Posted on 05/12/2008 9:05:36 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
WHEN I am dead, the chance that my bones will become fossilized is very remote. Bones decay away like the rest of our bodies unless a lot of very unlikely things happen. First of all, a dead body will not leave any permanent remains in the form of a fossil unless it happens to be covered up and thus protected from decay. That is fairly easy in the case of animals in the sea. Rivers are always carrying sediment out and depositing it, and tides and currents shift the sediment and cover up the bodies of dead animals. But even in this case it is by no means likely that the bones will be fossilized. Much more probably they will gradually dissolve away, and leave no trace of themselves. Fossilization is rather a complicated process. It involves the replacement of each particle of bone, as it dissolves away, by a less soluble and therefore more permanent substance. When that has happened, the chances are still very remote that anyone will find the fossil thousands or millions of years later. Our quarries and mines and cuttings are mere scratches on the surface of the earth. With terrestrial animals the chances of fossilization are still less than with marine ones. They are likely to die and decay without being covered up. It would be quite absurd to look with any great hopefulness for the fossil remains of the ancestors of any given animal. It would not simply be like looking for the proverbial pin in a haystack, for then you are supposed to have the advantage of knowing that the pin is there. But in this case you are looking for a soluble pin in a haystack in a thunderstorm, and you always have at the back of your mind the disconcerting thought that perhaps it is no longer there.
That is the reason why we cannot describe the evolution of every species of animal in detail. The obvious thing to do is to study those animals which happen to have left the best record of their evolution. The horse is the best of all. We know the stages in the evolution of the horse in great detail, and with certainty. There are many other animals whose evolution from simpler forms is also well known. But if you take any animal at random, say a rabbit, the chances are that there will not be a complete fossil history of it.
One would not expect, then, to be able to find much in the way of human fossils, and the fact is that not many have been found. But we are in a very different position now from what we were at the beginning of the century.
At that time very little was known. A fossil skull had been found in a cave at Neanderthal in Prussia. This was definitely human, but had many ape-like characters. The enormous bony ridges above the eye are the most obvious features. Then there is the retreating forehead, receding chin, and massive jaw; and the form of the leg bones of this type of person shows that he must have shuffled along with his knees bent all the time. A cast of the inside of his skull gives a good idea of what his brain must have been like, and one can see from it that the parts of the brain concerned with speaking were poorly developed.
Now in the last century people did not like the idea of being descended from apes, and they were not prepared to examine the evidence for it impar- tially. They invented an excellent excuse for this skull. It was an abnormality! That would get out of the difficulty. The unfortunate individual had some disease which made his skull grow in "that funny way. A little peculiar, was it not, that hundreds of thousands of his relatives, who of course had skulls exactly like ours, left no fossil remains, while just the single one who happened to be abnormal was fossilized! But improbabilities do not worry people who have convictions based on prejudice and not on love of truth. Some people even suggested that these skeletons were those of hybrids between men and apes. This is incredible for two reasons. Firstly, no cases are known of any two Mammals, so widely separated as to fall into different families, being able to interbreed. Secondly, even if one imagined the impossible, and supposed that such hybrids could be produced, it would remain incredible that the millions of normal men of those geological times should have left no trace whatever, while the few hybrids were by a miracle fossilized and discovered. How has the famous Neanderthal man fared in our enlightened twentieth century? Many more skeletons have been found, closely resembling him. Neanderthal man has been found in Belgium, France, and Gibraltar, and in 1925 near the Sea of Galilee. With the skeletons are examples of his implements, which differ from those of other fossil men, and implements like these have recently been found in Mongolia. His was an enormously wide-spread race of primitive men, every one of them having those very characters which our learned and truth-loving forbears preferred to think of as due to disease.
In 1921 a fossil skull, without lower jaw, was found in Rhodesia. This had huge bony ridges above the eyebrows, and in most respects was rather like the Neanderthal man, but a little more primitive. We must hope for more examples of this race.
These Neanderthal men were fairly recent, as geological time goes, and also definitely more human than ape-like. They were probably not on the direct line of our ancestry, but died out perhaps twenty- five thousand years ago, just before the last ice age. Nevertheless they must have been closely allied to our ancestors.
Now what about the real missing link, something midway between ape and man? Where did we stand at the beginning of the century?
A most momentous discovery had recently been made. Dubois had set off to the East Indies with the avowed intention of finding a fossil ape-man, and, miracles of miracles, had actually found one in Java, after excavating for two years in Sumatra. It was sadly incomplete just the top of a skull, a leg-bone and some teeth but what was there was an amazing link between man and apes. If Neanderthal man's forehead may be said to recede, Java man's is almost non-existent, for his head slopes almost straight back behind his huge eyebrow ridges. His brain must have been about half-way in size between the brain of a gorilla and the brain of a man, yet he must have been about as tall as modern man. Here we have a very primitive man, or a very man-like ape, call it which you will, who existed as the geology of the place shows at about the time of our first ice age, perhaps half a million years ago.
That was rather a shock for the nineteenth century, and there was some attempt to discredit Dubois. Unfortunately for the disbelievers, however, the fossil bone was subjected to microscopical examination and proved beyond doubt to be genuine.
Since then there have been thrilling discoveries of intermediates between apes and men. I must pass over a lower jaw found near Heidelburg in Germany in 1907, although it is extremely interesting, simply because it is only a jaw. Four years later some work- men were digging gravel at Piltdown in Sussex, when a fossil human skull was discovered. This was a priceless specimen. One feels that one would have sacrificed a hand or an eye to preserve this treasure so that it could be examined by an expert. What happened? Workmen, ignorant of its importance, broke it up and threw the pieces into a rubbish dump. By extreme good fortune Mr. Dawson had been on the look out for pre-human remains in the district for some time, as he had found peculiar flints among the gravel, and someone gave him one of the fragments. We must thank Providence for putting Mr. Dawson there, for he had the dump most carefully searched, and many of the fragments were found. Experts then set to work to consider how they should be fitted together, and different experts had different ideas.
The main conclusions are the following. There are scarcely any bony eyebrow ridges at all, and the forehead rises quite steeply above the eyes. This is most surprising in such an ancient skull, which is probably not very much more recent than the Java skull. But associated with this skull there was a lower jaw which is to all intents and purposes that of a chimpanzee. Many experts considered that it was an extinct chimpanzee's lower jaw. The complete absence of chin and the huge canine teeth supported that view. These canine teeth must have interlocked with those of the upper jaw like a dog's. Now if we regard the jaw as belonging to the skull, then we have a splendid missing link. But if they do not belong to one another, then the find is not nearly so significant.
That is why the recent discoveries near Peking are so tremendously important, for now an essentially ape-like lower jaw has been found in the same lump of rock as part of an essentially human brain-case, and the Piltdown skull and lower jaw are thus confirmed as belonging to one individual.
The story of the Peking discoveries is most interesting. During the war. China started a geo- logical survey, and got a Scandinavian, Dr. Anders- son, to direct it. Dr. Andersson discovered rich fossil beds about forty miles from Peking. A great deal of excavating was done, but no human remains brought to light. One day one of the Chinese Workmen was overheard asking a companion why they were wasting their time hunting for fossils in that particular place, when there were far more about half a mile away. That chance remark altered the course of our knowledge of man's ancestry, for the site of excavation was changed, and shortly after- wards human remains began to be found.
The first discoveries were two teeth, but there was nothing very special about these. Then in 1927 another tooth was discovered, which was sent to Dr. Davidson Black in Peking for examination. It was by no means by chance that Dr. Black was in Peking. Years before he had taken the Professorship of Anatomy at Peking, simply because he thought it likely that pre-human remains would be found in China, and he wanted above everything to carry out research on this subject.
Careful measurement of this tooth convinced Dr. Black that it was intermediate between a human and an ape's tooth. He exhibited the specimen widely, but it was received with scepticism.
A year later part of a jaw was found, and in the same piece of rock part of a skull. I have referred to that already. You will remember the jaw was essen- tially an ape's jaw, and the skull essentially human. Not only were these two bones found in the same block; they were both obviously of a young indi- vidual. There cannot be any doubt that they belong together, and they confirm the lesson taught by the Piltdown skull, that man retained the chinless con- dition of his ancestors till rather a late stage of evolution, when he had already got a large brain- case. Dr. Black was now enabled, by a grant from the Rockefeller Trustees, to devote full time to research. Discoveries were coming thick and fast, for in 1929 a momentous discovery was made by a Chinese geologist, Mr. Pei. Mr. Pei found an almost complete brain-case, quite uncrushed. Mr. Pei sent it to Dr. Black, and Dr. Black spent weeks in freeing it carefully from the rock in which it was embedded. Dr. Black has now described the skull, and casts of it have been made, one of which was exhibited by Sir Elliot Smith at the centenary meeting of the British Association.
Other finds have been made since. Altogether parts of about ten people have been found. The geological age of this primitive race must have been about the same as that of the Java man.
What are the essential features of the skull? Does it resemble Piltdown man closely? In one respect it certainly does not. There are large eyebrow ridges. The forehead is receding, and in this respect also it resembles Java man. In one way, however, it is like the Piltdown skull. If you put a finger on your head just above your ear, and move it across the top of your skull and down to the other ear, you will find that your skull is smoothly curved. This Peking skull is not smoothly curved like that. It has a distinct bump on each side opposite the part of the brain which is used for understanding spoken words, and another bump opposite the part concerned in using hand and eye together. This seems extremely significant. It looks as though man was just beginning to speak and use tools. As his brain swelled in the appropriate places, so his brain-case enlarged unevenly. This curious feature closely resembles one of the reconstructions of the Piltdown skull. Otherwise the brain was small, as we should expect in a missing link. Certain parts of the skull are very ape-like, especially the bones round the base of the ears, and of course the lower jaw was absolutely chinless and ape-like.
Let me summarize. Perhaps half a million years ago man was in a very ape-like condition, as shown by the Java, Piltdown, and Peking skulls. His brain-case was smaller, and his brain was just swelling in those regions which are concerned with speech and the use of tools. His skull was thick. His lower jaw was absolutely ape-like. These are the three missing-link skulls, though the term is, of course, no longer suitable. Then, ages later, we have a large number of skeletons and tools from various parts of Europe and Asia which belong to the Neanderthal type. This race much more closely resembles modern man. The chin is still small, though the lower jaw is by no means ape-like. The heavy overhanging eyebrow ridges and retreating forehead are persistent marks of the beast. Neanderthal man was probably fairly closely allied to a not very remote ancestor of ourselves.
You can find casts of some of the skulls and lower jaws to which I have referred in many museums. In the Natural History Museum in South Kensington they are in the room to the right as you enter. If you can find a skull of one of the aborigines of Australia in a museum anywhere, you will find it interesting to compare it with a European's, for it is primitive in many ways. Notice the small brain-case and the large eyebrow ridges and the receding forehead. The hairy Australian natives are the most primitive people living on the globe to-day.
Perhaps you will have come to the conclusion that scientists are apt to base a lot of speculation on very fragmentary evidence. The fossil skeletons I have mentioned are very incomplete, except the Neanderthal ones. As a matter of fact there is no undue speculation. Let me tell you a story which proves this.
A long time ago, when people were just starting to colonize New Zealand on a large scale, a colonist found a bit of bone in his garden. It was about eight inches long. The finder thought it might be interesting, and he sent it to Professor Owen in England. Professor Owen examined it carefully, and decided that it was a small fragment of a thigh bone of a huge unknown bird allied to the ostrich. He therefore published a paper saying that he supposed that there formerly existed in New Zealand a gigantic species of flightless bird, larger than the ostrich.
Now perhaps you think that he was basing too much speculation on too little evidence. But he was not. As New Zealand became better known, more and more bones were discovered, and now you can see whole skeletons of the great Moa of New Zealand in many museums. Professor Owen's speculation was proved to have been based on sufficient evidence.
It's in post 1.
- Sir Arthur Keith, Antiquity of Man, 1924.
Primarily among British anthropologists. Folks working in other areas had different ideas. (They were right.)
No, I didn’t read that. I read the article and when I got to post 1 it didn’t look like it had anything to do with archeology so I just passed it by. It didn’t make sense.
Maybe you should.
Why? What does it have to do with the article or my comment on it?
Do you mean "good" in the sense of good science, or in the sense of entertainment?
"If you can find a skull of one of the aborigines of Australia in a museum anywhere, you will find it interesting to compare it with a European's, for it is primitive in many ways. Notice the small brain-case and the large eyebrow ridges and the receding forehead. The hairy Australian natives are the most primitive people living on the globe to-day. "
For an early twentieth century paper on the findings of archeology it appeared to be well written. Do you have a problem being straight forward? I made a simple remark and you reply with an obsequious repost of part of the article. Then you make an unexplained suggestion that I read something entirely unrelated. Then I asked you a simple question and I get back another obsequious question. If you’re trying to get at something why don’t you just say it?
You like Baker's frank and accessible diction? Here's more for you to enjoy:
All the hundreds of thousands of kinds of animals have evolved from very simple forms of life, and presumably from inorganic matter originally, without the existence of any mind to plan them. Mind itself is one of the products of evolution, and now at last one kind of living thing only has got the ability to control and plan the course of evolution. That one kind of living thing is the human kind. For centuries men have selected certain types of domestic animals for breeding, and have thus created all the variety of horses and cattle and sheep and pigs and dogs that exist to-day. They have improved all these animals for the purposes for which they require them, but they have not improved themselves. There is no reason at all to suppose that the inborn mental capacity of man has increased since prehistoric times.When men were just evolving from ape-like ancestors, they evolved because the best individuals survived and had young ones, whilst the worst died oft and had none. That does not happen in civilisation. With us the weakly are looked after by the strong. If the weakliness is an inherited character, it is unfortunate that the people who have it should have children, because they will pass it on, generation after generation. On the average, the most successful people have the fewest children in most civilised countries to-day, and the least successful the most. It is possible nowadays for ordinary people to arrange whether they will have many or few children, or none at all. It would certainly be better if the most successful people had most children, because success in life is partly due to inherited qualities. Many people with excellent inherited qualities never get an opportunity to show them, from lack of a sufficiently good education. If we wanted to improve our race, we should give everyone an equal chance in life as far as possible. We should then encourage the most successful to have a lot of children. Many people are what is called feeble-minded. Their brain never develops beyond that of a child of six. Often this is a character which is inherited in the same way as blue eyes. If two such feeble-minded people marry, all their children will be feeble-minded. If a feeble-minded person marries a normal person, the children will be normal, but some of their descendants will be feeble-minded. It would be a good plan to prevent people who have inherited feeble-mindedness from having children, because feeble-minded people are not happy themselves, and they are not useful to other people, and they cost other people a lot of money. Unfortunately, they are increasing rapidly in numbers in Great Britain. Before long they will form quite a large proportion of our population, unless we decide not to allow them to have children. Members of Parliament, who decide these things, think it best to let them go on multiplying. When they were young, Members of Parliament did not have An Outline for Boys and Girls.
- John R. Baker, from the left-wing children's encyclopedia An Outline for Girls and Boys (1932).
You don't get the big picture.
The goal is to trash the theory of evolution without studying anything about it.
So, you trash science in general, and evolutionary theorists in particular through a big smear campaign. You make a big deal of eugenics, tie that to Darwin's relatives and scientists, use that to trash Darwin's character, and hence you disprove the theory of evolution.
Double score for dragging in Hitler and the Nazis. Bonus points if you actually fool anyone.
If you have some sort of agenda shouldn't this be posted in the religion forum or at least the chat forum? Posting 80 year old articles in the news/activism forum doesn't seem appropriate to me. As for the game you're playing I could give a rat's patoot about it.
I guess I just got caught off guard. I thought it was just a posting of an interesting old article. Nothing surprising to me about the man’s POV given the cultural context of the early 20th Century. That was how most people saw things.
When men were just evolving from ape-like ancestors, they evolved because the best individuals survived and had young ones, whilst the worst died oft and had none. That does not happen in civilisation. With us the weakly are looked after by the strong. If the weakliness is an inherited character, it is unfortunate that the people who have it should have children, because they will pass it on, generation after generation.
I'm still not sure what your point is. What he says here is basically true. For example; before man invented corrective lenses near sightedness was probably weeded out and kept to a small percentage of the population. Now it's prevalent. With my eyesight I wouldn't last long in an agrarian society and not a day in a hunter gatherer tribe. When he says that's unfortunate that sounds cold today but self-reliance was still a valued thing in the first part of the 20th Century. Back then few could have guessed how far science would come in dealing with genetic problems. The only method known then was culling which man had discovered with the domestication of plants and animals and practiced for around forty thousand years. It sounds pretty harsh now in our PC saturated society where the culture of victimhood has taken prominence.
See post 1.
See a psychiatrist.
How often do you run into pre-Nazi-era articles written in 2008?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.