The Evolution Chamber: Early Fossil Record

[Earthling]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

 

[Sunstone]

And the importance of that is...?

 

[Earthling]

And the importance of that is...?

Little to no evidence needed. Just the imagination of scientists.

 

[Sunstone]

Little to no evidence needed. Just the imagination of scientists.

Can anyone argue that's still the case?

Besides which, scientists have to start with an idea, too. Just like everyone else.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sorry for the simplistic point...but logic is what prevails in people's mind.
If one looks at giraffes, the most logical conclusion they reach is that only those animals that developed a long neck were able to survive because they could eat leaves on high trees.
Logic is being able to put 2 and 2 together.

 

[shunyadragon]

Little to no evidence needed. Just the imagination of scientists.

Oh my! You are still living in the past as if the science of evolution is based on the first fifty years of the birth of concept of evolution. This true of the whole history of science, and the early scientists developed ideas, concepts, theories and hypothesis on limited knowledge. Some are discarded like Lamarkian concepts of evolution, fraudulent evidence like Piltdown man, others are confirmed by discoveries, research, and the collective efforts of thousands of scientists. Evolution not only survived it is the only possible explanation of the over whelming evidence that has accumulated in the past 170+ years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Little to no evidence needed. Just the imagination of scientists.

The fossil record is just one small part of the evidence for the theory of evolution.

It is the most obvious evidence to the uneducated, but it is not the strongest evidence.

 

[sayak83]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

He is talking about the 19th century. Do you think the fossil discoveries in the last 128 years don't count for some reason?

 

[Earthling]

He is talking about the 19th century. Do you think the fossil discoveries in the last 128 years don't count for some reason?

Here we go again. Chasing our own tails. The fact was there was little to no evidence, it was based on imagination.

 

[siti]

So let me get this right - before the (fossil) evidence was found no (fossil) evidence had been found - that's really profound. In any case, Professor Washburn was certainly not questioning the fact of evolution but the manner in which conclusions about how evolution (particularly human evolution) progressed were drawn. Biologists and anthropologists around the turn of the 20th century hopefully filled in the gaps in the evidence based on their own preconceptions, the misguided view that human-kind was the pinnacle of evolution. Heck, at that time the earth itself was supposed to be a mere 40 million years old and mammals had had only had 3 million years to roam the earth in pursuit of the imaginary evolutionary target of human perfection. We now know all that is preposterously mistaken - the earth is billions of years old and mammals have been around more than 65 million years - yet it seems many would have us abandon the mistaken 19th/early 20th century viewpoint in favour of a far more laughably ridiculous bronze age interpretation in which the earth and all that is in t sprang up miraculously a mere few thousand years ago? This, of course, is an exaggerated example of precisely the kind of retrograde thinking Washburn - who's words you have taken out of context - was encouraging people to avoid.

Here's the concluding part of the same article you quoted from (bearing in mind he is an anthropologist, not a biologist and with my emphasis):

"In summary, then, I would say there has been enormous progress in the study of human evolution, which makes it incumbent on us as professionals to eliminate the residue of fossil-free accounts and the kind of thinking that went with them so that we can use the best kind of recent information to construct narratives that have a greater relationship to reality.

The other conclusion is that we were not perfected by the process of evolution, that there are problems in human biology, that there are things we can help people with and things we should leave alone. Ultimately, what the study of evolution should impart...is a more humanistic understanding of human beings".
​

He wrote that in 1982 - and there is certainly a huge amount of additional evidence that has been amassed since then - fossil and otherwise - so I reckon it is incumbent not only on "professionals" but especially on "evolution deniers" to use "the best kind of recent information" rather than falling back on cherry-picked quotes regurgitated from 1980s creationist publications that were almost a century out of date then.

In short, its time for the creationist approach to evolve! And all the people said...AMEN!

 

[shunyadragon]

Here we go again. Chasing our own tails. The fact was there was little to no evidence, it was based on imagination.

Like all the sciences in their infancy, this is deceptively false.

 

[Earthling]

Sorry for the simplistic point...but logic is what prevails in people's mind.
If one looks at giraffes, the most logical conclusion they reach is that those animals developed a long neck to be able to eat leaves on high trees.
Logic is being able to put 2 and 2 together.

The giraffe example you give isn't an example of logic, it's premise is evolution, which is faulty. Maybe the giraffe can eat leaves because it has a long neck. To throw evolution in there is an Occam's razor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again. Chasing our own tails. The fact was there was little to no evidence, it was based on imagination.

You should not make such claims when you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Why do you think that the only evidence for evolution is fossil evidence?

 

[Estro Felino]

The giraffe example you give isn't an example of logic, it's premise is evolution, which is faulty. Maybe the giraffe can eat leaves because it has a long neck. To throw evolution in there is an Occam's razor.

What is the alternative? That a wizard-God designed that disharmonious body?
The Giraffe is an example of very bad, unintelligent design.
Which excludes a divine intervention a priori.
Its survival as species is a miracle

Oddly - very oddly - the evolution-supporter has got it wrong and the denier has got it right...

I corrected my post. Lamarckism and Darwinism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[siti]

If one looks at giraffes, the most logical conclusion they reach is that those animals developed a long neck to be able to eat leaves on high trees.

Maybe the giraffe can eat leaves because it has a long neck.

Oddly - very oddly - the evolution-supporter has got it wrong and the denier has got it right...

Of course the giraffe's evolutionary ancestors did not grow long necks "so that" they could eat leaves from trees - or "so that" anything for that matter...they happened to grow longer necks and then - because they had longer necks they could eat leaves from trees that other leaf-eaters couldn't reach...they also had thick rubbery lips and noses and because of that were able to feed from acacias whose devilish thorns kept other potential eaters at bay. The giraffes found that they had little competition for this food source and were able to "exploit" this evolutionary niche. But none of it was done "on purpose".

And just to ensure that we are staying on topic - that's the same mistake that Professor Washburn was pointing out in the OP quote - - evolution does not have predefined targets - evolution is not teleological.

PS - that's the approach I am going to take from now on when people misquote scientists in order to deny the fact of evolution - I will just redirect the conversation to what the scientist was really saying.

PPS - here's a great documentary about a chap who studies giraffes for a living and what he has learned about them

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the alternative? That a wizard-God designed that disharmonious body?
The Giraffe is an example of very bad, unintelligent design.
Which excludes a divine intervention a priori.
Its survival as species is a miracle

So an inverse Babel fish. In case you did not know it the Babel fish disproves God. The Babel fish is a fish that when stuck in your ear enables you to understand every spoken language everywhere. Not just on the Earth, intergalactic species too. It is so mind numbingly impossible to be the product of evolution that it must be a product of God. But faith is necessary for a God so the existence of Babel fish takes away faith and therefore God disappears in a poof of logic.

The giraffe is such an amazingly bad piece of intelligent design it proves a God through faith. (Ow my head!)

 

[sayak83]

Here we go again. Chasing our own tails. The fact was there was little to no evidence, it was based on imagination.

There is plenty of evidence now. Making evolution of humans from apes as understood today, based of real evidence. In 19th century, there was no good reason to take that idea as justified by evidence. But today there is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is plenty of evidence now. Making evolution of humans from apes as understood today, based of real evidence. In 19th century, there was no good reason to take that idea as justified by evidence. But today there is.

Another typical flaw of creationists is that they do not tend to understand that evidence accumulates over time. They are also often about 50 years behind the times at least. I don't know how many times that I have run into creationists that think the Miller-Urey experiment is the only evidence for he related concept of abiogenesis.

 

[Revoltingest]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

Isn't it wonderful that time & effort have revealed
so many useful fossils since Darwin's day.

 

[Earthling]

Can anyone argue that's still the case?

Of course they can. They'll probably lose their job to the Science Inquisition, but they could argue it.

Besides which, scientists have to start with an idea, too. Just like everyone else.

Like Moses? No. Not like Moses at all. Moses recorded a history of events unfolding. In the case of Evolution it was far more likely an attempt, and an unnecessary attempt at that, to counter the _______ . Fill in the blank.