Table of Contents
Vol.2: Genesis and Early Man
FOSSIL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN
AND THE RECORD OF GENESIS
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. The Evolutionary Faith
Chapter 2. Faith Without Sufficient
Chapter 3. An Alternative Faith
Chapter 4. Where Did Man First Appear?
1968 Doorway paper No. 45, published
privately by Arthur C. Custance
1975 Part I in Genesis and Early Man, vol.2 in The
Doorway Papers Series, published by Zondervan Publishing
1997 Arthur Custance Online Library (html)
2001 2nd Online Edition (text corrections, design revisions)
1 of 13
The Evolutionary Faith
"Man is a primate and within the order of
is most closely related to the living African anthropoid apes."
So wrote F.
Clark Howell recently, (1) providing us with a good example of the kind of confident
announcement with which evolutionary literature abounds. As it
stands, it is purely presumptive. Just because members of a family
are apt to look alike, it is not at all safe to assume that all
"look-alikes" are related. Howell's first statement
"Man is a primate" is true enough; but his second statement,
which is presented as though it were equally factual, is simple
supposition without any positive proof whatever. Within the order
Primates, man may most closely resemble living African anthropoid
apes from an anatomical point of view, but it is quite another
thing to state categorically that he is most closely related
to them. Resemblance and relationship are by no means the same
thing. Howell does admit in the next sentence that he is not
sure how far removed the relationship is, but the basic assumption
still remains that the blood relationship exists. Very few readers
except those expert in the subject would discern the presumption
in Howell's statement. All that the facts indicate is similarity.
Relationship is totally unprovable by an appeal to morphology.
If he had said, "Man is anatomically most like the African
anthropoid apes," his statement would have been quite correct.
As it stands, his statement is completely hypothetical. Howell
is confusing hypothesis with fact.
The extent to which anthropologists
today exercise faith, holding to be true and firmly established
what in fact is only hopefully believed, is borne out by several
of the following quotations, all of
1. Howell F. Clark, "The Hominization
Process" in Human Evolution: Readings in Physical Anthropology,
edited by N. Korn and F. Thompson, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1967, p.85.
which are from topflight
experts in the field. Raymond Pearl, for instance, said �
and this is a beautiful example of hopeful possibilities stated
by circumlocution as high probabilities: (2)
While everyone agrees that man's
closest living relatives are to be found in the four man-like
apes, gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, and gibbon, there is no
such agreement about the precise structure of his ancestral pedigree.
The evidence that he had a perfectly natural and normal one .
. . is overwhelming in magnitude and cogency. But exactly what
the individual steps were, or how they came about, is still to
be learned. There are nearly as many theories on the point as
there are serious students of the problem. All of them at present,
however, lack that kind of clear and simple proof which brings
the sort of universal acceptance that is accorded to the law
of gravitation, for example.
Only on one point, and that one
a little vague, can there be said to be general agreement. It
is that, on the weight of evidence, it is probable that at some
remote period in the past for which no clear paleontological
record has yet been uncovered, man and the other primates branched
off from what had theretofore been a common ancestral stem.
In this quotation
the phrase "a perfectly natural and normal pedigree"
means, of course, an evolutionary one. Pearl assures us that
the evidence for this is overwhelming in magnitude and cogency,
but in the next breath he speaks only of possibilities and adds
that even for these there is no clear paleontological evidence.
Many anthropologists today, twenty years after the above was
written, would argue that the paleontological evidence is now
at hand in the form of a wide range of catarrhine anthropoidea
loosely catalogued together as pithecines. These creatures include
such types as Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, Kenyapithecus, and
of course the more popularly known Australopithecines. But a
study of the literature in which these fossils are described
indicates first of all that there is considerable disagreement
as to their precise status and relationship with one another,
and secondly, that there is considerable debate whether they
really stand in the line leading to Homo sapiens, though
people like Robinson hopefully try to slide them across in the
family tree so that they at least fall under the heading of hominoidea
from which man is supposed to have evolved. At the present moment
it appears to me that there has not been enough time yet to achieve
a clear picture, and even if evolution were true it still seems
unlikely that Homo sapiens arrived via a pithecine route.
The trouble is that the Australopithecines
had very small brains, a mean cranial capacity of 575 CC. (3) compared with the normal
2. Pearl, Raymond, Man the Animal,
Principia Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1946, p.3.
3. Clark; Wilfred LeGros, "Bones of Contention," Huxley
Memorial Lecture, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,
vol.88, no.2, 1958, p.136-138.
for modern man of 1450
cc. and yet appear to have been tool users. Since by definition
man is a cultured animal and tools are an essential part of his
cultural activity, these primitive apes have been by some credited
with culture and for this reason elevated to manhood, though
at a very low level, of course. But there are many who hold that
a creature cannot be said to be a "cultured" animal
merely because it uses tools. Birds use tools for example, but
this can hardly be considered as cultural activity. (4) There is no unequivocal
evidence, that I am aware of, that the Australopithecines deliberately
manufactured tools. There is evidence of what looks like manufactured
tools, but it is highly debatable whether they were actually
the work of the Australopithecines themselves. It has been argued
that Australopithecines were hunted by early man and that these
tools were left by the hunters. W. L. Strauss Jr., (5) in a note appearing in
Science entitled "Australopithecines Contemporaneous
with Man?" said of these:
Some of these artifacts are
unquestionably worked, and all but one are composed of material
foreign to the site and the immediate vicinity � an indication
that they represent a true lithic culture. The stratigraphy seems
to make it clear that the artifacts are of the same age as the
red-brown breccia, and not intrusions. The industry is not of
the most primitive character. . . .
J. T. Robinson concludes that the
advanced character of this stone industry makes its attribution
to the Australopithecines dubious. . . . He believes that
the most reasonable hypothesis at the present time is to attribute
the industry to a "true man" that invaded the area
before the time that this particular red-brown breccia was formed.
In the second
place, it used to be held that cranial capacity and intelligence
were closely related. This is seriously questioned today although
there is general agreement that a human being cannot be normal
with a cranial capacity below about 800 cc., the so-called "cerebral
If there is no relationship between these
4. Tool Using: see Kenneth P. Oakley, "Skill
as a Human Possession" in A History of Technology,
edited by Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard and K. R. Hall,
Oxford University Press, 1954, vol.1, pp.1-37 for a discussion
of animal tool-users. Also Mickey Chiang, "Use of Tools
by Wild Macaque Monkeys in Singapore," Nature, vol.214,
1967, p.1258, 9. Also K. R. L. Hall, "Tool-Using Performances
as Indicators of Behavioural Adaptability" in Human Evolution,
Readings in Physical Anthropology, edited by C. Singer, E.J.
Holmyard, K.R Hall, Holt, Rinhehart & Winston, New York,
1967, pp.173-210; especially p.195 in "Comments" for
a remark by R. Cihak: "The author states that not tool-using
but tool-making signalizes the critical stage in the transition
from ape to human; but it ought to be pointed out that tool-making
as 'shaping an object for an imaginary future eventuality,'
is the real boundary between ape and man." [his emphasis]
5. Strauss, W. L., Jr., "Australopithecines Contemporaneous
with Man?" Science, vol.126, 1957, p.1238.
6. Weidenreich, Franz, "The Human Brain in the Light of
Its Phylogenetic Development," Scientific Monthly,
vol.67, Aug., 1948, p.103-109. "Cerebral Rubicon":
P. V. Tobias, "The Old Olduvi Bed I Hominine with Specific
Reference to Its Cranial Capacity," Nature, 4 Apr.,
two indices, then the
very small Australopithecine brain might still qualify as "human."
But there is certainly no general agreement on the matter. In
any case, modern man with his far larger brain is represented
by fossils which were contemporary with the latest in the Australopithecine
line, so it still seems unlikely that Homo sapiens arrived
via this route.
Leaky, writing in 1966 with reference
to Homo habilis, a supposed maker of tools, for a number
of reasons rejects any such lineal series as Australopithecus
africanus � Homo habilis � Homo erectus
(the latter being essentially man as we now know him). . . .
(7) "It seems
to me," he said, "more likely that Homo habilis
and Homo erectus as well as some of the Australopithecines,
were all evolving along their own distinct lines by Lower Pleistocene
And again, "I submit that morphologically it is almost impossible
to regard H. habilis as representing a stage between Australopithecus
africanus and Homo erectus." He added:
I have never been able to accept
the view that Australopithecus represented a direct ancestral
stage leading to H. erectus, and I disagree even more
strongly with the present suggestion of placing H. habilis
between them. . . It is possible that H. habilis
may prove to be the direct ancestor of H. sapiens but
this can be no more than a theory at present. . . .
All that can be said at present
is that there was a time at Olduvai when H. habilis, Australopithecus
(Zinjanthropus) boisei and what seems to be
a primitive ancestor of H. erectus were broadly contemporary
and developing along distinct and separate lines [my emphasis].
The debate continues,
and though "no one" questions man's evolutionary origin,
the conclusive links are still missing.
The problem is that although there are
a substantial number of fossil candidates which can be manipulated
into the proper kind of sequence, the chain seems to lead rather
to modern apes or to extinction than to man. For certain periods
of geological history there are promising successions of fossil
forms which look as though they ought to lead to man, but they
don't. Recently, Elwyn L. Simons observed: (9)
7. Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are at least
contemporary and may quite probably have been one species according
to the latest studies made of the Talgai Skull by Anatomy Professor
N. W. G. MacIntosh of Sydney University, Australia, (Science
News, vol.93, Apr. 20, 1968, p.381).
8. Leakey, L. S. B., "Homo habilis, Homo erectus and THE
AUSTRALOPITHICINES", Nature, vol.209, 1956, p.1280,
9. Simons, Elwyn L. "The Early Relatives of Man," Scientific
American, July, 1964, p.50. Simons' recent discovery in the
Fayum of Aegyptopithecus reported in his article, "The Earliest
Apes" (Scientific American, Dec. 1967, pp.28-38)
and which he describes as "the skull of a monkey equipped
with the teeth of an ape," does not shed light on the nature
of the missing link between ape and man -- only between the monkey
and the ape.
the past fifteen years a number of significant new finds have
been made. . . . The early primates are now represented by many
complete or nearly complete skulls, some nearly complete skeletons,
a number of limb bones, and even the bones of hands and feet.
In age these specimens extend across almost the entire Cenozoic
era, from its beginning in Paleocene epoch some sixty-three million
years ago up to the Pliocene which ended roughly two million
years ago. . . . But they do not lie in the exact line
of man's ancestry.
When the significance
of the data itself is a subject of so much debate, it is clear
that a great deal depends upon imaginative thinking, each authority
being persuaded that he is merely reading the evidence. But the
disagreement which exists between authorities demonstrates clearly
that the evidence can be "merely read" in several different
ways. For this reason, Melville Herskovits (10) observed that "no branch of anthropology requires
more of inference for the weighing of imponderables, in short,
of the exercise of scientific imagination, than prehistory."
Many years ago, Wilson D. Wallis
(11) pointed out
that there is a kind of law in the matter of anthropological
thinking about fossil remains which goes something like this:
the less information we have by reason of the scarcity and antiquity
of the remains, the more sweeping our generalizations can be
about them. If you find the bones of a man who has died recently,
you have to be rather careful what you say about him because
somebody might be able to check up on your conclusions. The further
back you go, the more confidently you can discuss such reconstructions
because there is less possibility of anyone being able to challenge
you. Consequently, when only a few fossil remains of early man
were known, very broad generalizations could be made about them
and all kinds of genealogical trees were drafted with aplomb.
A few wiser anthropologists today decry the temptation to draft
genealogical trees which, as I. Manton said, are more like "bundles
of twigs" rather than trees, in any case. (12) And when it comes to the reconstruction of a fossil
find into a "flesh-and-blood" head and face, the degree
of divergence can be even more extraordinary as is shown, for
example, in those concocted to represent Zinjanthropus for the
Sunday Times (London), the Illustrated London News,
and for Dr. Kenneth Oakley by Maurice Wilson, respectively.
(13) The reconstruction
of man's evolutionary history is still much more of an art than
a science. I have redrawn these three reconstructions from the
originals (see Fig.1 and 2)
10. Herskovits, Melville, Man and His Works,
Knopf, New York., 1950, p.97.
11. Wallis, Wilson D., "Pre-Suppositions in Anthropological
Interpretations," American Anthropologist, July-Sept.,
vol.50, 1948, p.560.
12. Manton, I., "Problems of Cytology and Evolution in the
Pteridophyta," Cambridge University Press, 1950,
quoted by Irving W. Knoblock, Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation, vol.5, 3 Sept., 1953, p.14.
13. Sunday Times of April 5, 1964; and Illustrated
London News and Sketch, Jan. 1, 1960: see also "The
Fallacy of Anthropological Reconstructions," by the author,
Part V in Genesis and Early Man, vol.2 in The Doorway
Top Left: The original fossil skull which formed
the basis of the three reconstructions of Zinjanthropus which
have been redrawn below: Zinjanthropus, as drawn (A) for
the Sunday Times of London, 5 April 1964; (B) by Neave
Parker for Dr. L. S. B. Leakey and published in the Illustrated
London News and Sketch, 1 January 1960; (C) by Maurice Wilson
for Dr. Kenneth P. Oakley. All these are redrawn by the author.
The principle that the less the data the more freedom
there is in interpreting it is widely recognized. In 1967 Takeuchi,
Uyeda and Kanamori, in speaking about the Theory of Continental
Drift, point out that "it often happens in science that
while data are scarce, interpretation seems easy, but as the
number of data grows, consistent argument grows more and more
Hallam L. Movius wrote very similarly in 1953 with reference
to Paleolithic cultures and the presently existing data with
which to reconstruct them. We now have so much more information
than previously that "we can hardly compose them into anything
even remotely approaching the ordered general scheme conceived
by the earlier workers." (15) I predict that when we have enough evidence we shall
find that the Biblical view of man's early history will not merely
prove to be precisely correct but will seem self-evidently so
to those who have that accumulated knowledge. In fact, they will
wonder why the truth was not more obvious to those who preceded
them. It is surprising how often a few additional facts act as
a catalyst that seems to jog everything suddenly into place until
one wonders how the truth could have been overlooked for so long.
Moreover, as has been recognized
for many years and emphasized very recently by J. T. Robinson,
(16) habits of
life, climate, and diet can tremendously influence the anatomical
features of the skull, indeed to such an extent that two series
of fossil forms which may in fact be a single species are by
some authorities put into different genera. I have in mind Australopithecus
and Paranthropus. How can one take seriously family trees in
which the lines of connection are drawn solely on the basis of
similarity or dissimilarity in appearance when these similarities
or dissimilarities could be nothing more than evidence of a difference
in diet? Such cultural or environmental factors cannot only cause
two members of a single species to diverge sufficiently to be
put into two different genera, but two different genera can for
the same reason converge until they have the appearance
14. Takeuchi, H., S. Uyeda, H. Kanamori, Debate
about the Earth, Approoch to Geophysics through Analysis
of Continental Drift, translated by Keiko Kanamori, Freeman,
Cooper & Co., San Francisco, 1967, p.180.
15. Movius, Hallam, "Old World Prehistory: Paleolithic,"
in Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, University
Chicago Press, 1953, p.163.
16. Robinson, J. T., "The Origins and Adaptive Radiation
of the Australopithecines," in Human Evolution: Readings
in Physical Anthropology, edited by N. Korn and F. Thompson,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1967, pp.277, 279, and
of belonging to the same
species. There are some extraordinary examples of convergence.
There is another factor which may
very well have confused the issue, because it is possible that,
for reasons worth considering briefly, early man may have tended
towards the attainment of a certain "apishness" in
his appearance because of the great age to which he survived.
The Bible states categorically that men lived for centuries before
the Flood, and even after it. We have specific records in Scripture
of only a few people living for centuries after the Flood (Genesis
11:11�22), but it can scarcely be questioned that these individuals
were merely singled out because they were important for other
reasons. That many men besides them survived for centuries is
hardly to be questioned, though the life span of man declined
rather rapidly as generations succeeded one another after the
Now one of the "findings" of
evolutionists is that certain animals may for obscure reasons
experience the persistence of a youthful form into adult life.
This is referred to technically as neoteny. The process leads
to an adult who, although strictly adult chronologically, is
nevertheless "immature" in form. Such individuals are
said to be paedomorphic. As an illustration, man is said to be
paedomorphic, for the following reasons and in the following
respect: Assuming that he is derived from some ape-like ancestor
who was covered with hair, it would be expected that he himself
would likewise be covered with hair. But the hairiness of the
adult ape is considerably greater than that of the newborn ape.
If the comparative hairlessness of the newborn ape were to have
persisted for some reason into the adult stage so that the full
grown creature was as comparatively free of hair as its young
is apt to be, then the adult would be termed paedomorphic, i.e.,
patterned (in this respect) like a child of its species. Since
man is comparatively hairless over the general body surface he
is believed to be paedomorphic, i.e., a hairy creature who didn't
quite produce the hairiness that was expected of him on the basis
of his ancestry. He has remained child-like, in this respect.
Sir Gavin de Beer is perhaps the
most suitable authority to whom to refer the reader on this subject.
(18) Neoteny refers
to a condition
17. Convergence: Leo S. Berg, Nomogenesis:
Or Evolution Determined by Law, translated from Russian by
J.N. Rostovtov, Constable, Edinburgh, 1926; David Lack, Evolutionary
Theory and Christian Belief, Methuen, London, 1957, p.65;
Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Temside
Press, London (Can.), 1961 pp.138ff.; and also Sir Alister Hardy,
The Living Stream, Collins, London, 1965, especially chapter
on Convergence, pp.138-146.
18. de Beer, Sir Gavin, Embryos and Ancestors, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1951, pp.52-68 and pp.88-100.
which is described as
being due to "a relative retardation in the rate of the
development of the body as compared with the reproductive
glands," so that the body does not run through so many stages
in the descendant as the ancestor did. Strictly speaking, paedomorphosis
refers to a situation where "the larva becomes precociously
sexually mature, whereas neoteny refers to a situation where
the adult animal retains larval characters." "The production
of phylogenetic change by the introduction into the adult descendant
of characters which were youthful in the ancestor" by means
of neoteny is termed paedomorphosis. Thus the comparative hairlessness
of man as an adult is considered to be a case of a hairy ancestral
ape being replaced by a hairl
ess descendant who is held to have retained to maturity the comparative
hairlessness of the ancestral infant.
The assumption is made,
further, that if man lived for a long enough time he would finally
in fact achieve a fully adult form. The trouble is he dies too
soon. In whatever way we may explain the fact that man's hairiness
increases with age, it is a fact. If therefore man were to live
for centuries it is conceivable that the developmental processes
which he shares to some extent with other living creatures of
a similar kind to himself might lead to a measure of convergence,
not because of any relationship but simply through great age.
If man lived to be hundreds of years old, and if the conditions
of his life led to his being forced to surrender some of the
mollifying influences of community life, so that he lived and
died as a hermit or an isolated family, it may very well be that
his remains, by their very unusualness, would confuse their finder
into supposing that he was not man in the undoing but ape-becoming-man.
Such great longevity might account for the comparatively large
numbers of weapons and artifacts which make up the substance
of prehistory but which are accompanied by so few skeletal remains.
A very small population of individuals could leave the remnants
of their settlements over tremendous territories if these individuals
survived for centuries. And it seems highly probable that greatly
extended experience through long years of trial and error would
tend to accelerate somewhat the processes of improvement so that
the progress from Paleolithic, to Mesolithic, to Neolithic could
easily occur in one generation, and Neolithic weapons might have
been used to kill Paleolithic Man as Dawson reported. (19)
It is evident, therefore, that
morphology in itself is not really any guide at all to lineal
relationships. Indeed, even the chance finding of the skeletons
of a mother and a child together, although
19. Dawson. Sir J. William, Fossil Men
and Their Modern Representatives, Hodder and Stoughton, London,
be presumptive evidence of a mother-child relationship, could
never be taken as absolute proof. Almost all fossil remains are
"proved" to be related in this way only in the sense
that if you agree to the theory of evolution to start with, the
relationship might be reasonably assumed. But in itself, similarity
of form does not prove relationship. Those who see in their own
finds, or who wish to see in them, more of man than of ape tend
to classify them by tacking the suffix -anthropus on their
name. Those who re-emphasize rather the antiquity of their finds
tend to classify them as -pithecus. Thus there are two
alternative temptations, one being to stress the antiquity of
man's supposed ancestors, and the other the humanness of them.
Another factor clearly enters into these naming games and that
is the prestige of having made a find which initiates a new genus,
sub-family, or other category of some kind. Thus von Koenigswald
calls his Javanese find Meganthropus, whereas others see
it as merely representative of one branch of Australopithecines.
Similarly, Leakey labels his Olduvai finds as Zinjanthropus
whereas others would rob his specimens of their unique status
by reducing them also to a mere Australopithecine. (20) The unfortunate thing
is that the very naming of these finds can give to them a weight
of importance which can be quite unjustified. The name creates
the significance, not the find itself.
Sir Solly Zuckerman, (21) in a paper with the intriguing title, "An
Ape or The Ape," pointed out that far too much importance
tends to be attached to small differences between specimens which
but for these differences would certainly be classed as a single
species. His argument was that the study of modern apes, and
other creatures, demonstrates clearly and emphatically that within
a single family of apes or monkeys there may be individuals whose
divergence from one another is far greater than the divergence
which may be observed in two particular fossils that on that
account classified as not only belonging to a different species
but even different genera. To quote one of his opening passages:
Some students claim, or rather
assume implicitly, that the phyletic relations of a series of
specimens can be clearly defined from an assessment of morphological
similarities and dissimilarities, even when the fossil evidence
is both slight and noncontinuous geologically. Others, who in
the light of modern genetic knowledge are surely on firmer ground,
point out that several genes or several gene patterns may have
identical phyletic effects, and that when we deal with limited
20 Meganthropus: see G. H. R. von Koenigswald,
quoted by J. T. Robinson, "The Origin and Adaptive Radiation
of the Australopithecines" in Human Evolution: Readings
in Physical Anthropology, edited by N. Korn and F. Thompson,
Holt, Rinehart& Winston, New York, 1967, p.280; for Zinjanthropus:
see "The Fossil Skull from Olduvai," editorial comment
in British Medical Journal, Sept. 19, 1959, p.487.
21. Zuckerman, Sir Solly, "An Ape or The Ape,"
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol.81,
relatively limited fossil materials,
correspondence in similar morphological features or in groups
of characters does not necessarily imply genetic identity or
quoted A. H. Schultz, one of the foremost students of the Primates,
as having said: (22)
Among several hundred
monkeys of one species, collected in the uniform environment
surrounding one camp in the forest of Nicaragua, were found specimens
with pug noses and those with straight profiles, some with large
ears and others with small ones. In short, they differed from
one another as widely as would an equal number of human city
dwellers and this in spite of the fact that these monkeys all
had the same occupation, the same diet, and the same climatic
conditions, and this during thousands of generations.
In 1943, Gaylord
Simpson had similarly written: (23)
Earlier paleontologists had
no real idea of the extent of morphological variation that can
occur in a single species... Workable criteria have only slowly
been achieved, hand in hand with similar work by neo-zoologists
and with experimental work. . .
It is conservative to guess that
among previously proposed species of fossil vertebrates, aside
from types of currently recognized genera, not more than a quarter
represent natural and distinct groups. The fraction of valid
species is probably much lower.
In spite of
these warnings it appears that minute differences in measurements
between this point and that or along some axis or other of a
fossil fragment that has already been distorted by its long burial
in the earth are made the basis of pontifical pronouncements
about the relationships and ancestral lines of potential candidates
for protohumanship. When Zuckerman presented his paper, he stated
specifically that he had in mind the current debates about the
Australopithecines and other African fossil primate specimens.
He argues such statements are of highly doubtful validity, and
these doubts extend with equal force to the estimates made of
cranial capacity. And with respect to dentition, he argues that
the impressive tables designed to illustrate relationships, or
otherwise, are fundamentally exercises "in dental anatomy,
not in primate phylogeny."
One thing is certain: no one is
ever tempted to make any pronouncement regarding their particular
finds which puts the slightest question mark against their evolutionary
origin. Evolution is unchallengeable. Nor does Zuckerman challenge
LeGros Clark has pointed out that
"practically none of the genera and species of fossil hominoids
[and this includes all the Australopithecines according to Robinson]
which have from time to
22. Schultz, A. H., quoted by Zuckerman, ibid.,
23. Simpson, G. G., quoted by Zuckerman, ibid., p.59.
time been created have
any validity at all in zoological nomenclature." (24) And again, (25)
Probably the one single factor
which above all others has unduly, and quite unnecessarily, complicated
the whole picture of human phylogeny is the tendency for the
taxonomic individualization of each fossil skull or fragment
of a skull by assuming it to be a new type which is specifically,
or even generically, distinct from all others.
In the popular
mind, the Australopithecines are constantly being presented as
though they were little by little filling the gap between man
and his animal ancestors, and the temptation has been for "fossil-finders"
to contribute to this confusion by attaching names to their finds
which are intended to reinforce this impression. (26) In point of fact, not
only are these names unjustified in many cases but the line itself
now appears to have continued its imagined evolutionary development
right up into Pleistocene times when modern man was already in
existence. This has the unfortunate consequence of making man
as old as his supposed ancestors, which seems nonsense to me,
but in the evolutionist's credo, this is his faith -- "the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
. . ."
24. Clark, LeGros, "Bones of Contention,"
in Human Evolution:Readings in Phycsical Anthroplogy,
edited by N. Korn and F. Thompson, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York, 1967 p.302.
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
Previous Chapter Next
25. Ibid., p.299f.
26. Thus Sir Solly Zuckerman, "Correlation of Change in
the Evolution of Higher Primates," in Evolution as a
Process, edited by Julian Huxley, A.C. Hardy, E. B.
Ford, Allen & Unwin, London, 1954, p.301. "The fundamental
difficulty has been that in the great majority of cases the descriptions
of the specimens that have been provided by their discoverers
have been so turned as to indicate that the fossils in question
have some special place or significance in the line of direct
human ascent as opposed to that of the family of apes."