I remember reading a claim by an anti-evolutionist that all supposed “ancient human” fossils (australopithecus, other early hominids) could fit into a very small box. I think that the book was published in the early 1980s.
I suppose that could have been true at one point, but I am fairly certain that it would not be true today. What kind of space would one need today to display every single pre-human fossil that we have found so far?
Also, I doubt that neanderthals would qualify as “pre-human” anymore, but I do know that they were once depicted as simian brutes. If you included neanderthals in the mix, would that add greatly to the mass of these “pre-human” fossils?
The first, most obvious response to this claim is: “What does that have to do with anything?” The average human skeleton today fits in a rather small box. Much more important is that we have a series of fossils that demonstrates a lineage from apes through proto-homans to H. sapiens, many of which have only ben described since the 1990’s. We now know that the human family tree isn’t so much a tree as a rather weedy bush, with all kinds of different lineages arising and becoming extinct, and many differnt types of human ancestors co-existing at the same time.
The claim is not only false, it’s also irrelevant. The validity of evidence is not measured in physical mass. A DNA sample can fit on the head of a pin.
Evolutionary theory does not rely on fossil evidence anyway. Fossilization is a fluke occurrence, and it’s only luck that we have any at all. They’re useful for tracing pathways, but not necessary to confirm the theory. It’s really the genetic evidence that nails the box shut.
It’s true, but only for very high values of “small”.
For example, trilobites and ammonites were already extinct long, long before early hominids appeared. Considering the massive amounts of fossiles of those there are in every rock of the Earth, from a sea cliff side to a mountain peak, I’d say the box would need to be shaped like a sphere, about, say, 6.000 kilometers in radius, maybe a bit more ;).
EDIT : Nevermind, the OP specified human fossils alone. However, I fail to see the creationists’ point. Isn’t “a very small box” enough to disprove their grand theory of absolutely everything assuming it’s in the bible ?
Well, that and dogs. And sheep and corn. And anything else that’s been subject to selection, because human selection’s ability to change an organism shows even an idiot that other selection pressures (i.e., natural or sexual) would have the same effect.
Heck, I’m a creationist and I know that’s not true. The Peking Man bones alone took several big trunks to be packed up in before they were lost in the early days of World War II.
This sounds like a misquote (deliberate or otherwise) of a statement I heard many years ago (and have cited on this board) that all pre-Cenozoic mammal fossils could fit into a shoebox. THAT statement I believe to be true (even still), because
a.) There were so few of them – they are extremely fragile
b.) The creatures were very small, very much mouse-sized
c.) the fossils themselves were very rare, owing i part to their fragility but also to the fact that there probably weren’'t very many of them scurrying around in the first place.
Human remains are also comparativey rare, but they were by no means small, and they’d certainly take up more than a shoebox.
When reading this discussion, keep in mind that it all depends on how you count the bones. For instance, Afarensis notes that there are over 400 Neanderthals. There are far more than 400 Neanderthal bones. There are over 400 Neanderthal individuals that have been identified. There are thousands of Neanderthal bones.
QUOTE]
Well, I thought that I had remembered this correctly (about rather extensive fossil documentation of the Neanderthals)! It is always nice to have an accurate memory once in a while (sadly, such instances are few and far between, nowadays).
I try to tell my fundamentalist relatives and friends that many creationist books are full of distortions and outright lies. I do not think that anything that I say or any information that I present will really dislodge the “Bible is right, everything else is wrong” mentality, since, in their mind, any person that disagrees with them/“the literal interpretation of the Bible” has had their mind “clouded by the Devil”. But I appreciate the information, anyway!
Demanding physical mass is kinda silly. How much mass does DNA take? Especially when its been digitized on a hard drive? Perhaps it would be better if they asked how many megabytes of this stuff we have.
I think the real problem here is that these guys keep moving the goal posts. First they denied neanderthals (and others), now they accept them, but just categorize them as non-human apes. Then they made a fuss about transition fossils, because what we have is never enough. Then they dismiss carbon dating because its not perfect. This is just another disingenuous ploy by people who are doing their best to confuse others and push their own agenda.
That said, to answer your question more directly, here are some pre-human skulls. There’s no way youre fitting all of them in a shoebox. Heck, you’d be lucky to fit just one. Of course the creationists will hem and haw over which one is “pre-human.” Having them define what we have is just putting the ball in their court. Most of these skulls are our ancestors.
I think the argument is not based on “quantity=right” so much as the idea that there is not (or at least was not - it’s a very old argument) enough hominid fossils to establish whole skeletons, standard population variation, etc. Some of the finds might be one-off examples of physical deformity due to birth defect, poor diet, etc. (As I understand it, there’s a similar debate over “hobbits” in the scientific community, where the question is whether a fossil is a normal adult, a deformed adult, or a deformed toddler.)
No, they have an explanation for that. Whenever an organism changes over time through selection, all that’s happening is that some of the original genes of that “kind” are being turned off or on. So the two dogs that got on to the ark had within them the genes for everything from a chihahua to a wolf to a St Bernard to a coyote (which actually in the case of dogs is less ludicrous than other animals).
So what do you know? Any solid evidence of natural selection is really evidence of the Creation model…
But the explanation is different from the observation. They’ve observed that it works when a human limits which animals breed.
Surely natural selection would work just as well as human selection to turn off and on genes for “kinds” The genes turning on and off for “kinds” don’t care if a human or an earthquake is responsible for these two particular animals breeding.
Hehe…if you can answer that you’ll definitely be a popular guy at fundie church!
The classification of life into “kinds”, Creationists have given the scientific-sounding name Baraminology. However, fancy names aside, they make very few claims.
Certainly organisms that can interbreed (whether they produce fertile young or not) are a single baramin / kind, but beyond that, very little is claimed (two species incapable of interbreeding may or may not be one baramin; they could be a single Kind corrupted by “The Curse”).
I know way too much about this shit. I’ll be honest: I take a morbid fascination from it
Again, to describe the nut jobs’ theory: of course Kinds have their genes turned on or off by the environment as well as by human action.
Creationism has no problem with natural selection (any more). Indeed it’s natural selection that has allowed for the handful of Kinds on the ark to become the millions of species we see today.
In fact, just like everything else in nature, natural selection has been on crazy-ass fast-forward since The Fall, with speciation happening like mad, and has slowed right down to it’s current rate in time for the modern, scientific era…
Well, I know I’m not arguing with the nutjobs themselves…but…evolution (the observation that life forms have changed and are changing over time) was not in serious dispute in Darwin’s time – natural philosophers and churchmen alike observed it. The method by which evolution works was what was un-described until Darwin (and Wallace!) proposed natural selection.
Creationists and their spiritual forbears have been arguing against natural selection all this time, merely calling it evolution (which was already “proved” before the argument started) incorrectly.
They cannot with any intellectual honesty now claim that they accept natural selection, since that’s the thing they’ve been arguing against. And lying is a sin before God. Argh, these people give me heartburn.
Could we have had Evolutionary theory without ANY fossils? I mean, today we could go purely on DNA but fossils provide the timeframe (physical-evidence-wise) that DNA can only provide as interpolations on gene change.
