spreading misinformation like this, as well as their studied refusal to understand even the basics of evolutionary theory speaks volumes about their intellectual honesty. Furthermore I find the fact that he makes a living inflicting this upon children quite offensive.

Other posts on Horse fossils & evolution (not already linked above):

• Hyracotherium misinformation at scientificamerican.com
• Epic Horse Exhaust
• A horse is a horse, unless of course…

References

Cavanaugh et al. (2003) “Fossil Equidae: A Monobaraminic, Stratomorphic Series” in: Ivey, R.L., editor, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 143-153

Gould, Stephen Jay (1983) Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, W.W. Norton, New York, London

Ham, Ken (2012) “Kentucky horses that will lead you astray“, Answers in Genesis (website), downloaded on 4-28-2012

Hastie, Peter (1995) “What’s Happened to the Horse?“, Answers in Genesis (website), downloaded on 4-29-2012

Owen, Richard (1841) “Description of the Fossil Remains of a Mammal (Hyracotherium leporinum) and of a Bird (Lithornis vulturinus) from the London Clay.” Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2, VI: 203-208, 1 plate

* This quote of Huxley is generally considered to be apocryphal and did not enter into the accounts of the Huxley/Wilberforce debate until decades after the event. But it is a great story.

** Many paleontologists consider Hyracotherium to be paraphyletic which would mean that some fossil currently classified as Hyracotherium could be ancestral to later horses (and thus members of the Family Equidae) while other are perhaps ancestral to other members of the Order Perissodactyla. See my post Epic Horse Exhaust for more on this.

Now I have no illusions about my blog being another Pharyngula or anything but with at least a couple hundred views a day, from around the world, you’d think I’d be getting few more comments.

Where are all the would-be “creation scientists” eager to show me the error of my ways? Here I am writing post after post spanking the heck out of their intellectual leaders and rather than reasoned defenses or even primal screams of rage I get:

Fine, let’s try Chuck & Beans advice:

inteligent design ain’t science!

Now I know this might seem like little more than a blatant cry for attention (which of course it is) but I am honestly curious about the seeming lack of comments around here. Is there a ‘visits per day’ threshold that one has to cross in order to overcome some sort of comment inertia? Has there been any research on this?

Oh, and hat tip to Scott Weitzenhoffer for the cartoon.

When I  was a kid used to find all sorts of invertebrates, miscellaneous insects (of course), solifugids (“sun” or “wind scorpions”) and one time I even found a tarantula (probably a Aphonopelma; I damn near stepped on it while running through the back yard).

As for vertebrates I often found Slender salamanders (Batrachoseps) and the feisty Southern alligator lizard (Elgaria) but never any fence lizards. To find them I had to hike three quarters of a mile or so to an undeveloped area dominated by a rocky hill (a modest pluton locally known to us a “Lionshead”) where they were fairly abundant amongst boulders of decomposing granite.

This is not the case anymore.

I had noticed on previous visits that the fence lizards were around my parents’ yard but today I realized that the place was absolutely crawling with them. I have no idea what has changed in the environment that has led to an expansion of their range, from the hills and undeveloped areas to the middle of the suburbs, but personally I’m glad of it.

At first they played a little hard to get. It was already afternoon and while it wasn’t really hot it was warm so their metabolizes were no doubt running at nearly at mammalian levels. So they would dash for cover before I got too close.

This little one was hiding behind some old window screens at the back of the garage. It had a larger companion who was missing part of its tail, however I couldn’t get a picture of it.

Another little one hiding behind the barn.

This probable female make her home on a woodpile in the back yard was really nervous. It took me several tries to get close enough for a photo.

This wasn’t a little guy, but a full sized adult male hanging out on an old bit of dead palm tree in far back field of my parents’ back yard. The picture doesn’t really do justice to its color which appeared much more green in sunlight. However I have a second picture of this one that makes up for whatever this one might lack.

As I got closer this guy turned sideways toward me and started doing his little push-up display at me exposing his beautiful iridescent blue belly and throat scales (which is were the common name “blue bellies” comes from) to my camera.

Here we have a “teenager”, perhaps a young female (no signs of faint blue scales), perched on concrete shard at the base of a palm tree.

This one was another fully grown adult and likely female (notice she only has a faint blue spot on her throat) hanging out on a succulent plant.

Another young’un, relaxing on a rock in the front yard.

This young lady lorded over the front yard from high atop her horse hitch perch.

When I got too close she led me on a merry chase around the drive way and ended up running right back up the horse hitch again.

On the other side of the driveway another young lady eyed me warily from an old tree stump. Once again the picture doesn’t do her green color justice.

Another little one just two feet away from the last.

Finally a good shot of the beautiful turquoise back scales of a good sized (possible) female.

Well, I had fun even it the lizards were a bit annoyed by the funny looking monkey chasing them around with a silver and black rock in its paws.

Huh…, oookaaay.

[Hat tip to PZ]