Peking Man debate on CARM, message 6

See also:

                       Pekin Man (response to Bowden)

          ---------------------------------------------------------
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Return to Creation vs Evolution ] [ FAQ ]
          ---------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Jim Foley on June 26, 1998 at 19:43:13:

Jim Foley responding to the message Malcolm Bowden sent back to the board
via Helen.

All references to Bowden are to the 2nd edition of his book "Ape-Man: Fact
or Fallacy?".

>> I am not surprised by the ridicule and the response. I give my replies
>> below.

>> 1. Penny said "All the first observers seemed to think that they were
>> monkeys". This is not quite correct. They all claimed they were between
>> apes and men BUT EVEN THEY HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE
>> MONKEYS. This is not quite the same but a damning admission.

Can you give a reference to support this claim? I have yet to see a single
quote in support of this which even mentions monkeys.

>> 2. If they were the ape-men who kindled the huge fires that were found,
>> why were ONLY skulls found? Yet they were all mixed up with other
>> animals - deer etc. - that had obviously been caught for their meat and
>> then their bones thrown into the fire with the ape-skulls they had also
>> caught for their brains. ALL the bones and skulls found at this site
>> were the remains of their hunting expeditions. This is what Boule
>> suggested in his book. It is THIS question that evolutionists must
>> answer and not try to dodge.

>> 3. Foley quotes from Boule and Vallois's "Fossil men". But there were
>> two editions and on page 98-99 of my book I show that Vallois toned down
>> Boule's strong denunciation of Pekin Man

Here is the evidence for the "strong denunciation of Pekin Man":

"[Boule's] findings were that the skull was ape-like, ..." (Bowden, p.105,
referencing Boule's 1937 article in L'Anthropologie).

Helen said, paraphrasing Bowden who was referring to O'Connell's assessment
of Boule's 1937 article: "Professor Boule was very angry that the only
evidence he was shown for the widely publicized find was a battered
monkey's skull."

Now here are two quotes (my translations) from that article in
L'Anthropologie (Boule 1937) which supposedly concluded that Peking Man was
"ape-like" and dismissed it as "battered monkey skulls":

"It is nonetheless evident that, by the volume of their brain as by what we
know of the anatomical structure of their skull, Sinanthropus and his
brother Pithecanthropus are interposed, in the series of superior primates,
between the great apes and the Hominiens". (Boule, L'Anthropologie, 1937)

"In this regard [the development of the brain], the small new group that we
are studying [Peking Man and Java Man] is exactly intermediate, since its
average cerebral volume is 1000 cc, superior by 400 cc to the maximum
volume of the apes, which is 600 cc, inferior by the same quantity to the
current human average which is 1400 cc." (Boule, L'Anthropologie, 1937)

Can anyone see a teensy problem here? Does this sound like a man angry at
being shown a "battered monkey skull"? Clearly Boule's opinion is
startlingly different from what Helen and Bowden have stated.

I have already posted these quotes, and neither Helen nor Bowden have
addressed, let alone explained, this discrepancy.

>> in the second edition. Foley is
>> probably quoting from VALLOIS'S French version of the second edition
>> that was translated into English in 1957 - not from Boule.

Nope. As I stated when I first gave the above quotes, they came from
Boule's 1937 article in the journal L'Anthropologie, not "Fossil Man"
(Boule and Vallois, 1957).

As for the claim that Vallois toned down Boule's opinions in later edition
of Fossil Men that he coauthored, Bowden says on p.99 that

"It would appear that Vallois did not fully agree with Boule's strong views
on Sinanthropus", and that "Vallois emphasized the intermediate position
which Sinanthropus holds in the line between man and ape.", supposedly in
contrast to Boule's opinions.

Here is what the 1957 edition of "Fossil Men" coauthored by Vallois says:

"It is none the less evident that, by the volume of their brains and by
what we know of the structure of their skulls, Sinanthropus and his brother
Pithecanthropus fall between the great Anthropoid Apes and Men properly so
called in the series of higher primates." (Fossil Men, Boule and Vallois
1957, p.145)

"In this respect, the small new group we are studying is exactly
intermediate, since its average cerebral volume is 1000 cubic centimetres,
400 cubic centimetres greater than the maximum volume of the living
anthropoids, which is 600 cubic centimetres, and is smaller by the same
amount than the modern human average, which is 1400 cubic centimetres."
(Fossil Men, Boule and Vallois 1957, p.146)

As can be seen, these are so similar to my versions from Boule's 1937
L'Anthropologie article that they could have been translated from the same
French text. Contrary to Bowden's assertion, Vallois did not "tone down"
Boule's 1937 opinion, but left it virtually unchanged.

By the way, Bowden has his editions mixed up. Ed. 1 of Les Hommes Fossiles
was published in 1921, Ed.2 in 1923, Ed. 3 in 1946, and Ed. 4 in 1952
(translated and published as Fossil Men in 1957). Boule died in 1942, and
editions 3 and 4 were published posthumously with Vallois as coauthor.

>> I therefore reject the accusation that I have lied to my readers. Foley,
>> in common with many evolutionists, will naturally present only one side
>> of the argument

I think it is obvious who has been selective in their presentation of the
data.

>> 3. The ten missing skeletons. Note how Foley tries to diminish it as a
>> "journalistic screw-up". It was sufficiently well reported to have
>> comments by many famous anthropologists around the world

But it is clear that they had no independent verification of the find, and
were merely responding to what the newspapers claimed to know.

>> and Nature awaited an announcement by Black. In the dead silence that
>> followed, why did not one single expert ask what had happened to the
>> skeletons????? The find was obviously too damaging to the picture of
>> the ape-men they had supposedly discovered.

Or it may be that the skeletons never existed.

>> 4. "Bowden has not printed the evidence from Breuil,... and as he has
>> so blatently misrepresented what Boule said, I am not likely to take his
>> word for it."

>> This is laughable. He has only to look up Breuil's paper to check my
>> accuracy, but refuses to do so, simply wanting to slam me as much as
>> possible.

I would love to check Breuil's paper. I cannot, for the unsurprising
reason that 1932 issues of French anthropological journals are scarcer than
hen's teeth in Colorado. If Malcolm would be willing to send me a copy of
the article, or even the relevant pages, I would be most grateful.

>> 5. Boule indicated as clearly as he could that the skulls were the
>> remains of the hunters dinners

Indeed he did, but that doesn't tell us what the skulls belonged to.

>> without daring to say that the Pekin man were not ape-men.

But didn't Helen and Malcolm tell us that Boule's verdict was that Peking
Man was "ape-like" and "battered monkey skulls"? Now we are told that he
didn't dare say they weren't ape-men. Which is it?

>> Had he done so he would have been contradicting the Pekin fraudsters
>> who had been given a lot of publicity by the media. Boule had to be
>> cautious.

Hard to see why. He was quite willing to go against the crowd with his
opinion that modern humans killed the Peking Man individuals.

>> 6. The 10 skeleton story was not just a journalists fabrication. It was
>> reported by several papers at the same time.

Maybe this was because they were all copying from the same erroneous
source? I do not consider it a fabrication, incidentally, but more likely
a misunderstanding by a journalist who didn't know what he was talking
about.

>> Nature reported that Black was going to make a big announcement about
>> the discoveries on 29 December. This was not journalistic fabrication;
>> they must have had something from Black to have said this.

The report in Nature refers to a cablegram sent Dec 15, 1929. But it is
not specified who sent the cablegram (it may not have been Black) nor what
its contents were. I would very much like to see copies of the newspaper
articles in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times which reported the
10 skeletons (1929 newspaper articles are hard to find too). Even better
would be the contents of the cablegram, if it still exists anywhere. These
items might offer some clues. (Malcolm, would it be possible for me to get
any of this material from you?)

>> 7. I am not impressd by Lubenow's book. He hardly deals with Peking man
>> at all. Foley says Lubenow is "embarassed" by Pekin claims. Does he have
>> a tape recording of this conversation

Sure, I always keep a tape recorder running when I'm chatting to people.

>> - or can he get Lubenow to confirm that this is his opinion???

Probably. I will ask him next time I see him.

>> Why should I take Foley's word for it? (I have heard that phrase
>> somewhere before I think). I have already corrected Lubenow in a recent
>> issue of CRSQ for relying too much on statements by evolutionists as
>> though they were accurate and unbiassed.

But Bowden also replies on statements by evolutionists - when they suit his
purposes. Lubenow has quoted from authors who have emphasized the
humanlike aspects of Peking Man, while not using any which would emphasize
the differences or the apelike features.

I hardly see how Bowden can object to this tactic when it is the same one
he has used, except in reverse.

(And Lubenow's quotes at least appear to be in context. He has not, as far
as I recall, attributed to people views that they did not hold)

>> One last thought - is Jim Foley related to the Dr. Foley who had a large
>> part in the disappearance of the Pekin fossils at the time of Pearl Harbour
>> -Ape p 120f ? Now that WOULD be interesting!

No relation. It's not an uncommon surname.

>> Malcolm Bowden.

--
Jim Foley

          ---------------------------------------------------------
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Return to Creation vs Evolution ] [ FAQ ]
Previous - UP - Next
This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.