Early Man

Sean D. Pitman, M.D.

Updated October 2005

 

Introduction

 

        Taking isolated similarities by themselves, the theory of evolution appears to be quite reasonable... to a point.  However, it seems that too much weight has been placed on similarities without questioning the differences.   To the embarrassment of many a very intelligent man and woman of science, overly confident conclusions and arrogant statements have been made based on such similarities that have, on occasion, turned out to be not only wrong, but painfully wrong.  It is fine to hypothesize that similarities between different creatures are the result of common ancestry, but since such similarities have been and are often conflicting when compared with other features, it might be prudent to hold back a little when making conclusions about any sort of definite taxonomic classification model or even relationship.  The conclusions that are drawn from the evidence are often and have often been very much exaggerated to fit personal beliefs and biases.  Yes, even scientists have biases and favorite theories.  No one, not even a scientist, likes to see a theory that has cost a great deal of money and much of one's personal time and effort, go up in smoke.  So, some caution might be in order before even long established theories are accepted as the "gospel truth", especially when some of the most famous scientists in the field start to question their own life's work.  

        In considering the theory of human evolution it is interesting to note that some very well known scientists have actually suggested that the line of human evolution is far from clear.  For example, in 1990, Richard Leakey himself said that, "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older.  If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." ¹⁰ Mary Leakey also said pretty much the same thing just before her death at the age of 83.  Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution.  Three months before her death, she said in an interview, "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." ⁶⁰

       Biases are of course part of human nature.  No one is immune from bias.  However, bias should at least be admitted.  As it is, popular sciences often refuse to admit that there are significant limitations to the evolutionary interpretations that are given out to the public as "gospel truth."  Consider the evidence for yourself and judge if popular science has not and is not overstepping itself when it comes to its conclusions on "Early Man." 

Piltdown Man -- Eanthropus dawsoni or "dawn man." Discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist.  Dawson found a mandible and a small piece of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown England. The jawbone was ape-like but the teeth had human characteristics. The skull piece was very human-like. These two specimens were combined to form dawn man, which was supposedly 500,000 years old. However, the whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was indeed human (about 500 years old) but the jaw was that of a modern ape whose teeth had been filed to look like human wear. The success of this hoax for almost 40 years is pretty impressive.  However, had the original bones been available for study, this hoax would probably not have continued for as long as it did. It was not until 38 years after the bones had been "found" that the hoax was exposed. In 1953 Kenneth Oakley, Joseph Weiner and Wilfred Le Gros Clark exposed the fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax.¹  

       Of course many scientists love to predict the discussion of Piltdown Man by those who are doubtful of evolution.  But why shouldn't the Piltdown Man hoax be discussed?  The success of the Piltdown Man hoax gives us an interesting look into human nature.  It cannot be denied as a very embarrassing hoax that tricked even the scientific community for decades.  It is readily admitted that many scientists believed in Piltdown Man wholeheartedly and made some rather foolish statements concerning the meaning of this "find."   It is also admitted that Piltdown Man's general acceptance as a "missing link" was due to the fact that it matched the prevailing opinion of the time as to what such as missing link would look like.  Of course, the argument is that many scientists of the day did not think too much of Piltdown Man since many did not think that the cranium and the jaw were from the same creature.  But still, it is interesting to note that no one suspected the hoax despite "close inspection" of the specimen for almost 40 years.  Other arguments contend that the differences from other fossil hominids are said to have turned Piltdown Man into a puzzling anomaly well before the hoax was discovered and, that by the time the hoax was revealed, most scientists were rather relieved to be finally rid of Piltdown Man.  Even if this is true, the success of such an apparently obvious hoax seems quite impressive indeed.  

       So obviously, the point of including the Piltdown Man hoax in this discussion is to show that even scientists are, or at least have been, capable and possibly even willing to overlook something if it matches their preconceived ideas. (Back to Top)

Nebraska Man -- Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was discovered in 1922 in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska by Mr. Cook and made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. There was an attempt to use this tooth at the Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925 as evidence of the animal ancestry of man. However, it was declared inadmissible by the judge.  Even so, since William Jennings Bryan, former Secretary of State and a special prosecutor in the case, was himself from the state of Nebraska, Osborn chided him about Nebraska Man in the press:  "The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska.  The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice.  Its sound is by no means easy to hear ----. This little tooth  speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from the ape." ¹⁰   An illustration of Nebraska Man and his wife was published in the Illustrated London News (see illustration, printed June 24, 1922) . . .  All from a tooth!  When other parts of the skeleton were found in 1927, it quickly became clear that it was nothing more than the tooth of an extinct pig (peccary)! ²

         In defense of the scientists of the day, many like to point out that this drawing was done for a non-scientific popular magazine.  It is often claimed that few scientists, including Osborn, recognized Nebraska Man as anything more than an advanced primate of some kind.  It is also claimed that Osborn specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or any sort of human ancestor.  To support this contention, Osborn is quoted as saying, "I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae),...  Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." ⁴¹  The fact of the matter is, however, that Osborn did believe that the Hesperopithecus tooth was clear evidence of human evolution from apes.  If he did not believe this, then why did he chide Bryan by saying, "This little tooth  speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from the ape."?  Of course, in retrospect, this statement of Osborn looks rather silly, seeing as how "Hesperopithecus"  turned out to be nothing more than the tooth of a pig.  

        However, even if Osborn made some foolish statements about Nebraska Man, the claim is that most other scientists of the day did not even think that the Nebraska Man tooth was from a primate at all.  In fact, the tooth was generally dismissed and had a negligible effect on the scientific thinking of the day.  This is a strange conclusion considering the fact that a published picture of Nebraska Man in a popular and "respectable" news magazine did not raise very much objection from the scientific community of the day.  The reply to this argument is often an appeal to a disclaimer that was published below the picture detailing the speculative nature of the picture.  

     "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted."  ⁴²

        I dare say that this disclaimer comment did not disclaim enough!  The comment itself is very suggestive of the prevailing notion that Nebraska Man was in fact an ancestral hominid.  That is a very far cry from an ancestral pig.    Osborn himself commented on Forestier's drawing by saying:

    "Such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination, of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."  ⁴³

       Little did Osborn know exactly how inaccurate it would turn out to be.

        Beyond this, few understand the racially motivated nature of Osborn's ideas.  Osborn firmly believed that certain human races were evolutionarily superior to other races.  

     "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence.  The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." ⁷⁶

        Consider such statements in light of the fact that Osborn's "intelligence" led him to use a single tooth as clear evidence of the evolution of humans from apes - a tooth which was later shown to be nothing more than a pig's tooth!

       Many try to play down the Nebraska Man discovery and the influence that it was given by science and popular culture.  However, the amazing thing is that the Nebraska Man tooth got any attention whatsoever and that such extravagant claims were ever made for it by anyone as respectable and intelligent as Osborn was. (Back to Top)

Getting it in the Right Ballpark - Sort of . . .

(Back to Top)

Ramapithecus lufengensis -- Ramapithecus, thought by popular scientists to have lived between 12 and 14 million years ago, was first discovered in southwest Kenya by Louis Leakey in 1932. At that time, all that was found were a few teeth and some fragments of the upper jaw or maxilla.  Leakey assembled these fragments so that they fortuitously resembled the parabolically arched shape of a human jaw (apes have a more U-shaped form). 

        Because of this human-like maxillary shape and what were thought to be "human-like" teeth characteristics, this creature was long believed to be the first branch from a line of apes that eventually evolved into modern humans. Many drawings in various scientific publications, textbooks, and newspapers, show Ramapithecus walking pretty much upright based on these relatively few fragments of maxilla and a few teeth. One might think that the lesson of Nebraska Man would be remembered . . .  but they weren't. Popular scientists through the late 1970s continued to actively promote Ramapithecus as one of the early human ancestors.

        Noted scientist Dr. Elwyn Simons stated confidently, "The pathway can now be traced with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids -- to the genus Homo."  The importance of Ramapithecus as an early ancestor of hominids is evident in this comment by Simons in Time Magazine (Nov. 7, 1977):  

 

     "Ramapithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids.  If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is."¹⁰  

        Interesting statement . . .  But, from what evidence were these conclusions drawn in the first place?  Once again, a few teeth and a portion of maxilla.  From these few fragments many drawings have been made of Ramapithecus walking upright? Go figure? 

        Of course, not everyone was so confident.  That is why the almost exuberant confidence of Simons and his peers in the human ancestry of Ramapithecus is more than a bit surprising.  For example, a study by Dr. Robert Eckhardt, which appeared in an earlier issue (1972) of Scientific American seemed to be quite problematic.¹¹ What Eckhardt did was to take 24 different measurements from the teeth of two species of Dryopithecus (a fossil ape) and one species of Ramapithecus.  He compared the range of variation of these measurements with that of similar measurements taken from a population of modern chimpanzees. What Eckhardt found was quite interesting indeed.  He found that there is greater variation in the teeth among living chimps than there is between Dryopithecus and Ramapithecus.  This is significant because Ramapithecus was judged to be an early hominid primarily on the basis of its teeth.  Eckhardt concluded:  "There is no compelling evidence for the existence of any distinct hominid species during this interval (pliocene 14 myo), unless the designation hominid means simply any individual ape that happens to have small teeth and a corresponding small face." 

        Then, in 1976, renowned secular anthropologist Richard Leaky had this to say:  "The case for Ramapithecus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragments of fossil material leave many questions open." ⁹  Given what followed next, I'd say this is yet another huge understatement.

Despite this physical evidence, the apparently overwhelming desire to see the world in a certain way allowed most mainstream scientists to come up with all kinds of amazing things despite having so very little to work with.  I mean really, they make CSI look like child's play! Despite the fact that only a few fragments of Ramapithecus were available, David Pilbeam, formerly at Yale and now at Harvard University, and Elwyn Simons, Duke University, both leading paleoanthropologists, strongly championed Ramapithecus as an early hominid, a creature in the direct line leading to the evolution of humans. (Simons E. L., Ann. N. Y. Acad. of Sci, 1969, 167:319; Simons E. L., Sci. Amer, 1964,. 211(1):50; Pilbeam D. R., Nature, 1968, 219:1335; Simons E. L. & Pilbeam D. R., Science, 1971, 173:23).

Then, in 1977, a little problem surfaced for Ramapithecus - a full jaw (mandible) was discovered.  This jaw bone was U-shaped, not parabolically shaped.  

Zilman and Lowenstein attempt to explain the reason for the earlier thinking of most of the world most prominent paleoanthropologists: 

 

"Ramapithecus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth.  In 1961 an ancestral human was badly wanted.  The prince's ape latched onto position by his teeth and has been hanging on ever since, his legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution." ¹⁰  

After the discovery of the full jawbone in 1977,  David Pilbeam admirably recanted his earlier views commenting that, "A group of creatures once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out of the human family tree.  Many paleontologists [including David Pilbeam] have maintained that Ramamorphs are our oldest known ancestors. These conclusions were drawn from little more than a few jawbones and some teeth.  Truthfully, it appears to be nothing more than an orangutan ancestor."³   

Isn't it interesting that Pilbeam was so convinced before the jawbone discovery that Ramapithecus was indeed an early human ancestor, despite the very limited material, when only after the jawbone discovery does he seem to recognize the limited nature of what he really did have to work with.

Currently, the general view of science is that Ramapithecus was nothing more than an ancestor of the modern orangutan or even of a third lineage which has no modern survivor.⁷⁰  Note the following conclusion published in a 1981 Science Digest article: "A reinterpretation of this jaw now suggests that Ramapithecus was an ancestor of neither modern humans or modern apes. Instead, Pilbeam himself thinks it represents a third lineage that has no living descendants."

What is interesting though is that even in relatively recent times Ramapithecus was widely considered an evolutionary link between apes and man.  This opinion was strongly held and taught as unquestionable fact in public schools for many years, and is still being taught in some places based on what is now thought to be, not so many years later, very poor evidence.  Such is the power of a prevailing paradigm to make one believe in just about any story that "fits" regardless of the quality of the evidence presented. (Back to Top)

Australopithecus africanus -- The word "Australopithecus" means "southern ape."  This name is used because the first fossils were found in South Africa.  Dr. Raymond Dart, professor of anatomy at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, was the first to study these fossils.  In 1924 at Taung in South Africa, Dart discovered a fossil skull consisting of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial cast of the brain.  The brain size was 410cc.  Its age is currently felt to be around two to three million years old.  Dart was convinced that some teeth were man-like and thus concluded a transition between apes and man.   His opinions on the matter of this particular skull were largely scorned by the scientists of this time (1924) who considered it nothing more than a young chimpanzee (now considered to be about three years of age). The skull was soon known derisively as "Dart's baby." ¹⁰    Sir  Solly Zuckerman, an expert on australopithecines, commented that,  "There is indeed no question what the australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of humans and living ape skulls.  It is the ape so much so that  only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference between modern ape and Australopithecus." ⁴   This opinion was generally held by scientists until the mid-1940's when similar skulls were found.  Dart had made his discovery during the time that Piltdown Man was widely  accepted as a human ancestor.  With Piltdown Man's human cranium and apelike jaw, it was hard to reconcile it to the Taung Child.  Then in the 1930's Peking Man became famous, again overshadowing Dart and his Taung Child.  Although Dart gave up fossil hunting for some time, all was not lost.

Years after the discovery of the "Taungs child", as it is known today, Dart and Broom found other Australopithecines at Kromdraii, Swartkrans and Makapansgat.  These finds of similar creatures seemed to vindicate Dart and Broom, and the scientific community again accepted their finds as they do today.  These new fossil Australopithecines seemed to show two parallel lines of development, one being a small "gracile" (slender) type and the other a larger "robust" type.  Much controversy has existed regarding these types and some investigators, including Richard Leakey, have concluded that they represent merely the male and female of the same species while others say the gracile form, which is believed to be older, evolved into the robust form.  Today these animals are known as Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus respectively.  The latter is clearly heavier, has more massive jaws, and a pronounced sagital crest.   All these traits are typical of sexual dimorphism in male apes.   What is also felt to be a more human trait is that foramen magnum (the opening in the skull above the attachment of the spinal column) in Australopithecines seems to be placed in an intermediate forward position between that of modern apes and man.  Although not as far forward as in man, this more forward position is felt to indicate a more upright posture for the Australopithecines. 

The australopithecines have often been found in association with other animals, such as baboons, and often show evidence of bashed-in skulls.   Tools in the form of clubs, knives, and choppers have been found in association, as well as evidence of fire.   It might be attractive to assume that the Australopithecines had been the hunters and butchers except that some of their skulls were broken in as well.  Were they then the hunters or the hunted?  An American journalist met up with Dart who convinced him that the Australopithecines were actually hunting one another.  The journalist, Robert Ardrey wrote a book, African Genesis, which popularized the view of the "killer ape."  This view was even used in the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey."  Although the view did reach a mild degree of popularity, it has since been widely discredited. ¹⁰   It does seem rather hard to imagine how such primitive creatures could actually make all those weapons and use fire as well.  Not bad for a primitive man who is still not yet walking completely upright and has a head the size of a chimp (less than 500cc max). 

Although modern scientists do generally accept that Australopithecines had a generally upright gait and human-like posture, this notion has not gone uncontested. Although evolutionists predictably discount Zuckerman's work, arguing that it is no longer accepted (further discussion of such arguments a few paragraphs below), one must still at least consider the fact that in the 1950s the famous British anatomist, Lord Solly Zuckerman, aggressively rejected the notion that Australopithecines are closely related to humans and completely discounted the notion that they walked upright like humans. Rather, Zuckerman suggested that they be classified as apes, not hominids (Evolution as a Process, 1954):

    "There is, indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them".

As for the notion of "bipedal posture", Zuckerman said:

    "In short, the evidence for an erect posture, as derived from a study of the inanimate bones, seems anything but certain."

Anatomist Dr. Charles Oxnard of the University of Chicago, who's work modern evolutionists also reject (see below), claimed in a paper published in a 1975 edition of Nature that:

    "Multivariate studies of several anatomical regions, shoulder, pelvis, ankle, foot, elbow, and hand are now available for the australopithecines. These suggest that the common view, that these fossils are similar to modern man, may be incorrect. Most of the fossil fragments are in fact uniquely different from both man and man's nearest living genetic relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla (Nature 258:389).

Neither of these investigators, who have spent much of their professional careers studying the Australopithecines, believed that Australopithecines walked upright or that they were generally bipedal. Some have suggested that both Australopithecus africanus and robustus were simply an evolutionary dead end - not ancestral to man. 

However, many evolutionists, such as those that frequent Talk.Origins, argue that, "Howell et al. (1978) criticized this conclusion [of Charles Oxnard] on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is 'an overwhelming body of evidence', based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes."

Perhaps the most significant problem with this argument (discussed in more detail below in the section on "Lucy") comes in the form of Fred Spoor's very interesting computed tomography scan (CT-scan) analysis (1990s) of the preserved inner ear canals of Australopithecus africanus and robustus. Inner ear canals are used to determine orientation in space.  In other words, their orientation can be used determine the position of the head and posture. Spoor compared the canals of many living primates, to include humans, with many "hominid" fossils. As it turns out, the canals of Australopithecus africanus and robustus are most similar to the great apes - not modern humans.  Spoor and his associates concluded that this finding was consistent with the idea that these creatures were at least partly arboreal and that they "did not walk habitually upright." 

Of course, Spoor still believed them to be partly bipedal as well, but suggested that his findings proved that these "hominids" were not obligatory bipeds as humans are, but were instead part-time bipeds at best - certainly not nearly as accomplished at bipedalism as are humans. For example, they would have had a very hard time running on two legs - as is true for apes today.^44,65

Consider that this labyrinth evidence goes completely counter to several long-accepted assumptions based on much weaker morphologic characteristics.  In fact, this evidence speaks directly counter to the position that H. habilis is a "missing link" - intermediate in the evolution of bipedalism between australopithecines and H. erectus - actually supporting the positions of Zuckerman and Oxnard. Spoor also found extreme differences in the labyrinthine morphology between SK 847 and Stw 53.  These two specimens were both classified in the H. habilis species group. However, according to Spoor, SK 847 has a "modern-human-like labyrinth" while "Stw 53 relied less upon bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." ^44,65

Talk about confusion!  This CT-scan evidence is far more objective than the measurements done by Howell and his colleagues, and it throws their conclusions on their head where many of the previous notions of hominid evolutionary sequence and relationship are at best contradictory. These problems are so bad that perhaps we could write the Australopithecines off entirely as ancestral to modern man if were it not for the current love affair with an Australopithecine named "Lucy." (Back to Top)

Australopithecus afarensis "LUCY" -- In 1974, Donald Johanson discovered a half complete skeleton (Locality A.L. 288; Ethiopia's Awash Valley) that he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (LSD).  The specimen was only 1.1 meters tall, estimated to weigh 29 kilograms and look somewhat like a common chimpanzee. A year later, thirteen similar skeletons were found. 

        In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said:  "I had no problem with Lucy.  She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human.  She simply wasn't.  She was too little.  Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes.  The jaws had the same primitive features." (see jaw illustration below) 

        However, what set Lucy apart for Johanson was that it appeared that she had a tendency to walk in an upright position.  A monkey that could do this would, for Johanson, clearly be some sort of transitional form between apes and man.  The reason for this belief is because Lucy's knee region seemed to match a lone fossilized knee joint that he had found a year earlier in 1973 (locality numbered A.L. 128/129).  The earlier knee was from a creature that appeared to walk in an upright fashion.  Even though it was located about 2 km away and in a lower strata from that of Lucy, the match between it and the knee region of Lucy seemed to indicate that both individuals walked mostly upright.  The logic for this assumption is based on the fact that humans, because of wider hips than knees, have an angle between the upper leg bone (or femur), and the lower leg bone (or tibia).  This angle of the bones causes an angle of about 9 degrees to form in the knee joint at the junctions of the bones.  An ape that walks on all fours does not have this angle.  Lucy and the australopithecines have an angle of about 15 degrees.  Since this larger angle is somewhat similar to the human condition, the obvious assumption is that Lucy spent a lot of time walking upright.²¹   There is just one more interesting fact though.  Monkeys that climb trees (ie: orangutans and spider monkeys etc.) also have an angled knee joint like humans.  It is the ground-dwellers that do not have the angle.  So, what happens if Lucy tended to climb trees?  Is there evidence that she did climb trees?

        Dave Phillips (a paleoanthropologist) says that A. afarensis in general (Lucy's classification) has long upper limbs with an arm to leg length ratio of approximately 85%.  The toe bones are also curved in an ape-like manner.  This characteristic curve is not seen in human feet.  This seems to indicate that A. afarensis did not habitually walk upright, but rather spent much of their time in trees.  Also, studies of the other bones to include hands, skull (inner ears), and even the teeth indicate a fairly strong similarity to apes. ⁴⁵

1.   General anatomy of Lucy's shoulder blade was characterized as "virtually identical to that of a great ape and had a probability less than 0.001 of coming from the population represented by our modern human sample"  (Susman et al, 1984, pp 120-121)

2.   Lucy's shoulder blade has a shoulder joint which points upwards (Oxnard 1984, p334-i; Stern and Susman 1983, p284) This would allow "use of the upper limb in elevated positions as would be common during climbing behavior" (Stern and Susman, 1983, p284). ⁵

3.   Afarensis wrist bones are apelike.  "Thus we may conclude that A. afarensis possessed large and mechanically advantageous wrist flexors, as might be useful in an arboreal setting" (Stern and Susman, 1983, p282).

4.   Afarensis metacarpals [the bones in the palm of the hand] "have large heads and bases relative to their parallel sided and somewhat curved shafts an overall pattern shared by chimpanzees". This "might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior" (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-3).

5.   The finger bones are even more curved than in chimpanzees and are morphologically chimpanzee-like. (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-4; Susman et al 1984 p. 117; Marzke 1983, p 198).

6.   Afarensis humerus (upper arm bone) has features that are "most likely related to some form of arboreal locomotion" (Oxnard 1984, p.334-1; see also Senut 1981, p.282).

7.   One of the long bones in the forearm, the ulna, resembles that of the pygmy chimpanzee (Feldsman 1982b, p.187).

8.   Vertebrae show points of attachment for shoulder and back muscles "massive relative to their size in modern humans" (Cook et al 1983, p.86) These would be very useful for arboreal activity (Oxnard 1984, p 334-i).

9.   "Recently Schmid (1983) has reconstructed the A.L. 288-1 rib cage as being chimpanzee-like" Susman et al 1984, p 131).

10. Blades of hip oriented as in chimpanzee (Stern and Susman 1983, p.292.) Features of afarensis hip therefore  "enable proficient climbing" (Stern and Susman 1983, p. 290).

11. In 1987, Dr. Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) analyzed certain australopithecines (such as Lucy is classed as).  He concluded that they were not ancestral to humans, but are instead an extinct form of arboreal ape.⁶   Of course, this analysis was done before Lucy came on the scene and changed everything.

 

Emphasis added to the above statements to highlight the tree-climbing characteristics of Australopithecines.

        So, it seems like Lucy really did not need or wish to do a lot of walking around on the ground.  It seems more likely that she spent much of her time in trees.  Since  the angle of her knee joint is a key factor in turning her into a "missing link" in human evolution, what happens to this argument when one finds out that such an angled knee joint is owned by tree dwelling chimps?  It it not something new.  Where is the evolution here?  

        Of course evolutionists are well aware of these "standard creationist arguments."  A common rebuttal is to argue that the authors of many of the comments I just quoted above are themselves believers in Lucy's role as a "missing link" between chimps and humans.  Consider the following comments by Stern and Susman:

    "In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality ..."  "That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute."  "... we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern, Jr. and Susman 1983)

        So, how can Stern and Susman believe that A. afarensis spent so much time running around on two legs after they just detailed many physical attributes of classic tree climbing behavior?  Some of the reasons are as follows:

     "The most significant features for bipedalism include shortened iliac blades, lumbar curve, knees approaching midline, distal articular surface of tibia nearly perpendicular to the shaft, robust metatarsal I with expanded head, convergent hallux (big toe), and proximal foot phalanges with dorsally oriented proximal articular surfaces. (McHenry 1994)

 

        This is an example of interpreting the same characteristics in different ways.  For example, the perpendicular tibia and angled knee joints that are "approaching midline" are seen in modern tree-climbing monkeys.  The "robust" first metatarsal with an expanded head is also consistent with Stern and Susman's comment that the hand bones (and reasonable the foot bones as well), "have large heads and bases relative to their parallel sided and somewhat curved shafts, an overall pattern shared by chimpanzees."  and that this, "might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior."  This might especially be true if the first digit was favored by Lucy to carry most of her body weight during suspension.        

        This is an example of picking morphological traits that agree with a favored hypothesis and forgetting about the ones that do not agree or even contradict the hypothesis of the day.  For instance, fairly recent papers have been published that suggest that Lucy was in fact a "knuckle walker" like some apes living today.³⁸  Of course knuckle walking is a distinctly quadruped specialization characteristic that is quite different from bipedalism.  The authors of this paper, Richmond and Strait, identified four skeletal features of the distal radius of living knuckle-walking apes, chimps and gorillas.  What is interesting is that they found similar morphologic features on Lucy as well as on another australopithecine. 

    "A UPGMA clustering diagram illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers." ³⁸

        In an interview, Richmond stated that after they analyzed the wrist characteristics of living knuckle-walkers, he and Strait walked across the hall to check plaster casts at the National Museum of Natural History: "I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and shazam! she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers ." ³⁹  Of course Richmond and Strait still believe that Lucy walked upright despite these knuckle-walking features.  They believe that these features are simply evolutionary remnants of past ancestor knuckle walkers but that Lucy herself was bipedal.  Some suggest as evidence for this assumption that Lucy lacks certain knuckle-walking features. ³⁹  Of course, there are modern knuckle-walkers that are also known to lack one specific feature or another, but they are still knuckle walkers. ³⁸   

        It seems now that Lucy was quite an amazing creature.  She not only had features of tree-climbing behavior and bipedalism, but now it seems like she has features of knuckle-walkers as well.  So, which of these characteristics are the result of lifestyle and which ones are evolutionary carryovers?  

        Lucy becomes even more problematic when one considers her classic placement in evolutionary phylogeny.  Lucy is thought to be an ancestor or early form of A. africanus because of Lucy's more chimpanzee-like skull.  The problem is that the foot bones and lower leg of an A. africanus specimen have been recently found.  These foot and leg bones happen to be a lot more apelike than the hypothesized foot of Lucy. ⁴⁰  Also, A. africanus does not have the knuckle-walking morphology that Lucy has.   So, depending on what part of the body one concentrates on, one might be able to find evidence for just about any theory of locomotion that one wishes to find.  Collard and Aiello, in an article for Nature, commented on this confusing phylogenic mess by saying:

    "The work by Richmond and Strait further complicates the picture: it suggests that A. afarensis retained some knuckle-walking features, whereas A. africanus did not. It is no longer a case of the skull pointing to one set of phylogenetic relationships, and the postcranial skeleton (everything but the skull) to another. Rather, different parts of the postcranium may not support the same phylogenetic hypothesis." ⁴⁰

        The anatomy of the semicircular canals of australopithecines is also interesting.  The semicircular canals are three small, loop-shaped structures in the inner ear, arranged roughly at right angles to each other.  These structures are responsible for giving us our sense of balance by allowing us to orient ourselves with respect to a gravitational field.  In the early 1990s, a scientist by the name of Fred Spoor decided to study these canals.  He compared the canals of many living primates, to include humans, with some "hominid" fossils.  He used a computerized tomography scanner (CT-scanner) to do this.  His results were very interesting.  The canals of Australopithecus africanus and robustus were most similar to the great apes.  Spoor and his associates concluded that this finding was consistent with the idea that these creatures were at least partly arboreal and that they "did not walk habitually upright," but Spoor still believed them to be partly bipedal as well.  Spoor believed that his findings proved that these "hominids" were not obligatory bipeds as humans are, but were instead part-time bipeds, and not as accomplished at bipedalism as humans are.^44,65 Consider Spoors following comments published in a 1994 issue of the journal Nature:

       ". . . A. africanus showed a locomotor repertoire comprising facultative bipedalism as well as arboreal climbing.  The labyrinthine evidence is consistent with proposals that bipedalism in australopithecines was characterized by a substantial postural component [non-bipedal], and by the absence of more complex movements such as running and jumping.

    . . . the similarity with the canal proportions in large cercopithecoids suggests that Stw 53 [Homo habilis - discussed below] relied less on bipedal behaviour than the australopithecines.  Interestingly, similar observations were reached from an analysis of the postcranial bones of OH 62, a specimen that has been assigned to the same species as Stw 53 on the basis of similarities of their maxillary and dental morphology.  Phylogenetically, the unique labyrinth of Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus. . .

    The specimen SK 847 has both been associated with H. erectus and H. habilis, in particular with Stw 53. The modern-human-like labyrinth of SK 847 is consistent with the attribution to H. erectus, and the extreme differences in labyrinthine morphology between SK 847 and Stw 53 make attribution of both specimens to the same species, on this evidence alone, highly unlikely.  The specimen Sts 19 is part of the conventional A. africanus hypodigm, but has also been considered as a basicranium of early Homo.  As the labyrinth of Sts 19 is very similar to that in the other three A. africanus specimens, and major aspects of its overall morphology, such as petrous pyramid orientation and basicranial flexion, can easily be accommodated in normal species variation . . ." ⁶⁵

        Note how this labyrinth evidence goes completely counter to several long accepted assumptions based on much weaker morphologic characteristics.  In fact, this evidence speaks directly counter to the position that H. habilis is a "missing link" intermediate in the evolution of bipedalism between australopithecines and H. erectus.  Note also the extreme differences in the labyrinthine morphology between SK 847 and Stw 53.  These two specimens were both classified in the H. habilis species group. However, according to Spoor, SK 847 has a "modern-human-like labyrinth" while "Stw 53 relied less upon bipedal behaviour than the australopithecines."  Also, how can Sts 19 have been considered as a "basicranium of early Homo" with a labyrinth "very similar to the other three A. africanus specimens"?  I mean really, an early Homo would most certainly have had well developed bipedalism - right?  How then can a specimen classified as "early Homo" have an inner ear labyrinth that is not distinguishable from creatures that did not have well developed bipedalism at all?  I ask you, how objectively accurate a "science" can these classification systems be if they can be this far off so many times?  

       Consider also that perfectly formed human footprints have been found in solidified volcanic ash dating at around "3.6 million years" (See discussion on Ancient Footprints below).  These footprints show no evidence of the curved tree-climbing bones of Lucy or of the ape-like toes of A. africanus.  The footprints have a well shaped modern heel, strong arches, and a good ball at the base of the great toe.  The great toe itself is in a straight line.  It does not stick out to the side like an ape toe does.  These footprints are in all respects indistinguishable from the footprints of modern humans,²³ and yet Johanson claims that Lucy-like creatures (A. afarensis) made these footprints since they are found in ash dated to be about as old or older than Lucy.  But where is the evidence for Johanson's claims?  The available evidence suggest that A. afarensis could not have made these footprints owning to the fact that they have curved toes. Despite this fact, Johanson continues to be a strong believer that A. afarensis made these footprints anyway.  I ask, is this science... or wishful thinking?

        It seems like the more is learned about Australopithecus, the more apelike and less like a "missing link" they appear.  In fact, as recently as April of 2007, Rak et. al. found a portion of a jawbone of A. afarensis that matched the general appearance of gorillas (and Australopithecus robustus) - a feature not shared by modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and other primates.  Rak argues that, "The presence of the morphology in both [A. robustus] and A. afarensis and its absence in modern humans casts doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor." ⁷⁵   

        Of course, only a very few stop to consider the possibility that perhaps there is no evolutionary relationship between humans and apes at all.  Perhaps certain of these unique "traits" were designed specifically for particular creatures with particular needs?  Perhaps humans did not evolve from apes after all?  In any case, it seems like the evidence is far from being conclusively in favor of any particular evolutionary relationship.  The unknowns are too great and too much subjective interpretation is required to draw any definite evolutionary conclusions from the fragmented and pieced together bones of Lucy and her cousins.  One starts to wonder what evidence it would take to cause the smallest shadow of doubt to creep across the minds of some of these paleontologists as to the veracity of their beliefs?   

 

        One other interesting statement by Johanson concerns how he feels at least some of the individuals met their end:  "The rapid burial of bones at Hadar, particularly those of the 'First Family,' are related to a geological catastrophe suggesting, perhaps, a flash flood.  Bones are fragmented and scattered because individuals fell into a river, or were washed into a river, rapidly transported, broken up, and scattered. These are all products of a depositional process." (The 333, or the 'First Family' locality, as it is sometimes called, at Hadar, is situated stratigraphically between the Lucy site and the 1973 knee joint site.) ²¹

 (Back to Top)

Homo habilis  -- Homo habilis was discovered in 1959 by Mary Leakey and dated at about 1.8 million years old.  What she found were some badly fragmented pieces of skull.  Her husband, Louis Leakey, was not impressed at first.  He commented that it was nothing more than a "damned Australopithecine".   However, he quickly changed his mind when what appeared to be stone tools were found near the site of Homo habilis.  The bones of many of these animals revealed that they had been butchered and deliberately broken for their marrow.  Leakey decided, on the basis of this evidence, that his fossil had been a toolmaker and butcher and thus called him Homo habilis or "handy man."   Most other investigators, however, were not comfortable with such an extremely primitive beast being a toolmaker. Like Australopithecus robustus, Leakey's "Homo habilis" had huge and very unhuman molars, a very small brain, and a large bony sagital crest on the top of its skull. Later, Leaky thought better of the whole idea of his "Homo habilis" as a tool maker and demoted him to the classification of Zinjanthropus boisei, which means East African man.

        The skull of Zinj is especially robust, sometimes called, "hyper-robust".  Notice, in the reconstruction of Zinj, the very wide zygomatic arches, which project forward in front of the nasal opening to form a dish-shaped face (like many apes today). These outward flaring arches provided space for huge temporalis muscles that are used for chewing.  In other words, Zinj had a very powerful bite.  Zinj's teeth are also massive, sometimes more than 4-times the size of modern human teeth.  (Note that the mandible portion of the jaw in the reconstruction was not originally found with Zinj, but is based on subsequent finds of similar individuals).

        Although Mary Leaky found Zinjanthropus, or "Zinj", it made Louis Leakey famous as a result of the publicity he received from the National Geographic Society through its magazine and educational films.  The National Geographic Society financed Leakey's work and largely, through their publicity of Leakey and Zinj, paleoanthropology once again became both popular and "respectable" after a long period of  disrepute following the Piltdown hoax.  Today, Zinjanthropus is considered by everyone to be just another robust Australopithecine - just as Lewis Leaky originally said it was.¹⁰

        Australopithecines are considered by many to be hominids because they are believed to have been bipedal and thus walked upright.  Until the 70s, the upright and bipedal posture was based on the position of the foramen magnum in the skull and very fragmentary finds of pelvis, limb and foot bones.  Then, Richard Leakey found several more nearly complete remains that threw considerable doubt on the idea of an upright posture.  In Science News Leakey concluded that, "The Australopithecines were long-armed short-legged knuckle-walkers, similar to existing African apes." ¹²

        These setbacks did not stop Leakey.  In 1964, he found four more specimens in Olduvai Gorge.  These, he claimed, had bigger brains than Australopithecus and surely deserved to be classified as Homo habilis. Measurements of the cranial capacities were difficult since the skulls were so badly crushed.  Nonetheless, it was concluded that they averaged 642cc, or 200cc larger than Australopithecus and he considered that enough to make them "Homo." Several such finds are discussed blow.

        OH 7 is a collection of 23 fragments of bone to include a jawbone and teeth thought to be from a male hominid who lived some 1.75 million years old.  These fragments were also found at Olduvai gorge in Tanzania. The problem, like many of the rest of the other fragmentary evidence, is that there really isn't much to interpret here.  And, what there is, looks much more like the ape condition than it does the human condition.  Consider that the shape of the jawbone is the ape-like U-shape - not the parabolic human shape.  

        OH 24 is a pieced together skull of a "female" hominid thought to have lived some 1.8 million years ago. She was given the nickname "Twiggy", after the famous flat-chested British model, because of the compressed and flatted condition of the skull when it was first discovered with its fragments cemented together in limestone.  When the hundreds of fragments were pieced together, the size of the brain case was quite large at just under 600cc.  Since modern human brains can be this small, the finding of Twiggy, with such a large brain, was thought to be a very good missing link, and gave support to the rather weak classification of OH 7 as "Homo".  Also note that more than 100 fragments of skull were not used in the final reconstruction of Twiggy.

        KNM-ER 1813 is said to be an adult cranium from an individual who lived some 1.9 million years ago.  Some have classified it as Homo habilis, but this classification is controversial.  Donal Johanson said, ". . . we have opted to include KNM-ER 1813 in Homo habilis, following the classification of Bernard Wood. Richard Leakey . . . has recently avoided putting a taxonomic label on 1813 other than to say that it should not be called Homo habilis . . . ". ⁷¹ The skull capacity is a bit small than that purported for OH 24 (510cc for KNM-ER 1813 vs. just under 600cc for OH 24).  

        OH 62 has been interpreted as a partial adult skeleton from a hominid who lived about 1.8 million years ago.  The initial find was a fragment of proximal right ulna (arm bone). After this, the search for additional parts of this skeleton was on - and quite successful.  Over 18,000 fragments of bone and teeth were found over an area of about 40 square meters. Most were classified as non-hominid remains, but 302 fragments were "identified" as belonging to OH 62.  I'd say that's quite impressive detective work!