On Tue, 12 Dec 95 12:43:51 MST you wrote:
SJ>I do not disagree that Lucy may be a "transitional form". If it is
>ultimately proved that man has a common genetic ancestry with apes,
>Australopithecines, and Homo erectus, then I would see that as the
>process by which "God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gn 2:7).
JF>We'll make an evolutionist out of you yet, Steve!
I was sort of hoping that I would make a progressive creationist out
of you, Jim! :-)
SJ>My real point was the tentative nature of paleoanthropological
>interpretations. Zuckerman has compared much of it to
>"parapsychology" and pointed out that *every* fossil remotely
>resembling humans has been claimed as a human ancestor, thus
>guaranteeing instant fame, and perhaps fortune.
JF>(sigh) Certainly a valid complaint. It's worth pointing out
>however that the finders of fossils are the worst culprits in this
>regard, and that other scientists have usually been more than willing
>to cast a skeptical eye.
Agreed. Zuckerman and Oxnard are the prime examples of this healthy
skepticism.
JF>Also, not all of these claimed ancestors were debunked;
>many of them have survived scrutiny, and are still considered probable
>ancestors.
AFAIK all the Australopithecines are not amcestors and now it seems
the Neanderthals are not. This leaves only Homo erectus as ancestors
which fits well with the 2-Adam model:
"Armed with the means of uncovering information of this type, we have
come to see that Homo was a different kind of human right from its
first appearance. The discovery of a biological discontinuity between
Australopithecus and Homo has fundamentally changed our understanding
of human prehistory." (Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix:
London, 1994, p43)
JF>So although scientists have often been less than objective,
>particularly about their own finds, I think the comparison with
>parapsychology is unfair. (I think Zuckerman had a bit of sour
>grapes about the fact that his interpretation of the australopithecines
>was almost universally debunked)
I agree that the "parapsychology" tag may be unfair. But Gould seems
to
accept Zuckerman's pupil Oxnard's views re Australopithecines:
"Chicago anthropologist Charles Oxnard has dealt, Australopithecus
another blow from a different source. He studied the shoulder,
pelvis, and foot of australopithecines, modern primates (great apes
and some monkeys), and Homo with the rigorous techniques of
multivariate analysis (the simultaneous statistical consideration of
large numbers of measures). He concludes-though many anthropologists
disagree-that the australopithecines were "uniquely different" from
either apes or humans, and argues for "the removal of the different
members of this relatively small-brained, curiously unique genus
Australopithecus into one or more parallel side lines away from a
direct link with man." What has become of our ladder if we must
recognize three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the
robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from
another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends
during their tenure on earth: none become brainier or more erect as
they approach the present day." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin",
Penguin: London, 1977, p60)
Regards
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------