Lewin, Roger, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 348 pp.
p. 27
"It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge
from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that
much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of
appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to
indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population.
This problem has in some part been eased in the half-century since Hooton made
his pithy remarks. But it remains inescapably true that applying the correct
label is astonishingly difficult, not least because such labels are in a sense
arbitrary abstractions; and especially so when the material on which the
analysis is being done is fragmentary and eroded. ‘It is an incredibly
difficult problem,’ says Lord Zuckerman. ‘It is one so difficult that I
think it would be legitimate to despair that one could ever turn it into a
science.’"
p. 43
"In fact, ‘virtually all our theories about human
origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data,’ observes David Pilbeam.
‘The theories are … fossil-free or in some cases even fossil-proof.’ This
shocking statement simply means that there is and always has been far more
fleshing out of the course and cause of human evolution than can fully be
justified by the scrappy skeleton provided by the fossils. As a result, he
continues, ‘our theories have often said far more about the theorists than
they have about what actually happened.’"
p. 300
"All of which suggests that it is easier to recognize
bias in others than to admit it in oneself. It also probably means that some
questions in paleoanthropology may well be impossible to answer with any degree
of certainty—and human beings dislike uncertainty, especially when it concerns
themselves. Combine these two truths and you get an inevitable result, as noted
by Johanson: ‘Anthropologists who deal with human fossils tend to get very
emotionally involved with their bones.’"
Kelso, A. J., Physical Anthropology (New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1974), 355 pp.
p. 142
"… the transition from insectivore to primate is not
documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by
inference from living forms."
p. 151
"Clearly the fossil documentation of the emergence of the
Old World monkeys could provide key insights into the general evolutionary
picture of the primates, but, in fact, this record simply does not exist."
[Emphasis added]
Gould, Stephen Jay, "Empire of the Apes," Natural History, vol. 96 (May 1987), pp. 20-25.
p. 24
"The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years
old, and we do not
know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to
our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of Asian Sivapithecus
to the modern
orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists
have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus
might be a source
of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age
are
potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution—the period when our
lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which
no
fossil evidence exists at all." [Emphasis added]
Cartmill, Matt, David R. Pilbeam, and Glynn Isaac, "One Hundred Years of
Paleoanthropology," American Scientist, vol. 74 (July/August 1986), pp. 410-420.
p. 416
"It is now known that these so-called robust
australopithecines coexisted with
Homo for over a million years. The marked
anatomical differences between the
two imply that they were different species with quite different adaptations.
Thus,
the notion of one general adaptive niche for hominids must be a mistake.
Whatever explains hominid origins cannot also be a sufficient explanation
of
human origins, for not all hominids became human."
p. 416
"However, at present there is not thought to be any good
evidence for either
meat-eating or tool-using by any australopithecines, and the anatomy of their
jaws and teeth implies a largely or wholly vegetarian diet."
p. 417
"The early australopithecines are known from
fossilized footprints to have
been bipedal; but they were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar
dentition, limb proportions, & morphology of some joint surfaces, and they
may
still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees."
[Emphasis added - please note the emphasized statement in conjunction with
the last two quotes of the next reference]
Herbert, Wray, "Hominids Bear Up, Become Porpoiseful,"
Science News, vol. 123 (April 16,
1983), p. 246.
p. 246
"Ancient humans are going through changes that no theory
of evolution could
predict. The oldest known hominoid (ancestor of apes and man) from northern
Africa was recently transformed into an ancient species of dolphin, while in
east
Africa one of the earliest bipedal hominids, or primitive humans, has changed
into something like a prehistoric dancing bear. While the changes do not
fundamentally alter views of early humanity, they have sparked much discussion
about anthropologists’ over-zealous pursuit of human ancestry."
p. 246
"[Tim] White had dubbed the hominoid species Flipperpithecus."
p. 246
"According to John Hopkins University anthropologist Alan
Walker, there is
a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the
past,
he says, skilled anthropologists have erroneously described an alligator femur
and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles….
"In another fossil reassessment, University of Chicago
anthropologist Russell
Tuttle has examined a set of 3.5-million-year-old hominid footprints at the
Laetoli site in Tanzania and has concluded that they are not hominid at all."
p. 246
"He found that the prints of a Himalayan black bear
match the Laetoli [A-
trail] prints very closely." [Emphasis added]
Anonymous, "Australopithecus,
a Long-armed, Short-legged, Knuckle-walker," Science
News, vol. 100 (November 27, 1971), p. 357.
"Australopithecus
limb bone fossils have been rare finds, but Leakey
now has a large sample. They portray Australopithecus
as long-armed and
short-legged. He was probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many
archaeologists presently believe."
Cartmill, Matt, "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," Natural History, vol. 92 (November 1983), pp. 65-79.
p. 76
"Dart’s ‘tools’ from the australopithecine cave
sites had always met with coughs and raised eyebrows from his peers. But they
were not ruled out of the picture until the early 1970’s, when E. S. Vrba and
C. K. Brain undertook more extensive studies of the animal bones from those
caves. They concluded that the australopithecines, like the baboons and
antelopes from the same deposits, had been dragged into the caves and eaten by
leopards and carnivores. Most and probably all of the bone tools were scraps
from a cat’s lunch—and so were the remains of the supposed killer
apes." [Emphasis added]
Questions or comments? Please email jim@darwinisdead.com .
Please check back often. These pages are ...
A CONTINUAL WORK IN PROGRESS