Basic HTML Version
36
Darwin's day. Perhaps that is why Dar–
win mentioned the origin of human
beings only
ONCE
in his
The
Origi11
of
Species.
And it was, as one book mcntioncd, a
"single timid sentence." Said Darwin,
"Light will be thrown on the origin
of man and his history."
Darwin was extremely troubled by
this lack of fossil proof for his theory.
Yet, he believed that fossils alone could
provide the only possible direct proof
that evolution had in fact occurred.
Time after time, throughout his
The
Origin of Species,
Darwin almost apolo–
getically made such admissions as, "As
by this theory innumerable transitional
forros must have cxisted, why do we
not
find
them embedded in countless num–
bers in the crust of the earth? ... l will
here only state that I
BELIEVE
thc
answer mainly líes in the record being
incomparably less perfect than is gener–
ally supposed." (Charles Darwin,
The
Origin of Species,
New York: Collier,
1962,
page
168.)
He was, of course, referring to the
lack of transitional forms - to "miss–
ing finks" in his proposed evolutionary
succession. In fact, these transitional
forros should have been, in sorne cases,
MORE
abundant than thc final product.
But there were none to be had - not
even among the animal and plant world
he cited. As far as the evolution of man,
it was a
COMPLETE
blank. There was
nothing.
Darwin offered the
assmnpt
ion
that
thc record of fossils was incomplcte.
Still, he nonetheless worried about this
most serious problem.
Paucity of tbe Fossil Record
Darwin simply had
NO
fossil cvi–
dence for the evolution of man.
If
anything, the record at thc time
indicatcd that man - indeed plants
and nnimals- had
NOT
evolved.
Darwin was extremely puzzled. Why
wecc intermediate forn1S lacking?
On this score Darwin was quite
frank:
"Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely graduated organic chain
[of intermediate species], and this, per–
haps, is the
most
obtiiom
ttñd serio11s
objection
which can be urgcd against
the theory.
The
PLAIN TRUTH
"The explanation Iies, as I
BELIEVE,
in the extreme imperfection of the geo–
logical record" (lbid., page 308).
In finality he stated, "Those who
believe that the gcological record is in
any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at
once
REJECT
the theory" (Ibid., page
334) .
New Discoveries Come to Light
Progressivcly, since the 1856 dis–
covery of a skeleton in the Neander
Valley in Germany, bones and other
evidences of ancicnt man have accumu–
lated.
If
the evolution of man were true,
the proof should be conclusive and
irrefutable. But thc question is, What
does the fossi l cvidence show? Have the
"missing links" bcen found? Has the
origin of man been darified?
Let's go back, in time, to sorne of the
original discoveries.
In 1856, a facclcss, heavy-browed
sb:ull cap was discovered in a small river
valley ncar Diisseldorf. That was the
first discovery of the enigmatic Nean–
derthal Man - Neander Valley Man.
In 1886, two similar skulls wcre dug
out of a cave near Spy, Belgium.
Since that time, remains presumed to
represent multiple dozens of Neander–
thal specimens have been found in
about 50 sites ranging from Asia and
Europe to North Africa.
Then in 1908, an almost complete
skeleton was found at La Chapelle-aux–
Saints in southwestern France. The
remains werc scnt for study to the
director of the French Institute of
Human Paleontology, anatomist-paleon–
tologist Marcellin Boule.
It was Boule's
iulerprelaJion
of these
particular skeletal rcmains that was to
stereotype the dcscriptions of al! the
future Neanderthal remains yet to be
found. The skeletal features of the new
"ancestor" wcrc in line with what
paleoanth ropologists
expected
lo find
and hencc were very satisfying indeed.
Birth of a False Image
Thus was born the world's first
acceptable "missing link." The building
up of the Neanderthal image to univer–
sal recognition was an accomplishment
to be envied even by moJern-day press
agents and Madison Avenue advertisers.
Australian-British brain anatomist Sir
Junc-July, 1970
Elliott Smith was one wbo displayed
elO<¡uence in describing "uncouth and
repellant" Neanderthal Man:
"His short, thick-set, and coarsely
built body was carried in a half-stooped
slouch upon short, powerful, and half–
flexed legs of peculíarly ungraceful
form. His thick neck sloped forward
from the broad shoulders to support the
massivc llattened head, which protruded
forward, so as to form an unbrokcn
curve of neck and baclc"
In finality, Smith concluded that
"heavy" eyebrow ridges, retreating fore–
head, chinlessness all "combined to
complete the picture of unattractiveness,
which
it
is more probabLe than not
was
sti11 fu rthcr emphasized by a shaggy
coverin~
of hair over most of the body"
(G. Elliott Smith,
The Erobttion of
iWan.
London: Oxford University Press,
1924, pages 69-70).
For over
f
orty years, bestial and
stooped, with head thrust forward,
Ncandcrthal Man posed for countl<:ss
museum displays, history and anthro–
pology textbooks and car toonists tht
wor ld over - all based on Boule's
interpretatiou
and
reconstmction
of the
bones of La Chapelle-aux-Saints.
Yet, today scientists now know that
Boule was mistaken in many important
aspects of Neanderthal Man.
Boule, however, was not entirely at
fault.
lt
was the press' interpretation of
Bou le's analysis that was the real cul–
prit. Journalistic accounts often over–
emphasized the more sensational aspects
of Bou le's reports.
As is so often tbe case, the general
populace is fed hurried journalistic
accounts. Thcse often deeply impress the
mind with false ideas. It was the press
that creatcd a sort of fossiJ Frankenstein
monster. No doubt, the average person
STIU.
thinks of Neanderthal Man as
brutish, dull and primitive.
Neanderthal No "Beast"
In 1955 two professors of anatomy,
William Straus of Johns Hopkins
University and A.
J.
E. Cave of St. Bar–
tholomew's Hospital Medica! Collcge,
London, re-examined the skcleton of
La Ch.tpcl k-aux-Saints restmg in the
¡\I({Jc!e de
/'flom7lll!,
París.
According to their report, later pub-