The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

Nothingness has made the claim, and others have accepted as fact that a reconstrcution of Nebraska Man was made from the evidince of a single tooth.This is untrue.No such reconstruction was ever made.The claim was based on an article in the "Illustrated London News" in 1922 (can't remember the exact date). The Illustrated London News was a popular magazine/newspaper (rather more respectable than the National Enquirer though).A quote from the article shows this (the information was repeated in both the picture caption and the body of the text):

quote:

---

Mr. Forestier [The artist] 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.

---

My emphasis, but note the stress on the speculative nature of the information, and this in a popular paper, not the scientific press. The picture is actually more based on the better known Java Man.It is worth noting that the scientific establishment decryied the production of this drawing as being overly speculative, despite the clear caveats.On the claim that Nebraska Man was accepted in the scientific literature, note this:

quote:

---

Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:

​

quote:

---

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted.

---

---

Even at the time Nebraska Man was not generally accepted, and shortly after the publication of the above book was found, by later discoveries to be an error. Note, an error, not a fraud.All quotes from the Talk Origins page on the subject.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

I think NOTHINGNESS is talking about the Homo heidelbergensis specmin found at Boxgrove in Sussex, UK, which is sometimes called Boxgrove Man.See the University College London site on the excavation project.However, the question arises: what problem does NOTHINGNESS see with such a thoroughly researched site?

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

If it's alright with you, let's start with the Homo Heidelbergensis. What is your opinion on this fossil?

---

No, lets start with your opinion.What's the problem with Homo heidelbergensis

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

NOTHINGNESS

quote:

---

The discovery of 'Lucys' KNEE JOINT was found in the 200th layer of strata(200 feet below) and then, one mile and a half away from the original discovery, this KNEE JOINT was found.

---

Lucy's knee was NOT found at a distance from the rest of the skeleton. The knee in question is a different fossil from the same (or very similar) species.The bones from Lucy were all found at a single location and, as can be seen, there are no knees: This myth, which has been circulating in creationists circles for ages derives from a lecture given by Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson and the University of Missouri, where, in the question and answer session the following happened:Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.Perhaps the questioner meant Lucy's knee, perhaps not, but Johanson clearly though it meant earlier (1973 as opposed to 1974) find, and answered accordingly.Johansons' knee (AL129): for a fuller account see here.This knee is almost as important as Lucy herself, since it was the first clear evidence for bipedalism. I've read the popular account of the finds, and the discoverer's awe at what the find signifies comes over very clearly.Edited to add picture of knee.This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 08-16-2004 08:42 AM

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

It still comes down to proving Lucy was able to walk upright,without the knee joint. Everything else added is just speculation.

---

That Lucy, and indeed all of the Australophicenes, were bipedal is not in doubt any longer.That they were not as capable bipeds as Homo is also not doubted.The were not obligate terrestial bipeds, but udoubtedly spent much time in trees.They were (cue fanfare) intermediate or transitional types.Compare the pelvic structures: The souce discusses it in more detail, but from the drawings, the intermediate nature is obvious. I will note that the Australopithecene pelis as the slightly later africanus, but afarensis is similar.

quote:

---

The important thing for me is the fact that the 'knee joint' which seems to be bipedal, was NOT at the site with Lucy. You cannot add lib anything about being similar just to associate the bipedal knee joint with Lucy.

---

Yes we can. We're not just reliant on the knee and Lucy. We've got other fossils as well.There are three main indicators of bipedalism:The knee joint structure where aferensis' knee is almost identical in structure to homo.The pelvis and thigh bone, where aferensis' pelvis is transitional, but fit for bipedalism.The foramen magnum, which is the hole in the skull where the spinal chord enters. For most quadrupeds, its at the back of the skull, for knuckle walkers, about 45deg down, for bipeds, at the base. All Austalopiecenes shows the latter pattern, although, again, sometimes (for earlier fossils) in an intermediate form.The pattern is clear, particularly when you "lay out" the specimins in date order.Finally

quote:

---

In this case I searched TIME Magazine to see Johanson's specific quote. I've already known about Lucy disputed claim for years.

---

There are no disputed claims about Lucy, except in the minds of creationists, many of whom never read anything except creationsist material for fear of being confused by facts.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

And then the funy thing that caught my eye was the following observation. "EVEN BEFORE JOHANSON ASSEMBLED" Lucy's remaining bones, he could see that she has been BIPEDAL.

​

How could you tell Lucy was bipedal before he assembled her without the knee joint? I guess he figured he would find the bipedal knee joint, or I guess he could have speculated that the pelvis bone was indicated it?

​

Don't you think he was jumping to conclusing too fast? Of course not.

---

The pelvis, the leg bones, the arm bones. Look at the picture of Lucy, and the drawings of the pelvis of P.Troglodytes and H. Sapiens. To which are they closer?What he meant by "before assembling" was after collecting all the bones, but before laying them out in order. To someone with his experience, he could have created a mental picture of the skeleton.Remember, we now have more fossils. The knee alone (discovered a year earlier) proves the existance of a bipedal species even if Lucy is proven not to be bipedal, and thus is removed from A Aferensis.

quote:

---

I have this issue of Newsweek, where reporters-Peter Gwynne and John Caley-(who are not scientists-obviously)finalized the way "most" scientists are now-not objective.

​

February 1981-soap opera details of personal prejudices , bitter rivalries and twists of fortune that frequently make science as Machiavellian as politics."

​

Time Magazine Nov. 7, 1977 p.41-"Scientists concede that even their most herished theories are based on embarassingly few fossil fragments, and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.'

---

Is the best you can do 25-35 year quotes from the popular press? There have been huge advances in that time. Yes, there are arguments about the details, but the broad sweep is clear.

quote:

---

I ask a simple yes and No question, and I cannot get a direct question. Maybe you can give me an objective response.

​

Is Homo Hibilis composed of various fossils? A simple yes will do, or a simple no. I want to see if evolutionists are also objective to the evidence, which they claim to be.

---

Yes, there are arguments about the status of H. habilis. Basically there are three opinions:H. habilis is a valid species. This is the majority opinion.Some of the specimins at either end should go to Australopithecus, and some to H. erectus. Note this would still leave H. habilis standing, as the type specimin is considered valid by this group.H. habilis is a construct, and the specimins should all be reallocated. This is an extreme minority view, largely held by cladists, who don't accept speciation without separation.However, remember this is a reclassification, even in the extreme case. None of the H. habilis fossils are being discarded as potential ancestors of H. sapiens. It's an argument about what we call them.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

In regards to the drawings which you provided, indicating the similarities, almost reminds me of the Haeckel's Drawings, in which they also tried to show "similarities".

​

The Haeckel's drawings should have warned you about trusing an artists motivation behind his work.

---

The last resort: the "Grand Conspiracy" - everyone is lying to us.However, I did not ask you to look at the africanus pelvis, but to compare Lucy's pelvis with troglodytes and sapiens. Are you seriously saying that you think someone could get away with faking a chimpanzee or human pelvis drawing. To enlighten you:Lucy troglodytes, africanus and sapiens pelvis Which one (allowing for symmetry) is Lucy nearest in form? Clearly Sapiens. Given all the other evidence, Lucy was bipedal: probabally not as good as sapiens and certainly not an obligate biped, but bipedal.

quote:

---

Now, in reference to Lucy and documentation to support a particular hypotheses. Am I correct to assume that evolutionists generally accept the belief that Australopithecus are bipedal?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

I will not only use "paper trash" to support my claims (I assume that is what you believe). I will even use some evolutionists to support my claims as well.

​

Charles E. Oxnard (EVOLUTIONIST)-"An important part of todays conventional wisdom aout human evolution is based on studies of teeth, jaws, and fragments of australopithecine fossils. These all indicate that the close relation of the australopithecine to the humans may not be true. All these fossils are different from gorillas, chimpanzees and men. Studied as a group, the australopithecus seems more like the orang-utan (Charles E. Oxnard, The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt, Nature, No. 258, p.389

---

Oxnard views's have been discredited. He only worked with a few bones in poor condition. Later, more comprehensive studies, have confirmed Australopithecus' bipedal status, as had been believed from the start. See here.However, Oxnard does not support your view. He believes, and always has done, that Australopithecus is in the human family: he simply believes that the differences are such that they cannot be in the direct line.

quote:

---

Johanson's site was only a-chimpanzee/orangutan fossil site, with "a" human bone "bipedal knee joint".

---

We've got several knee fossils now, as well as hands and feet. The knee is very close to sapiens, the hands and feet are intermediate, but nearer sapiens.Have you considered the implications for creationism of such a result. As I have already stated, other fossil afarensis include the knee, and can thus be demonstrated to be bipedal. If Lucy was of another, closely related non-bipedal species, we've got our link between the apes and man.

quote:

---

Men move like men, and the monkey species move like monkeys. What is so difficult about that?

---

Why bring in monkeys? I presume you mean chimpanzees here. You are demonstrating your ignorance: chimpanzees are not monkeys.And Australopithecus moves like Australopithecus: more like man than
chimpanzee.You could say that some animals do have a limited upright ability...[/quote]Some more limited than others: in a clear spectrum of capabilities from the Last Common Ancester through Australopithecus to sapiens.It is entirely possible that this Last Common Ancester was more bipedal than current chimpanzees.

quote:

---

..., however those that do would have a "BENT SKELETON".

---

Why? We don't, and are full obligate bipeds.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

NOTHINGNESS,You have made this claim:

quote:

---

Instead of trying to see the similarities of the fossils to us humans, you should emphasize more on the similarities between the historic monkeys and chimpanzees with the present day monkeys and chimpanzees. Check and see how precise they match.

​

They have "NEVER" changed. Humans are humans. Monkeys are monkeys, and chimpanzees are chimpanzees.

---

Unlike many other creationist's claims, this can easilly be tested.Examine the geologic record.If your claim is true, Chimpanzees, monkeys and man should be found fossilised in at least a representative sample of every strata from the Pre-Cambrian upwards to the present.Are they?If not, and they are not why?Edited to correct spelling.This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 08-19-2004 01:48 PM

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.