Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Summarizing his findings, Oxnard (1975b, p. 393) stated: “Between the very early Miocene apes and ancient man is the tantalizing set of fossils known as Australopithecus. . . . most workers feel that the overall position of these fossils is adequately fixed, with a taxonomic label as clearly Hominidae, an evolutionary label as on the line to man or very close to it, and a functional label as a human type of biped. . . . But our current studies are providing very different ideas. In the multivariate investigations reported here, the various australopithecine fossils are usually quite different from both man and the African apes. . . . Viewed as a genus, they are a mosaic of features unique to themselves and features bearing some resemblance to those of the orang-utan.”

Let us consider one example of uniqueness in the australopithecine anatomy—the talus, or ankle bone. The multivariate statistical technique employed by Oxnard involves measuring a fixed number of features on a bone, in this case the talus. The results of such a study can be visually represented, for each bone, as a point in multidimensional space. For example, if one is measuring three features of a bone, the combination of these features can be displayed as a point in a three-dimensional space. Four features would require a four-dimensional space, and so on. The relationships between bones or sets of bones can thus be examined. Points clustered together represent bones that are morphologically similar. Figure 11.14 shows the morphological relationships of the ankle bones of modern humans, African apes, orangutans, and Australopithecus. As can be seen, the point representing the talus of Australopithecus lies in its own domain, distant from modern humans and African apes, and close to orangutans. Oxnard found the same to be true of other parts of the australopithecine anatomy.

According to modern theory, the African apes, particularly the chimpanzees, are the closest relatives of modern humans. Scientists hypothesize that the hominids split from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees several million years ago. Since, according to this view, modern humans and chimpanzees share a common (though as yet undiscovered) ancestor, then Australopithecus, as a hominid predecessor of modern humans, should be morphologically intermediate between humans and chimpanzees. Oxnard’s finding that the morphology of the australopithecines is uniquely different from that of modern humans and chimpanzees calls into question their supposed evolutionary relationship.

Figure 11.14. This display (after Oxnard 1975a, p. 82) depicts the results of a multivariate statistical analysis of the talus (ankle bone) in various hominids and apes. The talus of Australopithecus and that of Homo habilis (considered by Oxnard to be an australopithecine) are morphologically distant from those of modern humans and African apes. Given the view that humans and African apes such as the chimpanzee share a common ancestor, one would expect the australopithecine talus to occupy an intermediate position. Instead, it occupies a unique position, close to that of the orangutan. The same is true of other australopithecine bones. To Oxnard, this raised doubts about the status of Australopithecus as a human ancestor.

That the anatomy of Australopithecus, although unique, resembles that of Pongo (the orangutans) is particularly troubling.Accepting this, evolutionists would have to say that the hominids developed an orangutanlike functional morphology in the australopithecine stage (independently, however, from the orangutans) and then veered back toward the modern human condition. Of course, given the flexibility of evolutionary theorizing, anything is possible. But the view of Australopithecus emerging from the studies of Oxnard and Zuckerman introduces vexing complications.

Considering the anatomical uniqueness of the australopithecines, Oxnard (1975b, p. 394) said: “If these estimates are true, then the possibility that any of the australopithecines is a direct part of human ancestry recedes.” Groves(1989,p.307),