Well, fieldsofwind, you sure seem to love those Sean D. Pitman essays. I decided to start going through your first link (
Early Man). Rather than tackle all of those hominids, I arbitrarily skipped down to the section on Lucy (being a famous fossil find and all).
In paritcular, the author lists a table of 11 points that seem to point towards Lucy being a full-fledged ape rather than a transitional form.
1. General anatomy of Lucy's shoulder blade was characterized as "virtually identical to that of a great ape and had a probability less than 0.001 of coming from the population represented by our modern human sample" (Susman et al, 1984, pp 120-121)
2. Lucy's shoulder blade has a shoulder joint which points upwards (Oxnard 1984, p334-i; Stern and Susman 1983, p284) This would allow "use of the upper limb in elevated positions as would be common during climbing behavior" (Stern and Susman, 1983, p284). 5
3. Afarensis wrist bones are apelike. "Thus we may conclude that A. afarensis possessed large and mechanically advantageous wrist flexors, as might be useful in an arboreal setting" (Stern and Susman, 1983, p282).
4. Afarensis metacarpals [the bones in the palm of the hand] "have large heads and bases relative to their parallel sided and somewhat curved shafts an overall pattern shared by chimpanzees". This "might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior" (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-3).
5. The finger bones are even more curved than in chimpanzees and are morphologically chimpanzee-like. (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-4; Susman et al 1984 p. 117; Marzke 1983, p 198).
9. "Recently Schmid (1983) has reconstructed the A.L. 288-1 rib cage as being chimpanzee-like" Susman et al 1984, p 131).
10. Blades of hip oriented as in chimpanzee (Stern and Susman 1983, p.292.) Features of afarensis hip therefore "enable proficient climbing" (Stern and Susman 1983, p. 290).
Above, are various quotes relating to Stern and Susman that appear to lend their support to the idea of a chimpanzee. However, additional references to their 1983 paper say otherwise:
"In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality ..."
And,
"we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of _A. afarensis_ than in any living nonhuman primate."
So, it appears Stern and Susman had no such problems with Lucy's place in humankind's evolutionary history as a bipedal primate.
source
Further quotes reference Dr. Charles Oxnard:
6. Afarensis humerus (upper arm bone) has features that are "most likely related to some form of arboreal locomotion" (Oxnard 1984, p.334-1; see also Senut 1981, p.282).
8. Vertebrae show points of attachment for shoulder and back muscles "massive relative to their size in modern humans" (Cook et al 1983, p.86) These would be very useful for arboreal activity (Oxnard 1984, p 334-i).
11. In 1987, Dr. Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) completed a detailed computer analysis of australopithecine fossils, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of arboreal ape.6
What's interesting is that Dr. Oxford apparently never did any work on the actual Lucy skeleton, as this
email reveals (posted on the t.o. newsgroup). He mentions that he believes that Australopithecines were aboreal (tree-dwelling), but draws no conclusions about their bipedality. He also mentions,
"I don't think any of this stuff should ever be put VERY strongly because it is all sub-hypothesis, ready to be tested and failed with future work." Interesting.
I didn't bother with quote #7 since it seemed a bit superfluous.
Anyway, while digging through that list for references, I ran into something equally interesting. In this
archived email debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley, the first 10 items on the list show up in reference to the book "Forbidden Archaeology" by Cremo and Thompson (1993, pg 730). The Sean D. Pitman essay gives no reference to either the authors or the book. Furthermore, number 11 on that list bears striking resemblance to number 21 on
Impact 282 written by David Buckna and Denis Laidlaw in 1996 and published by the ICR. Again, there is no reference to the ICR in Pitman's essay.
A bit suspicious now, I discovered something else with relation to the paragraph above the list (in Pitman's essay):
"Paleoanthropologist Dave Phillips says that A. afarensis in general (which Lucy is classed as) has long upper limbs. The ratio of the arm length to the leg length is large, approaching almost 85% of the leg length. The shape of the toe bones is ape-like. They are curved, having a divergence not seen in Homo, indicating that A. afarensis did not habitually walk upright and which are seen in tree dwellers. Close study of the teeth, hand bones, inner ears, and other bones of australopithecines, including Lucy, indicate a strong similarity to apes." - Sean D. Pitman
If you visit this article entitled
Fossil Men: Part III (written by Jon Covey), you might notice something. Partway down the page is the quote:
"Paleoanthropologist Dave Phillips says that A. afarensis has long upper limbs. The ratio of the arm length to the leg length is too large, approaching almost 85% of the leg length. The shape of the toe bones is ape-like. They are curved, having a divergence not seen in Homo, indicating that A. afarensis did not habitually walk upright. The legs are not like chimps'. To see these creatures in action would explain why the pelvis and lower limbs are the way they are." - Jon Covey
And if you go to the bottom of the page is the quote:
"Close study of the teeth, hand bones, inner ears, and other bones of australopithecines, including Lucy, indicates that they are not intermediate forms between man and apes but are distinctly apes." - Jon Covey
Hmmm, two seperate articles with very similar wording. Now, I'm not sure when the "Fossil Men Part III" article was written, but that evidence, coupled with the table that Sean D. Pitman used (that appeared to be taken from "Forbidden Archaeology" with an addition from the ICR), and the fact that there are NO references to these whatsoever in Pitman's essay, leads me to some dubious conclusions about Pitman's work.
