1 세기 이상 사람의 진화를 믿도록 하는데 주요한 수단이었던, 두개골과 치아의 특징들은 자주 잘못된 결과를 가져왔다.1 또한 사람의 진화에 대한 화석 증거들은 단편적이고, 여러 해석들을 가능하게 한다. 사람에 가장 가까운 살아있는 친척으로 생각하는 침팬지의 진화를 보여주는 화석증거는 존재하지 않는다.2 원시적인 유인원의 화석이 발견되었다고 주장되는 이야기들은 과장되었다.3
* Piltdown 인이 사기였다는 것을 지금은 모두가 다 인정하고 있다. 그러나 그것은 40 년 이상 교과서에 실려있었다.4
* 1978 년 이전까지, Ramapithecus의 증거는 몇 개의 치아와 턱조각 뿐이었다. 우리는 지금 이 조각들이 Louis Leakey와5 몇몇 사람들에 의해서 사람의 턱뼈와 유사한 형태로 사실과 다르게 맞추어졌다는 것을 알고 있다.6 Ramapithecus는 원숭이(ape)에 불과했다.7 (그림 13을 보라)
* 네브라스카인( Nebraska man)의 단지 한 개의 유품은 돼지의 치아로 입증됐다. (그림 14를 보라).
* Eugene Dubois 는 자바인(Java man)을 발견하고 40 년이 지나서, 그것은 큰 긴팔원숭이(gibbon)와 유사함을 시인했다. 또한 Dubois는 같은 장소에서 4 개의 긴팔원숭이 넓적다리뼈를 발견했음에도 보고하지 않았음도 인정했다.8
* 많은 전문가들은 북경인의 두개골은 완전한 사람에 의해서 조직적으로 목이 잘려지고, 식사(food)로 이용된 원숭이(ape)의 것으로 생각하고 있다.9 북경인을 Homo erectus로 분류한 것은 결단코 잘못된 것이었다고 대부분의 전문가들은 생각하고 있다.10
* Homo habilis의 최초로 확인된 사지(limb) 뼈들은 최근까지 계속 발견되어져 왔는데, 그들은 분명히 원숭이와 비슷한(apelike) 비율을 가지고 있었으며,11 결코 사람과 비슷한(manlike, Homo) 것으로 분류되어질 수 없는 것들이었다.12
* 오스트랄로피테신(australopithecines)들은 Louis Leakey와 Mary Leakey에 의해서 유명해졌는데, 이들은 사람하고는 분명히 달랐다. 오스트랄로피테신들에 대한 여러 정밀한 연구에 의하면, 그들의 신체 비율은 사람과 살아있는 원숭이 사이의 중간체가 아니었다.13 그들의 내이골(inner ear bones)에 관한 또 다른 연구에서, 이것들은 사람의 것이 아니라, 침팬지와 고릴라의 것과 매우 유사한 것으로 밝혀졌다.14 루시(Lucy)라고 불리는 105 cm의 키에 몸무게 27 kg의 성인으로 긴 팔을 가진, 한 오스트랄로피테신 화석은 모든 오스트랄로피테신이 직립보행을 한다는 증거로서 처음에 제시되었었다. 그러나 단지 무릎관절(knee joint) 만이 아니라, 루시 전체에 대한 해부학적 연구는 직립보행 가능성이 없는 것으로 나타나고 있다.15 그녀는 아마도 나무에 매달렸고,16 피그미 침팬지(pygmy chimpanzees)와 유사하였다.17 오스트랄로피테신은 아마도 멸종된 원숭이(ape)로 보인다.18
* 약 100 여년 동안 전 세계적으로 네안데르탈인은 구부정하며, 원숭이 같다는(apelike) 믿음을 가지게 되었다. 이러한 잘못된 믿음은 관절염과 구루병(rickets)과 같은 뼈 질환을 가졌던 몇몇 네안데르탈인에 기초하고 있다.19 최근에 네안데르탈인에 대한 치아와 X-ray 연구는 그들이 오늘날보다 매우 장수하였으며, 느리게 성장되는 성숙한 사람들이었음을 제시하고 있다.20 오늘날 네안데르탈인, 하이델베르그인(Heidelberg man), 그리고 크로마뇽인(Cro-Magnon man)은 완전한 사람으로 간주하고 있다. 그들에 대한 화가들의 그림은 (특별히 그들의 근육이나, 살 부분), 상상에 의해서 그려졌으며, 증거에 의해서 지지되지 않는다.21
더군다나, 이러한 화석들의 연대측정에 사용되는 기술들은 매우 의심스럽다. (See pages 31-34.)
그림 13 : 라마피테쿠스 (Ramapithecus). 몇몇 교과서에는 아직도 라마피테쿠스가 사람과 원숭이 사이의 중간형태로서 인류의 조상이라고 기록되어 있다. 이러한 잘못된 믿음은 1932년에 그림의 왼쪽 위에서 보여주는 바와 같이 윗 치아와 두 개의 뼈조각으로부터 결과되었다. 이것은 그림의 오른쪽 위와 같은 사람의 포물선 형태의 아치 (parabolic arch) 비슷한 치아 형태로 배치되어졌다. 1977 년에 라마피테쿠스의 완전한 아래 턱이 발견되었다. 턱의 진정한 모습은 포물선 형태가 아니라, 원숭이(ape)의 전형적인 형태인 U자 형이었다.
그림 14 : 네브라스카인(Nebraska Man). 화가의 그림은 추측에 의해 그려졌지만, 대중들에게 강한 영향을 끼쳤다. 네브라스카인은 멸종된 돼지의 이빨 한 개에 기초한 잘못된 판단이었다. 그러나 1922 년에 사진이 첨부된 London News는 우리들의 상상의 조상으로서 이와같은 그림을 출판하였다. 물론 어떠한 화석 증거도 여기에서와 같이 벌거벗은 사람이 몽둥이를 들고있는 이러한 그림을 지지하지 않는다.
*한국창조과학회 자료실/진화론/유인원에 있는 많은 자료들을 참조하세요
http://www.kacr.or.kr/library/listview.asp?category=I06
References and Notes
1.'... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, 'How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.
2.'Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, 'Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
3. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature, 'without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.
* Bowden, pp. 56-246.
* Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 298-305.
* Ibid., pp. 193-200.
4. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:
How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones - the cranial fragments - and 'see” a clear simian signature in them; and 'see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.
* Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.
The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, (?) who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, 'Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261-262.]
5. Allen L. Hammond, 'Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.
6. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, 'False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, August/September 1979, pp. 86-91.
7. Hammond, p. 43.
* 'The dethroning of Ramapithecus - from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982 - is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.
8. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skull cap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution - a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.
Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java 'man” to Java 'gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.
* 'Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, 'On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.
'Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.
'The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.
* W. R. Thompson, in his 'Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java 'man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293-294.] Dubois’ claims of finding 'the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.
* C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.
* Bowden, pp. 138-142, 144-148.
* Hitching, pp. 208-209.
* Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139-142.
9. Ibid., pp. 108-138.
* Bowden, pp. 90-137.
* Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.
10.'[The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.” Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in 'Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.
11. Donald C. Johanson et al., 'New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205-209.
12.'We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus.” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, 'The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.
13. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as 'Lucy.”
* '... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.
* 'Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973-1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), 'Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.
* Charles E. Oxnard, 'The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389-395.
* 'For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Zuckerman, p. 93.
* 'His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164-165.
* 'This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, 'Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.
14.'The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.” Bruce Bower, 'Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.
15. Fred Spoor et al., 'Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, pp. 645-648.
16. William L. Jungers, 'Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676-678.
* Jeremy Cherfas, 'Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172-178.
* Jack T. Stern, Jr. and Randall L. Susman, 'The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279-317.
17. Adrienne Zihlman, 'Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39-40.
18.'At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... they were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., 'One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July-August 1986, p. 417.
* 'There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, 'Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.
'We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348-349.
19. Francis Ivanhoe, 'Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577-578.
* William L. Straus, Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, 'Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348-363.
* Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, 'Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.
20. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).
* Jack Cuozzo, 'Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33-40.
21. Boyce Rensberger, 'Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.