Controversy in Paleoanthropology

[Fearisgood]

Has anybody read:

Oldest Human Femur Wades Into Controversy. Science. 2004 Sep 24;305(5692):1885. Gibbons A.

Here goes: Emphasis mine.

PARIS. Tempers flared last week in a sweltering salon at the French Academy of Sciences here as scientists hotly debated the attributes of anthropology's most famous thighbone, the 6-million-year-old femur of an ancient Kenyan hominid called Orrorin tugenensis. More than 100 scholars packed the academy's opulent, wood-paneled Grande Salle to witness the first face-to-face gathering of the discoverers of the three oldest putative hominids. In talks and a panel discussion, the researchers discussed whether Orrorin and other contenders for the title of earliest human ancestor walked upright and in what manner. Bipedalism is a traditional hallmark of membership in the human family rather than being an ancestor of chimpanzees gorillas, or quadrupedal apes. The speakers were particularly interested in learning more about Orrorin's legs. Paleontologist Brigitte Senut of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris presented recently published computed tomography (CT) scans of Orrorina's thighbone (Science, 3 September, p. 1450). According to Senut, the scans sho that the bone is thicker on the bottom of the subhorizontal neck of the femur, indicating that weight was put on the top of the bone. Other features also suggest that the hips were stabilized in a manner similar to those of modern humans. In fact, Senut proposed that Orrorina's gait was more humanlike than that of the 2- to 4-million-year-old australopithecines. If so, australopithecines would be bumped off the direct line to humans a dramatic revision of our prehistory.

But paleoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, immediately attacked this view of Orrorin. He said that the resolution of the CT scans was so poor that it was impossible to be certain of the pattern of bone thickness. CT scan expert James Ohman of Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K., who was not a the meeting, agreed that the published scans were taken at the wrong angle. White further grilled Senut about the fossil analysis, asking if her team had directly measured the internal structure of the bone at a preexisting break, a more reliable means of gathering the data than CT scanning. Senut responded that colleagues had suggested doing the scans to make her case stronger an added in an interview that the bone was broken in a zigzag pattern that made it difficult to photograph. In her view, other features on the bone make it clear that Orrorin had

walked uprighta'so there was no need to unglue the bone and measure it. White accepts that Orrorin walked upright and so is one of the first members of the hominid family. But he says Senut has offered little evidence as to Orrorinas gait. "Was it human, an Australopithecus pattern, or something different?†he asked. Even standard x-rays would help answer that question. As the discussion grew more heated, White called Senutss displacement of australopithecines "une position créationniste," because it suggests that Orrorinas femur was quite modern 6 million years ago, rather than evolving in stages. Senut declared indignantly that she is not a creationistand then asked White to provide his own evidence about the mysterious Ardipithecus ramidus. A partial skeleton of that 4.4-million-year-old species was discovered by White’s team, the Middle Awash Research Project, in Ethiopia from 1994 to 1996, but the bones remain unpublished. White responded by projecting images of the Ardipithecus skull for the first time in public. The CT scans were startling: The skull was so crushed that the top of the vault was smashed almost to the base, forming a slab of hundreds of chalky pieces. White described it as "road kill."The reconstruction uses microCT scans to reassemble the specimen. This is the most fragile hominid skeleton ever found," says White. We are very sorry it's taken us this long to do, but I think you want the right answer instead of the quick answer.ANN GIBBONS

Wow, a whole hypothesis based on a few teeth and a fragmented skull. But hey it must be science.

Following article written by Dr. Bergman

Dr. Bergman teaches biology, molecular biology, chemistry, anthropology, and anatomy at Northwest State in Ohio, where he has been on the faculty for over 20 years.

Many studies find that the so-called objective field of human evolution is anything but objective — bias is common, and cases of corruption and fraud have been documented.

Well-known examples include Piltdown man and Hesperopithecus, but many other examples exist. One of the best-known examples of greed, revenge, and open frauds involved the war between Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh in the bone war of the late 1800s (Wallace, 1999).

Part of the reason for controversy is that the anthropological field is divided into “camps†or “schools†that, not uncommonly, are in competition with each other.

Each school is often dominated by a small number of people who are often charismatic leaders. Each camp tries to “prove†its own theory of human evolution, oftendogmatically, by using fossil bones, most of which are badly damaged fragments. Sides are taken in these conflicts and, as Morell (1995) eloquently demonstrates, the participants sometimes end up in conflicts where unethical behavior (and almost everything else) is fair game. Only physical aggression is ruled out (though not always).

A major issue in dealing with this problem is that no small amount of arrogance exists within the scientific community. Hooper claims that some scientists dogmatically believe that they have the answer, and only they have the right to ask questions —and if they don’t ask them, no one else should (2002). A review of this history vividly shows the “other side†of the leading scientists in each camp — those who dominate the literature in Nature, Science, and other leading scientific journals.

Because fossil evidence accounts for less than 10 percent of the animal, it can be interpreted in many ways, even in the rare situation where a skeleton is relatively complete. Lucy, for example, is the most complete skeleton to date, and around three quarters of it is missing. Most other finds consist of, at best, a few bone fragments or sometimes just teeth.

At the center of the war

For the last half century, the Leakeys have been at the center of this war. The endless, vicious, and sometimes physical confrontations between the Leakeys and others, such as Donald Johanson and Timothy White, are extremely illuminating as to how critically important preconceptions are in understanding the extant fossil evidence.

As a young man, Louis Leakey was very “zealous about his Christianity and sometimes stood on corner soap boxes to deliver sermons†(Morell, 1995; p. 28). During his studies at Cambridge, though, his “growing knowledge of evolutionary theory†and his “more liberal views†led him away from the church and into full-time science work. Louis Leakey, along with the leading atheists and secularists of the day, became a supporter of the atheistic document, the “Humanist Manifesto.â€

He later became very hostile toward Christianity, an attitude that was passed on to at least one of his sons, Richard. When Richard was asked to be a guest on Walter Cronkite’s television program to discuss evolution and creationism as an “ardent anti-creationist,†Richard agreed to appear (Morell, 1995; p. 520). This ploy to get him on the show turned out to be a trick —

Cronkite wanted to pit Leaky and Johanson against each other to debate their radically different opinions about Australopithecus afarensis and other putative hominids. On the show, Johanson was less interested in an intellectual exchange to achieve a better understanding of human evolution than he was in attacking those with whom he disagreed. In my opinion, Richard Leakey came out better in this exchange, but some people felt otherwise. Shortly after the Cronkite show, the National Geographic Society, the Leakeys’ main source of financial support, turned down Richard’s grant application for funds to support his Koobi Fora research and for new explorations north and west of Lake Turkana (Morell, 1995; p. 523).

One common trait in the field is the difficulty the leading scientists have in evaluating the data fairly and objectively. Many, such as Tim White, professor at the University of California Berkeley are anything but reasonable and objective. In the words of Tim White’s University of Michigan professor, Milford Wolpoff, Tim knows the “right†way…andthat’s with a capital “Râ€.... I used to think once he got a job and was treated with professional respect he’d calm down a bit. But I waswrong… White’s self-righteous stance surfaced [in the field]....leading him to be “unspeakably rude and arrogant to others.†(Morell, 1995; p. 477) Morell concludes that, like Wolpoff, Richard Leakey also “assumed that White would eventually outgrow this behavior. Instead, Richard himself became a target†(Morell, 1995; p. 477). For example, when Leakey explained his concerns about White’s interpretation of a fossil, White “started shouting at me, calling me a dictator, said that it was a disgrace that I should be in charge — all this rubbish…he wanted to have nothing more to do with me, and finally walked out of my office and slammed the door.†(Morell, 1995; p. 478)

Debates are required to make progress in science — but the viciousness that Morell eloquently documents is hardly what we would expect of anthropologists who are interested in the truth and who desire others to rationally evaluate their ideas. The behavior shown by these individuals was so extreme that it could not be discussed in a family publication. In addition, the morals of some of the leading scientists leave much to be desired.

Fraud among Darwin researchers

The scientific method is an ideal approach to gaining knowledge, but it is an especially difficult way to “prove†certain science hypotheses, such as those involving origins. A good example of this difficulty is “the theory of evolution (which) is ... a theory highly valued by scientists…but which lies in a sense too deep to be directly proved or disproved†(Broad and Wade; 1982, p. 17). One famous case of evolution fraud, that of Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer, was the subject of a now-classic book titled The Case of the Midwife Toad (Koestler, 1972). Dr. Kammerer’s fraud involved painting “nuptial pads†with India ink on the feet of the toads he was studying. Even though his work, which was forged to support the Lamarckian theory of evolutionism, was exposed, it was used for decades to support certain evolution ideologies, including that by Trofin D. Lysenko (Kohn, 1988; p. 47). In a similar case, William Summerlin faked the results of a test in the 1970s simply by drawing black patches on his white test mice with a felt-tip pen (Chang, 2002). Another recent case of fraud in evolution is that of Archaeoraptor, the “evolutionary find of the century†that purportedly proved bird-dinosaur evolution.

The National Geographic Society

“trumpeted the fossil’s discovery ... as providing a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds†(Simons, 2000). Archaeoraptor was used by “some prominent paleontologists†to prove a “long-sought key to a mystery of evolution.†High-resolution X-ray CT work found “unmatched pieces, skillfully pasted over.†The fraud was also determined to be “put together badly-deceptively†involving “zealots and cranks,†“rampant egos clashing,†“misplaced confidence,†and “wishful thinking.†It was the Piltdown man story all over again. Simons adds that this is a story in which “none†of those involved look good.

One of the “most pungent†cases of fraud involved paleontologist Viswat Jit Gupta who discovered a treasure trove of fossils that made “astonishing additions to the faunal lists†of species in the area he worked (Talent, 1989). After extensive investigation researchers concluded that Professor Viswat Jit Gupta salted the area with fossils, evidently stolen from teaching collections. He published close to 300 papers about the finds over a period of 25 years —all of which are now in doubt. Talent (1989) concludes, as a result of this case, “the database for the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic of the Himalayas has, as a consequence of these publications, become so marred by inconsistency as to throw grave doubts on the scientific validity of any conclusions that might be drawn from it. Because the biostratigraphical underpinning of so much Himalayan stratigraphy is in question, the credibility of many years of labour by numerous geologists is at stake.†As Judson concludes: “The difficulty, labor, and time that have been required to clear up the mess are incalculable. A residue of doubt will long shadow later work†(2004, p. 134). Talent (1989) adds “similar cases of carelessness over data or confusion over concepts are rife.â€

Anthropologist falsifies key discoveries

Inquiry has now confirmed that what the British Guardian called “one of archaeology’s most sensational finds†— a purportedly 36,000-year-old skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was falsified. This fragment was believed to be a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals†(Harding, 2005). The thirty-year academic career of the discoverer, distinguished German anthropologist Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten, “has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other ‘stone-age’ relicts†(Harding, 2005).

The crucial skull fragment, once believed to have come from the world’s oldest Neanderthal, has now been determined to be a mere 7,500 years old, according to the Oxford University radiocarbon dating unit. Other skulls were wrongly dated by Von Zieten as well. After redating the evidence, it was concluded that he had methodically falsified the dates on numerous artifacts: he had simply made up the dates to fit his theories. Testing revealed that all the skulls dated by Potsch were, in fact, much younger than he had claimed. Thomas Terberger, who discovered the hoax, stated that as a result of the hoax, “anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago†(quoted in Harding, 2005). The committee also found that Von Zieten had committed numerous other “falsehoods and manipulations.†His deceptions were so serious that it “may mean an entire tranche of the history of man’s development will have to be rewritten†(Harding, 2005). Yet another of the professor’s finds, Binshof-Speyer woman, was determined to have lived in 1,300 B.C., not 21,000 years ago, and Paderborn-Sande man, which was dated by the professor at 27,400 B.C., died only “a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.†Further research found that he had passed off fake fossils as real and had also plagiarized other scientists’ work. The scandal was finally exposed when Professor Von Zieten was caught trying to sell his department’s entire chimpanzee collection to a museum in the United States.

The committee that investigated him involved ten different meetings with twelve witnesses to produce findings that were documented to beincreasingly bizarre. After a while it was hard to take it seriously.…It was just unbelievable. At the end of the day what he did was incredible. (quoted in Harding, 2005)

It was also found that the professor could not even operate the carbon dating machine that he claimed to have used to produce the now-discredited dates!

Professor Von Zieten was forced to end his career after confirmation of the “falsehoods and manipulations†came to light. This scandal is critically important in physical anthropology because his thirty year academic career yielded many sensational finds that were important evidence for modern evolution theory. Evidently he found that he could get away with the frauds, and continued to make outrageous claims until they became so ludicrous that somebody began to investigate. The university administrators admitted that they should have discovered the professor’s bizarre fabrications much earlier, but the “high profile anthropologist… [had] proved difficult to pin down.â€

Evidence now exists that he began “inventing things†at the very start of his career over thirty years ago. After returning to Germany from America, where he did his doctorate, and accepting a professorship, he “simply made things up.†An example of his claims was a supposedly fifty-millionyear-old “half-ape†which he claimed was found in Switzerland, but was actually found in France. Continued investigation will likely reveal much more about this case, which has reminded many of the infamous Piltdown affair.

Honesty does exist

Evolutionists are at times very candid, such as Johanson's admission that now "nobody really places a great deal of faith in any human [evolution] tree"(Morell, 1995; p. 546, emphasis in original). Yet, many of their arguments are over this tree, which seems to change with each new find. The reason is that construction of these trees is based on evidence that is so flimsy and fragmentary that a wide variety of interpretations is possible — which in turn is a major explanation for the many heated conflicts that have characterized paleoanthropology. There are so little hard data that most of the findings can be construed in several different ways.

Another reason for so much controversy is that new fossil discoveries are rarely shared with other scientists for years, if ever, due to concerns over publishing priorities. Typically, to get full credit for a discovery, the finder must hoard the fossil for a decade or more before allowing others to study it so that he can publish first.

An additional consideration is that these fossils are generally very fragile and easily broken — working with them tends to damage them. Consequently, most researchers have access to only photographs or, at best, casts. In view of this fact, it is not surprising that major disagreements are common. Most anthropologists must rely only on descriptions and interpretations put forward by the discoverer of the fossils — the very person who has a vested interest in proving his own theories.

Conclusions

A review of paleoanthropology finds that the field is far less objective than physics, chemistry, or even biology. Furthermore, fraud and fakery have occasionally been demonstrated. In a field based on little evidence and many assumptions, the “bone wars†illustrate the conflicts which are common among scientists in this area. The unprofessional and at times even fraudulent behavior is not what one would expect from professionals. I teach anthropology at the college level, and after preparing this paper, I will from now on cover the evidence for human evolution in a very different way than I have in the past.

References

Broad, W. and N. Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth:

Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. NY:

Simon and Schuster.

Chang, K. 2002. On scientific fakery and the systems to catch it. The New York Times Science Times, Tuesday, October 15, pp. 1, 4.

Harding, L. 2005. History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud. The Guardian, Saturday, February 19.

Hooper, J. 2002. An Evolutionary Tale of Moths and

Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered

Moth. New York: W. W. Norton.

Howard, R.W. 1975. The Dawnseekers: The First History of American Paleontology. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Judson, H.F. 2004. The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. New York: Harcourt, Inc.

Koestler, A. 1972. The Case of the Midwife Toad.

New York: Random House.

Kohn, A. 1988. False Prophets: Fraud and Error in

Science and Medicine. New York: Barnes &

Noble Books.

Morell, V. 1995. Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Families and the Quest for Humankind’s Beginnings.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

.

Emphasis mine.

Just where does the fraud end?

After reading the following, i think it is safe to say:

Evolutionary theory is structureless, and predicts virtually nothing - It adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.

The Unreliability of Hominid Phylogenetic Analysis Challenges The Human Evolutionary Paradigm

By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.

Recent work by two researchers from University College London (UCL) and George Washington University (GW) calls into serious question the capability of paleoanthropologists to detect and establish the evolutionary relationships assumed to exist among bipedal primates, or hominids.1

Evolutionary or phylogenetic relationships for the hominids are determined by comparing anatomical features of specimens found in the fossil record with those of extant species.

For the hominids, the available fossils in most cases are partial crania, partial jaw bones, isolated teeth, and infrequently, partial upper and lower limbs.2,3 Rarely do paleoanthropologists find a complete cranium, let alone a nearly complete skeleton. And only a few of the hominid species in the fossil record are known from an abundance of specimens. Typically a hominid species is defined by just a few fossilized bone fragments.4 Many times the hominid remains have been crushed, shattered and damaged prior to fossilization or have become deformed as a result of geological processes. This only serves to compound the difficulty of paleoanthropologists’ work.

Given the nature of the hominid fossil record, it is not surprising that most evolutionary biologists recognize that the best they can hope for are crude working phylogenies.5 (A phylogeny is believed to be the evolutionary pathway for an organism or group of organisms.) This becomes apparent when one examines textbooks and treatises on human evolution. The large number of proposed phylogenies shows that paleoanthropologists are far from a consensus on the pathway to human evolution.6, 7

The situation has recently worsened for those attempting to construct hominid phylogenetic relationships. Scientists from UCL and GW indicate, based on their findings, that evolutionary phylogenies postulated for human origins are hopelessly uncertain.8 These two paleoanthropologists compared phylogenies constructed from gene and protein sequences with those constructed from cranial and dental features for two currently existing groups of primates, the hominoids (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans) and the papionins (baboons, mangabeys, and macaques).

In both cases, the molecular phylogenies differed significantly from those derived using cranial and dental characteristics. Since evolutionary biologists consider molecular phylogenies inherently more robust, the authors of the study are forced to conclude that craniodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of primate evolutionary relationships (including those of extinct hominids). As the researchers from UCL and GW put it, “Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…â€9

In light of these results, the assertion that human evolution is a fact becomes scientifically untenable. What seems apparent is that evolutionary biologists have chosen to interpret their data exclusively within an evolutionary paradigm. From this framework, they then declare that their data supports human evolution. To demonstrate that humans evolved by natural processes, there must be rigorous evidence of clearly established evolutionary relationships with obvious transitions in the fossil record. This study shows that such determinations may never be possible, given that cranial and dental remains are the primary fossils available to paleoanthropologists.

Equally disconcerting for the evolutionary paradigm is the lack of congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Truth demands internal consistency. The failure to establish consistency for molecular and morphological phylogenies calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm.

New discoveries in paleoanthropology increasingly undermine the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for human origins.

References:

1. Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 5003-6.

2. Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 1998), 117-18.

3. S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, "The Primate Fossil Record," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed.S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 197-98.

4. Fuz Rana, “Up (and Away) from the Apes,†Connections 1, no. 4 (2000): 3-4.

5. Lewin, 296-307.

6. Lewin, 306.

7. Bernard Wood, “Evolution of Australopithecines†in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed. S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 240.

8. Collard and Wood, 5003-6.

9. Collard and Wood, 5003.

Looking at the above, i think it fare to ask: How much of human origins is imagination and how much is objective science?

Any anthropologists willing to post their version of human origins? No website link or google answers, just a list of hominid common ancestors according to your current understanding.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Shaftsbury]

Looking at the above, i think it fare to ask: How much of human origins is imagination and how much is objective science?

Any anthropologists willing to post their version of human origins? No website link or google answers, just a list of hominid common ancestors according to your current understanding.

How can you seriously expect an anthropologist to respond to a post such as this?

Your "Dr. Bergman" is well known Creationist, who's books and articles are more controversial than the subject you are talking about. Some of his credentials are even in question, particularly his Ph.D. in human biology.

[Fearisgood]

Fell free when you have anything else than an ad hominem attack. Can you criticize anything about the information. Anything that is factually incorrect. Would it make any difference to the facts if it was George Clooney who wrote it?

This is the stock standard rubbish way most lay people respond when they do not like the message. There were 3 articles in the post.

[Pontius Pilate]

Not only is Bergman a Creationist with very controversial views, his Ph.D. comes from Columbia Pacific University, a distance learning “diploma mill” that was permanently shut down by the State of California in 2000.

[Fearisgood]

LOL. Amazing! Childish, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. Let's just for a second imagine Santa Clause wrote the article. Has anybody ANYTHING to say about the information. Better yet, ignore it if you must, at least comment on the Science article.

Really this is shocking...

[Shaftsbury]

Fell free when you have anything else than an ad hominem attack. Can you criticize anything about the information. Anything that is factually incorrect. Would it make any difference to the facts if it was George Clooney who wrote it?

This is the stock standard rubbish way most lay people respond when they do not like the message. There were 3 articles in the post.

Sure I can:

Lucy, for example, is the most complete skeleton to date, and around three quarters of it is missing.

Actually only 60% of the skeleton is missing, and the most complete early human ever found is not Lucy, it's Nariokotome Boy discovered in 1984.

So I'm assuming that the article by "Dr. Bergman" was wriiten before 1984. That's over 22 years ago !

So why are you posting this information? It's certainly not news, most of the incidents of fraud happened decades ago.

[Fearisgood]

Actually only 60% of the skeleton is missing, and the most complete early human ever found is not Lucy, it's Nariokotome Boy discovered in 1984.

They found 47 of estimated 207 bones. That is 77% of the bones missing.

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=22

Johanson, D. & Edgar, B. (1996). From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon & Schuster Editions.

Anymore wiki answers?

Turkana boy is the most complete skeleton found. I think Lucy is a bit more famous though. Still no excuse for such a mistake. Any more you can find?

Oh, and Lucy is not a human ancestor anymore...

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths.

Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 17;104(16):6568-72.

Abstract

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

What is worrying is that the bones of Ardipithecus ramidus has not even been published yet, since it was "road kill".

Adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.

So I'm assuming that the article by "Dr. Bergman" was wriiten before 1984. That's over 22 years ago !

The latest reference is 2005 if you READ.

It's certainly not news, most of the incidents of fraud happened decades ago.

If you READ more than the first paragraph, you will find that the distinguished German anthropologist Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten's career has ended as a result of fraud. "His deceptions were so serious that it may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten."

But you said most...

Edited April 19, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Shaftsbury]

That afternoon, Johanson and his team sectioned off the site to prepare for the collecting of the remaining bones. After three weeks of work, they had collected several hundred pieces of bone, which represented 40 percent of a single skeleton. The team knew these bones belonged to one single individual because there was no duplication of any one bone (Johanson, Edey 1980).

http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/

Shortly thereafter, he saw an occipital (skull) bone, then a femur, some ribs, a pelvis, and the lower jaw. Two weeks later, after many hours of excavation, screening, and sorting, several hundred fragments of bone had been recovered, representing 40% of a single hominid skeleton.

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html

Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson, Lucy is special because she lived so long ago (3.2 millions years) and because almost half of her skeleton was found.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/lucy.html

But whether she is 25% or 40% complete, my point is that he is still using her as an example of how poor the fossil evidence is for early man and that is clearly not the case. It is especially disappointing because he is in a position to teach people, and apparently doesn't keep his knowledge up to date.

Ya you got me, I just skimmed through your post, but I actually did read the part about Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten.

Inquiry has now confirmed that what the British Guardian called “one of archaeology’s most sensational finds†— a purportedly 36,000-year-old skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was falsified. This fragment was believed to be a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals†(Harding, 2005).

Between Humans and Neanderthal's ? Sorry humans are not decended from Neanderthal's so this information is also outdated ( and now irrelevant).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Skeptic not an Atheist. But you are not going to convince me of your argument just by dragging up old muck from years gone by, a lot has happened and changed in just the last 10 years alone.

[Cradle of Fish]

I love how creationists accuse anthropologists and evolutionary biologists for being 'biased'. Such hypocrisy.

[Harte]

They found 47 of estimated 207 bones. That is 77% of the bones missing.

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=22

Johanson, D. & Edgar, B. (1996). From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon & Schuster Editions.

Anymore wiki answers?

Turkana boy is the most complete skeleton found. I think Lucy is a bit more famous though. Still no excuse for such a mistake. Any more you can find?

"Estimated 207 bones." First of all, a great number of bones in hominids are extremely small. Secondly, finding "most of the skeleton" is not the same as saying you've found "most of the bones." Skull, ribs, radii, ulnae, femurs, humeri , tibias and fibulae make up "most of the skeleton," after all, and that's not even 47 bones.

Oh, and Lucy is not a human ancestor anymore...

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths.

Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 17;104(16):6568-72.

Abstract

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

What is worrying is that the bones of Ardipithecus ramidus has not even been published yet, since it was "road kill".

Adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.

Ironic, in light of another section of your quote, that you would use this information at all. Here's the section I'm talking about:

...the authors of the study are forced to conclude that craniodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of primate evolutionary relationships (including those of extinct hominids)...

I don't understand why you would in the same breath claim that craniodental characteristics cannot be used to determine ancestry and claim that the comparison of craniodental characteristics has removed Au. Afarensis from the ancestry of humans.

Irony - you gotta love it.

The latest reference is 2005 if you READ.

If you READ more than the first paragraph, you will find that the distinguished German anthropologist Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten's career has ended as a result of fraud. "His deceptions were so serious that it may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten."

But you said most...

From your quote:

Anthropologist falsifies key discoveries

Inquiry has now confirmed that what the British Guardian called “one of archaeology’s most sensational finds†— a purportedly 36,000-year-old skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was falsified. This fragment was believed to be a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals†(Harding, 2005). The thirty-year academic career of the discoverer, distinguished German anthropologist Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten, “has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other ‘stone-age’ relicts†(Harding, 2005).

The crucial skull fragment, once believed to have come from the world's oldest Neanderthal, has now been determined to be a mere 7,500 years old, according to the Oxford University radiocarbon dating unit.

"Distinguished"??? Riiiight.

"Missing link"??? Nope. Hahnhöfersand Man was never, ever considered a "missing link." Even the use of the term "missing link" is wrong, since there can be no such thing. The term itself betrays your quoted author for what he is, a "Young Earth" Creationist. No scientist would refer to any artifact as a "missing link." Only Creationists and journalists use that term.

No, the Hahnhöfersand Man was supposed to bear evidence of Human - Neandertal cross breeding. Where they got that part about "world's oldest" I cannot fathom. There are Neandertal artifacts that date to 500,000 years ago.

Oh, and the "Harding" reference Bergman uses here, which I've seen elsewhere BTW, refers to the reporter that wrote the article for The Guardian. Here's a link to it:

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud - The Guardian

Note the proviso: "Modern Man." Not "Man's ancestry," not "The Evolution of Humans."

More on Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten ("Protsch" is correct, wonder why Bergman missed that?) and Hahnhöfersand Man:

On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*

(My emphasis)

Source: http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

"...Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field..." Sounds reeeaaalll "distinguished."

Protsch perpetrated this fraud, and many others. But:

One might wonder how he got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.

Same source

Harte

[Fearisgood]

"Estimated 207 bones." First of all, a great number of bones in hominids are extremely small. Secondly, finding "most of the skeleton" is not the same as saying you've found "most of the bones." Skull, ribs, radii, ulnae, femurs, humeri , tibias and fibulae make up "most of the skeleton," after all, and that's not even 47 bones.

How do you propose to objectively measure the completeness of a skeleton (40%)? I cant find how they got to the 40% of Lucy when 77% of the bones are missing. Maybe bone mass or bone volume, but when you discover a skeleton you would like to compare it bone for bone, especially the important ones, dont you think? Many of the bones of the "40%" complete skeleton was found in a 1.5mile radius, scattered among other skeletons.

I don't understand why you would in the same breath claim that craniodental characteristics cannot be used to determine ancestry and claim that the comparison of craniodental characteristics has removed Au. Afarensis from the ancestry of humans.

Irony - you gotta love it.

I am glad you can see the "irony" in human anthropology research. Craniodental characteristics is the bread and butter in human anthropology research. The past 100 years of human anthropology research was mainly based on craniodental, hip-joint, knee-joint and feet characteristics. When the molecular phylogenies do not agree agree with the craniodental characteristics, researchers are forced to resort to ever more exotic theories, such as the one where human and chimp lineages interbred after splitting.

In many cases a proposed hominid discovery is described without the publication of the bones, as in the case of Ardipithecus ramidus being discovered in 1992 and the cranium only published in 2004, which was in effect "road kill".

Human anthropology is structureless, and predicts virtually nothing - It adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.

The only certainty in this data-poor, imagination-rich, endlessly fascinating field (human anthropology) is that there are plenty of surprises left to come.

The question is if there is any real empirical science left to come in this data-poor, imagination-rich field of evolutionary speculation.

So... is anybody going to dare post the "current" hominid lineage? No links or pics please, just the "version" you think is currently the most acceptable? Im really interested to see what people post.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Harte]

How do you propose to objectively measure the completeness of a skeleton (40%)? I cant find how they got to the 40% of Lucy when 77% of the bones are missing.

How do I propose? I suppose you could go by weight or volume, couldn't you?

To me, only the most important parts should count anyway. I mean, the bones of the inner ear would tell us far, far less about the habits of a creature than the pelvic bones, or the teeth will. See what I'm getting at here? Unfortunately, only you have asked me to propose such a means of measurement!

I am glad you can see the "irony" in human anthropology research. Craniodental characteristics is the bread and butter in human anthropology research. The past 100 years of human anthropology research was mainly based on craniodental, hip-joint, knee-joint and feet characteristics. When the molecular phylogenies do not agree agree with the craniodental characteristics, researchers are forced to resort to ever more exotic theories, such as the one where human and chimp lineages interbred after splitting.

Yet the fact remains, doesn't it, that craniodental analysis is what led your quoted researchers to attempt to eliminate Au. Afarensis from Man's ancestry anyway.

I suppose that paleoarchaeologists should just throw their hands up and say "I give up!!" and simply do away with the entire field of endeavor because certainty cannot be acheived?

In many cases a proposed hominid discovery is described without the publication of the bones, as in the case of Ardipithecus ramidus being discovered in 1992 and the cranium only published in 2004, which was in effect "road kill".

Scholarly pursuits and their associated methods are seldom crystal clear to outsiders. We really don't see why these people operate the way they do. Are you aware that the only publication of the complete Dead Sea Scrolls was unauthorized and was pieced together like a jig-saw puzzle from hundreds of bits that had been published? Researchers that hadn't been granted access to the scrolls became frustrated and came up with this method to make them available. That's just crazy, but true.

So... is anybody going to dare post the "current" hominid lineage? No links or pics please, just the "version" you think is currently the most acceptable? Im really interested to see what people post.

I'm not sure that there is a generally accepted lineage. I doubt there ever was one. But that really doesn't mean anything. It's fairly clear that modern humans were preceded by archaic humans, which were preceded by Homo Erectus, which were preceded by earlier erectus versions, like Ergaster, which were preceded by other lineages from the genus Homo like Homo Habilis.

Sorry about the links. I wonder why anyone would specifically request "no links?" I mean, I'm not gonna make you go look at them.

That doesn't indicate that any of the fossils found of these people are from actual ancestors of Man, but they are indicative of the lineages which led to Man. IOW, the actual ancestors of Man might be some people whose fossil remains have yet to be, or may never be, found.

BTW, I use the term "people" here because that is how I view them. "Homo" means "Man" after all.

Regarding where the first Homo (the earliest one that has yet to be found was Habilis) came from, that would be speculation because that far back there's just too few fossils yet found. But the fossils that have been found can be used to reliably indicate that Homo arose from some relatively similar apelike predecessor. Whether it be Au. Afarensis or not is conjecture, but Au. Afarensis certainly does show characteristics that humans have and apes do not. That indicates that apelike creatures had evolved humanlike characteristics, meaning that they, or some other apelike creature related to them, make good candidates for human ancestry.

Harte

[fullywired]

LOL. Amazing! Childish, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. Let's just for a second imagine Santa Clause wrote the article. Has anybody ANYTHING to say about the information. Better yet, ignore it if you must, at least comment on the Science article.

Really this is shocking...

Examining someones credentials is not childish it is common sense .if George Clooney said you had cancer would you take his word or ask a Doctor

[Fearisgood]

How do I propose? I suppose you could go by weight or volume, couldn't you?

Although comparing bone for bone is more complete. Toes and finger bones are small and do not add much to weight or volume, but they are important markers. Seems like the researchers conveniently measured the volume/weight (still dont know which, do you?) in order to get the highest number. Misleading dont you think.

To me, only the most important parts should count anyway. I mean, the bones of the inner ear would tell us far, far less about the habits of a creature than the pelvic bones, or the teeth will. See what I'm getting at here?

I see your point, but there are other small bones that can tell you a lot about the creature. The fingers and toes will give much more info compared to ribs in Lucy's case, yet they are missing. The inner ear bones will give you a lot of information on the balance of the creature, whether it is adapted for tree climbing or not. (See pic)

Unfortunately, only you have asked me to propose such a means of measurement!

Yes that is a shame -_-.

Yet the fact remains, doesn't it, that craniodental analysis is what led your quoted researchers to attempt to eliminate Au. Afarensis from Man's ancestry anyway.

"My quoted researchers". The article did go through a rigorous peer-review cycle in a respected science journal. The article was accepted, meaning it was scientific and valid. The researchers did not attempt to eliminate Au. Afarensis, the data showed and was interpreted so. Craniodental characteristics is one of the features that put Au. Afarensis in human's ancestry, i dont see why you cant use the same characteristics to remove it.

I suppose that paleoarchaeologists should just throw their hands up and say "I give up!!" and simply do away with the entire field of endeavor because certainty cannot be acheived?

No, as long as they refine the methods and come to less speculative, non-biased, non-imaginative interpretations, it should be fine. And release the material for scrutiny of other researchers.

Scholarly pursuits and their associated methods are seldom crystal clear to outsiders. We really don't see why these people operate the way they do.

That sentence in itself should cause some concern.

Are you aware that the only publication of the complete Dead Sea Scrolls was unauthorized and was pieced together like a jig-saw puzzle from hundreds of bits that had been published? Researchers that hadn't been granted access to the scrolls became frustrated and came up with this method to make them available. That's just crazy, but true.

Nice, i didn't know that, but bones have a 3D-structure, so a complete picture cannot be interpreted form just pictures.

I'm not sure that there is a generally accepted lineage. I doubt there ever was one. But that really doesn't mean anything. It's fairly clear that modern humans were preceded by archaic humans, which were preceded by Homo Erectus, which were preceded by earlier erectus versions, like Ergaster, which were preceded by other lineages from the genus Homo like Homo Habilis.

At least someone tried. So according to you there is no lineage? Homo Erectus and Ergaster might as well be degenerate humans (looking from a creationist perspective of course). The earliest Homo Erectus skulls found were also the biggest, curious... Homo habilis is no longer considered a to be part of the human lineage.

BTW, I use the term "people" here because that is how I view them. "Homo" means "Man" after all.

That might be misleading, as Homo habilis is not considered to be part of the human lineage. The largest Habilis skulls are 600cc, comparing well with that of Gorillas and australopithecines.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Harte]

Although comparing bone for bone is more complete. Toes and finger bones are small and do not add much to weight or volume, but they are important markers. Seems like the researchers conveniently measured the volume/weight (still dont know which, do you?) in order to get the highest number. Misleading dont you think.

You're right, I have no idea how they arrived at their number. But to me, no, it's not misleading. Also, if you have a portion of a bone, you, in effect, have that bone, based on known bone morphology and comparisons with other skeletons.

I see your point, but there are other small bones that can tell you a lot about the creature. The fingers and toes will give much more info compared to ribs in Lucy's case, yet they are missing. The inner ear bones will give you a lot of information on the balance of the creature, whether it is adapted for tree climbing or not. (See pic)

Plenty of other ways to tell about whether a creature is arboreal without requiring the preservation of bones so small that they can barely be seen.

As far as fingers and toes, these bones of the extremeties are usually missing in remains that aren't immediately covered at death (like many dinosaurs have been found apparently killed and buried in flash floods.) It's hardly fair to say that since these bones weren't recovered, that certain conjectures about them cannot be made. Anthropologists all concede that their ideas are educated guesses at best.

"My quoted researchers". The article did go through a rigorous peer-review cycle in a respected science journal. The article was accepted, meaning it was scientific and valid. The researchers did not attempt to eliminate Au. Afarensis, the data showed and was interpreted so. Craniodental characteristics is one of the features that put Au. Afarensis in human's ancestry, i dont see why you cant use the same characteristics to remove it.

I read the article. I realized it was scholarly. But it was you that introduced the idea that craniodental analysis might be an invalid way to relate extinct species. And it was you that introduced the article that indicated that craniodental analysis has eliminated Au. Afarensis fro Man's lineage. I was just pointing out an obvious inconsistency in your argument. You seemed perfectly willing to use the "flawed" method of determining the interrelatedness of various hominid species when it seems to support the conclusion you wish to uphold. But try to use this same method in another way and, nope, can't use it, it's invalid.

Thought it was funny, that's all.

At least someone tried. So according to you there is no lineage? Homo Erectus and Ergaster might as well be degenerate humans (looking from a creationist perspective of course).

Possible if there hadn't been more found. Hard to argue for a degenerate human when, number one, all the fossils found appear to be "degenerate" and, number two, no human fossils have ever been found which are that old.

The earliest Homo Erectus skulls found were also the biggest, curious... Homo habilis is no longer considered a to be part of the human lineage.

I believe I indicated that the actual "lineage" may never be known. It's absolutely will never be known with the certainty which you seem to require.

That might be misleading, as Homo habilis is not considered to be part of the human lineage. The largest Habilis skulls are 600cc, comparing well with that of Gorillas and australopithecines.

Now who's using craniodental analysis?

Harte

Edited April 30, 2007 by Harte

[Fearisgood]

You're right, I have no idea how they arrived at their number. But to me, no, it's not misleading. Also, if you have a portion of a bone, you, in effect, have that bone, based on known bone morphology and comparisons with other skeletons.

Fair enough, to each his own. To me it is a bit misleading, as i think the bone percentage would have been the more objective number.

Anthropologists all concede that their ideas are educated guesses at best.

Empirically scientific?

But it was you that introduced the idea that craniodental analysis might be an invalid way to relate extinct species. And it was you that introduced the article that indicated that craniodental analysis has eliminated Au. Afarensis fro Man's lineage.

Thought id give the opinions of paleoanthropologists and molecular anthropologists. They don't seem to gel very well...

I was just pointing out an obvious inconsistency in your argument. You seemed perfectly willing to use the "flawed" method of determining the interrelatedness of various hominid species when it seems to support the conclusion you wish to uphold. But try to use this same method in another way and, nope, can't use it, it's invalid.

Thought it was funny, that's all.

Funny how you only criticize my argument, when scientists also seem to use their argument that suits their theory the best. (btw i was only pointing out irregularities). In the one corner you have paleoanthropologists using craniodental characteristics to support their lineage, and in the other corner you have the molecular anthropologists who seem to disagree with them. I would not be surprised at all if Au. Afarensis was removed from man's lineage in order to support the molecular anthropologists view in order to make it look like there is an agreement between the fields. Although i dont see how that is going to work yet...

Now who's using craniodental analysis?

Forgive me for using craniodental characteristics, but isnt that what was used to determine human ancestry and is still being used?

[Hehe]

Here is a funny version of the following transcript describing the interpretation of an Australopithecine fossil find.

DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up [we know we can count on reliable evolutionary propagandist Lovejoy to not let us down!]. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't [here's an actual quote from Johanson: "I knew, though, that I had to prove myself by finding some hominids or the money would dry up." - Johanson, Ancestors- In Search of Human Origins, pg. 51]. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized [suddenly a clever story popped into his head how he could make a man out of a monkey and keep Don's funding flowing!]

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization. [and hence the fairytale was "afoot"!]

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore. [ROTFL!!!! Maybe it was bigfoot!]

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position [since it is chimp-like, but we can't have that, or Don's funding will dry up and he won't be able to pay me!]

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost [My buddy Lovejoy came up with a good tale, to keep my funding flowing! Yes! I think I'll sing a Beatles song!]. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. [that is, to a human-like shape!] He didn't want to tamper with the original [ROTFL! tamper was a good way to put it!] so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. [ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!] It was a tricky job [no, it was a bad joke masquerading as science], but after taking the kink out of the pelvis [someone needs to check the kink in Lovejoy's brain], it all fit together perfectly [ah, but of course!], like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. [and hence I would get more funding! We'll put Piltman down to shame!].

Print in bold was inserted by the author, "Shaggy: wasnt me"

This pelvis fabrication is one of the biggest, laughable jokes in science history. Was Lovejoy trying to pull a scam? No.Maybe he is so bent on propping up evolution, he dreams up such utterly ridiculous nonsense. There is no way to know the pelvis was originally shaped the way lovejoy molded it, short of finding an intact pelvis (but will they then "reconstruct" it again?). Johanson buys the story hook line & sinker because subconsciously it keeps his funding flowing, plus it makes him famous.

Solly Zuckerman: "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time...

LOL , i wouldn't be surprised if this kind of imaginative speculation is rife among paleoanthropologists.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Hehe

[Harte]

Here is a funny version of the following transcript describing the interpretation of an Australopithecine fossil find...

LOL , i wouldn't be surprised if this kind of imaginative speculation is rife among paleoanthropologists.

These New Earth creationists really kill me.

Why no mention here of the position of the skull on Au. Afarensis? It is my understanding that it was this that led to the postuilation of upright walking. Not the pelvis.

Harte