[net.origins] "Lucy" Out of Context

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)