|
PART I
ANOMALOUS EVIDENCE
1 -
THE SONG OF THE RED LION: DARWIN AND HUMAN EVOLUTION
One evening in 1871, an association of learned British gentlemen,
the Red Lions, gathered in Edinburgh, Scotland, to feed happily
together and entertain each other with humorous songs and speeches.
Lord Neaves, known well for his witty lyrics, stood up before the
assembled Lions and sang twelve stanzas he had composed on "The
Origin of Species a la Darwin."
Among them:
An Ape with a pliable thumb and big brain,
When the gift of gab he had managed to gain,
As Lord of Creation established his reign
Which Nobody can Deny!
His listeners responded, as customary among the Red Lions, by gently
roaring and wagging their coattails.
Just a dozen years after
Charles Darwin published The Origin of
Species in 1859, growing numbers of scientists and other educated
persons considered it impossible, indeed laughable, to suppose that
humans were anything other than the modified descendants of an
ancestral line of apelike creatures.
In The Origin of Species
itself, Darwin touched but briefly on the question of human
beginnings, noting in the final pages only that "Light will be
thrown on the origin of man and his history." Yet despite Darwin's
caution, it was clear that he did not see humanity as an exception
to his theory that one species evolves from another.
DARWIN SPEAKS
It was not until 1871 that Darwin came out with a book (Descent of
Man) expressing his detailed views on human evolution.
Explaining
his delay, Darwin wrote:
"During many years I collected notes on the
origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the
subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I
thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my
views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first edition
of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light would be thrown
on the origin of man and his history;' and this implies that man
must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion
respecting his manner of appearance on this earth."
In Descent of Man, Darwin explicitly denied any special status for
the human species.
"We thus learn," he said, "that man is descended
from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and
an inhabitant of the Old World."
It was a bold statement, yet one
lacking the most convincing kind of proof—fossils of species
transitional between the ancient apes and modern humans.
Aside from two poorly dated Neanderthal skulls from Germany and
Gibraltar, and a few other little-reported finds of modern
morphology, there were no discoveries of hominid fossil remains.
This fact soon became ammunition to those who were revolted by
Darwin's suggestion that humans had apelike ancestors. Where, they
asked, were the fossils to prove it?
Today, however, almost without exception, modern
paleoanthropologists believe that they have fulfilled the
expectations of Darwin by positive discoveries of fossil human
ancestors in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere.
APPEARANCE OF THE HOMINIDS
In this book, we take the modern system of geological ages (Table
1.1) for granted. We use it as a fixed frame of reference for our
study of the history of ancient humans and near humans. This is for
convenience. We acknowledge that our findings might require serious
reconsideration of the geological time scale.
According to modern views, the first apelike beings appeared in the
Oligocene period, which began about 38 million years ago. The first
apes thought to be on the line to humans appeared in the Miocene,
which extends from 5 to 25 million years ago. These include
Dryopithecus.
Then came the Pliocene period. During the Pliocene, the first
hominids, or erect-walking humanlike primates, are said to appear in
the fossil record. The earliest known hominid is Australopithecus,
the southern ape, and is dated back as far as 4 million years, in
the Pliocene.
This near human, say scientists, stood between 4 and 5 feet tall and
had a cranial capacity of between 300 and 600 cubic centimeters
(cc). From the neck down, Australopithecus is said to have been very
similar to modern humans, whereas the head displayed some apelike
and some human features.
One branch of Australopithecus is thought to have given rise to
Homo habilis around 2 million years ago, at the beginning of the
Pleistocene period. Homo habilis appears similar to Australopithecus
except that his cranial capacity is said to have been larger,
between 600 and 750 cc.
Homo habilis is thought to have given rise to Homo erectus (the
species that includes Java man and Beijing man) around 1.5 million
years ago. Homo erectus is said to have stood between 5 and 6 feet
tall and had a cranial capacity varying between 700 and 1,300 cc.
Most paleoanthropologists now believe that from the neck down, Homo
erectus was, like Australopithecus and Homo habilis, almost the same
as modern humans. The forehead, however, sloped back from behind
massive brow ridges, the jaws and teeth were large, and the lower
jaw lacked a chin. It is believed that Homo erectus lived in Africa,
Asia, and Europe until about 200,000 years ago.
Paleoanthropologists believe that anatomically modern humans (Homo
sapiens sapiens) emerged gradually from Homo erectus. Somewhere
around 300,000 or 400,000 years ago, the first early Homo sapiens or
archaic Homo sapiens are said to have appeared. They are described
as having a cranial capacity almost as large as that of modern
humans, yet still manifesting to a lesser degree some of the
characteristics of Homo erectus, such as the thick skull, receding
forehead, and large brow ridges.
Examples of this category are the
finds from Swanscombe in England, Steinheim in Germany, and
Fontechevade and Arago in France. Because these skulls also possess,
to some degree, Neanderthal characteristics, they are also
classified as pre-Neanderthal types. Most authorities now postulate
that both anatomically modern humans and the classic Western
European Neanderthals evolved from the pre-Neanderthal or early Homo
sapiens types of hominids.
In the early part of the twentieth century, some scientists
advocated the view that the Neanderthals of the last glacial period,
known as the classic Western European Neanderthals, were the direct
ancestors of modern human beings. They had brains larger than those
of Homo sapiens sapiens. Their faces and jaws were much larger, and
their foreheads were lower, sloping back from behind large brow
ridges. Neanderthal remains are found in Pleistocene deposits
ranging from 30,000 to 150,000 years old.
However, the discovery of
early Homo sapiens in deposits far older than 150,000 years
effectively removed the classic Western European Neanderthals from
the direct line of descent leading from Homo erectus to modern
humans.
The type of human known as Cro-Magnon appeared in Europe
approximately 30,000 years ago, and they were anatomically modern.
Scientists used to say that anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens
first appeared around 40,000 years ago, but now many authorities, in
light of discoveries in South Africa and elsewhere, say that they
appeared 100,000 or more years ago.
The cranial capacity of modern humans varies from 1,000 cc to 2,000
cc, the average being around 1,350 cc. As can be readily observed
today among modern humans, there is no correlation between brain
size and intelligence. There are highly intelligent people with
1,000 cc brains and morons with 2,000 cc brains.
Exactly where, when, or how Australopithecus gave rise to Homo habilis, or
Homo habilis gave rise to Homo erectus, or Homo erectus
gave rise to modern humans is not explained in present accounts of
human origins. However, most paleoanthropologists agree that only
anatomically modern humans came to the New World. The earlier stages
of evolution, from Australopithecus on up, are all said to have
taken place in the Old World. The first arrival of human beings in
the New World is generally said to have occurred some 12,000 years
ago, with some scientists willing to grant a Late Pleistocene date
of 25,000 years.
Even today there are many gaps in the presumed record of human
descent. For example, there is an almost total absence of fossils
linking the Miocene apes such as Dryopithecus with the Pliocene
ancestors of modern apes and humans, especially within the span of
time between 4 and 8 million years ago.
Perhaps it is true that fossils will someday be found that fill in
the gaps. Yet, and this is extremely important, there is no reason
to suppose that the fossils that turn up will be supportive of
evolutionary theory. What if, for example, fossils of anatomically
modern humans turned up in strata older than those in which
Dryopithecus were found? Even if anatomically modern humans were
found to have lived a million years ago, 4 million years after the
Late Miocene disappearance of Dryopithecus, that would be enough to
throw out the current accounts of the origin of humankind.
In fact, such evidence has already been found, but it has since been
suppressed or conveniently forgotten. Much of it came to light in
the decades immediately after Darwin published The Origin of
Species, before which there had been no notable finds except
Neanderthal man. In the first years of Darwinism, there was no
clearly established story of human descent to be defended, and
professional scientists made and reported many discoveries that now
would never make it into the pages of any journal more academically
respectable than the National Enquirer.
Most of these fossils and artifacts were unearthed before the
discovery by Eugene Dubois of Java man, the first proto-human
hominid between Dryopithecus and modern humans. Java man was found
in Middle Pleistocene deposits generally given an age of 800,000
years. The discovery became a benchmark. Henceforth, scientists
would not expect to find fossils or artifacts of anatomically modern
humans in deposits of equal or greater age.
If they did, they (or
someone wiser) concluded that this was impossible and found some way
to discredit the find as a mistake, an illusion, or a hoax. Before
Java man, however, reputable nineteenth-century scientists found a
number of examples of anatomically modern human skeletal remains in
very ancient strata.
And they also found large numbers of stone
tools of various types, as well as animal bones bearing signs of
human action.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF EPISTEMOLOGY
Before beginning our survey of rejected and accepted
paleoanthropological evidence, we shall outline a few
epistemological rules that we have tried to follow. Epistemology is
defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as "the study or theory of
the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge." When engaged
in the study of scientific evidence, it is important to keep the
nature, methods, and limits of knowledge in mind; otherwise one is
prone to fall into illusion.
Paleoanthropological evidence has certain key limitations that
should be pointed out. First, the observations that go into
paleoanthropological facts tend to involve rare discoveries that
cannot be duplicated at will. For example, some scientists in this
field have built great reputations on the basis of a few famous
discoveries, and others, the vast majority, have spent their whole
careers without making a single significant find.
Second, once a discovery is made, key elements of the evidence are
destroyed, and knowledge of these elements depends solely on the
testimony of the discoverers. For example, one of the most important
aspects of a fossil is its stratigraphic position. However, once the
fossil is removed from the earth, the direct evidence indicating its
position is destroyed, and we simply have to depend on the
excavator's testimony as to where he or she found it. Of course, one
may argue that chemical or other features of the fossil may indicate
its place of origin. This is true in some cases but not in others.
And in making such judgments, we also have to depend on reports
concerning the chemical and other physical properties of the strata
in which the fossil was allegedly found.
Persons making important discoveries sometimes cannot find their way
back to the sites of those discoveries. After a few years, the sites
are almost inevitably destroyed, perhaps by erosion, by complete
paleoanthropological excavation, or by commercial developments
(involving quarrying, building construction, and so forth). Even
modern excavations involving meticulous recording of details destroy
the very evidence they are recording, leaving one with nothing but
written testimony to back up many key assertions. And many important
discoveries, even today, involve very scanty recording of key
details.
Thus a person desiring to verify paleoanthropological reports will
find it very difficult to gain access to the real facts, even if he
or she is able to travel to the site of a discovery. And, of course,
limitations of time and money make it impossible to personally
examine more than a small percentage of the totality of important
paleoanthropological sites.
A third problem is that the facts of paleoanthropology are seldom
(if ever) simple. A scientist may testify that the fossils were
clearly weathering out of a certain Early Pleistocene layer. But
this apparently simple statement may depend on many observations and
arguments involving geological faulting, the possibility of
slumping, the presence or absence of a layer of hillwash, the
presence of a refilled gully, and so on. If one consults the
testimony of another person present at the site, one may find that
he or she discusses many important details not mentioned by the
first witness.
Different observers sometimes contradict one another, and their
senses and memories are imperfect. Thus, an observer at a given site
may see certain things, but miss other important things. Some of
these things might be seen by other observers, but this could turn
out to be impossible because the site has become inaccessible.
Then there is the problem of cheating. This can occur on the level
of systematic fraud, as in the Piltdown case. As we shall see, to
get to the bottom of this kind of cheating one requires the
investigative abilities of a super Sherlock Holmes plus all the
facilities of a modern forensic laboratory. Unfortunately, there are
always strong motives for deliberate or unconscious fraud, since
fame and glory await the person who succeeds in finding a human
ancestor.
Cheating can also occur on the level of simply omitting to report
observations that do not agree with one's desired conclusions. As we
will see in the course of this book, investigators have sometimes
observed artifacts in certain strata, but never reported this
because they did not believe the artifacts could possibly be of that
age. It is very difficult to avoid this, because our senses are
imperfect, and if we see something that seems impossible, then it is
natural to suppose that we may be mistaken. Indeed, this may very
well be the case. Cheating by neglecting to mention important
observations is simply a limitation of human nature that,
unfortunately, can have a deleterious impact on the empirical
process.
The drawbacks of paleoanthropological facts are not limited to
excavations of objects. Similar drawbacks are also found in modern
chemical or radiometric dating studies. For example, a carbon 14
date might seem to involve a straightforward procedure that reliably
yields a number—the age of an object. But actual dating studies
often turn out to involve complex considerations regarding the
identity of samples, and their history and possible contamination.
They may involve the rejection of some preliminary calculated dates
and the acceptance of others on the basis of complex arguments that
are seldom explicitly published. Here also the facts can be complex,
incomplete, and largely inaccessible.
The conclusion we draw from these limitations of
paleoanthropological facts is that in this field of study we are
largely limited to the comparative study of reports. Although hard
evidence does exist in the form of fossils and artifacts in museums,
most of the key evidence that gives importance to these objects
exists only in written form.
Since the information conveyed by paleoanthropological reports tends
to be incomplete, and since even the simplest paleoanthropological
facts tend to involve complex, irresolvable issues, it is difficult
to arrive at solid conclusions about reality in this field. What
then can we do? We suggest that one important thing we can do is
compare the quality of different reports. Although we do not have
access to the real facts, we can directly study different reports
and objectively compare them.
A collection of reports dealing with certain discoveries can be
evaluated on the basis of the thoroughness of the reported
investigation and the logic and consistency of the arguments
presented. One can consider whether or not various skeptical
counterarguments to a given theory have been raised and answered.
Since reported observations must always be taken on faith in some
respect, one can also inquire into the qualifications of the
observers.
We propose that if two collections of reports appear to be equally
reliable on the basis of these criteria, then they should be treated
equally. Both sets might be accepted, both might be rejected, or
both might be regarded as having an uncertain status. It would be
wrong, however, to accept one set of reports while rejecting the
other, and it would be especially wrong to accept one set as proof
of a given theory while suppressing the other set, and thus
rendering it inaccessible to future students.
We apply this approach to two particular sets of reports. The first
set consists of reports of anomalously old artifacts and human
skeletal remains, most of which were discovered in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These reports are
discussed in Part I of this book. The second set consists of reports
of artifacts and skeletal remains that are accepted as evidence in
support of current theories of human evolution. These reports range
in date from the late nineteenth century to the 1980s, and they are
discussed in Part II. Due to the natural interconnections between
different discoveries, some anomalous discoveries are also discussed
in Part II.
Our thesis is that in spite of the various advances in
paleoanthropological science in the twentieth century there is an
essential equivalence in quality between these two sets of reports.
We therefore suggest that it is not appropriate to accept one set
and reject the other. This has serious implications for the modern
theory of human evolution. If we reject the first set of reports
(the anomalies) and, to be consistent, also reject the second set
(evidence currently accepted), then the theory of human evolution is
deprived of a good part of its observational foundation.
But if we
accept the first set of reports, then we must accept the existence
of intelligent, tool-making beings in geological periods as remote
as the Miocene, or even the Eocene. If we accept the skeletal
evidence presented in these reports, we must go further and accept
the existence of anatomically modern human beings in these remote
periods.
This not only contradicts the modern theory of human
evolution, but it also casts grave doubt on our whole picture of the
evolution of mammalian life in the Cenozoic era.
Back
to Contents
|