The Antiquity of Man

220 Pages·2002·0.74 MB·English

The Antiquity of Man:
Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records
Explored
Michael Brass
PublishAmerica
Baltimore
© 2002 by Michael Brass.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any
form without written permission from the publishers, except by a
reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a
newspaper or magazine.
First printing
ISBN: 1-59129-385-5
PUBLISHED BY PUBLISHAMERICA BOOK PUBLISHERS
www.publishamerica.com
Baltimore
Printed in the United States of America
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This is the boring part where I get to thank everyone who has helped me in one way or the other over the
years and who, either directly or indirectly, has thereby contributed in
their own fashion to the making of this book.
My passion for archaeology is long-standing, and my mother and
brother deserve special mention and praise for their encouragement
and enduring support. Thank you. More thanks have to go to the entire
Archaeology department of the University of Cape Town, South Africa:
it would be wrong to point out specific individuals amongst the critical,
dedicated and talented staff.
The DebunkCreation mailing list (located at http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation) has had a great impact upon
my way of thinking and outlook toward academia and the opposition
it faces from certain sections of the world’s community. Ultimately, it
was DebunkCreation which indirectly inspired me to write this book.
There are too many list members to thank individually, but they know
who they are. I am also indebted to my colleagues of the “In the Hall
of Ma’at: Weighing the Evidence of Alternative History” site.
A special thanks has to go especially to Professor Colin Groves
for his patient critiques and critical advice; any remaining mistakes
and omissions are my sole responsibility.
My final thank you has to go to the dedicated people at the
publishing company for putting together the book you see before you.
Michael Brass
March 2002
“The Antiquity of Man” <http://www.antiquityofman.com>

CONTENTS
Introduction 7
Chapter One: 17
Evolution and its pseudoscience Hindu creationist counterpart
Chapter Two: 45
The emergence of the first australopithecine
Chapter Three: 75
The Pleistocene florescence
Chapter Four: 119
The origins of modern human behaviour: a southern African perspective
Conclusion 191
References 193

INTRODUCTION
Evolution. The mere mention of the word conjures up images either of
the workings of the natural world or of propagandist materialism in people’s
minds. To put it into perspective, the contrast is between changes in allele
frequency over time and observed speciation, and science force-fitted into
personal belief systems. Alleles are alternate characters in genetic material
and are integral to the process of speciation. Microevolution is the changes
in allele frequency within a species, whereas speciation is macroevolution
and alleles are not exchanged between populations under natural settings.
The difference in allele frequency grows the further back in time the search
for a common ancestor extends. The molecular clock, with its neutral proteins,
is related to this process and the timing of the chimpanzee, gorilla and human
split has been estimated through analysing the amino acid sequence
differences of the protein albumin. The creative process of evolution is
complex and installs a sense of wonder.
The common denominator of all creationist movements is the deep-rooted
conviction that only their religion is true and that their interpretation of a
particular religious tract is the most accurate. This has the effect of creationism
being a highly fragmented religious stream of thought seeking support for
their views in the geological and fossil records (natural science), as they
want the benefit of scientific authority without the responsibility of its method.
In order to accomplish their goal of preaching and brainwashing, creationists
seek to refute the ruling paradigm of evolution by whatever means possible:
from claiming evolution is merely a “faith” to actively promoting variant
forms of creation “science” in public arenas outside the realms of academic
journals. Readers are encouraged to visit the http://www.talkorigins.org
website where various creationist arguments are listed, explained and rebutted
in great detail; printed materials which cover this arena include Godfrey
(1983), Scott (1997) and Strahler (1999).
Mainstream evolutionary science does not pass judgement on personal
religious beliefs which are outside the realm of science, despite the protests
7
MICHAEL BRASS
of some prominent atheists. All mainstream churches, including the Roman
Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, regard creationism as unscientific
and do not view a conflict between the findings of scientists and the Christian
Bible. Saint Augustine, who lived before evolution became the dominant
theory, also disagreed with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Before delving into the realm of biological evolution as it pertains to the
hominin fossil record, it is worthwhile to stand back and take further stock
of the broad spectrum of the creationism versus evolution debate. By doing
so we will gain a broader insight into its fundamentals which reveals specific
trends and common flaws in creationist arguments.
How evolution is defined and recognised in the fossil and gene records is
not fully understood by the general public beyond generalities. Schools,
particularly in North America where the vast majority of creationist
organisations are based, need to improve the quality and quantity of their
evolutionary science teachings. The public know changes occur in nature,
yet this is normally where their understanding peters out. Evolution is
essentially the change in gene (allele) frequency over time, which began to
operate after life first began. The origin of life is the realm of the separate
scientific discipline of abiogenesis. Creationism attempts to link abiogenesis,
cosmology and evolution under the broad banner of “evolution” but, as can
be seen from the basic definition of evolution, that is nothing more than a
misinformed stab in the dark which reveals a distinct lack of knowledge
about the theory against which they are arguing. Evolutionary theories propose
mechanisms to interpret these changes. In this regard confusion arises between
scientists and the general public. As expressed eloquently by Dr. Eugenie
Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education in America, “the
problem is that ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ are used differently in science and among
the public. In science, a theory is a logical construct of facts, hypotheses,
and laws that explains a natural phenomenon. To the general public, however,
a theory is not an explanation, but a hunch or guess. To teach evolution as a
theory in this sense is to teach it as something students don’t have to take
seriously” (Scott 1997: 278).
In “Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism,” Kitcher (1982:
37) puts forward a wonderful definition of the scientific method:
“Theories are collections of statements. The observational
consequences of a theory are statements that have to be true if the
statements belonging to the theory are all true. These observational
consequences also have to be statements whose truth or falsity can be
8
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN
ascertained by direct observation. Any theory that has a false
observational consequence must contain some false statement (or
statements). For if all the statements in the theory were true, then,
according to the standard definitions of deductive validity and
observational consequence, any observational consequence would also
have to be true. Hence, if a theory is found to have a false observational
consequence, we must conclude that one or more statements of the
theory is false.”
In other words, good scientific theories have observational predictions that
would falsify all or components of a theory should they prove to be incorrect.
Research papers dealing with various evolutionary theories are the result
of field research by genuine scientists who possess a solid grounding in
biological and social sciences. Before being published, these papers undergo
peer-review. Peer-review means that a scientist’s paper, submitted to a journal,
is referred to their panel of anonymous reviewers. They recommend any
changes to be made to the content and comment on whether the writing
contained within the paper is of acceptable scientific standard. The reviewers
cannot veto publication based on whether they agree or disagree with the
content of the argument(s) presented, although they can submit such
recommendations in their report to the journal. However, the procedural
aspects of higher scholarship, unfortunately, are not in themselves evidence
that higher scholarship is free of bias. Even when opinion does not intrude
outright on the reviewing process, reviewers often decide that the weight of
evidence makes untenable a view that later research shows to be true, and
tenure decisions and funding often flow from such judgments. What is really
significant about peer review is not that it is free of bias, but that it is self-
correcting over time. This is contrary to the creationist claims of “censorship.”
Scientists utilising an evolutionary framework can date when mutations
occurred, track them in time, determine their selective value, study their effects
on the rest of the system, understand how these changes in particular
organisms stimulated changes in other organisms in the ecosystem, and
conduct experiments to understand the processes and outcomes of other
ecosystems. In other words, evolutionary science observes the existence of
genetic mutations and natural selection in operation.
It is no coincidence that the vast majority of people trained in biological-
and geological-related sciences reject creationism. Creationism, in all its
tenets, attempts to paint a picture of human beings being different from all
the other animals, including is nearest relations, the apes. In other words, in
9
MICHAEL BRASS
the eyes of all creationists, humans are special in form, having been created
through divine ordinance. I have yet to see any creationist explain
satisfactorily why all primates, a group which includes humans, posses a
functionless L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene for the synthesis of
Vitamin C, the same as all other mammals with the exception of the hamster.
This is a result of primates being descended from a common ancestral group
in which such a mutation first arose, and then persisted, because of the rich
vitamin C environments in which primates reside.
The genetic split between chimpanzees, gorillas and humans is
comparatively minor on the evolutionary scale. There are many species of
snakes that would be quite difficult to distinguish if their habitats and their
skin colourings were unknown. How many modern species would biologists
lump together if they simply had their skeletal remains with which to
reconstruct their lives is uncertain. Ironically, Christian creationists have no
trouble believing that guppies, barracuda and batfish evolved from a common
ancestor, which they incorrectly term “changes within a kind” (“kind” coming
from a Biblical translation in Genesis), without being able to scientifically
define what a “kind” is. Also, creationism cannot give any scientific
explanation as to why a barrier should be erected against primate speciation.
This is because creationists have trouble with the terms micro- and
macroevolution, and with the concept of separation between the scientific
and theological worlds. No competent scientific hypothesis or theory has
arisen since Darwin to challenge the basis of the theory of evolution.
Mendelian genetics, molecular studies, radiometric dating and anatomical
analyses have all served to reinforce the foundations of evolution. The
standard creationist response to this is to claim there is a lack of transitional
forms both in the present world and in the fossil record. This criticism has
been comprehensively refuted as transitional forms of horses, elephants and
whales, amongst many other animals, have both been excavated and described
in the scientific literature (Strahler 1999; see also the Reports of the National
Center for Science Education 2000).
Additional evidence for common descent and speciation include the fact
that all mammals, with the exception of hoofed animals, have five digits;
that flowering plants are found at the top of the fossil record; that all living
creatures have shared genes; that features in foetus states are later absorbed;
and that certain animals and plants are limited to various parts of the world
as part and parcel of speciation.
One of the predominant creationist arguments is that as a result of the eye
10