*****************
G.G. Simpson
Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape — a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility — and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from any ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, the common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.
[G.G. Simpson, as quoted on p. 27 of LUCY: THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMANKIND, by Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey.]
*****************
Dr Greg Kirby
’n Baie interessante aanhaling hieroor kom van Dr Greg Kirby in ’n debat by die Biology Teachers Association (S.A.) in 1976. Dr. Kirby was ’n senior lektor in Population Biology by Flinders University en het die kant vir evolusie geargumenteer. Dr Carl Wieland het die kant vir skepping verteenwoordig. Die aanhaling:
“… not being a paleontologist, I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments …”
[Uit Greg Kerby: Paleontologists exaggerate importance of findings.]
*****************
“Paleontology [the science of fossils—Ed.] is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”
Paleontologie is baie soos die politiek: passie loop hoog, en dit is maklik om baie verskillende gevolgtrekkings te maak uit die dieselfde stel feite.
[Michael D. Lemonick, ‘Parenthood dino-style’, Time, p. 48, January 8, 1996., Paleontology like politics.]
*****************
“Few sciences produce such abundant returns from so few fragments of fact as palaeontology.”
Min wetenskappe produseer soveel resultate van so min feite as paleontologie.
[Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), 23 September 1994, Not another ape-man!]
*****************
Arthur Woods
What motivates the fiercely enthusiastic claims
‘The discoverers of skulls are consequently greatly attached to, and jealous of the reputation of, their charges. It is not only that it makes the owner a top dog in the discipline of palaeoanthropology, and an avoider of the fate of perishing through not publishing; finding the oldest member of the Hominidae—the family of Man—is like winning gold at the Olympics. You can go on lecture tours, appear on television and attract corporate dollars.’
‘Having your remains pushed on to a simian side-branch is like being a gold medallist found harbouring anabolic steroids.’
Arthur Woods, The Weekend Australian, 14–15 January 1989.
[Uit Ape-man Olympics.]
*****************
Kennedy, J.R.
…the significance of anthropological studies for human behaviour is not so much the similarities humans share with animals but rather the similarities between humans of vastly different cultural (and therefore learning) backgrounds. Primitive societies should not be regarded as humans in their “natural” state nor a halfway point between animals and our present state of development. These societies are complex and often more restrictive than our own.
Kennedy, J.R. (psychologist) The Medical Journal of Australia, March 25th, 1978, p. 339
[Uit Kennedy, Bohm and Martin.]
*****************
Bohm, Dr. David
One of the best ways of a person becoming aware of his tacit metaphysical assumptions is to be confronted by several other kinds. The first reaction is one of violent disturbance. Nevertheless if he will stay with it rather than escape into anger or unjustified rejection of contrary ideas … he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previously unquestioned features of his own thinking.
Bohm, Dr. David in Towards a Theoretical Biology, Ed. C.H. Waddington, Aldine Publishing Co. 1968
[Uit Kennedy, Bohm and Martin.]
*****************
Martin, Dr. R.
As far as geologically more recent evidence is concerned, the discovery in East Africa of apparent remains of Homo in the same early fossil sites as both gracile and robust Australopithecines has thrown open once again the question of the direct relevance of the latter to human evolution. So one is forced to conclude that there is no clearcut scientific picture of human evolution.’
Martin, Dr. R. New Scientist August 4, 1977
[Uit Kennedy, Bohm and Martin.]
*****************
Bernard Wood
“We know from living animals that many uncontested species are difficult to distinguish using bones and teeth (eg Cercopithecus species [guenons, a type of Old World monkey])”
[Uit Icon Illusion. Kyk die res van die artikel om te sien wat hy nog sê of kyk Aanhalings – Vermiste Skakels.]
*****************
Dr Carl Werner
“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
[Uit Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.]
*****************
John Reader
“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”
Die hele hominiedversameling vandag aan ons bekend maak skaars ’n biljarttafel toe, … die versameling is so tergend onvolledig, en die monsters dikwels so gefragmenteerd en onoortuigend, dat meer gesê kan word oor wat ontbreek as oor wat teenwoordig is. …maar sedert Darwin se werk die idee geïnspireer het dat fossiele wat moderne mense en hul uitgestorwe voorouers koppel die mees oortuigende bewys van menslike evolusie voorsien, het vooropgestelde idees getuienis aan die neus gelei in die studie van die fossielmens.
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), “Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
*****************
Darren Curnoe
(Evolusionêre paleo-antropoloog)
Nobody looks at a fossil with a completely open mind. I suppose to some extent also we see what we think. So, you come to a fossil and you have an idea about the way you think human evolution worked, and the first thing you do is try and fit that fossil into your worldview.
Niemand kyk na ’n fossiel met ’n oop gemoed nie. Ek veronderstel in ’n sekere mate sien ons ook wat ons dink. So, jy kom by ’n fossiel, en jy het ’n idee oor die manier waarop jy dink menslike evolusie gewerk het, en die eerste ding wat jy doen is om te probeer om die fossiel in jou wêreldbeskouing te pas.
[Uit What to make of Homo naledi?]
*****************