Michael Michalchik
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:47 am Post subject: For you physical anthropologists out there |
 |
|
I am in a debate with a creationist that may actually stay civilized
and focused on the facts. I am pretty strong on eveolutionary theory,
population genetics, ecology and molecular biology, but my education
paid very little attention to the homanid fossil record and find
myself bit lost on his recent set of assertions. I think he is missing
the forrest for the trees, i.e. worrying to much about whether a
particular fossil demonstrates a particular homanid trait or whether a
particular definition is fulfilled and I will write him a letter to
that effect rather than the basic issue that intermeadiate forms exist
and generally the fossil record moves towards the modern human form as
a function of time. Still, If possible I>d like to address the
specific points he raises if possible. Below is his last email to me
and I was hoping that some of you would comment on the assertions he
makes:
Thanks for including some links in your last email, and, having read
many of the actual reports of various "ape-like" creatures, you and I
will have to agree to disagree. I tend to have a problem accepting a
small handful of fossils that have been found in many cases over 5-17
years in 4-5 different locations. For instance, Ardipithecus ramidus
kadabba (see Haile-Selassie, Yohannes (2001), "Late Miocene Hominids
from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia," Nature, 412:178-181, July 12.). In
the July 23, 2001 issue of Time magazine Michael Lemonick showed a
picture of a single toe bone from this particular creature with the
caption "This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs."
However, the Nature article reveals that all the bones from kadabba
were collected over 5 years from 5 different locations. And this toe
bone (one bone out of the 26 bones that comprise the foot [see Netter,
1996] was found in a different location and was dated chronologically
younger than all the other bones that comprise this latest "missing
link." Pardon me if I have a little trouble believing the Time cover
which boldly proclaimed: "How Apes Became Humans: What a new discovery
tells scientists about how our oldest ancestors stood on two legs and
made an evolutionary step"
Also, the link you gave me mentioned Australopithicines, and you
obviously believe that these 'ancestors' were bipeds (given your
interest in Oliver). However, In Stern and Susman>s 1983 analysis of
afarensis, they pointed out:
"These findings of ours, in conjunction with Christie>s (1977),
observation on enhanced rotation at the tibio-talar joint in AL 288-1,
Tardieu>s (1979) deductions about greater voluntary rotation at the
knee in AL 288-1, Senut>s (1981) and Feldesman>s (1982a) claims that
the humerus of AL 288-1 is pongid in certain of its features, and
Feldesman>s (1982b) demonstration that the ulna of AL 288-1 is most
similar to that of Pan paniscus [a chimp-BH/BT], all seem to lead
ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid was vitally
dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance (60:311). [for
the full report see Stern, Jack T. Jr. and Randall L. Susman (1983),
"The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis," Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 60:279-317.]
You may also not be aware that Brian Richmond and David Strait of
George Washington University experienced what many might call a
"eureka!" moment while going through some old papers on primate
physiology at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. They
noted:
"We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking
adaptations in modern African apes," Dr. Richmond said. "I could not
remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...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" [see BBC News
(2000), "Ancestors Walked on Knuckles," [On-line], URL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm].
The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:
A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of "Lucy,"
the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist
is stiff, like a chimpanzee>s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of
George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This
suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles [Fox, Maggie
(2000), "Man>s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers," San Diego Union
Tribune, Quest Section; March 29.]
Richmond and Strait discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a
mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this
joint. In their report, they noted: "Here we present evidence that
fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A.
afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated
with knuckle-walking" [Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000),
"Evidence that Humans Evolved from a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,"
Nature, 404:382-385, March 23].
Clearly, you seem to think that we ARE apes. And yet the linnean
system (that is upheld by your evolutionary colleagues) would argue
that point. According to the linnean system:
Family Pongidae (the great apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees,
bonobos, and orangutans)
Genus Pongo (orangutans)
Species pygmaeus
Genus Gorilla (gorillas)
Species gorilla
Genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos)
Species troglodytes - the Chimpanzee
Species paniscus - the Bonobo or pygmy chimp, from
Zaire, along the Zaire river.
Whereas humans are classified:
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
So no, we are not apes (technically or literally).
You might wonder why I have a problem believing all this stuff. I mean
after all, if one were to listen to the media, evolutionists have an
answer for everything. However, upon listening to the words of Donald
Johanson, (the man that found Lucy) Ithink you can see my concern. He
admitted:
"There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody
has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is
looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where
the human line started. If you are working back at around three
million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an
idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes
to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but
also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that
would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection,
the fossils themselves would not sustain" (Johanson and Edey, 1981,
pp. 257,258, emp. added).
I hope you will consider this information with an open mind. Again,
thanks for your time. |
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:54 am Post subject: Re: For you physical anthropologists out there |
|
|
Michael Michalchik <michalchik@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Clearly, you seem to think that we ARE apes. And yet the linnean
system (that is upheld by your evolutionary colleagues) would argue
that point. According to the linnean system:
Family Pongidae (the great apes, including gorillas, chimpanzees,
bonobos, and orangutans)
Genus Pongo (orangutans)
Species pygmaeus
Genus Gorilla (gorillas)
Species gorilla
Genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos)
Species troglodytes - the Chimpanzee
Species paniscus - the Bonobo or pygmy chimp, from
Zaire, along the Zaire river.
Whereas humans are classified:
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
So no, we are not apes (technically or literally).
[/quote]
IANAPA, but I do know about the history and structure of the Linnaean
system.
Linnaeus lived a century before Darwin and was not an evolutionist. His
system of classification is basically one of convenience and protocols
for naming and arranging things - it is pretty broken these days but the
subsequent system of today is still useful, the way an obsolete library
numbering system is still useful if cumbersome, and it would take a lot
of effort to rename everything completely according to a new "rational"
system and it too would be superseded eventually.
But a couple of points:
Linnaeus *did name apes in the genus Homo. Huxley describes the initial
history of hominoid classification, and notes that while there had been
some excellent descriptions of orangutans and chimpanzees in the 18th
century, Linnaeus relied on second-hand sources, and classified four
species under the genus Homo: Homo caudatus (a cat tailed ape, either
mythical or a misunderstanding of a description of a baboon), Homo
sylvestris (probably a juvenile chimp), Homo nocturnus (a
badly-represented orangutan), and Homo sapiens (Huxley 1906 p10-13). It
is occasionally noted that by the established rules of nomenclatural
priority, chimpanzees should therefore be included in Homo on Linnaean
grounds as well as on cladistic grounds (which is argued in, for
instance Diamond 1991).
It was offensive to the sensitivities of others later in the 18thC, and
the genus Pan was formed. All this was before evolutionary theory.
Linnaeus was smart enough to realise that humans and apes were of the
same kind, biologically speaking, and the definition he gave that
distinguished humans from the rest of Homo was (in Latin) "know
thyself".
So who named these families anyway? Humans, that>s who. Humans with a
vested interest in seeing themselves as separate from the rest of the
world. In short, Christians. Citing pre-evolutionary Christian views as
reason to reject post-evolutionary non-literalism is, shall we say, so
circular it approaches a mathematical point.
Finally, the Linnaean ranks have been many times revised. These days,
within the linnaean system of today (lowercase refers to the system as
it has changed since Linnaeaus' day: for a start, he first suggested
five, and then seven ranks, we now have over 20), apes and humans are
both included within Hominidae.
Huxley, T. H. (1906). Mans place in nature and other essays. London; New
York, J. M. Dent/E. P. Dutton.
Diamond, J. M. (1991). The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee. London
; Sydney, Radius.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you>ll give and tears you>ll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be |
|
