Summary Of Myth: First Human Existence In Africa
Milana Burykin
Professor Bryan Shuler
Humanities 2270: East/West Synthesis
April 27, 2014
Fact of Myth: First Human Existence in Africa One of the most substantial element about Africa is that human race might have originated from that location. If that is the case, then African history is one of the primary historical locations which needs to be studied thoroughly to know who we are. And in fact, some schools of thought regard Africa to be the origin of Homo sapiens (i.e. human) race. Yet, other scholars regard this idea to be baseless. Is there any evidence to support this theory, or is it a mere speculation with lack of scientific and ontological evidence. This essay will look at some prominent archaeological evidence, like Lucy fossils, and some ontological implications. One of the most prominent fossils is the skeleton of Lucy, she “is an Australopithecus apheresis, a well-documented group of early hominines” (Kappelman). She was found in Africa by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. A hominine is a classification of species which are related to humankind closer than chimpanzee. “Human and chimpanzees share over 98% of same genetic …show more content…
material” which is the current specie’s that is related to humans more than any other, but still considered to be an ape (Kappelman). So simply stated by some experts, Lucy is our ancestor who came from Africa. How accurate is the evidence for this theory? Some recent findings are casting a lot of doubt on the theory that Lucy is our ancestor. Yoel Rak, Avishad Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen conclude that “Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas” instead of the chimps (Rak, Ginzburg and Geffen). If that is the case, then Lucy cannot be an intermediate between ape and man. It is an intermediate to a gorilla which is further away from humankind. Moreover, Dr. Charles Oxnard, one of the experts in this matter, utilized most sophisticated computer aided analytics to date to conclude that australopithecines like Lucy cannot be ancestors to man but instead to apes like gorillas (Oxnard). Further, Lucy is week at her knees. In other words, the claim that Lucy is the representative link between the down-on-four limbs walking to the upright human like walking. Stern and Sussman conclude that “the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedalism that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion" (Sussman). It appears more and more that Lucy was simply another ape who like to climb with some capability to walk upright. Further, as Ann Gibbons, Science correspondent, notes that “she [Lucy] was found without her foot bones”, so there has been a lot of debate on the matter (Gibbons). This is important to note that there was no consensus for last 40 years regarding Lucy, as shown above. It does not reflect well on paleontology when colleagues cannot decide regarding the physiology of Lucy based on the fossil evidence for almost half a decade now. Yet, a lot is being claimed as factual instead of highly arguable and uncertain. There appears to be a greater tension here than Lucy. The lack of substantial or concrete evidence that shows a comprehensive picture of how evolution made jumps from one species to another, which has being the task of paleontologists ever since Darwin. That is over a hundred years now. Yet, every year a story comes out stating “the missing evidence for evolution.” And even more so, many of these stories are major national hoaxes, for instance, The Lying Stones of Dr. Beringer, 1725; The Calaveras Skull, 1866; The Piltdown Man, 1912; The Himalayan Fossils Hoax 1980s; The Piltdown Chicken, 1999. It is not any better today from Chinese fake fossils (Paleo Direct) to amateurs digging for fossils (Webster). Back to Lucy, lately, there has been discovered, “a complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia” (Ward, Kimbel and Johanson). Some think, including Donald Johanson (the man who discovered Lucy), this will finally prove that Lucy was a bipedal. Yet many individuals like, Paleoanthropologist Will Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York thinks this is a far claim. There is still no consensus within paleontology regarding any real link between the species (Gibbons). Semantically speaking, it does not appear that there was a legitimate argument against that she could not walk upright. The argument is that she is an ape that had some upright walking capacity. What is contentious is the fact that some individuals still try to make this argument about human ancestry instead of ape ancestry which only introduces more confusion into this matter. But the problem is that if she is an ancestor for apes, then evolution has pushed her evolved state away from walking upright in the next generation. I do not see the problem with this conclusion. It’s not like evolution has a mind to push Eco life in a certain direction. There are some major ontological fantasies that are introduced by many Darwinians. When the idea that everything happened by chance is evoked then it had to be followed to the end. Even the idea of survival of the fittest is an issue because that presents us with the conclusion that something for some reason wants to survive. Why would it? One can build many sophisticated ideas like the human mind ultimately, as neuroscience like to state, epiphenomenally emerged from the biological complexity. But, one still cannot evade the question: what trigger stops everything from going in the opposite direction - instead of surviving to dying. Why would evolution pick survival of the fittest instead of more death and chaos? At the base of it all this ontological idea has to be solved. My contention is that evolution theory is called a fact by many experts, yet no one agrees about its element within their own circles, and there are major ontological issues that are simply brushed under the rug, yet under the rug there is black hole. It is simply amazing how quick everyone simply states or assumes that someone else has proved the theory. However, looking at two following examples above there does not seem to be any signs of concrete factual evidence and/or consensus on the matter. So, why is it that textbooks and national universities make claims which are not accurate? For instance, there is no real evidence that Lucy is a human ancestor hence making the human race come from Africa. Scientists who research these subjects majorly disagree between each other, having more evidence that she is just another ape. Yet, reading text books, including science books, reveals a different story. Quotes like “Africa is likely the cradle of human race” is all over the text books. It is all over universities’ websites making statement like: evolution “is an observable fact which can absolutely be observed in both living organisms and in the fossil record” (Kappelman). Without talking about observable organisms, what fossil records is Texas University talking about? Further, who are the scientists and where are the peer reviews that show that fact? It does not help when there is life size figure of Lucy at St.
Louis Zoo, which does not represent anything what modern science claims it to be (Buckna). Per current evidence, Lucy was not an upright walking species, she most likely was a tree climber because her joints were made for it. Further, she did not have human-like hands and feet, she had long curved fingers and toes representative to arboreal primates than any other species. Yet, there are some sign that there were some differences. The important question to ask is, was Lucy just another cousin of the current apes which went extinct before her cousins or was she their ancestor. Simply stated, it is a very hard task to navigate between all the points of view within the evolution theory, and even harder when philosophy and arts are thrown in the mix
(Kappelman). Part of the problem is that science is changing quicker than public can be informed. Somewhere along the line scientists prematurely stated that evolution theory was a fact and now it is a big oiled machine that keeps going forward. The theory is in every text book, it is taught in every university. It is hard to question what is already written, one has to dig through a lot of research and history. But one thing is certain, it is an old outdated shuttle that needs to be retired just like the NASA shuttle. A new shuttle needs to be built. Further, central school of Art’s simply rejects the theory as being a viable solution. Most of leading modern philosophy departments and scholars regard the theory outdated and refuse to waste their ink on it. From leading philosophers like Richard Swinburn to William Lane Craig to Elvin Plantinga. Hence, it does not seems like there is any concrete evidence for Lucy being the missing link between the apes and the humans in the evolutionary chain. Ontologically there are some hard issues that were never settled, and more so, the issues are simply ignored. Based on the evidence and the unsettled social/pie situation, t is very hard to believe that human race came from Africa.
Works Cited
Buckna, David. "THE GREAT PRIMATE DEBATE; THE ZOO 'S MODEL OF AN EARLY HUMAN IS TAINTED." St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) (1996): 1E. .
Gibbons, Ann. Lucy Had a Spring in Her Step. 10 February 2011. Website. 5 April 2014. .
Kappelman, John. eLucy. 2007. 10 April 2014. .
Oxnard, Charles E. Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution. Washington of University Press, 1987. April 2014.
Paleo Direct. 2000. Blog. 5 April 2014. .
Rak, Yoel, Avishag Ginzburg and Eli Geffen. "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths." PNAS (2007): 6568-6572. Article.
Sussman, Robert. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60 (n.d.): 279-310. Article.
Ward, Carlol V, William H Kimbel and Donald C Johanson. "Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis." Science 331.6018 (2011): 750-753. Article. .
Webster, Donovan. The Dinosaur Fossil Wars. April 2009. Article. 20 April 2014. .
Professor Bryan Shuler
Humanities 2270: East/West Synthesis
April 27, 2014
Fact of Myth: First Human Existence in Africa One of the most substantial element about Africa is that human race might have originated from that location. If that is the case, then African history is one of the primary historical locations which needs to be studied thoroughly to know who we are. And in fact, some schools of thought regard Africa to be the origin of Homo sapiens (i.e. human) race. Yet, other scholars regard this idea to be baseless. Is there any evidence to support this theory, or is it a mere speculation with lack of scientific and ontological evidence. This essay will look at some prominent archaeological evidence, like Lucy fossils, and some ontological implications. One of the most prominent fossils is the skeleton of Lucy, she “is an Australopithecus apheresis, a well-documented group of early hominines” (Kappelman). She was found in Africa by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. A hominine is a classification of species which are related to humankind closer than chimpanzee. “Human and chimpanzees share over 98% of same genetic …show more content…
material” which is the current specie’s that is related to humans more than any other, but still considered to be an ape (Kappelman). So simply stated by some experts, Lucy is our ancestor who came from Africa. How accurate is the evidence for this theory? Some recent findings are casting a lot of doubt on the theory that Lucy is our ancestor. Yoel Rak, Avishad Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen conclude that “Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas” instead of the chimps (Rak, Ginzburg and Geffen). If that is the case, then Lucy cannot be an intermediate between ape and man. It is an intermediate to a gorilla which is further away from humankind. Moreover, Dr. Charles Oxnard, one of the experts in this matter, utilized most sophisticated computer aided analytics to date to conclude that australopithecines like Lucy cannot be ancestors to man but instead to apes like gorillas (Oxnard). Further, Lucy is week at her knees. In other words, the claim that Lucy is the representative link between the down-on-four limbs walking to the upright human like walking. Stern and Sussman conclude that “the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedalism that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion" (Sussman). It appears more and more that Lucy was simply another ape who like to climb with some capability to walk upright. Further, as Ann Gibbons, Science correspondent, notes that “she [Lucy] was found without her foot bones”, so there has been a lot of debate on the matter (Gibbons). This is important to note that there was no consensus for last 40 years regarding Lucy, as shown above. It does not reflect well on paleontology when colleagues cannot decide regarding the physiology of Lucy based on the fossil evidence for almost half a decade now. Yet, a lot is being claimed as factual instead of highly arguable and uncertain. There appears to be a greater tension here than Lucy. The lack of substantial or concrete evidence that shows a comprehensive picture of how evolution made jumps from one species to another, which has being the task of paleontologists ever since Darwin. That is over a hundred years now. Yet, every year a story comes out stating “the missing evidence for evolution.” And even more so, many of these stories are major national hoaxes, for instance, The Lying Stones of Dr. Beringer, 1725; The Calaveras Skull, 1866; The Piltdown Man, 1912; The Himalayan Fossils Hoax 1980s; The Piltdown Chicken, 1999. It is not any better today from Chinese fake fossils (Paleo Direct) to amateurs digging for fossils (Webster). Back to Lucy, lately, there has been discovered, “a complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia” (Ward, Kimbel and Johanson). Some think, including Donald Johanson (the man who discovered Lucy), this will finally prove that Lucy was a bipedal. Yet many individuals like, Paleoanthropologist Will Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York thinks this is a far claim. There is still no consensus within paleontology regarding any real link between the species (Gibbons). Semantically speaking, it does not appear that there was a legitimate argument against that she could not walk upright. The argument is that she is an ape that had some upright walking capacity. What is contentious is the fact that some individuals still try to make this argument about human ancestry instead of ape ancestry which only introduces more confusion into this matter. But the problem is that if she is an ancestor for apes, then evolution has pushed her evolved state away from walking upright in the next generation. I do not see the problem with this conclusion. It’s not like evolution has a mind to push Eco life in a certain direction. There are some major ontological fantasies that are introduced by many Darwinians. When the idea that everything happened by chance is evoked then it had to be followed to the end. Even the idea of survival of the fittest is an issue because that presents us with the conclusion that something for some reason wants to survive. Why would it? One can build many sophisticated ideas like the human mind ultimately, as neuroscience like to state, epiphenomenally emerged from the biological complexity. But, one still cannot evade the question: what trigger stops everything from going in the opposite direction - instead of surviving to dying. Why would evolution pick survival of the fittest instead of more death and chaos? At the base of it all this ontological idea has to be solved. My contention is that evolution theory is called a fact by many experts, yet no one agrees about its element within their own circles, and there are major ontological issues that are simply brushed under the rug, yet under the rug there is black hole. It is simply amazing how quick everyone simply states or assumes that someone else has proved the theory. However, looking at two following examples above there does not seem to be any signs of concrete factual evidence and/or consensus on the matter. So, why is it that textbooks and national universities make claims which are not accurate? For instance, there is no real evidence that Lucy is a human ancestor hence making the human race come from Africa. Scientists who research these subjects majorly disagree between each other, having more evidence that she is just another ape. Yet, reading text books, including science books, reveals a different story. Quotes like “Africa is likely the cradle of human race” is all over the text books. It is all over universities’ websites making statement like: evolution “is an observable fact which can absolutely be observed in both living organisms and in the fossil record” (Kappelman). Without talking about observable organisms, what fossil records is Texas University talking about? Further, who are the scientists and where are the peer reviews that show that fact? It does not help when there is life size figure of Lucy at St.
Louis Zoo, which does not represent anything what modern science claims it to be (Buckna). Per current evidence, Lucy was not an upright walking species, she most likely was a tree climber because her joints were made for it. Further, she did not have human-like hands and feet, she had long curved fingers and toes representative to arboreal primates than any other species. Yet, there are some sign that there were some differences. The important question to ask is, was Lucy just another cousin of the current apes which went extinct before her cousins or was she their ancestor. Simply stated, it is a very hard task to navigate between all the points of view within the evolution theory, and even harder when philosophy and arts are thrown in the mix
(Kappelman). Part of the problem is that science is changing quicker than public can be informed. Somewhere along the line scientists prematurely stated that evolution theory was a fact and now it is a big oiled machine that keeps going forward. The theory is in every text book, it is taught in every university. It is hard to question what is already written, one has to dig through a lot of research and history. But one thing is certain, it is an old outdated shuttle that needs to be retired just like the NASA shuttle. A new shuttle needs to be built. Further, central school of Art’s simply rejects the theory as being a viable solution. Most of leading modern philosophy departments and scholars regard the theory outdated and refuse to waste their ink on it. From leading philosophers like Richard Swinburn to William Lane Craig to Elvin Plantinga. Hence, it does not seems like there is any concrete evidence for Lucy being the missing link between the apes and the humans in the evolutionary chain. Ontologically there are some hard issues that were never settled, and more so, the issues are simply ignored. Based on the evidence and the unsettled social/pie situation, t is very hard to believe that human race came from Africa.
Works Cited
Buckna, David. "THE GREAT PRIMATE DEBATE; THE ZOO 'S MODEL OF AN EARLY HUMAN IS TAINTED." St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) (1996): 1E. .
Gibbons, Ann. Lucy Had a Spring in Her Step. 10 February 2011. Website. 5 April 2014. .
Kappelman, John. eLucy. 2007. 10 April 2014. .
Oxnard, Charles E. Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution. Washington of University Press, 1987. April 2014.
Paleo Direct. 2000. Blog. 5 April 2014. .
Rak, Yoel, Avishag Ginzburg and Eli Geffen. "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths." PNAS (2007): 6568-6572. Article.
Sussman, Robert. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60 (n.d.): 279-310. Article.
Ward, Carlol V, William H Kimbel and Donald C Johanson. "Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis." Science 331.6018 (2011): 750-753. Article. .
Webster, Donovan. The Dinosaur Fossil Wars. April 2009. Article. 20 April 2014. .