Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
as support for evolution. A few outspoken scholars, on the other hand,
remained determined to discredit the evidence and described Neander-
thal variously as having “a much greater resemblance to the apes,” “some
poor idiot or hermit,” and, more imaginatively, a human with rickets
who had been a “Mongolian Cossack belonging to one of the hordes
discovery of many more Neanderthal fossils eventually vindicated the
Düsseldorf discovery as that of a previously unrecognized hominin—
Thus, Eugène Dubois's discovery of
Pithecanthropus
(now
Homo
)
erectus
in
Java in 1891 met with a similar negative reception from both scientists
chapter 3, the same thing happened later when
Australopithecus africanus
was discovered and announced by Raymond Dart in 1925. In fact, because
of scientists' preconceived ideas, it took
decades
for many of them to accept
tory for Neanderthals, the discoveries of both
Pithecanthropus erectus
and
Australopithecus africanus
were eventually vindicated by the recovery of
additional fossils. Ironically, the one major find that scientists embraced
as legitimate from the start (but with bickering about its details) was
Piltdown Man
(Eoanthropus dawsoni),
which turned out to be a fraud. (As
we saw in chapter 1, religious fundamentalists got that one right.)
Clearly, the tendency to dismiss newly discovered hominin species
is a deeply rooted one that reflects judgments that are, at least to some
degree, “gut level.” Although the motivations of religious fundamental-
ists are not difficult to understand, the reasons for such strong (almost
knee-jerk) reactions in scientists who accept evolutionary theory are less
obvious. These will be explored in chapter 9. For now, it is worth dis-
cussing one of the likely reasons that such a glaring trend has developed
among scientists: The fossils that generated the most controversy were
those that looked totally different from the remains of modern humans
and from other fossils that had already been discovered. In particular,
