Conventional anthropological explanations for human origins and descent are in serious disarray. Novel concepts have caught academic fancy and have been used as classroom discussion and numerous dissertation subjects. Historically these evolutionary explanations of anthropological descent have ranged from acquired characteristics, to natural selection, to selective cross-breeding, to mutations, to micro-mutations, to punctuated equilibrium.
In the final analysis the fossil record itself must be consulted for any definitive analysis of human antiquities to hold a viable position in public or academic circles. Some recent observations have rendered standard anthropological interpretations suspect. Discover Magazine is endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In its September 1986 issue an extraordinary skull found in Kenya and assigned an age of approximately 2.5 million years old has "overturned all previous notions of the course of early hominid evolution." The documented article continued to state "We no longer know who gave rise to whom - perhaps not even how, or when, we came into being.''1 Extensive text gives a summary explanation. In the extensive article author Pat Shipman, paleontologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, visually compares the new skull, known as KNM-WT 17000, with previously examined skulls of A.afarensis, A.africanus, A.robustus, H.habilis, H.erectus, and H.sapiens. Alan Walker, professor at Johns Hopkins school of medicine, discovered the skull in the extensive erosional exposures west of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya. In the midst of background explanations regarding hominid development the author encapsulates the academic weight of the new discovery:
What the new skull does, in a single stroke, is overturn all previous notions of the course of early hominid evolution....The new skull, through its features and antiquity, strikes a blow against neat schemes and for messy biology...The new skull is clearly in the boisei lineage, but it's older than any of its putative robustus ancestors. Despite its antiquity, it's already specialized into a boisei. This is shown by its massive crests; its unusually long, dished face that's concave both top to bottom and side to side; the far forward placement of the root of the zygomatic (cheekbone); and anatomical details in the region around the nose and orbits.
These features of the new skull show that robustus can be neither its ancestor (the new skull is older than robustus) nor its descendant (the new skull is more advanced). Thus Aboisei must be a distinct species, which is surprising since professionals have abandoned the use of boisei as insufficiently distinct from robustus.
Another point is that the new boisei is most unlikely to be descended from any africanus. All known africanus skulls share many features that are derived, i.e., advanced, relative to the new skull, such as a moderate flexion or angling of the base of the cranium and a deep jaw joint with a bony lump in front of it. Not only must the notion of a single australopithecine lineage be abandoned, the idea that australopithecines became increasingly robust through time is also refuted.
The new skull isn't just mildly robust, it's both the oldest and the most hyper-robust ever found. For example, the two teeth of the new skull- one complete and one broken in half rival the largest hominid teeth ever found. They're perhaps four or five tines as large as modern human molars. WT 17000 also has the largest cranial crests of any known hominid, a direct consequence of combining powerful muscles for working large teeth in a long, protruding face with a small braincase.
...The best answer we can give right now is that we no longer have a very clear idea of who gave rise to whom; we only know who didn't. This uncomfortable state of affairs can be summarized in three simple statements: (1) Robustus didn't evolve into boisei. (2) Africanus didn't evolve into boisei. Boisei didn't evolve into africanus or robustus. In fact, we don't even know what sort of "ancestral species" we're looking for.
...The extraordinary thing about WT 17000 is that it possesses primitive and highly specialized features in a combination that I, for one, would never have expected. The primitive features of the new boisei - found primarily in its braincase and jaw joint - are shared with afarensis, the most primitive hominid known. On the other hand, its derived features - mostly in the face and teeth - are shared with the later specimens of boisei, the most specialized australopithecine known. How can the new skull resemble one species in the face and another in the braincase, if face and braincase work so closely together as a functional complex?
There are three possible solutions that would help reconcile the dichotomies. The first is that primitive features, like those shared by afarensis and the new boisei, are of little help in determining evolutionary, or phylogenic relationships. This would be disconcerting. Much of the phylogeny rests on grouping species with like features, and then assigning relationships based on whether those features are primitive or derived. If primitive features don't count for much, then much of taxonomic methodology must be rethought.
The second solution is more complicated. Perhaps afarensis is incorrectly reconstructed, with the braincase of robust hominids united with the faces of more gracile, or slightly built, forms. The problem arises because there's only one reasonably complete cranium of afarensis in which continuous bone connects the face to the braincase. The specimen is a young child from Hadar. Young juveniles of numerous species are difficult to classify, since many distinctive morphological features haven't yet developed.
...The last alternative is that perhaps afarensis braincases were attached to the known, gracile faces and this lineage only later evolved the massive faces and teeth of boisei. This would imply that our understanding of the functioning and biomechanics of the craniofacial complex is sadly inadequate. It would be at least as disconcerting as finding out that primitive features can't be used to determine lineage.
...Finally, we could assert that we have no evidence whatsoever of where Homo arises from and remove all members of the genus Australopithecus from the hominid family, despite the fact that they're relatively large-brained and bipedal and have teeth extremely similar to Homo's....If the family Hominidae isn't defined by its brain size, tooth structure, or unusual locomotion pattern, then how can we define it at all?2
This frustration exposed by Shipman is not in isolated context. Much is being written and, at last, publicly admitted as to the insufficient nature of standard anthropological explanations regarding human antiquities. Highly respected author Michael Denton views the problem as being insurmountable in terms of the evolutionary framework. In his preface he writes:
Any suggestion that there might be something seriously wrong with the Darwinian view of nature is bound to excite public attention, for if biologists cannot substantiate the fundamental claims of Darwinism, upon which rests so much of the fabric of twentieth century thought, then clearly the intellectual and philosophical implications are immense. Small wonder, then, that the current tumult in biology is arousing such widespread interest.
Basically there are two different philosophical approaches to the debate. On the one hand, one can adopt the conservative position and view the difficulties as essentially trivial, merely puzzling anomalies, that will be eventually reconciled somehow to the traditional framework. Alternatively, one can adopt a radical position and view the problems not as puzzles, but as counterinstances or paradoxes which will never be adequately explained within the orthodox framework, and indicative therefore of something fundamentally wrong with the currently accepted view of evolution.
While most evolutionary biologists who have written recently about evolution concede that the problems are serious, nearly all take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that they can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework.
In this book I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.3
In his exhaustive and scholarly examination of the fossil record and penetrative exploration in the field of microbiology Denton proceeds with parallel conclusions:
...It could well be that the total number of unique adaptive traits in, say, mammalian genomes is in the order of 1013 (1010 genes, each containing 103 significant bits of information). Which would pose what would seem to be an almost insurmountable "numbers problem" for Darwinian theory - a problem of such dimension that it would render all other anti-Darwinian arguments superfluous.4
Denton further relates the profound challenge offered by the incredible ingenuity and design observed in biological nature. Paley had offered the same concept a century earlier; however, superficial observations had rendered his findings nonessential in modern biological research. Recent scientific procedures operating on the molecular level have once again brought the original concept into sharp focus.
Denton writes that "...it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design. Ingenuity in biological design is particularly striking when it is manifest in solutions to problems analogous to those met in our own technology."5
Denton then proceeds to elaborate in specific areas. The eye, which was a marvel to Darwin, becomes an even greater marvel in the light of modern technology.
Without the existence of the camera and telescope, much of the ingenuity in the design of the eye would not have been perceived....We now know the eye to be a far more sophisticated instrument than it appeared a hundred years ago. Electro-physiological studies have recently revealed very intricate connections among the nerve cells of the retina, which enable the eye to carry out many types of preliminary data processing of visual information before transmitting it in binary form to the brain. The cleverness of these mechanisms has again been underlined by their close analogy to the sorts of image intensiffcation and clarification processes carried out today by computers, such as those used by NASA, on images transmitted from space.6
Students of anthropology are now taking comprehensive courses in molecular microbiology with surprised insight. Man is now seen to be more than a machine with ever-increasing organic complexity. He appears to have a comprehensive functional design in all of his components which cannot be explained by standard evolutionary anthropological concepts. A serious attempt at restructuring man's interpretation of himself is in order. Further documentation relating to the problem will be shown before offering a reconstruction.
Information storage within the cells of the human brain, the central nervous system, and the immune system give vivid display, to the increasing suspicion that micro-evolution, or variation within existing genetic code of an organism, cannot explain the process by which the almost infinite capacity of the human cell could come into existence. In this area Denton comments that "it is at a molecular level where the analogy between the mechanical and biological worlds is so striking, that the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced. Take, for example, the problem of information storage, various solutions of which have been utilized in human societies.7 He elaborates:
A chemical solution to the problem of information storage has, of course, been solved in living things by exploiting the properties of the long chain-like DNA polymers in which cells store their hereditary information. It is a superbly economical solution. The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet, a number according to G.G. Simpson of approximately one thousand million, could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.8
The human biological system requires continuous well-timed supplies of organic compounds. These compounds must be made and distributed in exactingly correct amounts and locations. Biological design is continuously observed from manufacture, through distribution, and throughout assimilation in this vastly complicated biological facility we call man.
The genius of biological design is also seen in the cell's capacity to synthesize organic compounds. Living things are capable of synthesizing exactly the same sorts of organic compounds as those synthesized by organic chemists. Each of the chemical operations necessary to construct a particular compound is carried out by a specific molecular machine known as an enzyme. Each enzyme is a single large protein molecule consisting of several thousand atoms linked together to form a particular spatial configuration which confers upon the molecule the capacity to carry out a unique chemical operation. When a number of enzymes are necessary for the assembly of a particular compound, they are arranged adjacent to each other so that, after each step in the operation, the partially completed compound can be conveniently passed to the next enzyme which performs the next chemical operation and so on until the compound is finally assembled. The process is so efficient that some compounds can be assembled in less than a second, while in many cases the same synthetic operations carried out by chemists, even in a well-equipped lab, would take several hours or days of even weeks.9
It is not within reason to hope that standard evolutionary anthropological concepts could adequately account for this vast assemblage of efficiency; for the living, functioning life form requires the completed organic process to be alive at all. To live the organism must already be alive - this is the finding of current scientific inquiry. It may at first appear that this foregoing statement is an overstatement of the case, but let the qualified scholar Michael Denton express the same conclusion in his own words:
In opening up this extraordinary new world of living technology biochemists have become fellow travelers with science fiction writers, explorers in a world of ultimate technology, wondering incredulously as new miracles of atomic engineering are continually brought to light in the course of their strange adventure into the microcosm of life.... The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.10
Data supporting the complexity and design of life at all levels, and especially that of man, loom larger than was previously supposed - as large in fact as the enormous "gaps" in the fossil record. These "gaps" in the fossil record of man's evolutionary development have never been filled, even with the most brilliant minds and sophisticated instruments of research ever assigned to the problem. The further we look into the complexity to the real world of man and his living companions, the more baffling and unexplainable, at least in standard evolutionary theory, the whole complex becomes. In spite of the insistence that "...all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection and that transpecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events which take place within populations and species...[this concept] remains as unsubstantiated as it was one hundred and twenty years ago.11 These gaps have recently been readily admitted by leading theoretical scientists. "That the gaps cannot be dismissed as inventions of the human mind...is amply testified by the fact that their existence has always been just as firmly acknowledged by the advocates of evolution and continuity...it has been the evolutionists who have acknowledged their existence, who have sought them with such persistence.''12
The paleontological and anthropological paradigm has remained a doctrinal dogma for over one hundred fifty years. The basic details have changed very little, the concept of continuity remains the same. Devotees hold to the paradigm with religious fervor, in spite of mounting evidence that scientific investigation, stripped of preconceptions, does not warrant the conclusion. "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of a thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!''13
Any discussion regarding human antiquities requires attention to specific fossil remains assigned as a contributing factor to man's ancestry. Standard anthropological research refers to the Australopithecines. Yet "the volume of the brain-case (i.e. 'endocranial volume') of the Australopithecines in those specimens where it can be ascertained with any degree of assurance (which is the only indication we have of the size of brain of these fossil creatures) is comfortably within the range found in extant great apes.''14 Physical anthropologist Sir Solly Zuckerman discusses the principles and implications of these fossils and comments that "This proposition is supposedly put forward to imply that whatever the absolute weight of their brains, the fossil creatures have enjoyed a higher 'cerebral status' than do the apes. So far as I can see, this argument has no significance at all. The brain/body weight ratio varies enormously in the Primates, and what is more, is far higher in some monkeys than it is in man. Furthermore, the ratio is very much higher in immature apes, monkeys and children than in adults....The only positive fact we have about the australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla...A recent paper by Holloway shows that even previously published figures for the size of the Australopithecine brain, on which the above comment is based, 'were highly overestimated'.''15
Zuckerman continues with his painstaking and exhaustive research as a physical anthropologist with immense background and laboratory facilities within the African continent as he addresses the claims made in relation to the human character of the australopithecine face and jaws. He flatly states that these claims "are no more convincing than those made about the size of the brain. The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.16
Carriage of the head on the shoulders is likewise placed within the range on apes rather than approaching that of man. Bipedal characteristics are explored at length by Zuckerman. He continues:
The particular characteristics we are studying were selected on the basis of an appraisal of the mechanics of the pelvis in quadrupedal Primates, that is to say animals like baboons, which move on all fours, in Primates which swing by their arms in the trees, for example gibbons, and in man with his upright gait. The characters we studied reflected the way the innominate bone becomes modified for these different types of locomotion....Australopithecus resembles not Homo Sapiens but the living monkeys and apes. In the Australopithecines the muscles could hardly have abducted the thigh and helped keep the pelvis in balance, which is a necessary condition for the human type of walking?17
On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, discoverer of the celebrated "Lucy" fossil, lectured on the campus of the University, of Missouri, Kansas City. In the course of the lecture Dr. Johanson showed a slide which suggested that Lucy's knee joint had an angle much like a selected human knee joint. In the discourse which followed the lecture the discoverer admitted that he had found that portion of the fossil 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24 to 1.86 miles] away. Anatomical similarity appeared to be his basis for placing it with the rest of Lucy's skeletal remains. Her arm/leg length ratio, listed at 83.9%, is admittedly based on an estimated leg length. The left pelvic bone is complete, but "distorted" according to her discoverer.
Negative evidence relating to Lucy's claim as a genuine hominid continues to mount. Her chimp-shaped skull of only 400 cc's and many osteological features certainly indicate that walking erect was very unlikely. Possible erect locomotion is indicated by only one angled view of her pelvis, and the pelvis was distorted when found. A long list of ape features are indicated by the skeletal remains.18 This specimen had curved fingers and toes for tree climbing, an ape-type angle of the shoulder socket, a chimp-like iliac blade, an ape ankle bone (talus). The valgus angle of the knees is similar to the orangutan and the spider monkey, a feature which is also found in man. Strong chimp affinities are shown in her hip joint. She may well have walked with flat feet like the chimpanzee.19 According to J. Cherfas her ankle bone (talus) angles backward like a gorilla. This makes it impossible for her to locomote bipedally. Zihnman called our attention to the fact that there is astonishing similarity between Lucy and the pygmy chimps.20
Supposedly the human line began about fourteen million years ago with Ramapithecus. But, with the discovery of an increasing number of fossils the evidence accumulated that this "original ancestor" was simply a member of the orangutan group. Zihnman and Lowenstein even call him a "false start of the human race.21
Some authorities have pointed out that Homo erectus has now changed status, and is, in fact, a small form of Neanderthal. Some authorities, such as Andrews, now classify H.erectus and H.sapiens as the same species.22 It is now generally conceded that erectus is human, but with somewhat primitive features such as prognathous face and large supraorbital ridges. In his adult form H.erectus' brain capacity was within the modern sapiens range, varying from about 900 cc's to about 1100 cc's. In 1984 Richard Leakey found a young erectus male of about twelve years of age when he died. This individual was 5 feet 4 inches tall, with a brain size of about 850 cc's, and the near complete skeletal remains clearly showed that he walked fully erect. His total features, including brain size and height, fall completely within the range of modern human beings of that age. This specimen had a large brow ridge and a sloping forehead. In this connection Arthur Custance published a paper which certainly showed beyond reasonable doubt that "a diet of fruit, tough seeds, fibrous material, etc. in the formative years, especially if there was a lack of bone hardening content, would result in constant heavy chewing which would cause depressing of the forehead, render the brow ridges more prominent and force outward the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones.23
It is interesting to note that the talus of Homo habilis has been found to fall in the Australopithecine group rather than that of man. Writing from Cambridge University Press, Graham Clark boldly stated "...there would be no problem from a paleontological point of view in downgrading habilis to a variety of Australopithecus africanus.24 Recent examination of the finger bones of this fossil has led scientiststo conclude that the H.habilis hand was, according to Susman and Stern, "similar in overall configuration to chimpanzees and female gorillas.25 Recently, with the discovery of a relatively complete arm, a partial thighbone and part of a shin researchers were startled to find that habilis was far more ape-like than had been assumed. With this new reconstruction this creature had arms about ninety-five percent the length of its legs, very heavily-built bones like modern apes, and a height of about three feet.
To complicate an already confusing scenario, it was not long after the discovery of Zinianthropus (Australopithecus boisei) that the Leakeys discovered a true human fossil buried at the very bottom of the Olduvai Gorge.26 In the display of ancestral human fossils it appears that Shipman was correct in her contention that "We could assert that we have no evidence whatsoever of where Homo arises from and remove all members of the genus Australopithecus from the hominid family. ...If the family Hominidae isn't defined by its brain size, tooth structure, or unusual locomotion pattern, then how can we define it at all?"27
Hard data from fossil bones must be evaluated, but much more is involved in our approach to reconstructing man's descent. Robert Finn, specialist in psychobiology, exposes an additional problem area of speech adaption.
Humans are the only animals that possess the biological machinery needed for speech. Chimpanzees may learn sign language, and honeybees may dance out a message to the hive, but only people speak to each other in words....Some careful work in comparative anatomy is revealing just how special the human vocal apparatus is. [Quoting anatomist Jeffrey Laitman of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City] "Human speech is a two-part system. You must have the brain for it and you must have the vocal tract for it. Apes are very intelligent primates. They certainly have an advanced communication system. But do they have the ability to produce speech? The answer is no." Other primates have vocal cords much like ours [but]...the uniqueness of the human vocal apparatus lies less in the organs themselves than in their location. The larynx is lower than in the standard plan [i.e.,possessed by other primates], making the larynx larger; and the tongue, which in the standard plan lies entirely within the mouth, extends down into the throat....Animals with standard-plan vocal tracts, including dogs, cats, apes and human infants, have a skull base that's relatively flat. But human adults and children older than six years have a deep arch in the center of the skull base. [Quoting Yale University anatomist Edmund Crelin] 'The distance between the hard palate and the foramen magnum, the opening through which the spinal cord passes to join the brain, gradually decreases so that the skull base buckles into an arch." The deeper the arch, the farther the larynx has descended.
Since the base of the skull is often preserved in fossilized remains, the researchers could now reconstruct the speech organs of our early ancestors. These reconstructions indicate that the australopithecines, who are thought to have lived between 4 million and 1.5 million years ago, possessed the standard-plan vocal tract. Thus, the famous fossil known as Lucy would not have been able to speak as we do today. Quoting Laitmanl 'The first evidence that the vocal anatomy had begun to change appears in forms such as Homo erectus.' 28
Acknowledged scholarship at major universities and centers of research has compiled a near-avalanche of materials admitting to the problems in standard anthropological explanations. The problems extend throughout the fossil record; the data is baffling to explain in all areas of the evolutionary paradigm. David Pilbeam, with extensive expertise in the field of paleoanthropology, wrote in Human Nature that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human origins and forced a change in ideas of man's early ancestors. He admitted that his previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man. He observed that our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.29 Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked, "What do you think of the Australopithecines as man's ancestors?" To which he replied, "There is no way of knowing whether we are the ancestors to anything or not."30
Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey appeared on the final Walter Cronkite Universe program. Leakey asserted that if he were going to draw a family tree of man, he would just draw a huge question mark. He added that the fossil evidence was too scanty for us to possibly know man's evolutionary origin, and he did not think we were ever going to know it.
The book, The Bone Peddlers, was written by William Fix. In this work he explained in great detail what most prominent evolutionary paleontologists have written about each of the fossils that have been claimed to display evidence of man's ancestry. Fix then showed how further studies and more recent discoveries have eliminated each of man's supposed apelike ancestors. Fix candidly wrote:
The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools....There are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence....
I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors.31
It is not surprising that professor Derek Ager wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.'32 Perhaps Norman Macbeth, in his September 1983 Harvard University debate with Kenneth Miller, summed it up appropriately. He starts at the beginning of the geologic column discussing the trilobite and his eye. His conclusion has far-reaching implications:
One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no build-up to it. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years, an eye that is simply incredible. It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything....But the more complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out of nothing. And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning - to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes. [Emphasis added]33
It would appear that the problem we have at the top of the paradigm began at the bottom of the geologic column - that of complicated, specialized functional organisms without a trace as to formidable origins explanation.
Cover Display, September 1986, Discover Magazine
Shipman, Pat. September 1986, Discover Magazine, pp 86-93.
Denton, Michael, 1985. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. Adler & Adler, Bethesda, Maryland. p.16.
Ashton, E.H. and Spence, T.F. 1958. Age changes in the cranial capacity and foramen magnum of Hominoids. Ptoc.zool.Soc.Lond. p.130
Zuckerman, Sir Solly. 1970. Beyond The Ivory Tower. Tapingler Publishing Company, New York. p.78
Cherfas, J., 1983. Trees Have Made Man Upright, New Scientist 97:172-178
Zihlman, A., 1984. Pygmy Chimps, People And The Pundits, New Scientist, 104:39-40.
Zihlman, A. and Lowenstein, J.M., 1979. False Start of The Human Race. Natural History, 88 (7):86-91
Andrews, P., 1984. The Descent of Man, New Scientist, 102:25
Custance, Arthur. 1975. The Doorway Papers, Genesis and Early Man, Zonderman. Grand Rapids, p.183
Clark, G., 1977. World Pre-History In New Perspective, 3rd. edition, Cambridge, Universitv Press. so.5.22
Susman, R., and Stern, J., 1982. Functional Morphology Of Homo Habilis, Science, September 3, 1982
Booth, Ernest, 1979. Ancient Man Of Olduvai, Outdoor Pictures, Anacortes, Washington, p.2
Shipman, Pat. September 1986, Discover Magazine, p.93
Finn, Robert. August 1985, Science Digest, pp.52-64
Pilbeam, David. June 1978. Rearranging Our Family Tree, Human Events, pp.39-45
Sunderland, Luther. 1986. Darwin's Enigma, Master Books, Santee, California, p.87
Fix, William R. 1984. The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, pp.150-153
Ager, Derek. 1985. Proc. Geol. Assoc., Vol. 87, p.132
Macbeth, Norman. 1983. vs. Kenneth Miller, Harvard University Debate, 24 September