Those fossils are a problem
Dr David Pilbeam, of the Boston Natural History Museum, has considerable expertise
in palaeoanthropology (the study of fossil man). He came to the attention of the
scientific community as being an objective scientist when he wrote an article for
Human Nature magazine, June 1978, entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’.
In that article he reported that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human
origins and forced a change in ideas of man’s early ancestors. Dr Pilbeam’s
previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth, evidence for which
was totally lacking. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon
the true or correct story of the origin of man. He repeated a number of times that
our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual
data. Too often they have reflected only what we expected of them.
In an interview with Luther Sunderland, Dr Pilbeam elaborated on the subjects he
had discussed in his 1978 article. Currently, he was teaching a course that covered
primates and was also doing field research in Africa and Pakistan. He was advising
the Kenya Government on the establishment of an international institute for the
study of human origins. His office was near those of anthropologists Richard Leakey
and his mother, Dr Mary Leakey, in Nairobi, Kenya. He referred to several more recent
publications, a review article in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, and several on
his work in Pakistan.
He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the
recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which
had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they
were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly.
It made him think about the nature of scientific thinking, and this precipitated
a very profound change in his approach to analysing data. He said that many of the
statements made in the field of human origins had ‘very little to do with
the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions’. He thought
this was true not only of his field but, ‘Much of what is said in other areas,
I think, is also highly speculative’.
Dr Pilbeam said there were two ways to look at evolutionary theory:
the punctuated way and the gradual way. Before the punctuated equilibria theory
came along, scientists said emphatically there was only one way. Dr Pilbeam thought
it would be very difficult to tell for most mammal groups which alternative was
correct, but he thought that some people who disagreed with punctuated equilibria
theory did so on philosophical rather than empirical grounds. He emphasized that
this was why he had made such a point in his 1978 article that one’s preconceived
notions shape the way one perceives data.
Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
agreed about the lack of fossil evidence connecting man with a lower primate. In
answer to the question, ‘What do you think of the australopithecines as man’s
ancestors?’, Dr Patterson replied, ‘There is no way of knowing whether
they are the ancestors to anything or not.’ The above was largely quoted from
Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigm a: Fossils and Other Problems.
This book takes a refreshingly different line from other creationist books on the
fossil problem.
Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from
the world’s major fossil museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion,
they not only confirm, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr Duane
Gish have been saying all along. Sunderland relentlessly takes the reader on an
excursion with the experts to every single major transition-the net result is devastating.
Australian anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer is still insisting that
evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the fossils. The ‘best
of the best’ in the evolutionary fossil camp claim otherwise, in their own
words.
[Darwin’s Enigma is available from Creation Ministries International]
Why had he changed his position on human origins?
He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the
recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which
had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they
were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly.
It made him think about the nature of scientific thinking, and this precipitated
a very profound change in his approach to analysing data. He said that many of the
statements made in the field of human origins had ‘very little to do with
the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions’. He thought
this was true not only of his field but, ‘Much of what is said in other areas,
I think, is also highly speculative’.
Dr Pilbeam said there were two ways to look at evolutionary theory:
the punctuated way and the gradual way. Before the punctuated equilibria theory
came along, scientists said emphatically there was only one way. Dr Pilbeam thought
it would be very difficult to tell for most mammal groups which alternative was
correct, but he thought that some people who disagreed with punctuated equilibria
theory did so on philosophical rather than empirical grounds. He emphasized that
this was why he had made such a point in his 1978 article that one’s preconceived
notions shape the way one perceives data.
Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
agreed about the lack of fossil evidence connecting man with a lower primate. In
answer to the question, ‘What do you think of the australopithecines as man’s
ancestors?’, Dr Patterson replied, ‘There is no way of knowing whether
they are the ancestors to anything or not.’ The above was largely quoted from
Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigm a: Fossils and Other Problems.
This book takes a refreshingly different line from other creationist books on the
fossil problem.
Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from
the world’s major fossil museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion,
they not only confirm, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr Duane
Gish have been saying all along. (For an example, see panel.) Sunderland relentlessly
takes the reader on an excursion with the experts to every single major transition-the
net result is devastating. Australian anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer
is still insisting that evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the
fossils. The ‘best of the best’ in the evolutionary fossil camp claim
otherwise, in their own words.
[Darwin’s Enigma is available from Creation Ministries International]
Are there any Transitional Fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer
a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document
the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said
that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup
[curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that
a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson
[a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum
of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he
had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments
from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson
asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.
On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration
of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would
certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise
such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not,
honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that
not mislead the reader?
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I
think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in,
not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics
seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I
am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms
in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the
fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the
line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the
fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps
no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories
of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should
be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for
there is no way of putting them to the test. ‘So, much as I should like to
oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions
between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the
intellectual justification necessary for the job …’
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma,
Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88–90.]
| “One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings.  | | |
|
