miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/12/84)
This is the fourth in the series of Students for Origins Research "Origins" pamphlets (2nd edition). They are in a PRELIMINARY (read: not final) form. The intended target audience is undergraduate students in public universities. There will be 5 in all: 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate 2: The Origin of Life 3: The Geologic Column 4: The Fossil Record 5: The Age of the Earth -># 5 won't be done by Christmas break, so I'll have to continue in January.<- Comments by *both* sides are sought. I don't expect the evolutionists to agree with the conclusions (obviously, or else they wouldn't be evolutionists) but I would like to hear what you have to say. I won't have time to reply, as just working on these pamphlets will take all of my spare time until they are completed. I'll save your replies though, and **WILL** get back to some of the more important ones after it is all finished. Personal replies from creation- ists may be mailed to me (uiucdcs!miller) if you don't want to deal with the flames of the net. I expect many "closet creationists" may want to take this route, and I would like to hear what you have to say also. I value everyone's opinions. I'm uploading this stuff from my p.c. at home. When it is in a final form, we'll ship it off and have it typeset along with the illustrations. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/12/84)
ORIGINS
No. 4: The Fossil Record
The origin of life on earth is a historical event. Whether life came
about through creation or evolution cannot be repeated or directly tested by
the scientist. Paleontology (the study of fossils) provides the only direct
evidence available to the scientist to study the origin of life on earth.
Evolutionists believe that all life forms descended from the same source.
If this is true, then the fossil record should show the various kinds of plants
and animals converging to a common source. Creationists, on the other hand,
believe that all life forms have always been separate, with only limited poten-
tial for viable variations. If this is true, then the fossil record should
show life appearing suddenly, with no evidence of gradual step-by-step develop-
ment through transitional forms. Extinctions would have occurred in the past,
as they do in the present, but the boundaries between various organisms should
always be apparent. Which model, creation or evolution, fits the fossil data
better?
GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION
One of the major problems for evolutionists is the sudden explosion of
complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods,
worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc. No transitional forms, indicating how these
complex creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented. Pre-Cambrian
sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with overlying fossiliferous
Cambrian, but the gaps are still present. The evolutionist Neville George was
forced to admit that: ``Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of
animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatso-
ever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains
as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin'' [1].
The next step up on the alleged evolutionary progression is the transition
from invertebrates to vertebrates. But Errol White, an expert on fishes, in
his presidential address to the Linnean Society of London said: ``But whatever
ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other
major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in _n_o_t_h_i_n_g''
[2].
This pattern continues throughout the entire evolutionary tree. Paleon-
tologists from each specialty admit that their particular area does not docu-
ment evolution, while at the same time maintaining a faith that all of the oth-
er areas provide the missing evidence. For example, the evolutionary botanist
Edred Corner wrote: ``Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of
evolution - from biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think
that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special
creation'' [3].
Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil
record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi-
cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout
the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model. ``Despite
the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it
has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of
which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires inter-
mediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them'' [4].
Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``The extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils'' [5]. Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence''
is not the mark of an objective scientist.
PROPOSED TRANSITIONS
When pressed hard for evidence of transitional forms, evolutionists always
point to Archaeopteryx or to the horse series. Archaeopteryx, the proposed
link between reptiles and birds, is considered by many evolutionists to be the
best example of evolution in action.
However, close scrutiny indicates the characteristics of Archaeopteryx do
not give much support for the evolutionary model. Archaeopteryx did not have
half-scales and half-feathers, but rather fully developed feathers capable of
flight. Also, it turns out that Archaeopteryx's so-called reptilian features
are not unique to reptiles, but are possessed by several other types of birds.
For example, the living ostrich, hoatzin, touraco, etc. are all considered to
be 100% birds, and yet possess common traits which are labeled reptilian in Ar-
chaeopteryx. Furthermore, even the famous teeth cannot be used to label Ar-
chaeopteryx as partially reptile. Some reptiles have teeth and some do not.
Some amphibians have teeth and some do not. Some mammals have teeth and some
do not. Some fish have teeth and some do not. In fact, this pattern holds
true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum. Even other birds
once had teeth, though they are now extinct.
Finally, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because the fossil
record indicates that birds were already in existence during the period in
which Archaeopteryx was found [6]. These are just some of the reasons that
many evolutionists are beginning to abandon Archaeopteryx as a transitional
form.
Current speculation centers upon an earlier reptile to bird link called
``pro-avis''. Pro-avis, however, is based totally upon faith, and not upon
fact. ``No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical
pre-bird, but one that must have existed'' [7].
The famous horse series is often found in museums as one of the classic
cases of evolution. However, the observer is not usually told that: all of the
various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed reduction in
the number of toes has many contradictions in order, Eohippus is almost identi-
cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in the
same strata with their supposed ancestors. In fact, as more fossil evidence is
collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did not evolve,
but were merely contemporaries of each other. The fossil record looks so bad,
that a curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (which
houses 20% of all fossil species known) wrote: ``Well, we are now about 120
years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly ex-
panded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation
hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and,
ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had
in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian
change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North Ameri-
ca, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed informa-
tion'' [8].
HUMAN EVOLUTION
A wide variety of fossils has been proposed as the evolutionary ancestors
of humans. However, each generation of evolutionists succeeds in little more
than debunking the preceding generation's hypotheses. A few examples will suf-
fice.
In 1912, Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered. For over 40
years, Piltdown Man was examined by the world's leading authorities, contribut-
ing in some part to over 500 doctoral dissertations. But in the 1950's, it was
revealed that Piltdown Man was a complete hoax! The ``fossil'' turned out to
be nothing more than fragments of an ape's jaw with a human skull treated to
look old. Scientists of the time were so desperate to find support for evolu-
tion, that even a fraud was accepted as valid data.
The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was used in the 1925
Scopes trial to ridicule creationists. Nebraska Man consisted of a single
tooth, although evolutionists had reconstructed Nebraska Man's entire appear-
ance from that tooth. In 1927, the rest of the fossil was uncovered. Nebraska
Man was neither an ape-like man nor a man-like ape, but an extinct pig!
Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus, later known as Homo erectus) consisted
of a skullcap, femur, and a premolar discovered over a period of seven years.
The discoverer, Eugene DuBois, eventually changed his mind and declared that
Java Man consisted of nothing more than the unrelated parts of a human and a
giant gibbon. By that time, however, evolutionists had already accepted Java
Man as an ancestor of humans. Furthermore, DuBois had found (but had kept
secret for thirty years) the discovery of human skulls (the Wadjak skulls) in
the same strata as Java Man. Since humans already existed, Java Man could not
have been their ancestor.
Neanderthal Man was originally classified as Homo neanderthalensis, but
today is known to be fully Homo sapiens. The original La Chapelle-aux-Saints
fossil is believed to have suffered from spinal osteoarthritis, and many later
finds do not have the stooped appearance.
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 transi-
tions from hoaxes, extinct pigs, etc. it is not surprising the interest evolu-
tionists 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 dis-
cussion, 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 pred-
ictions, 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].
Paleontology, the only direct evidence the scientist can use to study the
origins issue, shows systematic and consistent gaps in the fossil record. It
is not a question of missing links, but of a missing chain for the evolution-
ist! ``In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuation-
ist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as
opposed to special creation'' [11]. Life appears suddenly, complete, and with
fixed boundaries between the various kinds of plants and animals. The conclu-
sion is that life did not evolve, but must have been created.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Neville George, ``Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,'' _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _P_r_o_-
_g_r_e_s_s, Jan. 1960, p. 5.
[2] Errol White, ``Presidential Address: A Little on Lung-fishes,'' _P_r_o_c_e_e_d_-
_i_n_g_s _o_f _t_h_e _L_i_n_n_e_a_n _S_o_c_i_e_t_y _o_f _L_o_n_d_o_n, Vol. 177, Jan. 1966, p. 8.
[3] E. J. H. Corner, article in _C_o_n_t_e_m_p_o_r_a_r_y _B_o_t_a_n_i_c_a_l _T_h_o_u_g_h_t, ed. Anna Ma-
cLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago, Quadrangle, 1961), p. 97.
[4] David Kitts, ``Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,'' _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n, Sept.
1974, p. 467.
[5] Stephen Gould, ``Evolution's Erratic Pace,'' _N_a_t_u_r_a_l _H_i_s_t_o_r_y, May 1977, p.
14.
[6] ``Bone Bonanza: Early Bird and Mastodon,'' _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _N_e_w_s, Sept. 24, 1977,
p. 198.
[7] John Ostrom, ``Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?,'' _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_s_t,
Jan.-Feb. 1979, p. 47.
[8] David Raup, ``Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,'' _F_i_e_l_d _M_u_s_e_u_m _o_f
_N_a_t_u_r_a_l _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _B_u_l_l_e_t_i_n, Jan. 1979, p. 25.
[9] Charles Oxnard, ``Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,'' _T_h_e _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n
_B_i_o_l_o_g_y _T_e_a_c_h_e_r, May 1979, pp. 264-276.
[10] Solly Zuckerman, _B_e_y_o_n_d _t_h_e _I_v_o_r_y _T_o_w_e_r: _T_h_e _F_r_o_n_t_i_e_r_s _o_f _P_u_b_l_i_c _a_n_d
_P_r_i_v_a_t_e _S_c_i_e_n_c_e (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), p. 64.
[11] Mark Ridley, ``Who Doubts Evolution?,'' _N_e_w _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_s_t, June 25, 1981, p.
831.
For more information on this topic:
Duane Gish, _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n? _T_h_e _F_o_s_s_i_l_s _S_a_y _N_O! (San Diego, Master Book, 1979).
Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book, 1974).
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _S_c_i_e_n_c_e? (San Diego, Master
Book, 1982).
Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y (Midland, Michigan, Inquiry
Press, 1976).
Edited by A. Ray Miller, fall 1984
Students for Origins Research
P.O. Box 203
Goleta, CA 93116-0203bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (01/04/85)
We have been down for some time, so here at last is my response to Ray Miller's SOR Pamphlet #4. I haven't seen SOR #5 yet if it has been posted. ------ >GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION > One of the major problems for evolutionists is the sudden explosion of >complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods, >worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc. No transitional forms, indicating how these >complex creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented. Pre-Cambrian >sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with overlying fossiliferous >Cambrian, but the gaps are still present. There evidence for 2.5 billion years of life prior to the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". And fossils typical of Cambrian types *are* found in Pre-Cambrian rocks, although not in abundance. Stephen Jay Gould is of the opinion that the Cambrian fossil record is consistent with the typical "sigmoid" population growth curve that is commonly seen in biological systems: An initial exponential phase during which the available resources are much more abundant than the growing population, followed by a levelling off as the population is limited by the finite resources. See "Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud" (love those titles :-) in his *Ever Since Darwin*. > This pattern continues throughout the entire evolutionary tree. Paleon- >tologists from each specialty admit that their particular area does not docu- >ment evolution, while at the same time maintaining a faith that all of the oth- >er areas provide the missing evidence. For example, the evolutionary botanist >Edred Corner wrote: ``Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of >evolution - from biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think >that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special >creation'' [3]. A typical creationist quotation out of context. Dr. Corner was (a) talking about angiosperms, not all plants, and (b) emphasizing the fact that *in this case* we do not have good fossil evidence as to *precisely which forms* they evolved from. He was not arguing that angiosperms didn't evolve from simpler forms. (See *Creation/Evolution*, Issue VII, article by Kenneth Miller). > Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil >record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi- >cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout >the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model. ``Despite >the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it >has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of >which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires inter- >mediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them'' [4]. >Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``The extreme rarity of transitional >forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The >evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and >nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the >evidence of fossils'' [5]. Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence'' >is not the mark of an objective scientist. But Stephen Jay Gould also says, in response to Creationist misquotations of his writings like this one, "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transition- al forms are generally lacking at the species level but *are abundant between larger groups* [emphasis added]. The evolution from reptiles to mammals is well documented" (Creation/Evolution VI, p. 38). Kenneth Miller comments in his article quoted above: "In order to defeat the notion of descent, Dr. Gish claimed that 'the missing links are still missing,' that there are gaps in the fossil record so severe that the record simply does not show evolution. This is a shocking set of untruths. "The fossil record not only documents evolution but the very existence of the fossil record was the force that drove unwilling scientists to admit nearly two centuries ago that living forms had changed (evolved). This record shows intermediate form after intermediate form. There is a long series of interme- diates linking reptiles with mammals. There are evolutionary sequences showing the evolution of the horse, the elephant, sea urchins, snails, major groups of plants, and many other animals now extinct. Furthermore, these fossils show an orderly succession which fully documents the evolutionary tree of life." For more specific examples, Roger J. Cuffey, in "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", which is reprinted in *Science and Creationism*, gives references to over 100 papers in the literature which document transitional forms at many different levels (species, genus, etc.). >PROPOSED TRANSITIONS > When pressed hard for evidence of transitional forms, evolutionists always >point to Archaeopteryx or to the horse series. Archaeopteryx, the proposed >link between reptiles and birds, is considered by many evolutionists to be the >best example of evolution in action. > However, close scrutiny indicates the characteristics of Archaeopteryx do >not give much support for the evolutionary model. Archaeopteryx did not have >half-scales and half-feathers, but rather fully developed feathers capable of >flight. Also, it turns out that Archaeopteryx's so-called reptilian features >are not unique to reptiles, but are possessed by several other types of birds. >For example, the living ostrich, hoatzin, touraco, etc. are all considered to >be 100% birds, and yet possess common traits which are labeled reptilian in Ar- >chaeopteryx. Furthermore, even the famous teeth cannot be used to label Ar- >chaeopteryx as partially reptile. Some reptiles have teeth and some do not. >Some amphibians have teeth and some do not. Some mammals have teeth and some >do not. Some fish have teeth and some do not. In fact, this pattern holds >true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum. Even other birds >once had teeth, though they are now extinct. Perhaps Ray would like to explain for us the principle of hydraulic sorting that caused birds with teeth to be fossilized in Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks, but birds without teeth to be fossilized later. Perhaps he would also like to explain for us why embryonic tissue from modern birds has retained the genes necessary to direct the formation of teeth (McGowan, p. 121). Sorry, not "retained"...I should have said, why it has such genes, since according to Creationists, modern birds were created separately, and there is no reason why they should have such genes at all. (This is another example of the "kludgey" nature of life as it exists that shows us that evolution, not creation, is the only reasonable hypothesis.) K. Miller comments, "The reason Gish says that intermediate forms do not exist is because his model requires that he explain them all away. For example, *Archaeopteryx*, a clear intermediate between reptiles and birds which in some ways is more closely linked with the little dinosaurs of the period than with later birds, is declared by Gish to be '100 percent bird'. Why? Because it has feathers. This is where he draws the line. Yet, if one really wanted to discuss the *Archaeopteryx* fossils in detail, one should be aware that several fossilized *Archaeopteryx* skeletons were discovered before one was found with feathers preserved. How were these specimens classified? They were thought to be reptiles and were placed in museums alongside other small dinosaurs. In short, *Archaeopteryx* was an animal whose skeletal structure was reptilian but upon whose skin the first feathers had appeared. Just how much more intermediate does something have to be?" Indeed, it is hardly surprising that *Archaeopteryx* was first classified as a reptile. McGowan gives a list of features that distinguish reptiles from birds taxonomically, (possession of teeth, which Ray Miller harps on, is notably absent from this list), and how *Archaeopteryx* falls with respect to each of these features: IN *ARCHAEOPTERYX* Reptilian Avian HIP 1. Pubic peduncle present TAIL 2. Long, bony tail 3. No pygostyle VERTEBRAE 4. Articular surfaces do not appear to be saddle-shaped (caution is required here because only two articular surfaces can be seen) CHEST 5. No bony sternum 6. Wishbone present HAND 7. Three well-developed fingers 8. Three well-developed metacarpal bones 9. Metacarpal bones unfused ANKLE REGION 10. Metatarsal bones separate 11. No hypotarsus ABDOMEN 12. Abdominal ribs present FEATHERS 13. Feathers present In other words, out of thirteen characteristics that are classificatory between birds and reptiles, *Archaeopteryx* conforms to the reptiles in ten points, to birds in two, and one more is probably also reptilian. What better example of a transitional form could one ask for? Does Ray know of any other species with so many reptilian characteristics that also has feathers? > Finally, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because the fossil >record indicates that birds were already in existence during the period in >which Archaeopteryx was found [6]. These are just some of the reasons that >many evolutionists are beginning to abandon Archaeopteryx as a transitional >form. Contrary to what Ray says, it is quite possible for *Archaeopteryx* to have existed simultaneously with birds that evolved from it. Creationists have a curious misconception, as seen by their constant references to "Living Fossils", that evolution predicts the extinction of one species if some of its representatives evolve into something else. This is completely wrong. It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for one isolated breeding population to evolve into something else, while another isolated breeding population of the same species, because of differing circumstances, does not. This results in the "daughter" species coexisting with its "parent". > The famous horse series is often found in museums as one of the classic >cases of evolution. However, the observer is not usually told that: all of the >various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed reduction in >the number of toes has many contradictions in order, Eohippus is almost identi- >cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in the >same strata with their supposed ancestors. In fact, as more fossil evidence is >collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did not evolve, >but were merely contemporaries of each other. Of course, Ray *has* to say this. But saying it doesn't make it true. See Futuyama's book, pp. 85-95, for a detailed, step-by-step description of the evolution of the horse. Chris McGowan, in *In the Beginning...* devotes Chapter 13 to this subject. Ray claims that all these species were contemporaries of each other. The facts: Eohippus is found in the Eocene, Mesohippus in the Ogliocene, Parahippus in the Miocene, Pliohippus in the Pliocene, and Equus (modern horse) does not arise until the late Pliocene. >HUMAN EVOLUTION > In 1912, Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered. For over 40 >years, Piltdown Man was examined by the world's leading authorities, contribut- >ing in some part to over 500 doctoral dissertations. But in the 1950's, it was >revealed that Piltdown Man was a complete hoax! The ``fossil'' turned out to >be nothing more than fragments of an ape's jaw with a human skull treated to >look old. Scientists of the time were so desperate to find support for evolu- >tion, that even a fraud was accepted as valid data. Kenneth Miller again: "To conclude his attack on human evolution, Dr. Gish reminded his audience of the Piltdown Man hoax. This is surprising since the hoax was revealed and exposed not by anti-evolutionists but by scientists. The same techniques that exposed the Piltdown hoax now verify the authenticity of the work done by Johanson and others [on *Australopithecus afarensis*]." I want to emphasize a major Creationist inconsistency here, since the evidence that proved that Piltdown Man was a hoax relied on precisely the same physical dating techniques that Creationists otherwise reject as evidence of the antiquity of things! > The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was used in the 1925 >Scopes trial to ridicule creationists. Nebraska Man consisted of a single >tooth, although evolutionists had reconstructed Nebraska Man's entire appear- >ance from that tooth. In 1927, the rest of the fossil was uncovered. Nebraska >Man was neither an ape-like man nor a man-like ape, but an extinct pig! K. Miller: "Gish also mentioned Nebraska Man, for which the evidence turned out to be a number of fossilized pig's teeth. However, what he failed to mention was that since the discovery of Nebraska Man in 1922, it was contested by scientists worldwide. In fact, in every case that creationists have pointed out that scientists made errors, the errors were originally discovered by scientists themselves - not by creationists who have made no significant contribution to the literature of evolution." > Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus, later known as Homo erectus) consisted >of a skullcap, femur, and a premolar discovered over a period of seven years. >The discoverer, Eugene DuBois, eventually changed his mind and declared that >Java Man consisted of nothing more than the unrelated parts of a human and a >giant gibbon. By that time, however, evolutionists had already accepted Java >Man as an ancestor of humans. Furthermore, DuBois had found (but had kept >secret for thirty years) the discovery of human skulls (the Wadjak skulls) in >the same strata as Java Man. As for Java Man, Chris McGowan (in *In the Beginning...*) points out that "Many more specimens like Dubois's have been found since the turn of the century, and these are now all referred to as the species *Homo Erectus*. *Homo Erectus* has been found in many parts of the world - Europe, Africa, China and the Middle East - and includes specimens that have been referred to as Java man (the original specimen found by Dubois), Peking man, and Heidelberg man. We now know that the crainial capacity of the species overlaps broadly with the lower end of our own range, and, aside from the heavier build, especially of the skull, there are no significant differences between it and our own species. There is, therefore, a gentle progression from *Homo erectus*, which lived from about 1.5 million till about 200,000 years ago, to *Homo sapiens*..." >Since humans already existed, Java Man could not >have been their ancestor. I have already dealt with this silly idea above. Perhaps the particular individual excavated by DuBois wasn't ancestral to modern man, but *Homo erectus* certainly was. > Neanderthal Man was originally classified as Homo neanderthalensis, but >today is known to be fully Homo sapiens. The original La Chapelle-aux-Saints >fossil is believed to have suffered from spinal osteoarthritis, and many later >finds do not have the stooped appearance. McGowan again: "And what do the creationists have to say about *Homo Erectus* and Neanderthal man? Dr. Gish goes to some lengths in his discussion of *Homo erectus* to establish that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the discovery of both Java man and Peking man, and the notion of fraudulence is reinforced by his telling the story of the Piltdown hoax... Neither Dr. Gish nor Dr. Morris have very much to say about Neanderthal man, aside from the fact that the original material was arthritic and that Neanderthals are like modern man. Dr. Morris ends his discussion by saying that as far as the fossil record is concerned, man has always been man, and that 'There are no intermediate or transitional forms leading up to man, any more than there were transitional forms between any of the other basic kinds of animals in the fossil record.' Our survey of the fossil evidence of hominid evolution has shown that this is just not true, any more than it is true for the other transitional fossils that we have discussed." > 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 transi- >tions from hoaxes, extinct pigs, etc. it is not surprising the interest evolu- >tionists 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 dis- >cussion, as the living pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus spends a great deal of >time walking upright. 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. -- "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)
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/04/85)
In response to Bill Jefferys and others: Awhile back I posted a response to SOR Pamphlet #4, which, although perhaps not as well-phrased as Mr. Jefferys' reply, had one point in it which I feel that Bill underemphasized. And that is that Mr. Miller is a dishonest man. After I posted my article, one or two people sent (or posted) replies to the effect of, "Greg, where have you been? Of course creationists misquote their sources!" I know that this is common among the religious right, but that does not make it any less crooked. You see, Mr. Miller has already read the arguments that Bill Jefferys posted, because Mr. Miller quoted sources *which contain those arguments*. This means the he knows that his arguments are bogus. And he doesn't care. You see, the creationist strategy is not to prove creationism scientific. They know that they can't do that. And it's not to prove evolution scientifically unsound. The know that they can't do that either. No, the creationist strategy is to attempt to debate evolution for long enough that it seems questionable. And as anybody who has been on a debating team knows, the way to hold your own in a debate is to present a hundred short, bogus arguments. Thus, when Bill posts a 300-line reply to Arthur Ray Miller, he is doing Mr. Miller a favor: he is fueling discussion. I maintain that this is not the correct approach. The correct approach, rather, is to point out the first two or three distortions/half-quotes/misquotes, and then say, "Your methods are dishonest, and therefore your arguments are not worthy of being under discussion." One might suggest at this point that Mr. Miller's pamphlets are not worthy of any reply at all. Unfortunately, some sort a reply is necessary, because no reply at all satisfies the creationists' other hope: that they will be able to preach what they wish without any intervention from scientists at all. If this happened, then at least some laymen/politicians might take what they say at face value, which would fulfill their main goal: political power. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk " " -Charlie Chaplin, for IBM
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/04/85)
Thanks, Bill, for a superb rebuttal to SOR #4. It was exactly what I was waiting for. I'm still waiting to see Ray Miller post a revised pamphlet incorporating corrections brought about by our comments. Let the pious be honest for a change. I do, however, have one small enhancement for your rebuttals. Ray Miller writes: > However, close scrutiny indicates the characteristics of Archaeopteryx do >not give much support for the evolutionary model. Archaeopteryx did not have >half-scales and half-feathers, but rather fully developed feathers capable of >flight. Also, it turns out that Archaeopteryx's so-called reptilian features >are not unique to reptiles, but are possessed by several other types of birds. >For example, the living ostrich, hoatzin, touraco, etc. are all considered to >be 100% birds, and yet possess common traits which are labeled reptilian in Ar- >chaeopteryx. Furthermore, even the famous teeth cannot be used to label Ar- >chaeopteryx as partially reptile. Some reptiles have teeth and some do not. >Some amphibians have teeth and some do not. Some mammals have teeth and some >do not. Some fish have teeth and some do not. In fact, this pattern holds >true throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum. Even other birds >once had teeth, though they are now extinct. Ray here shows an appalling lack of knowledge of comparative anatomy and the science of classification. First, ALL birds have scales, feathers, and half- scale/half-feathers. The scales are generally on the feet alone, and there is a transition to feathers. The scales are identical to reptilian scales, and the histology of developing feathers and scales shows that they originate from the same precursive structures. Second, Ray needs to understand that the old "classes" (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, etc.) are convenient when dealing with extant groups, because (for the most part) the extant members have certain characteristics in common. However, if one takes a cladistic viewpoint, fish include all their descendants: thus amphibians are a "subclass" of fish, reptiles are a "subclass" of amphibians, and birds and mammals are "subclasses" of reptiles. (I've used "subclass", though the correct term is subclade or subtaxon.) Evolutionary biologists are familiar with the reptilian characters of ostriches, hoatzins, etc. Indeed, they are the ones who documented them, not creationists. That's one of the reasons why cladograms of birds (trees of ancestry) have those groups branching off near the bottom. Classifications are frequently plagued with exceptions, such as lack of teeth in some mammals, etc. In general, cladists think that loss of a character several times (such as loss of teeth in mammals, birds, fish, etc.) is a likely occurance, but development of a new character the same way more than once is an unlikely occurance. Thus, loss of teeth in birds may have happened once to the ancestor of all extant birds, and separately in different groups of mammals, fish, etc. But development of feathers probably occurred only once. Thus, birds and Archaeopteryx must have shared a common ancestor. The common ancestor probably had teeth, which Archaeopterix didn't lose, and the rest of the birds did lose. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh