Fossil Hominids Jim Foley (jim.foley@symbios.com) Copyright (c) 1995 by Jim Foley. Permission is given to copy and print this article for non-profit use. Table of Contents * Introduction * Hominid Species * Timeline * Prominent Hominid Fossils * Alternative Taxonomies * Summary * Creationist Arguments o The Australopithecines o Homo habilis o Homo erectus o Java Man o Peking Man o Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man o The Neandertals o Anomalous Fossils o Brain Sizes o Bones of Contention o Overview * Further Reading * Illustrations * References ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introduction The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. (Some scientists use a broader definition of Hominidae which includes the great apes.) Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans. The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and possible ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably in the lower end of that range (Lewin, 1987). Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid. The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as paleoanthropology. It is the intersection of the disciplines of paleontology (the study of ancient lifeforms) and anthropology (the study of humans). Hominid Species The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a species name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Ardipithecus ramidus This species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White et al.1994; Wood, 1994). It is the oldest known hominid species, dated at 4.4 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause modification of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White et al. have since discovered a skeleton which is 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.) Australopithecus anamensis This species was only named in August 1995. The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al.1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed. Australopithecus afarensis A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 500 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey, 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Some scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage. Australopithecus africanus A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis, the front teeth a little smaller. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis. Australopithecus afarensis and africanus are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans. Australopithecus aethiopicus A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a couple of other lower jaw specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin, 1992). (A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.) Australopithecus robustus A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools. Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei) A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species. Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. Homo habilis H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with him. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less, and the back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and Homo erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in habilis brain casts, and indicates it was probably capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight. Habilis has been a controversial species. Some scientists have not accepted it, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. Many now believe that habilis combines specimens from at least two different Homo species. Homo erectus H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey, 1994). Some Asian erectus skulls have a sagittal crest. The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender, like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis, 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and is found through Africa and Asia (and was probably in Europe, but no unambiguous skeletal remains are known from there). Evidence from the Peking Man site in China indicates that erectus used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis. Homo sapiens (archaic) Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (was Homo neanderthalensis) Neandertal man existed between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men reached about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. Neandertals are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979) Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey, 1994) Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace, 1983). Timeline This diagram shows roughly the times during which each hominid species lived. Ages are in millions of years, with each character position representing 100,000 years. This resolution is a little coarse to accurately represent the most modern species. 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | | | | | | | A.robustus ****** | | | | A.boisei ***********| | | A.aethiopicus **** | | | | | | | | | A.ramidus * | | | | | A.anamensis **** | | | | A.afarensis ********** | | | | A.africanus *********** | | | | | | | | | | H.habilis ********** | | | | | H.erectus **************** | | | | archaic H.sapiens *****| | | | | Neandertals *| | | | | modern H.sapiens ** | | | | | | |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| Prominent Hominid Fossils This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of a single bone or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. The list is sorted by species, going from older to more recent species. Within each species, finds are sorted by the order of their discovery. Each entry will consist of a specimen number if known (or the site name, if many fossils were found in one place), any nicknames in quotes, and a species name. The species name will be followed by a '?' if suspect. If the fossil was originally placed in a different species, that name will also be given. The following terminology is used. A skull refers to all the bones of the head. A cranium is a skull minus the lower jaw. A braincase is the cranium minus the face and upper jaw. A skullcap is the top portion of the braincase. Abbreviations: KNM-ER Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf KNM-WT Kenya National Museum, West Turkana KP Kanapoi, Kenya SK Swartkrans, South Africa Sts Sterkfontein, South Africa TM Transvaal Museum OH Olduvai Hominid, Tanzania AL Afar Locality, Ethiopia ARA-VP Aramis, Ethiopia "ARA-VP, Sites 1, 6 & 7", Ardipithecus ramidus Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Bernard Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994) in 1992 and 1993 at Aramis in Ethiopa. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consist of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and arm bone fragments from 2 individuals. ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual. ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features. KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid", Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells, 1967). This is a worn fragment of a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old. KP 29281, Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a lower jaw with all its teeth which is about 4.15 million years old. KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.0 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism. Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981; Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult. AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981; Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight. AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis? Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 hominid individuals, of all ages. The size of these specimens varies considerably. Scientists debate whether the specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they belong to a single species in which males were considerably larger than females. Others believe that the larger specimens belong to a primitive species of Homo. "Laetoli footprints", Australopithecus afarensis? Discovered in 1976 at Laetoli in Tanzania. Estimated age is 3.7 million years. The trail consists of the fossilized footprints of two or three bipedal hominids. Their size and stride length indicate that they were about 140 cm (4'8") and 120 cm (4'0") tall. Many scientists claim that the footprints are effectively identical to those of modern humans (Tattersall, 1993; Feder and Park, 1989), while others claim the big toes diverged slightly (like apes) and that the toe lengths are longer than humans but shorter than in apes (Burenhult, 1993). The prints are tentatively assigned to A. afarensis, because no other hominid species is known from that time. AL 444-2, Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopa (Kimbel et al.1994). Estimated age is 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of a large adult male, easily the most complete afarensis skull known. According to its finders, it strengthens the case that all the First Family fossils were members of the same species, because the differences between AL 444-2 and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually dimorphic hominoids. "Taung baby", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart, 1925). The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial cast of the brain. It is probably between 2.5 and 3.0 million years old, but it and most other South African fossils are found in cave deposits that are difficult to date. The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3). The brain size was 410 cc, and would have been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded brain, canine teeth which were small and not apelike, and the position of the foramen magnum(*) convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). Although the discovery became famous, Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community until the mid- 1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils. (*) Anatomical digression: the foramen magnum is the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes. In apes, it is towards the back of the skull, because of their quadrupedal posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column. In australopithecines it is also placed forward from the ape position, although not always as far forward as in humans. TM 1512, Australopithecus africanus (was Plesianthropus transvaalensis) Discovered by Robert Broom in 1936 at Sterkfontein in South Africa (Broom, 1936). The second australopithecine found, it consisted of parts of the face, upper jaw and braincase. Sts 5, "Mrs Ples", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It is a very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be female, but there have been recent claims that it could be male. It is the best specimen of africanus. The brain size is about 485 cc. Sts 14, Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Robert Broom and J.T. Robinson in 1947 at Sterkfontein. Estimated age is about 2.5 million years. This find consisted of a nearly complete vertebral column, pelvis, some rib fragments, and part of a femur of a very small adult female. The pelvis is far more human than apelike, and is strong evidence that africanus was bipedal (Brace et al.1979), although it may not have had the strong striding gait of modern humans (Burenhult, 1993). KNM-WT 17000, "The Black Skull", Australopithecus aethiopicus Discovered by Alan Walker in 1985 near West Turkana in Kenya. Estimated age is 2.5 million years. This find is an intact, almost complete cranium. The brain size is very small for a hominid, about 410 cc, and the skull has a puzzling mixture of primitive and advanced features. (Leakey and Lewin, 1992) TM 1517, Australopithecus robustus (was Paranthropus robustus) Discovered by Robert Broom in 1938 at Kromdraai in South Africa (Broom, 1938). It consisted of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal fragments. This was the first specimen of robustus. OH 5, "Zinjanthropus", "Nutcracker Man", Australopithecus boisei Discovered by Mary Leakey in 1959 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey, 1959). Estimated age is 1.8 million years. It is an almost complete cranium, with a brain size is about 530 cc. This was the first specimen of this species. Louis Leakey briefly considered this a human ancestor, but the claim was dropped when Homo habilis was found soon afterwards. KNM-ER 406, Australopithecus boisei Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1969 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. This find was a complete, intact cranium lacking only the teeth (Lewin, 1987). Estimated age is about 1.7 million years. The brain size is about 510 cc. (see also ER 3733) KNM-ER 732, Australopithecus boisei Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1970 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. The cranium is similar to that of OH 5, but is smaller and has other differences such as the lack of a sagittal crest. The estimated age is about 1.7 million years. The brain size is about 500 cc. Most experts believe this is a case of sexual dimorphism, with the female being smaller than the male. Homo habilis Discovered by the Leakeys in the early 1960's at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. A number of fragmentary specimens were found (Leakey et al.1964). * OH 7 (Johnny's Child), found by Jonathon Leakey in 1960 (Leakey, 1961), consisted of a lower jaw and two cranial fragments of a child, and a few hand bones. Estimated age is 1.9 million years, and the brain size was about 680 cc. * OH 8, found in 1960, consisted of a set of foot bones, complete except for the back of the heel and the tips of the toes. Estimated age is about 1.8 million years. The foot bones had most of the adaptations to bipedality possessed by modern humans. There is a well-developed arch, and the big toe is alongside the other toes instead of diverging, as is the case with apes and monkeys. * OH 13 (Cindy), found in 1963, consisted of a lower jaw and teeth, bits of the upper jaw and a cranial fragment. Estimated age is 1.7 million years, and the brain size was about 650 cc. * OH 16 (George), found in 1963, consisted of teeth and some very small skull fragments (George was unfortunately trampled by a herd of Masai cattle before he could be excavated, and much of his skull was lost). Estimated age is 1.7 million years, and the brain size was about 640 cc. OH 24, "Twiggy", Homo habilis Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1968 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It consisted of a badly crushed skull and seven teeth. It is about 1.8 million years old and has a brain size of about 590 cc. KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The skull is surprisingly modern in some respects. The braincase is much larger and less robust than any australopithecine skull, and is also without the large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. It is however very robust in the face. A number of leg bones were found within a couple of kilometers, and are thought to probably belong to the same species. The most complete, KNM-ER 1481, consisted of a complete left femur, both ends of a left tibia and the lower end of a left fibula (the smaller of the two lower leg bones). These are quite similar to the bones of modern humans. KNM-ER 1805, "The Mystery Skull", Homo habilis?? Discovered by Paul Abell in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974). Estimated age is 1.85 million years. This find consisted of much of a heavily built cranium containing many teeth. Its brain size is about 600 cc. Some features, such as the sagittal crest, are typical of A. boisei, but the teeth are too small for that species. (Willis, 1989; Day, 1986) Various workers have assigned it to almost every conceivable species, but it seems most similar to Homo habilis (Wood, 1991). KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis?? Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974). This specimen is similar to 1470, but is much smaller, with a brain size of 510 cc. Estimated age is 1.8-1.9 million years. Some scientists believe this a case of sexual dimorphism, others believe that the brain architecture is different and that 1813 is another species of Homo, and others believe it is an australopithecine. Like the previous skull, 1805, this one is in the "Suspense Account". (Willis, 1989) OH 62, "Dik-dik hominid", Homo habilis Discovered by Tim White in 1986 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989; Johanson et al.1987). Estimated age is 1.8 million years. The find consisted of portions of skull, arm, leg bones and teeth. Almost all the features of the skull closely resemble habilis fossils such as OH 24, ER 1813 and ER 1470, rather than the australopithecines. But the estimated height is very small, maybe about 105 cm (3'5"), and the arms are very long in proportion to the legs. These are australopithecine traits, and in fact the skeletal bones are very similar to those of Lucy. This find is significant because it is the only fossil in which limb bones have been securely assigned to habilis. Because of the small size, this was almost certainly a female. As with the australopithecines, males would have been considerably larger. "Java Man", "Pithecanthropus I", Homo erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus) Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth (which may belong to orang- utans), and a femur found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this. "Heidelberg Man", Homo erectus? (was Homo heidelbergensis) Discovered by gravel pit workers in 1907 near Heidelberg in Germany. Estimated age is between 400,000 and 700,000 years. This find consisted of a lower jaw with a receding chin and all its teeth. The jaw is extremely large and robust, like that of Homo erectus, but the teeth are at the small end of the erectus range. It is therefore identified as erectus on the basis of its age, but could be an archaic sapiens. "Peking Man Site", Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) Between 1929 and 1937, 14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, some skeletal bones and large numbers of stone tools were discovered in the Lower Cave at Locality 1 of the Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, in China. Their age is estimated to be between 500,000 and 300,000 years old. (A number of fossils of modern humans were also discovered in the Upper Cave in 1933.) The most complete fossils, all of which were braincases or skullcaps, are: * Skull III, discovered at Locus E in 1929 is an adolescent or juvenile with a brain size of 915 cc. * Skull II, discovered at Locus D in 1929 but only recognized in 1930, is an adult or adolescent with a brain size of 1030 cc. * Skulls LI, LII and LIII were discovered at Locus L in 1936. They are thought to belong to an adult man, an adult woman and a young adult, with brain sizes of 1225 cc, 1015 cc and 1030 cc respectively. * Skull 5: two cranial fragments were discovered in 1966 which fit with (casts of) two other fragments found in 1934 and 1936 to form most of a skullcap. These pieces were found at a higher level, and appear to be more modern than the other skullcaps. (Jia and Huang, 1990) Most of the study on these fossils was done by Davidson Black until his death in 1934. Franz Weidenreich replaced him and studied the fossils until leaving China in 1941. The original fossils disappeared in 1941 while being shipped to the United States for safety during World War II, but excellent casts and descriptions remain. Since the war, other erectus fossils have been found at this site and others in China. OH 9, "Chellean Man", Homo erectus Discovered by Louis Leakey in 1960 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey, 1961). Estimated age is 1.2 million years. It consisted of a fairly complete braincase with a brain size of 1050 cc. OH 12, "Pinhead", Homo erectus Discovered by M. Cropper in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It is similar to but less complete than OH 9, and smaller, with an estimated brain size of only 750 cc. It is estimated to be between 600,000 and 800,000 years old. Sangiran 17, "Pithecanthropus VIII", Homo erectus Discovered by Sastrohamidjojo Sartono in 1969 at Sangiran on Java. This consists of an almost complete cranium, with a brain size of about 1000 cc. It is the most complete erectus find from Java. This skull is very robust, with a slightly projecting face and huge flaring cheekbones. It has been thought to be about 800,000 years old, but a recent dating has given a much older figure of nearly 1.7 million years. If the older date is correct, it means Homo erectus migrated out of Africa much earlier than previously thought. KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 at Koobi Fora in Kenya. Estimated age is 1.7 million years. This superb find consisted of an almost complete cranium. The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is similar to some of the Peking Man fossils. The discovery of this fossil in the same stratum as ER 406 (A. boisei) delivered the coup de grace to the single species hypothesis: the idea that there has never been more than one hominid species at any point in history. (Leakey and Walker, 1976) KNM-WT 15000, "Turkana Boy", Homo erectus Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya (Brown et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993). This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy, the only major omissions being the hands and feet. (Some scientists believe erectus matured faster than modern humans, and that he was really about 9 years old (Leakey and Lewin, 1992).) It is the most complete known specimen of erectus, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood. The boy was 160 cm (5'3") tall, and would have been about 185 cm (6'1") as an adult. This is surprisingly tall, indicating that many erectus may have been as large as modern humans. Except for the skull, the skeleton is very similar to that of modern boys, although there are a number of small differences. "Rhodesian Man", Homo sapiens (archaic) (was Homo rhodesiensis) Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward, 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years. The brain size was about 1280 cc. Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day, 1986) "Neanderthal skeleton", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Johann Fuhlrott in 1856 in the Neander valley in Germany. The find consisted of a skullcap, thigh bones, part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones. The lower left arm had been broken in life, and as a result the bones of the left arm were smaller than those of the right. Fuhlrott recognized it as a primitive human, but the German establishment headed by Rudolf Virchow rejected this view, incorrectly claiming that it was a pathological modern human. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992) (There were actually two earlier Neandertal finds. A partial cranium of a 2.5 year old child found in 1829 in Belgium was not recognized until 1936. An adult cranium found on Gibraltar in 1848 gathered dust in a museum until it was recognized as Neandertal in 1864.) "Spy 1 and 2", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Marcel de Puydt and Max Lohest in 1886 at Spy (pronounced Spee) d'Orneau in Belgium. Estimated age is about 60,000 years. This find consisted of two almost complete skeletons. The excellent descriptions of the skeletons established that they were very old, and largely discredited the idea that the Neandertal physique was a pathological condition, but also erroneously concluded that Neandertal Man walked with bent knees. "Krapina Site", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Dragutin Gorjanovic-Kramberger in 1899 near Krapina in Croatia. This site yielded significant remains from two to three dozen individuals, and teeth and jaw fragments from dozens more. When Gorjanovic published on his finds in 1906, it confirmed for once and for all that Neandertals were not pathological modern humans. "Old Man", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Amedee and Jean Bouyssonie in 1908 near La-Chapelle-aux- Saints in France. It is about 50,000 years old, with a brain size of 1620 cc. This nearly complete skeleton was reconstructed by Marcellin Boule, who wrote a definitive and highly influential paper on it which managed to be totally wrong in many of its conclusions. It exaggerated the apelike characteristics of the fossil, popularizing the stereotype, which would last for decades, of a stooping ape-man shuffling along on bent knees. This specimen was between about 30 and 40 when he died, but had a healed broken rib, severe arthritis of the hip, lower neck, back and shoulders, and had lost most of his molar teeth. The fact that he survived as long as he did indicates that Neandertals must have had a complex social structure. "Shanidar Site", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Ralph Solecki discovered 9 Neandertal skeletons between 1953 and 1960 at the Shanidar cave in Iraq. They are thought to be between 70,000 and 40,000 years old. One of them, Shanidar 4, had apparently been buried with offerings of flowers (although this interpretation has recently been disputed). In 1971 Solecki wrote a book, "Shanidar, the First Flower People", reversing the earlier stereotypes of semi-human brutes. Another skeleton, Shanidar 1, was partially blind, one-armed and crippled. His survival also is evidence of a complex social structure. "Saint-Cesaire Neandertal", Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Discovered by Francois Leveque in 1979 near the village of Saint-Cesaire in France. It consisted of a badly crushed skeleton. The skull was mostly complete, with only the back of the cranium missing. It is dated at about 35,000 years old, and is the most recent Neandertal known. This find was of special interest because it was found with tools that had previously only been associated with the Cro-Magnon culture, instead of the usual Neandertal tool kit. "Cro-Magnon Site", Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) Discovered by workmen in 1868 at Cro-Magnon in France. Estimated age is 28,000 years. The site yielded skeletons of about half a dozen individuals, along with stone tools, carved reindeer antlers, ivory pendants, and shells. The Cro-Magnons lived in Europe between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago. They are almost identical to modern man, being tall and muscular and slightly more robust than most modern humans. They were skilled hunters, toolmakers and artists famous for the cave art at places such as Lascaux. Alternative Taxonomies The above list has used a fairly conservative naming system. Recently a number of scientists have suggested various changes in these names. Many people are now using the genus name Paranthropus, originally given to robustus, to refer to the robust australopithecines (robustus, boisei, and aethiopicus). This change makes sense if all these species form a clade (all of the species descended from a common ancestor) but it is not yet known if this is the case here. Homo habilis is, as mentioned above, controversial. There is much disagreement over which specimens belong in habilis, and which do not. A number of scientists are now using the name H. rudolfensis to refer to ER 1470 and some similar fossils. The smaller habilis-like specimens such as ER 1813 and ER 1805 are variously assigned to habilis, H. ergaster, or to another as yet unnamed species. The name H. microcranous has recently been proposed for 1813. Some scientists have also proposed splitting Homo erectus. The Turkana Boy and 3733 fossils would then become Homo ergaster (Tattersall, 1993). H. erectus would have a larger average brain size than ergaster, and the brow ridges may have a different shape, flaring out to the side more (Burenhult, 1993). It has also been proposed that the names Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis should be restored as species names for archaic Homo sapiens and the Neandertals. There are a number of other recent discoveries which may change current thinking when they have had a chance to be analyzed: * Some hominid fossils found recently in Spain, and dated at over 780,000 years, would be the oldest European hominids, but it is not yet clear what species they belong to. * New finds in Spain and Croatia suggest that Neandertals may have survived longer than previously thought, perhaps as recently as 30,000 years ago. * Four australopithecine foot bones dated at around 3.5 million years are the oldest hominid fossils yet found in South Africa. They seem to be adapted to bipedalism, but have an intriguing mixture of ape and human features. Summary There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens. Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor. The discoveries of A. ramidus and A. anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on current theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis, but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens. Creationist Arguments The usual creationist response to these fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis, 1989) This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes. The Australopithecines In 1950, Wilfred Le Gros Clark published a paper which definitively settled the question of whether the australopithecines were apes or not. He performed a morphological study (based on the shape and function) of teeth and jaws, since these formed most of the fossil evidence. By studying human and modern ape fossils, Le Gros Clark came up with a list of eleven consistent differences between humans and apes. Looking at A. africanus and robustus (the only australopithecine species then known), he found that they were humanlike rather than apelike in every characteristic. Judged by the same criteria, A. afarensis falls somewhere between humans and apes, and possibly closer to the apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). White et al. (1994) did not judge A. ramidus by these criteria, but it is clear that ramidus is even more chimpanzee-like than afarensis. The ramidus arm bones also display a mixture of hominid and ape characteristics. Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 50's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint. Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes. Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are a useful method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus. Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner". Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that "Australopithecus afarensis ... demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking" is dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other "Australopithicine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk upright." Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "may have been knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, and A. afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before Lucy had been studied). Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been discredited. In what is obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality, while the hands and wrists show no adaptations to any form of quadrupedalism (McHenry, 1986). Gish's conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else: "That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute." "...we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern and Susman, 1983) Gish writes as if showing that A. afarensis did not "walk upright in the human manner" is all that is needed to disqualify it as a human ancestor. But there is no reason that bipedality, when it first arose, had to be identical to human bipedality; that final step could have occurred later. As Stern and Susman (1983) state: "In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality..." Another creationist writes: "From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that Lucy walked a little more erect than today's chimps. This conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone and a knee bone, has been hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists." (Morris, 1994) Almost everything in this quote is a distortion (Johanson's and Lucy's names are about the only exceptions). "Certain clues suggested" doesn't mention that the whole find screamed "bipedality" to every qualified scientist who looked at it. "a little more erect", when everyone believes that Lucy was fully erect. "the partial hip bone and a knee bone", when Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the foot). "has been hotly contested", when no reputable paleoanthropologist denies that Lucy was bipedal. The debates are about whether she was also arboreal, and about how similar the biomechanics of her locomotion was to that of humans. Given that we have most of Lucy's leg and pelvis, one has to wonder what sort of fossil evidence it would take to convince creationists of australopithecine bipedality. To support the idea that australopithecines are just apes, Parker says: "In their critique of the Leakeys, Johanson and White (1980) noted: 'Modern chimpanzees, by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would be classified as A. africanus.' Apes after all?" (Morris and Parker, 1982) When the paper by Johanson and White is examined, it is apparent that Parker has taken their quote out of context in a way that almost reverses its meaning. Leakey did not call A. africanus a chimp, nor did Johanson and White accuse him of doing so. They criticized Leakey's definition because it was imprecise enough to also include chimps. Of course, such a criticism only makes sense if A. africanus is not a chimp. In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey, 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop a number of other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard, 1995). Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the bottom of the skull. Gish (1985) criticizes Dart's reasoning that the Taung baby walked upright, based on the position of its foramen magnum. Gish correctly states that the position of the foramen magnum is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it moves backwards during growth), and concludes that Dart was unjustified in analyzing this feature on a juvenile skull. This is the same criticism that Dart originally faced from scientists, but Gish fails to mention that later evidence proved Dart's analysis correct and silenced his critics. Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that "[Dart] pointed out the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some features of the skull, and particularly of the teeth, were man-like". (Note the misleading implication that the apelike features really exist, while the humanlike ones are a figment of Dart's imagination.) Gish disputes this, pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them and human teeth. When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly examined, Dart's claim was strongly confirmed, and is now universally accepted: "In fact, though the molars were larger than is now normal, most of the teeth [of the Taung child] could have belonged to a child of today." (Campbell, 1988) Homo habilis Despite its importance, Homo habilis is virtually ignored by creationists. The one exception is ER 1470, which is too well-known to be totally ignored. Creationists disagree on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. The other habilis fossils are never analyzed, but the few creationists who do mention them are in agreement that they are all apes. The skull ER 1470 was discovered in 1972, and publicized as both amazingly humanlike, and extremely old, at nearly 3 million years. Creationists eagerly seized on the statement of Richard Leakey, its discoverer, that 1470 "wipes out everything we have been taught about human evolution [this proved to be wrong], and I have nothing to offer in its place". Creationists sometimes give the impression that it is a modern human skull. But despite some modern traits, it has a number of australopithecine features, and a brain size of about 750 cc. Gish (1979) points out its small size, but states that its age and sex are unknown, presumably seeking to imply that it might belong to a child. That is not probable, as can be seen from comparative photos (Weaver, 1985). 1470's face is very robust, and as large as that of a modern Cro-Magnon skull, despite a much smaller brain size, and the cranium has a markedly different shape. There is also other evidence that it was an adult. Curiously, as a debating tactic to discredit other hominid fossils, creationists often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject larger-brained erectus specimens as apes. But if 1470 is human, one could then make a strong case that the very similar but smaller skull ER 1813 is also human. Creationists, however, are unlikely to find the idea of a human with a brain size of 510 cc very appealing. Gish in 1979 tentatively accepted 1470 as fully human. By 1985, he seemed to have reversed that opinion, and was suggesting that it should be placed in the genus Australopithecus (as have some scientists). His reasoning for this is that another habilis fossil (OH 8, a set of foot bones) had been claimed by Oxnard and Lisowski to be not as humanlike as previously thought. This is used to justify placing all habilis fossils, including 1470, into the australopithecines. OH 8, of course, does not belong to 1470, and may not even have belonged to a member of the same species, so it is irrelevant to determining 1470's status. Gish implies that his earlier evaluation of 1470 was based on preliminary information, but the photos and descriptions on which Gish based his earlier opinion were published as early as 1973. Gish gives no new information about 1470 that would justify reclassifying it from a human to an ape. If 1470 was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far larger than that of any ape, with the exception of a few very large male gorillas. The braincase is far more rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the brain has a human rather than an apelike pattern. Cronin et al.(1981) list nine features of 1470 which are either shared with A. africanus, or intermediate between africanus and other H. habilis specimens. Gish lists some of these in support of his contention that 1470 is australopithecine, but, in a fine example of selective quotation, failed to include another section from the same paragraph listing other features of 1470 that are generally associated with the genus Homo. Lubenow (1992), by contrast, considers 1470 fully human. So two of the foremost creationist experts on paleoanthropology are both certain that 1470 is not intermediate between human and ape, yet one of them thinks it an ape, and the other thinks it is a human! There could be no more convincing demonstration of its transitional status. Although 1470 is usually placed in the genus Homo, it is definitely not a modern human. There is ample evidence of this: "The endocranial capacity and the morphology of the calvaria [braincase] are characters that suggest inclusion within the genus Homo, but the maxilla [upper jaw] and facial region are unlike those of any known form of hominid." (Leakey, 1973) "KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo" (Cronin et al.1981) "There is no evidence that this cranium particularly resembles H. sapiens or H. erectus according to either phenetic or cladistic evidence. Phenetically, KNM-ER 1470 is closest to the remains from Olduvai [considered apes by creationists] referred to H. habilis. (Wood, 1991) Shortly after 1470 was discovered, anatomist A. Cave said in an interview that it was, "as far as I can see, typically human". Creationists interpret this to mean that it was the skull of a modern human. More likely is that Cave was merely saying that the skull belonged to, and had features typical of, the genus Homo. Another fossil which Lubenow considers human is ER 1590, consisting of cranial fragments and teeth of a child of about 6 years. It is not complete enough for the brain size to be directly measured, but it seems to be very close in size to 1470. However this child had teeth which were larger than those of Homo erectus, which are in turn larger than those of Homo sapiens. In addition, the sequence of tooth development has little resemblance to that of Homo sapiens (Wood, 1991). Although Lubenow considers 1470 to be human, he would place the smaller habilis fossils such as OH 24, OH 62, ER 1805 and ER 1813 in the australopithecines. The largest of these has a brain size of about 600 cc (1470 is 750 cc), hardly enough to constitute "the significant gap" that Lubenow says separates australopithecines from humans. And Lubenow does not mention that there are two other habilis skulls (OH 13 (650 cc) and OH 7 (680 cc), neither of which are adult), that fall squarely into the middle of this gap. To support the claim that 1470 is human and other habilis fossils are apes, Lubenow quotes from a paper by Falk, which states that the endocast of 1470 has a human pattern, while that of 1805 is apelike (these were the only fossils discussed by Falk). However Tobias (1988) shows that other habilis fossils such as OH 7, OH 13, OH 16 and OH 24 (which creationists consider apes) all share many advanced features with ER 1470. ER 1813 (510 cc) also has many of the same features that creationists use to justify calling 1470 a modern human. It is lightly built, with a rounded skull and no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow ridges, and a small amount of nasal prominence (Day, 1986). This is combined with a jaw and teeth that are similar to but larger than those of modern humans. Another transitional fossil! Because its brain was far smaller than any human, creationists have no choice but to call this an ape, despite the fact that 1470 looks more similar to 1813 than it does to a modern human skull. In fact, despite its larger brain size, Cronin et al.(1981) consider 1470 to be more primitive, with more australopithecine features, than 1813. The teeth of 1470 (as inferred from the sockets) were australopithecine-sized, while 1813 had smaller, Homo erectus-sized teeth (Klein, 1989). Others (reviewed in Wood (1992)) consider 1470 to belong to the same species as either OH 7 or 1813. OH 62 also closely resembles 1470 (Johanson et al.1987). Sorting out the exact relationships of these fossils is very difficult, but it is clear that all of them are similar, with a mixture of Homo and Australopithecus features. There is no "significant gap" separating 1470 from the others. Homo erectus The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse, 1983; Morris and Parker, 1982; Taylor, 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils (discussed in the following sections). Most creationists consider both apes, although Lubenow (1992) considers both human. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity. A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests (although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to) that they are degenerate humans: "It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris, 1974). Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology to be caused by disease. There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays. One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish (1985) as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy skull is a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man skullcaps, than it is to modern humans. The skeleton also has a number of minor differences from those of modern humans. Java Man Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer, 1993). Dubois had briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications around 1890, but, recognizing that they were modern, devoted all his attention to Java Man once it was found. Based on his own theories about how brains had evolved and wishful thinking, Dubois did claim that Java Man had the proportions of a giant gibbon, but never said that it was one, and never stopped believing that he had found an ancestor of modern man (Theunissen, 1989; Gould, 1993; Lubenow, 1992). Creationists are right about one thing. Most modern scientists agree that the femur is more recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human. Some of the teeth found nearby are now thought to be from an orang-utan, rather than Homo erectus. It is instructive to listen to Gish (1993) expounding on the apelike qualities of the skullcap: "Now we see that the skullcap is very apelike; notice that it has no forehead, it's very flat, very typical of the ape. Notice the massive eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape". Despite this, the skullcap definitely does not belong to any ape, and especially not to a gibbon. It is far too large (940 cc, compared to 97 cc for a gibbon), and it is similar to many other Homo erectus fossils that have been found. One of these is Sangiran 17, also found on Java. This skull, which is never mentioned by creationists, is an almost complete cranium and is clearly human, albeit primitive. Others are the Turkana Boy and ER 3733 fossils, both of which creationists recognize as human. If one is trying to pigeonhole Java Man as either an ape or a human, calling it a human is easily the best choice, but Lubenow (1992) seems to be the only creationist who has done so. However he attempts to disqualify Java Man as a primitive human by using faunal evidence to show that it is the same age as the Wadjak skulls. Lubenow gives the following quote from Hooijer (1951): "Tapirus indicus, supposedly extinct in Java since the Middle Pleistocene, proved to be represented in the Dubois collection from the Wadjak site, central Java, which is late - if not post - Pleistocene in age." Lubenow is saying that since this species of tapir was found in both the Trinil [the site where Java Man was found] and Wadjak faunas, these fossils may be of the same age. This conclusion is reinforced by three other quotes from Hooijer, all of which describe difficulties in using faunal methods to date Javan fossils. Lubenow's argument fails for a number of reasons. Even if faunal methods were completely invalid, it would not constitute evidence that Wadjak Man and Java Man were the same age. The most that could be claimed was that the ages of both were unknown. And Hooijer never said that the faunal methods were useless, or that the Wadjak and Trinil faunas were the same. By far the simplest resolution of the tapir discrepancy is, as Hooijer stated, that Tapirus indicus survived longer than previously thought on Java (Lubenow does admit this possibility). This is consistent with the rest of the evidence. The Wadjak fauna is modern, and hence Wadjak Man is considered to be less than 50,000 years old, and more probably about 10,000 years old. The Trinil fauna contains many more extinct species, and is hence older. Basically, Lubenow argues that Wadjak Man and Java Man are the same age because a single species of tapir is in both faunas, ignoring that there are many other species not shared between the faunas, and that the extinct species are exclusively in the Trinil fauna. Lubenow claims that Dubois concealed the Wadjak fossils because the discrepancy of the tapir would have contradicted his claim that Java Man was far older than Wadjak. This seems implausible because Dubois was one of the earliest collectors in Java, and detailed information on the Javan faunas was not compiled until decades later (Hooijer, 1951). Incidentally, the tapir was probably not singled out for mention by Hooijer because it is an anomaly, as Lubenow seems to suspect. It was probably of interest because this species of tapir is still living in South East Asia, and is not, as Lubenow states, extinct. Hooijer only stated that it was extinct in Java, not elsewhere. Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) expresses puzzlement that Johanson (1981) considers Java Man to be a valid fossil. It is of course a valid fossil because the skullcap had to belong to something, but Parker merely dismisses it as "bad science". (He seems to be of the opinion that it was an ape, but does not say so explicitly.) Peking Man Peking Man is another favorite target. Creationists claim that the Peking Man fossils are the remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans; that the original fossils may have been disposed of to conceal the evidence of fraud; that only models of the fossils remain; and that they are distorted to fit evolutionist preconceptions. Gish (1985) discusses Peking Man extensively, drawing most of his material from Boule and Vallois (1957). This book, which was almost 30 years old when Gish wrote, was a light revision by Vallois of a book that had originally been written by Boule another 20 years or so previously (Boule died in 1942). Gish, citing the "fact" that the bases of the skulls had been bashed in so the brains could be extracted, states that "All authorities agree that every one of the Sinanthropus [Peking Man] individuals had been killed by hunters and eaten." That may have been true in 1957 (although Boule and Vallois do not say so). Boule and Vallois do discuss the claims of various evolutionists that Sinanthropus had been eaten by modern man, or by Sinanthropus himself (i.e. cannibalism). Gish ignores the latter option and declares that since humans were responsible, Sinanthropus could not have been our ancestor, and must have been a giant ape. This is of course incorrect; ancestor and descendant species can coexist. Almost all recent authorities (Jia (1990) is an exception) reject as unsupported the idea that Sinanthropus was hunted. The missing skull parts are the most fragile parts which are least likely to be preserved. It is most probable that the skulls were the prey of hyenas, the bones and feces of which were often found in the excavation. So Gish's argument fails on multiple grounds: there is no proof, or even good evidence, that the Sinanthropus skulls were eaten by anyone, let alone modern humans. Even if they were, it would still not disqualify Peking Man from being a primitive human. Gish's claim that the skullcaps are of apes is similarly farfetched. The largest skullcap, about 1225 cc, is twice as large as that of a large male gorilla. Any ape with a brain that size would be enormous, but no such ape has been found at Zhoukoudian or anywhere else, and the jaws of Peking Man are much smaller than those of a gorilla. The skullcaps are, however, very similar to (but larger than) those of some Homo erectus skulls, one of which is attached to a body that even Gish recognizes as human (the Turkana Boy). Clearly it makes more sense to assume that Peking Man belonged to the same species than to hypothesize giant apes. Gish claims that "The features of the lower jaws described by Boule and Vallois were all apelike except for the shape of the dental arcade...". In fact, Boule and Vallois list 3 apelike characteristics, and 1 humanlike characteristic, but state that there are more of both. They agree with the conclusion of Weidenreich, who said the lower jaws present "a veritable intermingling of pithecoid [apelike] and human characters". Gish similarly claims the teeth were apelike, "with very few exceptions". Boule and Vallois do state that the teeth are apelike, though not as emphatically as Gish does. They list 6 features, 3 apelike, 1 humanlike, and two others whose significance is unclear. Gish does not mention the few skeletal bones that were found, probably because Boule and Vallois' discussion shows that they were all similar or identical to the same bones in modern humans, although the limb bone fragments were very thick. Boule and Vallois suspected that they might not belong to the same creatures as the skulls, but modern finds have confirmed that Homo erectus does have a primitive skull combined with a robust but essentially modern skeleton. Gish's conclusion that Sinanthropus was an ape is reached by emphasizing the apelike features of the fossils, and downplaying the human features. This conclusion is not supported by Boule and Vallois, any of the other authors quoted by them, or any modern authorities. The opinions are divided as to whether Sinanthropus is advanced enough to be called human, but no one considers it an ape. Boule and Vallois state that Peking Man has "physical characters intermediate between the group of Anthropoid Apes and the group of Hominians", and that many characters of the skull "which, if they do not yet conform exactly to the human morphological type, are singularly close to it". Another claim is that only models of the fossils remain, which, because they were made by committed evolutionists, may not be accurate copies. Gish appears to be confused about the words "cast" and "model", once using them as if they were synonymous. A cast, made from a mold of the fossil, is an almost exact duplicate. Excellent casts of the Peking Man fossils were made, and are mentioned in many books, including that of the creationist author Lubenow (1992). The models of complete skulls Gish refers to may partly reflect the subjective views of their maker since missing information will have had to be guessed at, but the primary evidence of Peking Man's affinities remains the casts and extensive documentation of the original material, not reconstructed skulls. Gish's statement that "All we have available are the models fashioned by Weidenreich" is totally untrue. Gish states that a model of a Sinanthropus skull by Weidenreich, shown in Boule and Vallois, differs glaringly from their earlier text descriptions, and from a model of Java Man shown earlier in the book. Weidenreich's model (which does look more humanlike than one might expect from Boule's description) was made using parts of at least 4 different individuals. By that time all of the Peking Man material had been found, and almost all portions of the skull were known, so Weidenreich's reconstruction is likely to be accurate. The braincase, for example, was precisely known and is clearly far more similar to that of a modern human than any ape. The Java Man reconstruction relied on fewer and less complete fossils, so is not as reliable. Part of the difference is probably also due to the Java Man skulls having a flatter, receding forehead compared to the more convex Peking Man skulls (Burenhult, 1993) (and, in fact, a flatter forehead is the major difference between what Gish says are "glaringly" different reconstructions). If Boule was biased, as Gish claims, it was in making Sinanthropus appear more apelike than it really was. Gish, in asserting that Peking Man was an ape, is adding to Boule's bias, rather than correcting for it. Gish nowhere explains why the discrepancy between Boule's description of a creature intermediate between ape and human and Weidenreich's more humanlike reconstruction provides evidence that Peking Man was an ape. If Peking Man were an ape, Weidenreich must have been unbelievably incompetent to produce such a humanlike reconstruction. But descriptions of Weidenreich and his work often use words such as "meticulous, "compulsively careful", "detailed", and the casts he made of the Peking Man fossils are usually described as "excellent". In addition, Weidenreich produced hundreds of pages of monographs on the fossils, with photos, measurements, drawings, and even X-rays. The only way these fossils could be apes would be if Weidenreich systematically fabricated not only the skull reconstruction, but his entire body of work. Even this would not be sufficient, as some of the earlier fossils were photographed, described, and had casts made of them, before Weidenreich ever saw them. Many scientists also saw the original fossils. Unless there was an extraordinarily widespread conspiracy among all the people who found, worked on, photographed and saw the fossils, they are genuine. As a testimony to the accuracy of the casts, some skull parts found in 1966 fit perfectly with casts of earlier portions to make most of a skullcap. Interestingly, Gish says that if Weidenreich's model is considered accurate, Boule and Vallois' claim that Peking Man is intermediate between ape and man could hardly be rejected. All the evidence is that the model was accurate, but those who do not accept it should note that Weidenreich's model is strikingly similar to other erectus skulls such as WT 15000 and ER 3733. Therefore, these fossils are, according to Gish's own logic, indisputable transitional forms. The other source used by Gish is "Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis" (1969) by Rev. Patrick O'Connell, a Roman Catholic priest who was in China during the 1930's. O'Connell claimed that Peking Man was a large scale fraud, which presumably would have had to involve most of the people working with the fossils, and that the fossils may have been deliberately destroyed to remove the evidence. O'Connell never visited Choukoutien, never saw the fossils, apparently had no relevant expertise, and if he had any evidence for his wild claims, Gish does not give it. Gish, while not endorsing these claims, is at least sympathetic to them. O'Connell's work appears to not have enough substance to be worth addressing. Gish also states "Boule had visited Peking and Choukoutien and had examined the originals." C. Loring Brace, in a debate with Gish in 1982, called this "pure invention". Boule never visited either place, and worked from photos and descriptions. Despite this correction, Gish has repeated the assertion in 1985, and in debates as recently as 1992. (Fezer, 1993) The effort Gish expends in discrediting Peking Man seems totally wasted, as it is all nullified by the more competent work of Lubenow (1992), another creationist. Lubenow accepts Peking Man as Homo erectus as a matter of course, and, although he must have been familiar with Gish's criticisms, apparently did not consider any of them worth repeating. Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered in England by an amateur, Charles Dawson, between 1908 and 1912. It consisted of parts of a surprisingly modern-looking skull associated with a surprisingly apelike lower jaw. Later fragments found in 1913 and 1915 also seemed to have a mixture of ape and human characteristics, and quelled suspicion that the original bones were from two unrelated creatures. In 1953 Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it. The paleontological community was horribly embarrassed by the uncovering of Piltdown, and justifiably so. A number of scientists had made what were in retrospect extremely foolish statements about the skull, elaborating on its "unmistakably apelike characteristics." Piltdown's acceptance was probably helped by the fact that it conformed to prejudices about what a primitive human skull would look like. In fact a number of scientists did believe that the cranium and jaw were not from the same creature, but no-one had suspected forgery. Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was named from two humanlike teeth found in 1922. As creationists tell it, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a pig. The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett, 1984; Gould, 1991). The imaginative drawing was the work of an illustrator collaborating with an English scientist, and was done for the Illustrated London News, not for a scientific publication. Few other scientists claimed it was a human ancestor. Some, including the finders, identified it only as an ape of some kind. Many others were skeptical even of that. It is an exaggeration to claim that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as human, or even as an ape, by scientists. Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds; pig cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making identification even harder. Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.) Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment. The scientists involved were mistaken, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of how the scientific process should work. Given a problematic identification, scientists went out, found further data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach). The Neandertals Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they tend to exaggerate their similarity to modern humans: "The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease'" "Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals were just plain people, no more different from people living today than people than one living nation is different from another" Parker in (Morris and Parker, 1982). "Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse, 1983). Actually, Neandertals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of man, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history. Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of these and other health problems. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features. Last century the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are slender and weakened. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extremely athletic and muscular individual. Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter, and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause rickets. This explanation fails for many reasons: * Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader, 1981; Tattersall, 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a well-known disease. * Even Virchow did not, as Lubenow implies, accept rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the Neandertal Man had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least. * Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans). * The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis. * Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noachic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find large numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans? Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed that Neandertals were identical to modern humans. Straus and Cave overturned the stereotype, created by Boule, that Neandertals were semi-erect ape-men with a shambling gait and a divergent big toe, and showed instead that their posture was identical to ours. But they went on to add: "This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit distinctive features - features which collectively distinguish him from all groups of modern men." (Straus and Cave, 1957) The exhibit on Neandertals at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) Museum says (or used to say): "Many Neanderthal features are similar to those in elderly humans today. Since humans lived to great ages in the initial generations after the flood and Babel, perhaps the features are primarily due to advanced age...". In fact, none of the distinctive features of Neandertals are similar to those of old people, least of all powerful bones and muscles. This argument is especially ridiculous because even Neandertal children are distinctive. Whoever wrote this presumably also thinks that Neandertals are arthritic modern humans. At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neandertal morphology may be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe, 1970) or syphilis (Wright, 1971). According to Day (1986), neither of these cases was adequately supported or subsequently justified. Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace, except among creationists. Gish goes even further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these claims: "They have now concluded that these primitive features of Neandertal people were not genetic, they were pathological." (Gish, 1985) Straus and Cave made a striking comment about Neandertals: "Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway - provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens". This may be a source of the creationist idea that Neandertals are "just plain people" (Morris and Parker, 1982). Note, though, that this is not what the quote says. Anyone who has travelled the Big Apple's subway will probably agree that Neandertals could look quite odd and still meet Straus and Cave's rather lax criterion. Gish (1985) distorts this quote by claiming that a Neandertal in a business suit could walk down a city street and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement that is probably false. Johanson and Edey (1981) extend the example by saying that if you put Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him". Put Homo habilis on the subway, and "people would probably move to the other end of the car". Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists." The following quote from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) refutes claims that Neandertals differ no more from modern humans than living races do from each other: "Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" (p 412). Anomalous Fossils A common creationist claim is that humans existed alongside or predated all of their presumed ancestors in the fossil record. Taylor (1992) contains a long list of supposed examples (with the disclaimer "Remains which some researchers have suggested (but _not_ proven) as evidence that the various "missing links" were contemporaneous, or that man and these creatures were contemporaneous"). Many of these cases are various hominid fossils which appear in the correct position in the fossil record. Some of these have already been mentioned: the Petralona specimen, 1470, the Turkana Boy, and the Krapina specimens. Other examples are: Laetoli footprints: creationists invariably mention the close resemblance between these and modern human footprints, but often neglect to mention their extremely small size and the fact they are similar to the feet of the australopithecines living at the same time (exactly how similar is a matter of debate). KP 271: Lubenow (1992) states that this is indistinguishable from a human bone, Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. Lubenow quotes a number of scientists who state that KP 271 is very humanlike, but not Feldesman (1982), who found that KP 271, "far from being more 'human-like' than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana". KP 271 has usually been assigned to the australopithecines (and recently to A. anamensis) because no other hominids are known from 4 million years ago. Although Lubenow considers this conclusion "shocking", there are plausible reasons for it. The lower humerus of chimps is quite similar to that of humans, and it is reasonable to suppose that australopithecines would be even more similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus in australopithecines is known to fall within the human range. Patterson and Howell (1967) state that both KP 271 and the australopithecine upper humerus were, based on their measurements, virtually identically to some modern humans, yet Lubenow is able to conclude that KP 271 is "strikingly close" [his italics] to modern humans, while the upper humerus is only "quite similar, based on visual assessment". Because the lower humerus is poorly known in hominids, and is a poor diagnostic indicator, it is premature to claim that KP 271 can not be an australopithecine fossil. Swanscombe Man: two cranium fragments discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in England, and a third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit with the earlier ones. The bones are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and modern features, and an estimated brain size of 1325 cc. They are probably from an archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible with their estimated age of 200,000 to 300,000 years. (Day, 1986) Fontechevade Man: a skullcap fragment which is difficult to classify, and whose dating is doubtful, it is probably also an archaic H. sapiens. Vertesszollos Man: a few tooth fragments, and part of an adult cranium. The cranial fragment is very thick and broad, with a mixture of modern and primitive features. This is also considered to be probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age, which has variously been estimated to be from 160,000 to over 350,000 years. (Day, 1986) Of the other "anomalous" hominid fossils, most are of fossil humans that have since been discovered to be intrusions, i.e. they have been buried in deposits that are older than they are. Examples are: Abbeville, or Moulin Quignon, Jaw: discovered by Jacques Boucher de Perthes in 1863 at Abbeville in France. This was a modern-looking jaw that had come from very old deposits. However because of strong evidence that it was a modern jaw that had been "planted", probably by de Perthes' workmen, who were paid for good finds, few scientists have ever accepted it as genuine. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992) Oldoway Man: a skull and skeleton found by Hans Reck at Olduvai Gorge in 1913. In 1932 it was shown to be a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older deposits that had been exposed by faulting (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989). Taylor (1992) writes "Some have suggested this skeleton is an intrusive burial", when in fact this explanation has been unanimously accepted (even by the notoriously stubborn Louis Leakey). Kanjera Man, Kanam Jaw: discovered by Louis Leakey in 1932, and claimed by him to be very old. The dating however proved to be uncertain, and both are probably modern bones. (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989; Lewin, 1987) Castenedolo Man: Morris and Parker (1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary rock [i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5 million years] were found in Castenedolo, Italy back in the late 1800's...". An official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed this. (Conrad, 1982) Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in 1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in the same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper. (Howgate and Lewis, 1984) Galley Hill Man: this was a modern-looking skeleton discovered in 1888 in old deposits. Even last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was confirmed in 1948 when it was fluorine dated (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Henry Morris has claimed (1974) that since 10,000 year old Homo erectus skulls were found at Kow Swamp in Australia, erectus cannot be the ancestor of modern man. The logic is faulty, since there is no reason that a population of erectus could not have survived long after Homo sapiens first appeared. Morris also has his facts wrong. Characteristics of the Kow Swamp skulls led to suggestions that some Homo erectus _features_ had survived in them, as the quote Morris gives from Thorne and Macumber (1972) clearly states. Morris' claim that they are erectus _skulls_ is incorrect. It is now thought that the most prominent such primitive feature, flattened foreheads, may have been caused by the cultural practice of head-binding (Day, 1986; Gamble, 1993). Lubenow (1992) makes a stronger case that the Kow skulls are H. erectus, claiming that the pathological or cultural causes suggested for them could equally well be applied to much older erectus skulls. Lubenow claims that the Kow skulls meet many criteria for H. erectus, but gives no documentation for this, other than showing that they are more primitive than modern skulls. It is possible that the Kow skulls are primitive by modern standards, without reaching the degree of primitiveness of archaic sapiens, or erectus, skulls, but Lubenow gives no evidence which would exclude this possibility. His claims are flatly contradicted by Gamble (1993) "There is no doubt that all the people who have ever lived on the continent [Australia] would qualify as anatomically modern humans", and Burenhult (1993) "Analysis of these skeletons has show conclusively that all are of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens". Thorne and Macumber (1972) mention that the frontal bones of the skull are particularly archaic, being very similar to some of the Javan erectus skulls. By implication, the rest of the skull is not, particularly since it is also stated that the skulls show preservation of early sapiens characteristics. In addition, Kennedy (1984) shows that the femurs of the Kow skeletons are identical to those of modern humans, and significantly distinct from those of those of Homo erectus. Some creationists point to Olduvai Gorge, where australopithecines are found contemporaneously with Homo habilis and erectus, above another layer which contains the remains of a circular stone habitation, apparently made by humans. How could australopithecines be the ancestor of habilis, or habilis of erectus, if they are all found together? And how could erectus be the ancestor of modern man, if traces of modern man are found below it? There are a number of errors in this reasoning. First, the australopithecines in question are robust, and are not considered as ancestors of Homo. Even if they were, there is no reason why they could not coexist with a descendant species. Finally, the claim that the stone circle is an artifact has been dropped. It is only a rough arrangement, and could have just as easily have been formed by water or other activity at any time in the past. Even if it was artificial, there is no reason to believe that habilis or erectus would have been incapable of making it. Brain Sizes Brain sizes(*) vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains. As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men, and Pygmies will have smaller brains than Zulus, but the average intelligence of all these groups is, as far as we can tell, the same. (*) Note: for convenience, I use the term "brain size" instead of "cranial capacity". Because the brain does not fill the cranial cavity, the brain size is smaller than the cranial capacity, but the latter value is, obviously, the only one that can be determined from a skull. Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc. The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040- 1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc. S.J. Gould, in "The Mismeasure of Man", reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of 600 skulls which ranged from 950 to 1870 cc (and 25% of this sample was of small-statured Peruvians, so the figure of 950 cc is, if anything, lower than it might be for 600 randomly selected humans). Morton also catalogued his skulls by race, with the lowest average for any racial group being 1230 cc. Various sources, some of them creationist, give lower limits for human brain size of 900 cc (twice), 855 cc, and 830 cc. Normal humans are found with values smaller than this, but they are very rare. Microcephalics, who are subnormal in intelligence, can be as low as 600 cc, but this is a pathological condition and such skulls cannot be considered normal. Compare this range with that of the 5 measurable Java Man skulls. These average 930 cc (less than the minimum of the 600 modern skulls cited above), with the smallest being 815 cc. Moreover, unlike modern humans with low brain sizes, these skulls are very robust, with flattened braincases and large browridges. These figures also show how extraordinary the Turkana Boy is. As an adult, he would have been over 183 cm (6'0") tall, large even by modern standards. Modern men of that stature could be expected to have a brain size of at least 1500 cc, but the Turkana Boy's estimated adult brain size of 910 cc is smaller than all but a fraction of 1% of modern humans of all sizes and both sexes. For comparison, 900 cc is a typical brain size for a modern child of 3 or 4 years weighing 15 kg (33 lbs). Lubenow (1992) states that the normal human range is 700-2200 cc. Part of the reason for this wide range is that we have a huge sample size, compared to any extinct species. Obviously, skulls at the extreme ends of that range will be very rare. It is clearly implausible for Lubenow to claim that ER 1470, at 750 cc, is "well within the normal human range", when it is well below what most people consider a minimum size for normal modern humans. One might equally validly claim that 4'0" (122 cm) is a normal adult height on the grounds that some people are only 3'6" (107 cm) tall. The probability of finding an adult human skull as small as ER 1470 is very remote (probably less than 1/10,000). It is far more probable that 1470 was a fairly typical member of its population, rather than an extreme case. This is what we find: other habilis fossils, very similar to 1470, are even smaller, well below Lubenow's lower limit of 700 cc. Chimpanzees have a brain size between 300 and 500 cc, with an average of 400 cc. Gorillas have an average brain size of 500 cc, with large individuals going up to 700 cc, or even 750 in one instance. Hominids are best compared with the similar-sized chimpanzees than the much larger gorillas. Lubenow states that "the crucial element is not brain size but brain organization. A large gorilla brain is no closer to the human condition than is a small gorilla brain". That is true, but many of the H. habilis fossils that Lubenow, and all other creationists, claim to be apes do come close to the human condition: the insides of their skulls show that they had many modern features (Tobias, 1988). Some of them also had brain sizes between 600 and 700 cc; smaller than any human, but much larger than any chimpanzee, and a respectable size even for a gorilla. Between species, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size is applied, is a fair indicator of relative intelligence. The results are approximate, because they depend on which formula is used, and also on brain and body size, both of which are difficult to estimate for most fossil hominids. However it seems australopithecines were roughly as smart as, or probably a bit smarter than, chimps. Homo habilis and erectus were intermediate between chimps and modern humans. Walker and Leakey (1993) and Tobias (1988) have good overviews of attempts to estimate the relative intelligence of hominid species. Bones of Contention The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book "Bones of Contention" is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time. Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike other creationists, he does attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in some absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches. This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that the number of living species could never increase. The argument is also contradicted by real world examples, such as that of the 13 species of finch which live on the Galapagos Islands. There is such compelling evidence that these are descended from a common ancestor that even most creationists accept them as evidence of evolution "within a created kind". If Lubenow was correct, even such micro-evolution would be impossible. By his argument, newly-evolved finch species should drive their ancestors to extinction. This does not happen, of course, because they all live on different foods. Secondly, and more seriously, Lubenow claims that, in some cases, a descendant species existed before the species it supposedly descended from. Clearly, this is impossible under evolutionary theory. For example, Lubenow claims that Homo erectus overlaps the entire time range in which Homo habilis is found. The oldest dated habilis specimen he lists is about 1.9 million years old (with a possibility that another was as much as 2.35 million years old). Lubenow criticizes Klein (1989) for showing a graph in which habilis is shown preceding erectus in time, when none of the habilis fossils discussed by Klein are dated before 1.9 million years ago. In this case, Lubenow has not read Klein carefully enough. Klein does, on page 133, and in a graph on page 112, mention the presence of habilis-like fossils found at about 2.3 million years. These are a few fragmentary teeth attributed to Homo, found at Omo in Ethiopia, and dated to 2.3-2.4 million years (Howell et al.1987). They are relatively unimportant, and it is not surprising that Klein would not give them any further discussion. But there is no reason to believe that fossils have been found over the entire range of time for which habilis existed. Almost all habilis fossils have been found in the rich deposits of Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora (less than 2 million years old), while there is a scarcity of fossiliferous regions between 2 and 2.5 million years. One might expect further fossil finds to extend the time range in which H. habilis is known, and that is what has happened. Hill et al.(1992) have analyzed a skull bone, KNM-BC 1, found in Kenya in 1967. They identified it as belong to the genus Homo (though not to erectus or sapiens), and have dated it at 2.4 million years. And Schrenk et al.(1993) have announced the discovery in Malawi of a hominid lower jaw, UR 501, that they have attributed to Homo rudolfensis (a proposed habilis-like species). This fossil has been faunally dated between 2.3 and 2.5 million years. Similarly, Lubenow claims that humans are found up to 4.5 million years ago, before any australopithecines. Before 2 million years ago, the evidence for this consists of only two fossils, the Laetoli footprints and the Kanapoi Hominid (since dated at 4.1 million years). This is Lubenow's strongest argument, because both fossils are, arguably, from humans. The problem is that there is not enough other evidence to exclude the possibility that both belong to australopithecines. More diagnostic fossils such as skulls, or partial skeletons, could prove the existence of humans, but so far, all such evidence points only to the existence of australopithecines past 3 million years ago. There are more fossils which Lubenow considers to be sapiens, but which are as old as the earliest erectus fossils (about 2 million years). These consist of some undoubted habilis fossils such as ER 1470, and some fossils usually assigned to erectus or habilis. These fossils are all of body parts which are difficult to classify, because other Homo species are both poorly known, and not that different below the neck, as far as we know, from modern humans. Lubenow admits the difficulty but assigns them to H. sapiens anyway. Most of Lubenow's book is devoted to documenting the overlaps which he believes falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on an elementary misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, there is little left of his book that needs to be refuted. Overview When one reads creationist literature about the human fossil record, there is a definite pattern in the fossils that are selected for discussion. Huse (1983), in a summary of "some of the more significant so-called fossil ape-men", discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the Neandertals, and the original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus fossils, H. habilis, and A. africanus. Taylor (1992), ("Each of the most famous 'missing links' is discussed") devotes only two sentences to H. habilis, mentioning no fossils by name and dismissing it as an ape. Taylor also makes misleading use of the past tense to imply that even evolutionists no longer accept habilis as a transitional form - an implication which is totally incorrect. For H. erectus, only Peking Man and the original Java Man fossil are mentioned in the main text. Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) claims that "all the candidates once proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list", and then proceeds to give the list, which is inexplicably lacking H. erectus (it is lumped in with Java Man) and H. habilis, and the gracile australopithecines. (Parker then contradicts himself by admitting that the gracile australopithecines are still possible candidates). Gish (1985) discusses Java Man, Peking Man and ER 1470, but almost totally omits mention of all other H. habilis and H. erectus fossils. Lubenow (1992) alone appears to be aware of all the fossil material, and comes closest to addressing the evidence, but he fails to discuss some of the more compelling intermediate fossils such as OH 7, OH 24 and ER 1813 (because his book is about the human fossil record, and he considers most habilis specimens to be apes). Lubenow is virtually the only creationist to avoid the absurdity of claiming that the Java Man and Peking Man fossils are apes. Creationists appear to avoid discussion of the fossils that are the best evidence for human evolution. These include superb fossils such as OH 9, ER 3733 and Sangiran 17 (human but with primitive features), Sts 5 (apelike, but with some modern features) and OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, and ER 1813 (so perfectly transitional that they are difficult to classify). In contrast to the above omissions, it is almost impossible to find a creationist work that does not mention Nebraska Man (Lubenow is the one exception), despite the fact that it was at best weak evidence for human evolution even during its brief heyday 70 years ago, and Piltdown Man, despite the fact that the hoax was discovered over 40 years ago. Ramapithecus, which was often claimed to be a human ancestor in the 1960's and 70's, also gets mentioned frequently. Some transitional fossils are often mentioned in creationist literature, typically Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying their information from another creationist source, are under the mistaken impression that these fossils have been shown to be either ape or fully human. When creationists do perform their own research, they show a suprising inability to agree on which fossils are apes and which are humans: which is exactly what one would expect if evolution had occurred. Even more surprisingly, creationists do almost no anatomical comparisons, even of the fossils they do discuss. Typically, they will flatly assert that a fossil is a human or an ape. Nor do they provide photographs, so that their readers could judge for themselves whether the fossils are transitional or not. If, as most of them claim, Java Man is an ape, a comparative photo of an ape, Java Man and a human would be an easy way to demonstrate it. If they are confident in their interpretation of the data, why do they not show the evidence to their readers? Another feature of creationist literature is its approach to scientific authority. Creationists appear to make no attempt to weigh evidence; they often accept uncritically any statement made by a scientist which can be used to advantage, while ignoring any contrary opinions. Scientists used in this way include Oxnard, Zuckerman, and Ivanhoe. Their results are often treated as if they were authoritative, when in reality they are very much minority opinions in the scientific community. The creationist approach of allocating all fossils to either apes or humans is inherently dishonest, because it excludes intermediates by defining them away. No creationist ever defines what would be acceptable as a valid transitional fossil, because examples could be found to fit any reasonable definition. Instead, creationists are forced to take potshots at irrelevant fossils, misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the strongest evidence for human evolution. Further Reading Short articles which give a good account of human evolution are Weaver (1985) (which has excellent comparative photographs), Brace (1983) and Berra (1990). For good book-length treatments, I would recommend Tattersall (1995) which is very up-to-date, Reader (1981), Johanson and Edey (1981), Leakey and Lewin (1992), Willis (1989), and Trinkaus and Shipman (1992), which is more wide-ranging than its title might indicate. Good anthropology textbooks include Klein (1989), Feder and Park (1989), and Campbell (1988). Other academic works of interest are Brace et al. (1979), which contains line drawings and brief descriptions of about 50 important fossils, and Day (1986), which contains an extensive and detailed list of fossils obtained from about 50 major sites, along with many photographs. The best creationist book on human fossils is probably Lubenow (1992). Lubenow has studied the scientific literature extensively, and limits his arguments to fossils accepted by evolutionists. His work is of a considerably higher standard than any other creationist literature I have read. Gish (1985) is a very influential creationist book with a large chapter on hominid fossils. Another relevant creationist book which I have not read is Malcolm Bowden's "Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy?". There are also a number of Web pages on the Internet which look at human origins from a creationist point of view: * Creation Science Home Page: The Big Issues * The Scientific Evidence for the Origin of Man, by David N. Menton * ChristianAnswers.Net: Missing Links * Quotes about Fossil Man * Man (Origins Page) This FAQ file will updated on a regular basis. Contact the author (jim.foley@symbios.com) with corrections, criticisms, suggestions for further topics, or to get the current version. The FAQ can also be found in the talk.origins archives on the Internet at: http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html (Web version) ftp://ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/fossil-hominids (text version) Pictures of many of these fossils can be viewed in the Illustrations Side and lower views of crania of a female gorilla, A. africanus and Homo sapiens Side and upper views of lower jaws (mandibles) of a gorilla, A. africanus and Homo sapiens Pelvis, femur and foot of a chimpanzee, A. africanus, and Homo sapiens Side views of skulls of a female gorilla, reconstruction of Peking Man, and Homo sapiens Front, side, back and top views of ER 1470 and ER 1813 Java Man and Turkana Boy Peking Man and Homo erectus Comparisons of all skulls There are also links to ten "Far Side" cartoons by Gary Larson in this document (but you'll have to find them yourself). References Berra T.: The evolution of life and the rise of humans. In: Evolution and the myth of creationism, Stanford,California:Stanford University Press, 1990, p. 70-119. Boule M. and Vallois H.: Fossil Men, New York:Dryden Press, 1957. (outdated, but with a lot of information about early finds) Brace C.L., Nelson H., Korn N. and Brace M.L.: Atlas of human evolution, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979. Ed. 2 Brace C.L.: Humans in time and space. In: Scientists confront creationism, edited by Godfrey, L.R. Toronto:George J. McLeod, 1983, p. 245-282. Broom R.: A new fossil anthropoid skull from South Africa. Nature 138:486-488, 1936. (announcement of the discovery of the second Australopithecine fossil) Broom R.: The pleistocene anthropoid apes of South Africa. Nature 142:377-379, 1938. (announcement of the discovery of Australopithecus robustus) Brown F., Harris J., Leakey R.E. and Walker A.C.: Early Homo erectus skeleton from west lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 316:788-792, 1985. (announcement of the discovery of the Turkana Boy skeleton) Burenhult G.: The first humans: human origins and history to 10,000 BC, New York:HarperCollins, 1993. (large beautifully illustrated book, but with more emphasis on cultural aspects than on evolution) Campbell B.G.: Humankind emerging, Boston:Little, Brown and Company, 1988. Ed. 5 Conrad E.C.: Are there human fossils in the "wrong place" for evolution? Creation/Evolution Issue 8:14-22, 1982. Cronin J.E., Boaz N.T., Stringer C.B. and Rak Y.: Tempo and mode in hominid evolution. Nature 292:113-122, 1981. (argues that hominid evolution is an example of gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium) Dart R.A.: Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa. Nature 115:195-199, 1925. (announcement of the discovery of the Taung skull) Day M.H.: Guide to fossil man, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1986. Ed. 4 (an extensive listing of hominid fossils) Feder K.L. and Park M.A.: Human antiquity: an introduction to physical anthropology and archaeology, Mountain View, California:Mayfield Publishing, 1989. (an introductory university-level anthropology textbook) Feldesman M.R.: Morphometric analysis of the distal humerus of some Cenozoic catarrhines: the late divergence hypothesis revisited. Am.J.Phys.Anthropol. 59:73-95, 1982. Fezer K.D.: Creation's incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Creation/Evolution Issue 33:5-21, 1993. Gamble C.: Timewalkers: the prehistory of global colonization, Cambridge, Massachussets:Harvard University Press, 1993. Gish D.T.: Evolution: the fossils say no, San Diego:Creation-Life Publishers, 1979. Ed. 3 (this is the third edition of a book first published in 1972 and is somewhat out of date) Gish D.T.: Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record, El Cajon, CA:Creation-Life Publishers, 1985. (an updated version of Gish 1979) Gish D.T.: The "missing links" are still missing (part 2). Science, Scripture and Salvation (ICR radio show) Sep 18:1993. Gould S.J.: An essay on a pig roast. In: Bully for brontosaurus, New York:W.W.Norton, 1991, p. 432-447. (an essay about the Nebraska Man episode) Gould S.J.: Men of the thirty-third division. In: Eight little piggies, New York:W.W.Norton, 1993, p. 124-137. (an essay about Eugene Dubois' theories on Java Man) Hill A., Ward S., Deino A., Curtis G. and Drake R.: Earliest Homo. Nature 355:719-722, 1992. (claims that a fossil from genus Homo is 2.4 million years old) Hooijer D.A.: The geological age of Pithecanthropus, Meganthropus and Gigantopithecus. Am.J.Phys.Anthropol. 9:265-281, 1951. (dating of Javan fossils) Howell F.C., Washburn S.L. and Ciochon R.L.: Relationship of Australopithecus and Homo. Journal of Human Evolution 7:127-131, 1978. (argues against the conclusions of Oxnard 1975) Howell F.C., Haesaerts P. and de Heinzelin J.: Depositional environments, archeological occurrences and hominids from Members E and F of the shungura formation (Omo basin, Ethiopia). Journal of Human Evolution 16:665-700, 1987. Howgate M. and Lewis A.: The case of miocene man. New Scientist 29 March:44-45, 1984. Huse S.M.: The collapse of evolution, Baker Book House Company, 1983. Ivanhoe F.: Was Virchow right about neandertal? Nature 227:577-578, 1970. (claims that Neandertal morphology was caused by rickets) Jia L. and Huang W.: The story of Peking man, Beijing:Foreign Languages Press, 1990. (the senior author, Jia Lanpo, has been involved with the Peking man site since 1931) Johanson D.C., Masao F.T., Eck G.G., et al: New partial skeleton of Homo habilis from Olduvai gorge, Tanzania. Nature 327:205-209, 1987. (announcement of the discovery of the fossil OH 62) Johanson D.C. and Edey M.A.: Lucy: the beginnings of humankind, New York:Simon and Schuster, 1981. (a short history of paleoanthropology, and the discovery and analysis of Australopithecus afarensis) Johanson D.C. and Shreeve J.: Lucy's child: the discovery of a human ancestor, New York:Early Man Publishing, Inc, 1989. (some paleoanthropological history, and the discovery of OH 62) Johanson D.C. and Taieb M.: Plio-pleistocene hominid discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia. Nature 260:293-297, 1976. Johanson D.C. and White T.D.: On the status of Australopithecus afarensis. Nature 207:1104-1105, 1980. Kennedy G.E.: Are the kow swamp hominids "archaic"? Am.J.Phys.Anthropol. 65:163-168, 1984. (compares femurs of Australian aboriginals and Homo erectus) Kimbel W.H., Johanson D.C. and Rak Y.: The first skull and other new discoveries of Australopithecus afarensis at Hadar, Ethiopia. Nature 368:449-451, 1994. Klein R.G.: The human career: human biological and cultural origins, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1989. (an excellent textbook on human evolution) Leakey L.S.B.: A new fossil skull from Olduvai. Nature 184:491-493, 1959. (announcement of the discovery of Australopithecus boisei) Leakey L.S.B.: New finds at Olduvai gorge. Nature 189:649-650, 1961. (announcement of the discovery of OH 7 and OH 9 fossils) Leakey L.S.B., Tobias P.V. and Napier J.R.: A new species of the genus Homo from Olduvai gorge. Nature 202:7-10, 1964. (paper proposing Homo habilis as a new species) Leakey M.G., Feibel C.S., McDougall I. and Walker A.C.: New four-million-year old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia bay, Kenya. Nature 376:565-571, 1995. (announcement of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis) Leakey R.E.: Evidence for an advanced plio-pleistocene hominid from east rudolf, Kenya. Nature 242:447-450, 1973. (announcement of the discovery of the skull KNM-ER 1470) Leakey R.E.: Further evidence of lower pleistocene hominids from east rudolf, north Kenya, 1973. Nature 248:653-656, 1974. (announcement of discoveries including ER 1805 and ER 1813) Leakey R.E.: The origin of humankind, New York:BasicBooks, 1994. Leakey R.E. and Lewin R.: Origins reconsidered: in search of what makes us human, New York:Doubleday, 1992. Leakey R.E. and Walker A.C.: Australopithecus, Homo erectus and the single species hypothesis. Nature 261:572-574, 1976. (discusses the significance of the KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 fossils) Lewin R.: Bones of contention: controversies in the search for human origins, New York:Simon and Schuster, 1987. (discusses in detail some of the major controversies that have occurred in paleoanthropology) Lippard J.L.: Lucy's knee joint: how creationists deal with their errors, 1995. (talk.origins FAQ file) Lubenow M.L.: Bones of contention: a creationist assessment of human fossils, Grand Rapids,MI:Baker Books, 1992. (the best creationist book on human fossils) McHenry H.M.: The first bipeds: a comparison of the A. afarensis and A. africanus postcranium and implications for the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Human Evolution 15:177-191, 1986. (an overview of the evidence for australopithecine bipedality) Morris H.M.: Scientific creationism, Santee,California:Master Books, 1974. Morris H.M. and Parker G.E.: What is creation science? San Diego:Creation-Life Publishers, 1982. Morris J.D.: Has the "missing link" been found? Acts & Facts 23(11):1994. (ICR commentary on Australopithecus ramidus and afarensis) Oxnard C.: The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature 258:389-395, 1975. (suggests that the australopithecines are no more closely related to humans than apes are) Oxnard C.: Fossils, teeth and sex, Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press, 1987. Patterson B. and Howells W.W.: Hominid humeral fragment from early pleistocene of northwestern Kenya. Science 156:64-66, 1967. (analysis of the KP 271 fossil humerus) Reader J.: Missing links: the hunt for earliest man, Boston,MA:Little,Brown, 1981. (a good history of paleoanthropology, with many excellent pictures) Schrenk F., Bromage T.G., Betzler C.G., Ring U. and Juwayeyi Y.M.: Oldest Homo and pliocene biogeography of the Malawi rift. Nature 365:833-836, 1993. (announcement of the discovery of a very old Homo mandible) Stern J.T.,Jr. and Susman R.L.: The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. Am.J.Phys.Anthropol. 60:279-317, 1983. Straus W.L.,Jr. and Cave A.J.E.: Pathology and posture of neanderthal man. Quarterly Review of Biology 32(4):348-363, 1957. Tattersall I.: The human odyssey: four million years of human evolution, New York:Prentice Hall, 1993. (based on the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History) Tattersall I.: The fossil trail: how we know what we think we know about human evolution, Oxford,NY:Oxford University Press, 1995. Taylor P.S.: The illustrated origins answer book, Mesa,Arizona:Eden Productions, 1992. Ed. 4 (a creationist book, notable for its excellent index and list of references) Theunissen B.: Eugene Dubois and the ape-man from Java, Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. Thorne A.G. and Macumber P.G.: Discoveries of late pleistocene man at kow swamp, Australia. Nature 238:316-319, 1972. Tobias P.V.: The brain of Homo habilis: a new level of organization in cerebral evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 16:741-761, 1988. Trinkaus E. and Howells W.W.: The neanderthals. Scientific American 241(6):118-133, 1979. (a good summary of Neandertal anatomy) Trinkaus E. and Shipman P.: The neandertals: changing the image of mankind, New York:Alfred E. Knopf, 1992. Walker A.C. and Leakey R.E.: The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton, Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press, 1993. (a volume of papers about the Turkana Boy skeleton WT 15000) Weaver K.F.: The search for our ancestors. National Geographic 186(5):560-623, 1985. White T.D., Suwa G. and Asfaw B.: Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid form Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature 371:306-312, 1994. Willis Delta: The hominid gang: behind the scenes in the search for human origins, New York:Viking, 1989. Willis Tom: Lucy goes to college. Bible-Science Newsletter January:1-3, 1987. (claims that Lucy consisted of fossils found at two different sites) Wolf J. and Mellett J.S.: The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate. Creation/Evolution Issue 16:31-43, 1984. Wood B.A.: Koobi Fora research project, volume 4: hominid cranial remains, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1991. (a detailed study of fossils from the East Rudolf area) Wood B.A.: Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355:783-790, 1992. (review article on the taxonomy of Homo habilis) Wood B.A.: The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281, 1994. (commentary on the discovery of Australopithecus ramidus) Woodward A.S.: A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa. Nature 108:371-372, 1921. (announcement of the discovery of the Rhodesian Man fossil) Wright D.J.M.: Syphilis and neanderthal man. Nature 229:409, 1971. (suggests that Neandertal morphology was caused by a disease such as syphilis) END****************************************************************************