| |
c) Ramapithicus
| |
| 32 |
This animal was long
believed to be the 1st branch from that line of apes which evolved into
man about 14 million years ago. |
True, but this is no
longer the case. |
TRUE |
| 33 |
Noted scientist Dr.
Elwyn Simons stated confidently, "The pathway can now be traced
with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids -- to the
genus HOMO." The crucial importance of Ramapithicus as an early
ancestor of hominids is evident in this comment by Simons in Time
magazine (Nov. 7, 1977) |
Note 1977 - a long time ago,
and in a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Science does
not claim to be infallible. |
irrelevant |
| 34 |
Ramapithicus is
ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't
have anything else that is. How true a statement ! From what evidence
are these conclusions drawn in the 1st place ? Once again a few teeth
and a jaw bone. From this many drawings have been made of Ramapithicus
walking upright. Ridiculous! |
Again, so what? It was a
reasonable assumption in the context of out knowledge of human ancestry
at the time. We now know a lot more! |
irrelevant |
| 35 |
Renowned secular
anthropologist Richard Leaky (American Scientist 64:174, 1976): "The
case for Ramapithicus as a hominid is not substantial, and the
fragments of fossil material leave many questions open." |
This is an illustration
of science in action! |
irrelevant |
| 36 |
Zilman and Lowenstein
went even further: "Ramapithicus walking upright has been
reconstructed from only jaws and teeth. In 1961 an ancestral human was
badly wanted. The prince's ape latched onto position by his teeth and
has been hanging on ever since, his legitimacy sanctified by millions of
textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution. |
This is, once again, an
illustration of science in action! |
irrelevant |
| 37 |
Harvard University
paleontologist David Pilbeam, a hugely secular scientist summed up what
all know is true (Science 82, April 6-7): "A group of creatures
once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out
of the human family tree. Many paleontologists have maintained that
Ramamorphs are our oldest known ancestors. These conclusions were drawn
from little more than a few jaw bones and some teeth. Truthfully, it
appears to be nothing more than an orangutan ancestor." This from a
top secular scientist ! |
This is, once again, an illustration
of science in action! I'm very unclear as to what point the author is making
in this section. It seems to be nothing more or less than a description
of how different scientists draw different conclusions from limited evidence,
and how those theories change as more evidence is uncovered. To repeat:
Science does not claim to be infallible. |
irrelevant |
| |
d) Australopithecus
| |
| 38 |
Donald Johanson in his
book "Lucy" refers to the "australopithecine mess" -
and it definitely is that. The very word Australopithecus means "southern
ape" because the first fossils were found in South Africa. The
discoverer was Dr. Raymond Dart, professor of anatomy at Witwatersrand
University in Johannesburg. |
So what? |
irrelevant |
| 39 |
Dart was convinced that
some teeth were man-like and thus concluded it represented a
transitional between apes and man. His opinions on the matter were
largely scorned by the scientists of his time (1924) who considered it
nothing more than a chimpanzee. The skull was soon known derisively as "Dart's
baby". |
So what? |
irrelevant |
| 40 |
Perhaps no one has
studied the australopithecenes more than Sir Solly Zuckerman who wrote:
"Evolution as a Process" in 1954: "There is indeed no
question which the australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by
side with specimens of humans and living ape skulls. It is the ape-so
much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference
between modern ape and Australopithecus." |
Untrue - this was written
in 1954. There have been many more discoveries of Australopithecines
since then, and many people have studied them more than Solly Zuckerman!
Once again, I am at a loss to understand why this should be offered as a
reason not to believe in evolution. |
FALSE |
| |
e. Australopithecus
Afarensis "LUCY" |
| 41 |
Discovered in 1974 by
Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's
song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more
similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more
ape-like than other australopithecenes. |
|
irrelevant |
| 42 |
In his book "Lucy,
The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with
Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being
human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too
small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the
human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same
primitive features." |
|
irrelevant |
| 43 |
On the basis of a hip
and knee joint found later, however, Johanson "decided" that
Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an
ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the
original Australopithecus). |
A reasonable deduction? |
irrelevant |
| 44 |
Great science at work
here. |
Possibly true - though
the whole field of research in early human ancestry is so politicised
that on occasion science loses out. Once again, I am at a loss to
understand why this should be offered as a reason not to believe in
evolution |
irrelevant |
| |
f. Homo Habilis
|
|
| 45 |
The taxon Homo
habilis had an illegitimate birth when Mary Leakey discovered some
badly shattered skull fragments in 1959. Her husband Louis made the
comment that it was nothing more than a "damned australopithecine".
His attitude soon changed however when he found stone tools near the
site of Homo habilis. Jumping into the fire, he quickly named it
Homo and publicized the find widely. He was soon discredited when other
australopithecenes were found in Africa, also with stone tools. Homo
habilis was "demoted" to australopithecine. |
See my remarks about the
politicisation of research into early human ancestry |
irrelevant |
| 50 |
I didn't mean to exhaust
so much space on Homo habilis, but I just can't stop. Let's talk about
the dating of 1470. In 1969 samples of KBS tuft from just above the
layer in which 1470 was found was sent to Cambridge University for
potassium argon dating. Three different test gave an age of 220 million
years old +or- 7 million years ! This was considered unacceptable for
for this strata given its fossil content, so the errors were blamed on "extraneous"
argon. Several more tests were done, and the best, most acceptable date
was placed at 2.61 million years old. In National Geographic of June
1973 Richard Leakey stated," Either we toss out the 1470 skull or
we toss out all our theories of early man. It simply fits no previous
models of human beginnings. 1470 leaves in ruin the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary
changes." AGREED !! |
Again this is science in action. |
irrelevant |
| 51 |
What was the problem?
The problem, given the age of 2.61 myo, made 1470 contemporaneous with
Australopithecus, if not older--yet looked identical to modern
man. |
It was not identical to modern
man. |
FALSE |
| |
(Aren't you glad I kept
going?) |
No |
|
| 52 |
This absolutely unseated
Australopithecus as ancestor of modern man ! |
No it didn't. It showed that
that modern man did not evolve from Australopithecus through
a single lineage, but that several closely related taxa of early hominid
lived at the same time.
See: a detailed review of human evolution
|
FALSE |
