bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/19/85)
I ran across an article in the Summer, 1985 issue of *The Skeptical Inquirer* that rang a few bells. With some help from MacGrep I was able to resurrect the following paragraphs from Ray Miller's SOR Pamphlet #4, posted earlier this year: > What about the alleged transitional forms of today? What does the data >indicate about those fossils? > Currently, evolutionists are speculating about a group of fossils known as >Australopithecus, of which Lucy is one form. However, the data suggests that >Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape. After proposing >transitions from hoaxes, extinct pigs, etc. it is not surprising the >interest evolutionists show in fossil apes. > Not all evolutionists, however, are so quick to again repeat the mistakes >of the past. For example, Charles Oxnard's multivariate statistical analysis >indicates that Australopithecus probably did not walk upright and was not on >the main human lineage [9]. Furthermore, posture is not critical to the >discussion, as the living pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus spends a great deal >of time walking upright. > In fact, the fossil record so strongly supports the creation model's >predictions, that Solly Zuckerman conceded that if humans had evolved from >some ape-like creature, then they had done so ``without leaving any fossil >traces of the steps of the transformation'' [10]. > >[9] Charles Oxnard, ``Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,'' The American > Biology Teacher, May 1979, pp. 264-276. >[10] Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Frontiers of Public and > Private Science (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), p. 64. To which I had replied: >I would like to see Ray's evidence that *Australopithecus afarensis* was >"nothing more than an extinct ape". His claims that *A. afarensis* did not >walk upright are contradicted by the discovery earlier this year of a >complete individual which, according to the reports, clearly walked upright. >One should also mention (Futuyama, p. 108) that *A. afarensis* is almost >identical with *Homo habilis*, differing primarily in a smaller brain (450 >cc vs. 600 cc.), and that H. habilis is clearly associated with extensive >manufacture and use of pebble tools, a *typically* human activity. Finally, >I want to mention that the recent NOVA show on Stephen Jay Gould's work >definitely showed A. afarensis in the human lineage, although A. africanus >and A. Robustus were not. The *Skeptical Inquirer* article, "'Lucy' Out of Context", by L. H. Albert, an anthropologist at East Los Angeles College, throws a great deal of light on this episode. Longtime readers of this newsgroup will not be surprised to learn that both Oxnard and Zuckerman have been quoted out of context. I was right in my placement of the three species of Australopithecines in the currently accepted evolutionary tree. It is now generally agreed that *A. afarensis* walked bipedally, and it seems likely that *A. afarensis* gave rise to *A. robustus* and *A. africanus* (not in the Human line), and *also* to *H. habilis* (in the Human line). This interpretation of the data was proposed in 1979 by D. C. Johanson and T. D. White (*Science* 203:321-330), who had direct access to the original "Lucy" material (as Oxnard did not). In that article, they proposed the evolutionary tree shown below: A. afarensis H. habilis H. erectus H. sapiens ------------->-------------->--------------->---------------> \ \ A. africanus \ \ A. robustus \---------------> + As for Creationists' use of Oxnard's and Zuckerman's works, Albert says: "Confronted with the fossil form *Australopithecus afarensis* (i.e., Lucy and other fossils of the same kind), "scientific" creationists have taken to citing early authoritative criticisms (now generally confirmed) against the once-claimed prehuman status *of the other two forms of Australopithecus* (i.e., *A. africanus* and *A. robustus*) as legitimate evidence against assigning a hominid or prehuman status to Lucy (*A. afarensis*) and her kind. "Creationists have sought to accomplish this particular bit of obscurantism through an apparent intentional avoidance of any recognition of differences between the various forms of *Australopithecus*. In this way, authoritative comments originally meant to apply to only one or two particular forms are dishonestly applied to yet another." [Emphasis in the original] Compare this to the choice of wording in Ray's second paragraph. Albert points out that Zuckerman's book was written *a full four years before Lucy was discovered in 1974*, and nearly *ten* years before the publication of the description of the Lucy fossil (by Johanson and White). He also documents the fact that Oxnard's article (cited above by Ray) was in fact written before Johanson and White's article (although it appeared in print four months after J&W), and did not make use of the "Lucy" material in its analyses. Thus neither of these sources can legitimately be used in evidence against the prehuman status of *A. afarensis*. Indeed, the deception runs much deeper. For example, in his article, Oxnard (who was aware of the forthcoming Lucy material) explicitly placed these new fossils on the Human ancestral line. Creationists (Albert explicitly identifies H. Morris, Gish and R. B. Bliss) studiously avoid mentioning this fact as they quote Oxnard's article out of context. Moreover, Oxnard never contended in his article that *Australopithecus* did not walk upright, and indeed explicitly concedes that "they may well have been bipeds" even if not in the "human manner". Albert concludes, "There is simply no nice way to say it--Gish and Bliss are simply flat-out lying. There is virtually no way in which the concession that the australopithecines 'may well have been bipedal' can be creatively reinterpreted to mean that they 'did not walk upright'." (Cf. the wording of Ray's article). Albert discusses other examples of the misuse of this material. Gary Parker of the ICR receives 1-1/2 pages of criticism for his treatment of it in *What is Creation Science?* (written with Henry Morris). In particular, Parker's discussion of Oxnard's multivariate analysis is criticized (Oxnard analyzed toe bones; Parker promotes them to pelvic bones.) Parker's analysis appears to be particularly shoddy, and Albert documents one particularly egregious misquotation by Parker of Oxnard's paper. Gish is also cited for repeatedly misusing Oxnard's and Zuckerman's material in public debates, as recently as 1983. This article has only touched on the highlights of Albert's article, which should be read in its entirety in order fully to comprehend the gravity of this Creationist perversion of Oxnard's and Zuckerman's work. I do not criticize Ray for repeating the argument. The felony belongs to those at the ICR who originated it and who continue to use it. Finally, all of us, and the Creationist readers of this newsgroup in particular, should take this example to heart. This is by no means the first time that Gish and his cohorts at the ICR have shown us how little regard they have for truth. When charlatains like this have been caught lying as often as they have, prudent people stop believing them. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)