Has the theory of evolution been disproved? 2. Variability of scientific knowledge

How to diminish the significance of paleontological finds? The fact of evolution—changes over time in the living organisms that inhabit the Earth—is confirmed by such a large number of paleontological finds that, it would seem, seriously challenging it is simply impossible. However, in presentations aimed at people far from paleontology, proponents of 'scientific creationism' try to create an illusion of doubtfulness in the accumulated arsenal of evidence. To do this, they discuss some specially selected cases. On the one hand, their examination is not particularly important for the theory of evolution. The fact is that a single drill core that has passed through numerous sedimentary layers with characteristic sets of leading fossils contains more information about the course of evolution than the examples discussed. However, it is natural that sensational finds related to human origins or, for example, such a prominent group of animals as birds, end up in the center of public attention.

A prominent reason for accusing evolutionists of fraud became the story of 'Piltdown Man'.

Piltdown Man In 1912, amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson, while examining fossil remains exposed during the development of a gravel pit in the town of Piltdown near London, found a skull of an ancient human. This find was made in the presence of well‑known scientists: Arthur Woodward, keeper of the geological department of the British Museum, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom we have already mentioned. One of the most authoritative anatomists of his time, Arthur Keith, participated in the reconstruction of the skull. On the day Dawson found one fragment of the skull, Teilhard discovered a mastodon tooth fragment nearby.

'Piltdown Man' greatly resembled modern humans in the structure of its cranial vault but had a very primitive lower jaw—ape-like in shape, with large canines. However, the root teeth were almost human in shape—with wide, flat surfaces. The find was very old: according to modern understanding, the strata to which it was assigned are about 2 million years old. For a time, this skull was evidence that the evolution of the human mind (and with it, the brain and the cranial part of the skull) preceded the evolution of other systems. For English paleontologists, this find was very flattering. Unlike them, specialists from the USA immediately became convinced that the skull consisted of two different parts.

The skull of the infamous “Piltdown Man” As more fossil human finds accumulated, doubts about the reliability of Dawson’s find grew. It turned out that the rather human facial features of the skull were also present in our relatives who had a relatively small brain. These and similar circumstances led to a re‑examination of the Piltdown find in 1950–1953. Researchers who recognized a combination of two parts of different origin were proven correct. The braincase was human, while the jaw belonged to an orangutan. The jaw joint had been broken to hide its mismatch with the skull, and the molars had been filed down. Both parts were only about 500 years old, but their surfaces had been treated with potassium bichromate to give an ancient appearance. To increase plausibility, the forger also added other bones to the excavation. Thus, the tooth found by Teilhard was genuine, but it originated from North Africa!

Who made this forgery? Various authors have accused Dawson, as well as the scientific adversaries Woodworth and Keith, of this. Even Teilhard de Chardin was under unfounded suspicion (given his status) for some time. Possible motives for the deception include vanity, the desire to undermine the authority of opponents, but certainly not the desire to refute views on the miraculous origin of man (none of the participants in this story took them seriously). The history of the search for the hoaxer became one of the most confusing scientific detective stories.

One should consider: what was the exposure of the forgery related to? Perhaps the falsity of the find was shown as a result of analyzing the arguments of proponents of the miraculous creation of man? No, it was the result of a normal scientific process, a review of scientific facts, especially those that contradict new results.

The complexity of the modern stage of paleoanthropology development lies not in the absence of fossil forms, but, to a certain extent, in their surplus! Among the many lines of development of ancient hominids, it is difficult to single out the one that leads to us.

‘Turkana Boy’—a representative of Homo ergaster Fragments of the skeleton of Homo antecessor from Spain

Recently the number of known finds of members of the genus Homo has increased significantly. Our genus “left” the skillful human (Homo habilis), which known specialists have transferred to the genus Australopithecus (as Australopithecus habilis). Such controversial species (including H. or A. rudolfensis) demonstrate that the boundary between australopithecines and humans is very blurred. The earliest representatives of our genus are assigned to the species Homo ergaster, which appeared in Africa no later than 1.75 million years ago. Its descendant was Homo erectus, widely spread across Eurasia (some specialists consider H. ergaster a variant of H. erectus). However, the earliest Europeans belong to another species—Homo antecessor. It is described from the remains of six individuals dated to 800 thousand years, found in Spain. Later (about 500 thousand years ago) Europe also saw the appearance of Homo heidelbergensis, which originated in Africa, and Homo neandertalensis, each represented by many finds. In the end, <...>, Europe was settled by a new species, probably also originating in Africa—Homo sapiens. Its possible immediate ancestors are considered to be H. ergaster, H. erectus and H. antecessor. The choice among these possibilities depends on which traits are given greater weight and on the speciation models accepted by researchers. Reconstructing the genealogy of the genus Homo is hampered by the high intraspecific variability of all its species. “Remarkable is the fact that all the physical material we have to prove human evolution could be placed in a single coffin, and there would still be room left!” (1, p. 86). This statement is completely false even factually, although the circumstance has little significance. In court a highly probable verdict of guilt or innocence can be rendered based on both very large and very small physical evidence. “Evidence” exposing human evolution is more than sufficient.

“It is noteworthy that all the material evidence we have to prove human evolution can fit into one coffin, with room to spare!” (1, p. 86). This statement is completely incorrect even from a factual point of view, although this circumstance does not have much significance. In court, a highly probable verdict of guilt or innocence can be reached based on evidence that is either very large or very small in physical size. There is more than enough 'evidence' exposing human evolution.

Debates about the proto‑avis A gift for interpreters seeking to compromise the scientific method were the debates surrounding the proto‑avis find. In 1986 Indian‑American paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee described, from two specimens, a Upper Triassic bird which he named Protoavis. This find is 75 million years older than the well‑known Archaeopteryx found in Germany in Middle Jurassic deposits. The correctness of the reconstruction was called into question, to Chatterjee’s displeasure. The discoverer of Protoavis restricted access to the specimen for other scientists, which increased doubts about his conclusions. Nevertheless, although the study of Protoavis is far from finished, it can be said with confidence that the find is of great importance for further study of bird origins. [IMG_5]

Skeleton and reconstruction of Proavis Scientific difficulties have caused a frenzy in the camp of soul hunters. Creationists love to discuss the problems of bird origins (e.g., 7, 8). One of the most interesting arguments from the perspective of this article's topic (9) can be summarized as follows. 'Science cannot provide sufficiently reliable data on the origin of birds. Previously, evolutionists claimed that birds evolved from Archaeopteryx, and now some of them suggest that Proavis was the ancestor of birds. If there can be confusion on such an important issue, it is clear that birds did not evolve from reptiles at all, but are the result of a special act of creation.'

One of the modern reconstructions of Archaeopteryx In this form, this statement may seem quite convincing. To show its illogicality, let's provide a hypothetical reasoning constructed in exactly the same way. 'It was previously thought that the father of this boy was Ivan Ivanovich. Now it is suggested that it was Petr Petrovich. If there can be confusion on this issue, it is clear that the boy has no father at all and is the result of immaculate conception.' Doubts about which of the known forms is closer to a particular evolutionary line do not cast doubt on the convincingly proven fact of the close kinship between reptiles and birds. It should be emphasized that evolutionists do not claim that Archaeopteryx, Proavis, or any other fossil form is the direct ancestor of modern birds. These fossil forms merely show what combinations of traits could have been characteristic of such ancestors.

By the way, even in the question of bird origins forgeries reminiscent of the Piltdown story are possible. In 1999 the journal National Geographic published a description and reconstruction of a new Chinese find—the “Archaeoraptor.” This animal seemed to bizarrely combine dinosaur and bird features. The find turned out to be a forgery, skillfully assembled from the remains of five different animals (two of which were unknown to science). The motive for the forgery was simple—profit, linked to the hope of earning money by selling a unique specimen. If exposing the Piltdown Man took 30 years, the Archaeoraptor was unmasked in six months. As in the previous story, the exposure of the hoax is not due to creationist successes but to the normal scientific process. The shortening of the time needed to “debunk” an elaborate forgery is a result of the development of scientific technologies. [IMG_7]

This is how 'Archaeoraptor' was imagined Perhaps the attention of science to individual finds reflects its weakness? No. In any case, it is not an isolated fact that is taken, but the entire body of accumulated knowledge that allows it to be interpreted with more or less success. Without going into detail, it can be said that for opponents of the evolutionary doctrine, individual facts also turn out to be sufficiently important arguments. For example, the relative antiquity of humans is most often proven by references to finds of human bones and tools in very ancient (e.g., Mesozoic or Paleozoic) sediments. Based on these, it is concluded that these sediments arose as a result of the Great Flood, if humans already inhabited the Earth. A strange fact: the vast majority of these finds were made back in the 19th century, when dating methods were very primitive, and the scale of geological work was significantly smaller than in the 20th century. Although these finds are quite dubious, no attempts by creationists to verify their reliability using modern methods have been recorded.

On the contrary, in 1985 two astronomers, Fred Hoyle and Chandrasekhar Vickramasinh, demanded a scientific examination of an Archaeopteryx specimen with feather impressions. They claimed that the feather impressions were surrounded by micro‑cracks indicating falsification of this crucial trait. Authoritative testing showed that the specimen had not been altered and found feather impressions even under the bones, inside the fossil (10).

Moreover, recent finds have shown that feathers were quite characteristic of many small predatory dinosaurs—Sinornithosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and others. The question of the origin of birds remains very complex, not because birds are distant from reptiles, but because the evolution of birds and reptiles proceeded in many respects in parallel (11). Some common features arose independently in birds, dinosaurs, and other groups of reptiles, while others reflect their close kinship. Considering this single evolutionary node, it is not yet possible to say precisely how each individual thread—evolutionary line—passes through it. The problem lies not in the existence of an insurmountable gap between birds and reptiles, but, on the contrary, in their evolutionary unity!

Perhaps bird-like dinosaurs (Sinornithosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx) looked like this Living science When speaking about the variability of scientific knowledge, attention should be paid to its most important gift. A new level of understanding does not refute, but refines the previous one. Here are the most famous examples. Einstein's physics did not discard Newton's physics but preserved it as a special case. Lobachevsky and Riemann did not disprove Euclidean geometry but merely went beyond its limits. New finds of ancient birds do not contradict the results of studying Archaeopteryx but correct the understanding of its place in the general genealogy...

The Confuciusornithidae group – representatives of a bird-like group widespread in the Cretaceous period in the territory of modern China.

From the sediments of the Mesozoic Era, three groups of birds are currently known: ornithuromorphs (or true birds), enantiornithes, and confuciusornithids. Ornithuromorphs still exist today, while the other two groups became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period. It is unclear whether these groups are closely related or evolved independently from reptiles. One possible scenario is as follows: ornithuromorphs originated in the Triassic or Jurassic periods from ancestors resembling Protoavis, while enantiornithes and confuciusornithids originated in the Cretaceous period from dinosaurs!

[Author’s comment made in 2011: now there are grounds to assume a fairly close relationship between Confuciusornithidae and modern birds: see /node/226 and /node/227]

"Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, like Sinosauropteryx, were used as 'proof' of evolution and thus to disprove the Bible as the infallible Word of God. We must remember that God's Word never changes and therefore should serve as the basis for all our views rather than man's whimsical, ever-changing views" (12).

It is understood that the value of paleontological finds does not lie in refuting the Bible or any theological questions. These animals are interesting precisely for science, as they help to understand the pathways and mechanisms of evolution. Archaeoraptor was exposed as a fake, but the remains of Sinosauropteryx and many other "half-birds-half-dinosaurs" have successfully passed rigorous expert examinations. The process of studying the origin of birds continues...

Is the variability of science a disadvantage compared to dogmatic teachings? No! It is precisely this property that ensures the ability of science to develop, makes it alive and interesting. Doubt in dogma is equivalent to betrayal. Fortunately, one should constantly doubt scientific facts, especially their interpretations.

For the safe operation of an important structure, the work of defectologists is extremely necessary. It consists of regularly checking the strength of critically important structures, including those that appear completely reliable. The only way to ensure the reliability of anything is to constantly question it! Unfortunately, this is precisely what critics of the scientific method do not understand. Well, each field of activity has its own methods.

Cited literature 6. Tyler. D. J. The discovery of Protoavis texensis ( https://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs024.html ) 7. https://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs024.html 8. https://pub22.ezboard.com/fthinkersforumfrm8.showMessage?topicID=16.topic 9. Guthrie S. A response to Ed Brayton on his defense of evolution: Creationism is the best explanation of the scientific evidence ( https://sguthrie.net/repbrayton.htm ) 10. Flank. L. Archaeopteryx and the creationists ( https://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm ) 11. Shabanov D.A., Shabanova G.V., Shaparenko S.O. Biology. Textbook for 7th‑grade general education schools. 2nd ed., rev. and add. Kharkiv, Torsing, 2002. — 320 p. (/node/23) 12. https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp Additional materials: Has the theory of evolution been disproved? 1. Is the choice between evolutionism and creationism scientific? Has the theory of evolution been disproved? 3. The problem of transitional forms Has the theory of evolution been disproved? 4. What is a human? Creationism as a form of intellectual doublethink

Additional materials: Has the theory of evolution been disproven? 1. Is the choice between evolutionism and creationism scientific? Has the theory of evolution been disproven? 3. The problem of transitional forms Has the theory of evolution been disproven? 4. What is man? Creationism as a form of intellectual doublethink