Scan barcode
branch_c's review
2.0
Rupe and Sanford have certainly put significant research and thought into the arguments made in this book. The authors raise a number of points that could be valid, given a certain view of the evidence available. However, it’s that view that can get in the way of doing scientific work for its own sake and not in the service of an agenda.
From the beginning, the authors set out to convey evolution as a “theory in crisis” based on the fact that there is still some confusion and debate about the details. But considering the numerous varieties of fossils discussed in this book, the authors, and readers of this book, should keep in mind that the very existence of different species of apes, and different variants within a species, is itself a demonstration of evolution, if only in the sense that the authors propose at the end of the book, in which apes and humans each have multiple variants, but remain separate groups.
They also tend to portray the arguments of their opponents negatively by using terms like ”admit” and “confess”. If one’s own argument is strong, there is little need to take this approach. When experts say that the precise ancestry of humans is unclear and can be confusing, that is not an admission or a confession; it’s a statement of fact. As more data is gathered, maybe things will become clearer. Or maybe not - there are no guarantees of easy answers. As suggested early in the book, “Perhaps an on-going debate is a sign of a healthy field of science.” (p. 20)
The authors take the position that there are humans and there are apes, and every species discussed fits neatly into one of these two categories. For example, in chapter 3 there are 25 pages making the case that humans and Neanderthals are close enough to be considered variants of the same species. This effort seems a bit excessive for a conclusion that’s not particularly controversial. On p. 38, there is a continued discussion about the implausibility of “complete reproductive isolation” between humans and Neanderthals - but it was already noted back on p. 30 that modern humans have between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA, so this discussion is irrelevant.
Chapter 4 makes a similar case for Homo erectus, but in this case the argument is less convincing. We should not expect the boundaries between erectus and Homo sapiens to be “clearly demarcated” (p. 58) - the populations changed over time. There was never a moment when one species became another. The conclusion of this chapter is that erectus is “fully human” as opposed to “sub-human” without defining either term. The reduced height and reduced brain volume of erectus is explained by “reductive evolution” - but that term doesn’t mean “backward evolution” as opposed to “forward evolution”, it just means a reduction in genetic complexity, which is not what the authors are trying to claim here. There is no such thing as direction in evolution. There is only evolution by natural selection to adapt to a given environment (along with genetic drift).
Chapter 5 attempts to make a similar argument for Homo floriensis being a variant of Homo sapiens, and this is even less convincing, since part of the argument is that floriensis is close enough to be considered the same species as either Homo sapiens or erectus - and it hasn’t been established that these are the same.
Then the authors move on to species they consider to be apes, starting with Australopithecus afarensis in chapter 6, where they present the controversy about the “Lucy” fossil, and proceeding to Ardipithecus ramidis in chapter 7. In both cases the incompleteness of the skeletons are emphasized. Researchers are accused of “marketing” their finds (p. 118), of having a “treasure hunt mentality” (p. 123), and having a “bizarre interpretation” (p. 124). Again, it’s unfortunate that the authors see a place for personal attacks in a scientific discussion.
The next three chapters are devoted to candidates for species that are neither entirely ape nor entirely human: Homo habilis, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo naledi. The authors dismiss the first two as a mixture of ape and human bones, and conclude that naledi is “fully human” based on their interpretation of the fossils as well as discussion of their presumed behavior, such as use of fire and burial of dead. But the continued use of the term “fully human” is not an argument against naledi (or floriensis) having been different species, or different stages in human evolution. As an example, consider that eagles build nests. We would not say that sparrows, because they also build nests, must be “fully eagle”. Neither are they “sub-eagle” - they are simply different species that share many traits, including nest building.
The authors list a number of traits suggesting that naledi is a separate species and then propose alternative interpretations for each one: inbreeding, vitamin D deficiency, physiological adaptation... while these explanations are each plausible, it seems less likely that all of these conditions were present than that naledi really was a different variant. The reader has to start wondering at this point what would be sufficient evidence to convince the authors that two sets of fossils represent different species.
Many of the arguments presented here are an attempt to persuade the general public, whom the authors feel have been misled into trusting a false narrative. But with arguments as technical as some of these, the appropriate audience is probably the scientific community itself rather than the general reader. This is particularly true about chapter 12, with its discussion of “excess argon” and “thorium solubility”. Disputes on these topics can be best addressed by experts, who at this point apparently accept that the dating methods have some level of validity. The genetic arguments presented in chapter 13 also fall into this category. If the authors’ arguments are strong, their peer reviewed papers on the subjects should be enough to convince the experts that they were mistaken, and the consensus view can be changed.
The effort expended in casting doubt on paleontological work from its origins to the present day certainly wasn’t easy, and the authors are to be commended for their diligence in doing this in as methodical a way as possible. However, a more difficult task remains: to propose an alternative hypothesis for the diversity of life and the origin of humanity. This is attempted beginning on page 318 (of 329) where the authors abandon scientific study and ask us to consider biblical history and special creation as the explanation. Even the gospel itself makes an appearance on page 328. But having spent more than 300 pages pointing out the discrepancies in the scientific exploration of hominid ancestry, it should be clear that an expression of faith in the truth of Christianity in the final 10 pages will not be sufficient to replace the structure the authors have tried to dismantle. Just as there is room to cast doubt on the “ape-to-man story”, books of similar length could be (and have been) written casting doubts on the Christian narrative, as the authors are well aware.
In the end, I think Rupe and Sanford have done some serious research and come up with some plausible sounding arguments, but have approached the project with the intention of supporting their idea that evolution is not true. While the authors’ convictions are no doubt sincere, this is not an ideal perspective from which to address this subject.
Note, it should be admitted that anything is possible, and challenges are needed to ensure that scientific progress is self-correcting. But the basic issue is that in spite of the contention among scientists and lack of complete clarity about the ancestry of humanity, there simply is no better explanation for what life looks like today than evolution.
On a minor editorial note, the book is a bit repetitive in places and contains a number of typos, so probably could have benefited from some additional editing.
Readers of this book who are truly interested in evolution should also consider Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero, and perhaps Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale.
Thanks very much to the brother of one of the authors for giving me a copy of this book, knowing of my interest in evolution.
From the beginning, the authors set out to convey evolution as a “theory in crisis” based on the fact that there is still some confusion and debate about the details. But considering the numerous varieties of fossils discussed in this book, the authors, and readers of this book, should keep in mind that the very existence of different species of apes, and different variants within a species, is itself a demonstration of evolution, if only in the sense that the authors propose at the end of the book, in which apes and humans each have multiple variants, but remain separate groups.
They also tend to portray the arguments of their opponents negatively by using terms like ”admit” and “confess”. If one’s own argument is strong, there is little need to take this approach. When experts say that the precise ancestry of humans is unclear and can be confusing, that is not an admission or a confession; it’s a statement of fact. As more data is gathered, maybe things will become clearer. Or maybe not - there are no guarantees of easy answers. As suggested early in the book, “Perhaps an on-going debate is a sign of a healthy field of science.” (p. 20)
The authors take the position that there are humans and there are apes, and every species discussed fits neatly into one of these two categories. For example, in chapter 3 there are 25 pages making the case that humans and Neanderthals are close enough to be considered variants of the same species. This effort seems a bit excessive for a conclusion that’s not particularly controversial. On p. 38, there is a continued discussion about the implausibility of “complete reproductive isolation” between humans and Neanderthals - but it was already noted back on p. 30 that modern humans have between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA, so this discussion is irrelevant.
Chapter 4 makes a similar case for Homo erectus, but in this case the argument is less convincing. We should not expect the boundaries between erectus and Homo sapiens to be “clearly demarcated” (p. 58) - the populations changed over time. There was never a moment when one species became another. The conclusion of this chapter is that erectus is “fully human” as opposed to “sub-human” without defining either term. The reduced height and reduced brain volume of erectus is explained by “reductive evolution” - but that term doesn’t mean “backward evolution” as opposed to “forward evolution”, it just means a reduction in genetic complexity, which is not what the authors are trying to claim here. There is no such thing as direction in evolution. There is only evolution by natural selection to adapt to a given environment (along with genetic drift).
Chapter 5 attempts to make a similar argument for Homo floriensis being a variant of Homo sapiens, and this is even less convincing, since part of the argument is that floriensis is close enough to be considered the same species as either Homo sapiens or erectus - and it hasn’t been established that these are the same.
Then the authors move on to species they consider to be apes, starting with Australopithecus afarensis in chapter 6, where they present the controversy about the “Lucy” fossil, and proceeding to Ardipithecus ramidis in chapter 7. In both cases the incompleteness of the skeletons are emphasized. Researchers are accused of “marketing” their finds (p. 118), of having a “treasure hunt mentality” (p. 123), and having a “bizarre interpretation” (p. 124). Again, it’s unfortunate that the authors see a place for personal attacks in a scientific discussion.
The next three chapters are devoted to candidates for species that are neither entirely ape nor entirely human: Homo habilis, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo naledi. The authors dismiss the first two as a mixture of ape and human bones, and conclude that naledi is “fully human” based on their interpretation of the fossils as well as discussion of their presumed behavior, such as use of fire and burial of dead. But the continued use of the term “fully human” is not an argument against naledi (or floriensis) having been different species, or different stages in human evolution. As an example, consider that eagles build nests. We would not say that sparrows, because they also build nests, must be “fully eagle”. Neither are they “sub-eagle” - they are simply different species that share many traits, including nest building.
The authors list a number of traits suggesting that naledi is a separate species and then propose alternative interpretations for each one: inbreeding, vitamin D deficiency, physiological adaptation... while these explanations are each plausible, it seems less likely that all of these conditions were present than that naledi really was a different variant. The reader has to start wondering at this point what would be sufficient evidence to convince the authors that two sets of fossils represent different species.
Many of the arguments presented here are an attempt to persuade the general public, whom the authors feel have been misled into trusting a false narrative. But with arguments as technical as some of these, the appropriate audience is probably the scientific community itself rather than the general reader. This is particularly true about chapter 12, with its discussion of “excess argon” and “thorium solubility”. Disputes on these topics can be best addressed by experts, who at this point apparently accept that the dating methods have some level of validity. The genetic arguments presented in chapter 13 also fall into this category. If the authors’ arguments are strong, their peer reviewed papers on the subjects should be enough to convince the experts that they were mistaken, and the consensus view can be changed.
The effort expended in casting doubt on paleontological work from its origins to the present day certainly wasn’t easy, and the authors are to be commended for their diligence in doing this in as methodical a way as possible. However, a more difficult task remains: to propose an alternative hypothesis for the diversity of life and the origin of humanity. This is attempted beginning on page 318 (of 329) where the authors abandon scientific study and ask us to consider biblical history and special creation as the explanation. Even the gospel itself makes an appearance on page 328. But having spent more than 300 pages pointing out the discrepancies in the scientific exploration of hominid ancestry, it should be clear that an expression of faith in the truth of Christianity in the final 10 pages will not be sufficient to replace the structure the authors have tried to dismantle. Just as there is room to cast doubt on the “ape-to-man story”, books of similar length could be (and have been) written casting doubts on the Christian narrative, as the authors are well aware.
In the end, I think Rupe and Sanford have done some serious research and come up with some plausible sounding arguments, but have approached the project with the intention of supporting their idea that evolution is not true. While the authors’ convictions are no doubt sincere, this is not an ideal perspective from which to address this subject.
Note, it should be admitted that anything is possible, and challenges are needed to ensure that scientific progress is self-correcting. But the basic issue is that in spite of the contention among scientists and lack of complete clarity about the ancestry of humanity, there simply is no better explanation for what life looks like today than evolution.
On a minor editorial note, the book is a bit repetitive in places and contains a number of typos, so probably could have benefited from some additional editing.
Readers of this book who are truly interested in evolution should also consider Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero, and perhaps Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale.
Thanks very much to the brother of one of the authors for giving me a copy of this book, knowing of my interest in evolution.
More...