Evolution Oops! A Lack of Ape-Man Transitional Fossils
Looking at the man-ape fossils, which [Evolution defender], calls "solid science", what do we see?
Piltdown Man:
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The "Piltdown Man" is a famous hoax consisting of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex. The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early human. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen.
The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archaeological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its exposure as a forgery.
---------------------------------------------------
Quotes from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
The hoax [of Piltdown Man] illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.
It is a black mark on science that it took 40 years to expose a hoax that bore directly on human ancestry. Creationists have not been slow in pointing to the hoax, the erroneous reconstructions based on the hoax, and the long time it took to expose the hoax.
-----------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the fossil: Man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now viewed: hoax
Ramapithecus:
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
"On the Evolution of the Human"
Some controversy exists on the time of this common ancestor to both ape and human, but it is believed to be about 5.5 million years ago. A key fossil record near that time is Ramapithecus, which was believed to be an early hominid for many years, but is now considered an ancient ape that lived near the fork in our common lineage. Ramapithecus is now thought to be an ancestor of the modern apes.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-E-Ramapith.html
"FREE Ramapithecus Information"
Ramapithecus , an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to 14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.
---------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivapithecus
"Sivapithecus"
The first incomplete specimens of Ramapithecus were found in Nepal on the bank of Tenau River western part of the country in 1932. The finder (G. Edward Lewis) claimed that the jaw was more like a human's than any other fossil ape then known. [1] In the 1960s this claim was revived. At that time, it was believed that the ancestors of humans had diverged from other apes 15 million years ago. Biochemical studies upset this view, suggesting that there was an early split between orangutan ancestors and the common ancestors of chimps, gorillas and humans. Humans had separated from African apes about five million years ago, not 15 million or 25 million.[2]
Meanwhile, more complete specimens of Ramapithecus were found in 1975 and 1976, which showed that it was less human-like than had been thought. It began to look more and more like Sivapithecus - meaning that the older name must take priority. It could be that Ramapithecus was just the female form of Sivapithecus. [3] They were definitely members of the same genus. It is also likely that they were already separate from the common ancestor of chimps, gorillas and humans, though fossils of this presumed ancestor have not yet been found.
-----------------------------------
How evolutionists first interpreted the fossil:man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now viewed: extinct ape
KNM-ER 1470:
---------------------------------------
Discovered in 1972 by Ngeneo and Leaky
When first publicized, Skull 1470 attracted enormous interest because of five apparent ‘humanlike’ traits in the initial reconstruction:
1. Its alleged large endocranial volume (ECV) of 810+ cm3.
2. The remarkably flat face of the specimen as compared with the prognathous (protruding jaw) face of all other known australopithecines, especially the gracile, and to a lesser extent, robust specimens.
3. The high-domed cranial vault, as compared with the flat forehead of extinct australopithecines and modern-day apes.
4. The lack of pronounced supraorbital tori (brow ridges).
5. The more rounded braincase, similar to that of some Australopithecus africanus specimens.
but...
continuing on, Bromage then pointed out that when first reconstructed, the face of skull 1470 was fitted to the cranium almost vertically.15,16 Yet subsequent studies demonstrated that the face jutted out considerably, like australopithecines.17,18 Bromage also found that with this new perspective, ER Skull 1470 bore a resemblance (albeit superficial) to the hyper-robust and extremely gorilla-like fossil australopithecine KNM-WT 17000 (the so-called ‘Black Skull’ or A. ethiopicus).19
From the Smithsonian:
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html
It was once thought that the evolution of the genus Homo was an example of anagenesis, the continual and gradual change of one parent species into its daughter species in a linear fashion. As the fossil record began to expand and more early human fossils were found dating to the period between 2 million and 1 million years ago, some questions as to the validity of this hypothesis were raised.
Below are two fossils, shown to scale. KNM ER 1813 is to the left, and KNM ER 1470 is to the right.
Originally, both were assigned to the species Homo habilis, with ER 1470 thought of as male and the smaller ER 1813 a female in a strongly dimorphic species. However, the anatomies of the two skulls differ considerably.
Note that there is a strong supraorbital torus (horizontal bar of bone above the eye sockets) on 1813, whereas the supraorbital torus of 1470 is slight at best, and does not have the depression behind it that is seen in 1813. The face of 1470 is longer than 1813's and 1470's upper jaw is square instead of rounded-off. There is a great discrepancy between the cranial capacities of the two individuals as well. ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc, where ER 1813 has a cranial capacity of only 510cc (which is above the australopith average, but well below the accepted 600cc cutoff for Homo)
One debate in paleoanthropology today is whether or not ER 1470, and several other fossils previously identified as H. habilis, should be grouped into a new species, Homo rudolfensis. This classification would acknowledge that ER 1470 and the other members of Homo rudolfensis differ more from Homo habilis, sensu stricto ("in the strict sense," meaning: as originally defined), than could possibly be accounted for by variation within a population or between sexes. This would place two species of the genus Homo in Africa during the same time period in addition to two members of the genus Paranthropus, and, possibly, late surviving members of the species Australopithecus africanus. Far more complicated than the original neat, linear model.
Most, but not all researchers are convinced that 1470 should be placed in a separate species. Some, such as Richard Leakey, claim that 1470 should be placed within H. habilis, while excluding 1813 from H. habilis. As yet, the debate is not satisfactorily settled.
In addition, it is not yet entirely clear which of the two species Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis led to the later species in Homo. The larger cranial capacities of the H. rudolfensis individuals lead some to think that later humans evolved from this species. Morphology of the facial bones of H. habilis, such as the shape of the cheekbones and the browridges, suggests that this species was the ancestor of later humans.
---------------------------------
(And look... even some new information!)
http://www.livescience.com/health/070329_rudolf_reconstruct.html
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. Bromage said his team’s reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skull’s discovery, which state that a mammal’s eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another.
-------------------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the fossil: Man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now more likely to be interpreted: extinct ape.
Lucy:
------------------------------------
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_62052382
Anthropologists generally regard an upright gait as essential for membership in the human evolutionary family. However, some of our earliest ancestors may have favored knuckle-walking on all fours, much as chimpanzees and gorillas do, according to a study in the March 23 NATURE.
advertisement
Brian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, both anthropologists at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., examined previously found wrist bones from several Australopithecus species. A. anamensis and A. afarensis--the latter represented by the famous skeleton known as Lucy--had wrists capable of locking the hands in place during knuckle-walking, the scientists say. A. anamensis lived just prior to 4 million years ago; A. afarensis existed from 4 million to 3 million years ago.
-------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/687341.stm
"We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes," Dr Richmond said.
SAJS
The hand will give us new insight into Australopithecus behaviour
"I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids. I thought 'Oh my god, I don't think anyone's looked at this.'
"Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day. It was a eureka moment."
Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that her ancestors - and ours - walked on their knuckles.
"We have found evidence in the wrist joint that sheds new light on arguably the most fundamental adaptation in humans ... which is why did humans start walking upright?" Dr Richmond said.
--------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal.
--------------------------------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the evidence: ape-man ancestor that walked upright
Another way to interpret the evidence: extinct species of ape
Turkana Boy:
---------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy
Image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TurkanaboyV.jpg
(This is a skeleton that is classified as Homo erectus. Does "homo erectus" then look like a ape-man, or does it look like a man?)
"I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people who don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on fragmentary evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront some of these people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so obviously related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half million years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think many of the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about creationism vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the light of this discovery.
Richard Leakey- 1988 video Mysteries of Mankind, produced by National Geographic
source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
-------------------------------------
(And I've already discussed many problems with dating fossils.)Note: I did here.
How evolutionists interpret the evidence: ape-man ancestor
Another way to interpret the evidence: man
NEANDERTHAL:
---------------------------------------
http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neanderthallechapelle1.htm
Typical for the Homo neanderthalensis species , the skull of La Chapelle-aux-Saints had a pronounced browridge and receding forehead. Many of the teeth were missing and their respective sockets were in various states of closure from healing after the loss of the teeth when the man was alive. These missing teeth comprise all of the right side cheek teeth of the lower jaw, the molars on the left and at least the molars of the upper jaw. It is probable that this individual was cared for by others in his elder years. The evidence of this would suggest that Neanderthals possessed a communal mindset and cared for their injured and infirmed.
As previously mentioned, "The Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints" was the first nearly complete skeleton of a Neanderthal individual ever discovered. The original incorrect reconstruction done by the noted paleontologist Marcellin Boule overlooked the fact that the skeleton was quite elderly when deceased. The bones were in such a degenerative stage because of the advanced age of the individual that the reconstruction of the skeleton depicted the Neanderthal in a stooped-over pose and possessing a frame that would have had an ape-like gait. This wrongly influenced our perception of Neanderthals in both science and popular culture for so many years despite other discoveries of skeletons that disprove this early belief. These misconception of the primitiveness of Neanderthals has remained with us even today.
------------------------------------
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980317-2,00.html
In his scientific papers, Boule described the "brutish appearance of this muscular and clumsy body." This almost simian image persisted largely unchallenged for decades. Indeed, vestiges of it remain today in such manifestations as textbook illustrations, the Alley Oop cartoon strip, and in the pejorative use of "Neanderthal."
But the image was wrong. In 1957 American and British researchers re- examined the skeleton that Boule had studied and concluded that Neanderthals stood upright; the stooped posture of Boule's specimen was attributable to arthritis. Also the feet were not prehensile, nor was the | spine curved. They further noted that the Neanderthal's brain was as large as that of early modern humans, a fact that Boule ignored in his publications.
In the past few decades, the perception of Neanderthals has undergone still more changes. Evidence from various digs has revealed that they wielded simple tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremoniously buried their dead.
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Neanderthal
For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Recent genetic simulations suggested that 5% of human DNA can only be accounted for by assuming a substantial contribution of Neanderthaler to the European gene pool of up to 25%.[10] Some scientists, for example Milford Wolpoff, claim that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred. This would support the argument that the two were the same biological species. Others, for example Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[11] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[12]
-----------------------------------------
How Evolutionists interpreted the fossil: ape-man ancestor
How the fossil is now interpreted: man
--------------------------------------
Several things are clear from looking at this information
1) What scientists claimed about the fossils showing evidence of evolution from ape to man has been shown wrong again and again and again.
2) How the desire of scientists to find ape-man ancestors has affected their interpretation of the evidence.
3) The "best" fossil evidence in showing evolution from ape to man is subject to questions and contraversy.
4) Showing man decended from apes from fossil evidence is not solid science.
5) There will be "new evidence" in the future that will challenge scientists views of evolution for years to come.
To claim that the fossil evidence shows strong evidence that man decended from apes is ignorant at best. What this shows clearly is that scientific evidence is subject to interpretation, and how this causes error. This is clearly a weakness of the scientific method.
Written May 2008
