Darwin (OT)

[L. Adrian Griffis]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Paul Thompson wrote:
> > p.s. Darwin had been working on 'Origin of the Species' for
> > several years; it was unfinished. Another scientist sent him
> > a manuscript of the same idea for him to review, and he
> > realized that someone else was going to steal his thunder.
> > So he quickly finished the Origin of the Species, and the
> > rest is history.
> > 
> > Trivia: Who was that obscure scientist who finished the 
> > theory of evolution before Darwin did? and why was Darwin
> > already a world-famous writer? and what part of the human
> > body made Darwin later recant his theory as being unable to
> > explain? Hint: you're using it right now to read this e-mail, 
> > unless you're reading it in braille.
> 
> Darwin also said that if the missing links were not discovered in the 
> next 50 years (or something like that), then his whole theory should be 
> ignored.

Such a 50 year time limit seems rather irrelevant, to me, but for the
sake of discussion, The Origin of Species was published in 1859, and
in a quick look in my own book shelves, I found references in a couple
of specimens found before that 50 years was up:

    1)  TRINIL 2 -- "Java Man", discovered in October 1891 by Eugene
	Dubois, originally classified in 1894 as Pithecanthropus
	Erectus, reclassified in the 1950s as Homo Erectus.
	The discovery was first published by Dubois in 1984 under
	the title "Pithecanthropus Erectus, eine menchenaehnliche
	Ubergangsform aus Java".

    2)  Mauer -- Discovered by workmen in a sand pit in 1907, and studied
	by Schoetensack at the University of Heidelberg.  This mandible
	specimen is classified as Homo Erectus.

There were numerous specimens of Homo Neanderthalensis discovered
before this period ended, but they are, arguably, not missing links
because Neanderthals are currently thought to have been an evolutionary
dead end, and not contributors to modern Homo Sapiens.

I imagine someone with a more complete library could find more in this
time frame.  Since that 50 year period expired, we've found quite a bit
more evidence, which is, I think, significant regardless of when it was
discovered.  Anyone for the last 50 years who has spoken of a still
"missing link" has simply been displaying his colossal ignorance of the
evidence at hand.  One must wonder how many links it will take to
satisfy such a person.

Adrian