CONSIDERATION OF WHAT IS OFTEN CALLED "THE FOSSIL'EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN EVOLUTION"by Daniel E. Wonderly, 1988

The following pages are a section of a study unit which I prepared earlierfor my biology students, and have occasionally revised since. The entire studyunit lists and explains various evidences against biological aiacroevolution. Thesection no. 12 is an explanation of the so-called fossil evidence for human evolution. In this newly revised write-up, I have still retained the page numbers ofthe original study manual, beginning with p. 81. Page 82 has been recently expanded into 82A, 82B, etc. The "Taxonomy Supplement" (p. 84) which is attachedat the back should be read before reading the main part of this paper. (Taxonomyis the science of classifying animals, plants, and other organisms.) Notice that,biologically speaking, man is classified as being in the genus Homo (abbreviatedH.). The fossils of human beings, and of apes and ape-like creatures which arethought to have been ancestors of the human race, are called "hominids." The term1'anthropoids" is wore general, including both the modern apes and man, and theterm "primates" is still more general, including lemurs, monkeys, apes, and man.

p. 81

12. The so-called "ape-man races," and the fossil skulls which are often spokenof as "early man," must be studied carefully to determine which were human andwhich were merely apes (or early relatives of apes). There is really no half-waypoint; they all must be classified as either human or non-human Human beingspossess a rational, reasoning mind which was especially given to them by God, asdescribed in the first chapters of Genesis. No created beings below mankind weregiven the power to reason or to want to carry on intelligent communication withThe Creator.

During the first half of this century biologists and anthropologists gave"prehuman" scientific names to some of the prehistoric races that were later recognized as being actually human. The celebrated "Java man," which was discoveredin 1891,waa given the generic name Pithecanthropus from the Greek pithekos (ape),and anthropos (man). However, by the early 1960's both this fossil form and theformer Sinanthropus pekinensia (the "Peking man") had been placed in the genus Homoby the leading anthropologists of both Britain and America. (See "Homo ErectusEW. W. Howells, in Scientific American Nov. 1966, pp. 146...53; and The Fossil Evidencefor Human Evolution, by W. E. La Gros Clark, University of Chicago-press, 196k,p. 7-9, and 19 iT)T See the book The Cods of Prehistoric Man, by J. t4aringer Xnopf,Inc., 1960, for a discussion of the fact that these and other early humans had areligion of their own, art, and other exclusively human characteristics.

Even the Neanderthal man, which has long been recognized as belonging to GenusHomo, has now been declared to have been more human than was formerly thought. Dr.William L. Straus, Jr., in the December 1957 Quarterly Review of Biology describesfurther studies of the Neanderthal skeletal remains, pointing out that the familiarstooped posture of the Neanderthal reproductions which we frequently see is due tothe fact that the laChapelle skeleton, after which the reproductions have beendesigned, was severely affected by arthritis of the bones. This has resulted inthe changing of the Neanderthal displays in most museums, and Neanderthal picturesin many modern textbooks.

Now that these and the other "old reliable" fossil hominids have been class-ified as human, anthropologists have turned their attention to ape and other anthropoid remains which have been recently discovered in Africa. The main group ofthese is given the generic name Australopithecus (the name is derived from Latinaustralia "southern," plus Greek pithekos "ape," and does not denote a connectionwith the Austra)ian continent). (The reader should realize that the living apesthe gorilla, gibbon, orangutan, and chimpanzee-are distinct from monkey8, beingtailless and generally being larger than monkeys. The fossil apes are, of course,basically similar to modern apes.) The name Australopithecus origiuated with R. A.Dart in 1925. Since Dart's first description of the fossil remains to which he gavethis generic name, there have been numerous other similar finds. Some of these havebeen given other generic names such as paranthropus and Zinjanthropus but I.e Cr08Clark (196k, p. 20-21) and numerous other authorities assert that they are of thesame type as Australopthecus and should be placed in "African man-apes;" theyare widely regarded as being in the evolutionary line from which man is said tohave evolved.

82A

Of course the fossils of the genus Australopithecus are sufficient evidence

that this group existed as a race of apes, or close relatives of the apes. Buteven at the present time (1988) there is intense controversy among paleontologistsand anthropologists as to how (by what lines of descent) these animals could be the

ancestors of man. Some of these scholars are saying that the austra].opithecinesprobably developed, into some of the more modern ape-like primates, but not into

genus Homo. After all, no clearly human artifacts (tools, pottery, art-,etc.) haveever been found associated with australopithecine skeletal remains. Nevertheless,

many science and history teachers still keep insisting that all members of genusHomo--and thus all modern humans--evolved from the ancient ape-like genus Australo

pithecusTwo of the most currently discussed theoretical ancestors of modern man are

AustralopitheCuS afarensis (nicknamed "Lucy"), and Homo habilis (The genus Homo

(man) belongs to the zoological Order Primates, of Family Hominidae (as shown at topof p. 84). The genus and species names are always underlined.) The fossil remainsof both Homo habilts and Australopithecus afarensis were found in eastern Africa.The first skull of Homo habilis was discovered by Louis Leakey in 1960, and a fewother partial specimens have been found since. The "Lucy" skeleton was discoveredby Donald Johanson in 1974, in Africa, but no clearly human artifacts were foundeither with it or with H. habilis remains. The H. habili.s skulls have more humanlike characteristics than any Australopithecus ones, but it is still doubtful thatit was proper to assign them to genus Homo (We should remember that actual scientific research does not announce any definite conclusions until very clear data andevidence are found.) Evolutionary anthropologists have intensely wished that theycould discover definitely human artifacts with the fossil bones of H. .habilis " Thiswould be strong evidence that H. habilis was actually human; and then, by evolutionaryinterpretation, they could assume that these early humans had evolved from membersof the genus Australopithecus there in Africa. However, the nearest thing to artifacts that has been found with the H. habilis fossils is some so-called "pebble tools"(natural or slightly modified rocks which have shapes such that they could have beenused as crude pounding or chopping implements if they were in the hands of apes orhumans).' (From the article "Fossil Man," by Eric Delson, in vol. 5 of the McGrawHill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1982, p. 677-678.)

The oldest type of fossil primate which can be definitely classified as human(belonging to genus Homo is Homo erectus A good number of skulls and other skeletalparts belonging to this species have been found during the past 6,5 years--most of themin Java arid China. During the past 35 years this type has been found also in Africa(W. E. LeGros Clark, The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution University of ChicagoPress, 1964, p. 112-113; and Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention Sinon and Schuster,1987, p. 226-227 and Plate F' on p. 223). Anatomically, the Homo erectus peoplewere very similar to some of the present-day races of mankind. In China, the skeletal parts were found in definite association with large numbers of especially chippedstone and bone tools, and with domestic hearths where they had used fire to cook theirfood (w. E. LeGros Clark, 1964, p.. iii.), Actually, we have no real reason for supposing that the Homo erectus race was essentially different from or inferior to theNeanderthal race, which has to be recognized as fully human (Homo sapiens)

As for the dates of the oldest fossils oiman beings (apparently Homo erectus)various aspects of evolutionary bias have caused anthropologists and pa].eoanthropologists to assume that they are between 1 and 2 million years old. However, thisis difficult to demonstrate. So far as the dating evidence is concerned, it could bethat they are not greatly older than Neanderthal Nan, who is known mainly from themany Neanderthal fossil remains of between 35,000 and 75,000 years ago in Europe.The dating methods used on the Homo erectus fossils in Java and China were very' crudeand imprecise. In Java the dating was done mainly by trying to determine which

82B

glacial period provided the sediments in which the bones were buried.

In China, the dating methods have been no more satisfactory than in Java. Themany published descriptions of the Peking an excavations--which excavations have beenthe main source of information on Homo erectus in China--give confusing and often disagreeing reports. This is because the excavation work was done over a long period,from approximately 1922 to 1980 by several different persons and agencies, under thecontrol of different nations. However, none of the reports describe any dating procedures which can really be accepted as reliable. The great majority of the humanfossils and artifacts were found in the cave and limestone-quarry area at Choukoutien(now known as Zhouicoudian), about 37 miles southwest of Peking (now known as Beijing),buried in sediments some components of which were transported into the area'by movingwater. The article "Peking !;an," by the Chinese paleoanthropologists Wu Bukang andUn Shenglong (Scientific American v. 248, June 1983, p. 86-911) gives a brief accountof how they and other Chinese communist anthropologists and archaeologists used radiometric dating on sediments from the excavation site during the era of communist control from 1914-9 to 1980. On page 88 they describe some of the erosional and otherchanges through which the cave and surrounding area passed before, during, and afterit was occupied by Peking ?an.

As for the dating methods used, radiometric and fission-track dating are usefulfor determining the time of origin of igneous, crystalline, mineral particles such asthose mixed with the burial sediments; but these methods can not tell us when the particles were transported from the site of their origin to the burial site. This problem, plus the fact that a high percentage of the fossil bones and artifacts were removed from their burial sites without the making of exact records of their preciseposition in the strata, indicate to us that the dating of Peking )Ian is not scientifically reliable. -

Potassium-argon dating has-been used a great deal on the australopithecinefossil finds in Africa, and the results have usually been between 2 and k millionyears. (For example, as stated by Eric Delson, in the article "Fossil Man,' in theMcGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1982, vol. 5, p. 676.) But thesedates are not at all certain, because the only way to apply potassium-argon datingin these investigations was to test the sediments (volcanic ash, gravel, etc.) whichhad. been washed in to cover the fossils at some time in the past. Since the specificsource of these sediments is not known (i. e., from which volcanic eruption theywere derived), the sediments may be from an eruption much older than the bones are.This difficulty is briefly explained by Roger Lewin in the book Bones of ContentionSimon and Schuster, 1987, p. 192 and 194-195, and he tells how very much of a problem

there was in trying to date the well-known hominid fossils unearthed in the Lake Turkanaarea in Kenya. He mentions both the problem of the volcanic ash having been transported in from considerable distances by run-off water, and the problem of "contamination with older rocks"--that is, with sediment grains eroded from older rocks andpicked up by the water as it transports the -volcanic ash (p. 192). For example, Lewinstates that the -volcanic-ash sedimentary rock layers in the area of the Xoobi Forafossil site (near Lake Turkana) yielded potassium-argon dates varying from 223 millionto 0.91 million years. However, careful visual examination of the sediments can eliminate some of the worst samples. But, in any event, one or both of the two problemswe have named concerning the reliable, identification of the ash layers is a much moreserious problem for dating practically all of the east Africa hominid fossil discoveries than evolutionary anthropologists will admit. Host books and articles on theAfrican hominid fossil finds which are available to the reading public are carelessand dogmatic in using the 2 to 4-million-year dates as though there were no doubtwhatever regarding their accuracy. This careless dogmatism regarding dates is veryevident throughout the entire article by Eric Delson cited above.

Actually, it may not be very important to know how old the australopithecinefossils are, since there is no real evidence that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens werederived from genus Australopithecus Some of the reasons we can say there is no realevidence for evolution from genus Australopithecus to genus Homo arej

(i) The difference in anatomical form of the bones of these two fossil groups. Thisincludes a great contrast in cranial capacity in relation to the size of the entireskeleton1 as well as in the shape of many cranial and other bones. Many of the popular articles arid books concerning these fossils say that the two groups (genera)are very similar, but if one reads the original scientific descriptions of them, hefinds that the popular claims are not true,

(2) The total lack of definite cultural artifacts in association with the australopithecine fossils. This is true even of the famous "Lucy" skeleton--in spite.. ofall the fanciful, popularizing talk about her supposed (but very few) human-likecharacteristics. Roger Lewin, in Bones of Contention 1987, p. 279, states that the"tools" which are sometimes spoken of as belonging to the "Lucy" culture were notdiscovered until 1976, two years after the excavation of the "Lucy" skeleton site.These were only very crude "pebble tools" (see explanation above) and were onlyfrom the sane general geographic and geologic location as the "Lucy" remains.

3) The enormous lack (scarcity) of fossils and. other data which might point to anevolutionary relationship between the genus Australopithecus and genus Homo Weshould remember the fact that the "Lucy" skeleton (classified as Australopithecus

82C

afarensis)is-only 4C complete, yet it is rated as the best and most spectacular discovery of fossils related to human evolutionary theory that has been found between1970 and the present (i988). Paleontologists dealing with other kinds of animalsalmost never consider such a small, relatively isolated fossil find a that to be asufficient basis for forming any very definite conclusions regarding the relationshipsof the groups of animals being considered.

Most evolutionary anthropologists seem not to be bothered at all by the millionyear gaps in their theoretical ancestral tree for mankind. Actually, there are veryfew bones of any kind that have been identified and oposed to be intermediary between the famous "Lucy" ape skeleton and genus Homo And, even if there were manysuch bones, nobody could demonstrate or prove that the morphological similarityindicates an actual genetic relationship. (All of these few fossil specimens havebeen dead for long periods of time, and there is absolutely no record of which onebred with which.) We must face the fact that .nearly all of the evolutionary anthropologists who investigate and write concerning the history of mankind are failing toreally adhere to the standard steps of the scientific method of research. Thus theyare not really investigating as actual scientists, and are substituting many suppositions and hypotheses for real scientific data. (If a scientist, such as a researchgeologist in the petroleum industry, were to operate in this way, the drilling crewsdepending on information from the geologic research would all end up with "dry holes"instead of productive wells.)

Thus, even if we consider all of the main types of fossil remains in the supposedancestral line of man, we have to come back and recognize that we do not have definiteindications of even "simple-minded" human beings on earth before the Homo erectustype, which we described briefly above. Those of us who accept the reliability ofthe Genesis account of the dispersion of mankind at the Tower of Babel will be ableto readily realize the origin of the clans or colonies of Homo erectus peoples whichdeveloped in the Far East and at least in Africa, and of the early Homo sapienspeoples (Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon) in Europe. Here are peoples with definite humancharacteristics, culture, and an appreciation for art; and there1s no way to bridgethe immense gap between them and the Australopithecus types of Africa, (Items 13,14, and 15 below give several additional reasons why we have to recognize the humanrace as distinct and far above the apes and ape-like animals.) We admit that itmight conceivably be possible that evidence for true human characteristics will befound in association with fossils of the now-doubtful Homo habilis mentioned above.If this should ever happen it would still leave great gaps, in anatomical form, brainsize, and cultural characteristics, between the Australopithecus fossils (such as"Lucy") and H. habilis If H. habilis is ever found to have been truly human,we can definitely expect that the antiquity of this form of man was much less thanis now supposed. (The age usually assigned to the H. habilis fossils is about 2million years, but we should remember that the potassium-argon dating of the Africanfossil finds is very unreliable, as was explained above.)

From the above brief survey of the hominid fossils it is apparent that foz several decades evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have been insisting thatgroups of early, primitive human beings who lived in different parts of Africa andAsia supposedly at least one million years ago became the progenitors of the modernhuman races. But in 1987 the popular news media began to give us reports of scientific research which had recently warranted the conclusion that all modern races ofhuman beings were derived from a single ancestral group of human beings who lived nomore than 200,000 years ago. This new concept would bring the origin of the presentday human races down to a date which is very "recent" as considered by evolutionary anthropologists (but it does not deny that Homo erectus and Homo habilis might have livedearlier than that). This single ancestral group is often called "the mitochondria3.

82D

mother." This term refers to the fact that the DNA mitochondrial (non-nuclear) genetic components in the cells of the various living human races today have been foundto show relationships which indicate that all the races had to have come from eitherone woman or a small group of closely related women. Of course the eggs producedby these women had. to be fertilized to produce offspring, but the male sex cells donot contribute any mitochondrial DNA to the offspring. So, the mother is the moredistinctive parent, with respect to initochondrial inheritance. (Mitochondria arethe very small organelles within all our body cells, which release energy from thefood substances within the cells. Each of them contains a small amount of DNA whichis somewhat different from the DNA of the nuclei of the cells.)

The research which resulted in the conclusion that all modem human races canefrom a single source or "mitochondria]. mother" group was done mainly by the geneticist Rebecca Cann of the University of Hawaii. She and her assistants in differentparts of the world made mitochondrial tests on women who were from all the main areasand races of the world. They concluded that all had been derived from a single femalesource sometime between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Some of the geneticists havejokingly called this initochondrial mother female group "Eve," but they are not re

ferring to the real Biblical Eve, which we accept as "the mother of all living" (Genesis320). (The story of this research was written up in many magazines and journals in1987 and 1988. The January 11, 1988, Newsweek p. 46-50 gives a fairly reliableaccount and explanation of it, on a semi-popular level.) -

If this evidence concerning human origins from a single mitochondxial source isvalid, it presents some problems for the previous paleoaiithropOlOgical explanationsof how the known human races of Asia and Africa arose. It has been supposed thatsome of these races arose from Homo erectus of the Far East (Asia), and some fromHomo erectus of Africa, perhaps 500,000 years ago. But if all present-day raceswere derived from a single, small group of women (and men) not more than 200,000

years ago, many parts of the previous evolutionary explanations can not be correct.

It remains to be seen just what will come out of the conflict between the evolutionary paleontological method of studying the origin of man, and this new, geneticmethod (which also assumes evolution, but puts the origin of man at about 200,000years instead of if million). But one important benefit which can come out. of thenew genetic evidence for a "rnitochondrial mother," may be the pointing out of howbiased, and sometimes truly hypothetical, the dating of the hominid fossils hasbeen during the past decades. As was pointed out above, even though radiometricmethods of determining dates can be reliable when properly used, the applicationpotassium-argon dating to the discovered fossils has almost always--if not always-been of low quality.

Likewise, as was explained in the paragraphs on the Java and Peking hominid discoveries, the dating methods used for these fossils did not produce reliable results.But the anthropologists did finally have to recognize that the Java and Peking skeletons were very similar to those of modern man, and change the early generic namesof them (Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus to Homo. (See page 81, above.) Nevertheless, when they changed the names to Homo, they did not propose a more recent date,even though they were still not able to find any solid evidence of the old dates whichthey had been using. Evolutionary anthropologists and teachers simply find it difficult to discard their long-held bias for million-year periods for the development ofmodern man.

Because of all the inconclusivö evidence regarding the dates of the progenitorsof modern man, no sci'ntist or other person needs to feel embarrassed to reject theolder dates and. to acce.. the 200,000-year date (or even one-half that age)-.for theorigin of man.

82E

We will now consider a few further evidences that man is, and always has been,

completely distinct from the lower hominids such as the apes and the australopitheclues of ancient Africa.

13. The observation that the shape of the cranium, jaws, and facial bones doesnot affect the mentality of human beings, This is evidenced in living races which

possess wide variations in these features.

14. The observation that normal, and even superior, mentality is present amongliving races having a relatively small cranial capacity; for example, in theVeddas of Sri Lanka, and in the Australian aborigines.

15. The existence of a wide gap between the highest apes and man. This gap isevident in the following characteristics* (a) The presence of rational thought inall human races. It is this rationality which makes possible the exclusively human ability to symbolize, allegorize, believe in and worship God (or gods), burytheir dead, invent language, think in terms of the past and. future, and both createand appreciate art, music, and poetry. (b) A complex language in all human races,but totally absent in all other forms of life. During the 1960's and 1970's agreat number of papers were published citing research results which were thoughtto be evidence for intelligent language usage among chimpanzees and other apes,and even among dolphins and porpoises. But by 1980, fundamental faults in thetechniques of animal-language research began to be discovered and published inseveral well-known scientific journals, such as the Journal of ExperimentalAnimal Behavior and Psychology Today (a series of such articles in 1979 to 1981t 'Terrace). A good, documented summary of this discovery of faulty research,and of the way that many researchers in this field had to "back down" from theirbold claims concerning language, ability in apes is contained in the book Originsand Destiny, by Robert Gange, Word Books, 1986, p. 139-145 and 177-178. (c) Impor.tant morphological differences between ape, and man, including the form of thebrain, the convolutions of the brain case, and the size of the brain. (Note that,in order for brain size comparisons to be valid, the size and weight of the wholeanimal must be taken into consideration.)

Dr. George B. Schaller, who spent a year living in close association withthe mountain gorillas of central Africa, comments at some length in his bookThe Year of the Gorilla (University of Chicago Press, 1964) on the great contrastbetween the apes and man. He says, "When I ;began to study gorillas, I was atfirst tremendously impressed by their human appearance-they gave the superficialimpression of slightly retarded persons with rather short legs, wrapped in furcoats. The gestures and body positions of gorillas, and for that matter also thoseof other apes, resemble those of man rather than the monkeys" (p. 223). But hethen explains, "As I watched the gorillas over the weeks and months, a subtlechange occurred in my thinking about 'the apes. At first I was highly impressed with their human ways, but there was something basic lacking,something that their brown eyes, no matter how expressive, could not convey;namely, a means of communication with each other about the past and the

(cont'd next page)

63

future and about things that were not immediately apparent" (p. 228).In the same chapter Dr. Schaller discusses the making and using of simple

tools by the chimpanzee, commenting on this as follows: "There still appearsto be a'wide mental gap between preparing a simple twig for immediate use

s chimpanzees sometimes do), and shaping a stone for a particular purposea day or two hence." He then quotes the anthropologist Oakley as saying that"there is danger of minimizing the gap in quality of mind needed for such[anima efforts, compared with even the crudest tools of early man, whichindicate forethought.'" This rational thought about the future is very evident even Lny&ung children. For example, the present writer observed a childof 2 years and 'i months who was ill with a condition which caused frequentvomiting for several hours; usually after each crisis she would hopefully ask,"I not choke again?", indicating contemplation of the future.

Dr. Shaller was also greatly impressed by the gorillas' lack of speech,rational thinking, and sell consciousness. Concerning the lack of speech inapes he says that even the gorilla infants "showed no interest in imitatingsounds or in pra tic lug with various combinations of sounds." The adults douse some impIe suiid for signal lug, but he remarks that "their signalingsystem is no more complex than that used by dogs and many other maninals."Schaller coments on the lack of self consciousness in apes by quoting th'statement of C. W. Corner, "'After all, if he Lma is an ape, he is the onlyape that is debating what kind of ape he is.'" Even some children less thantwo years old compare themselves with others, and indicate a knowledge of thedistinctions between themselves and other persons and animals. This selfconsciousness is exclusively human, again illustrating the wide gap betweenapes and

84 (old p. 59)

MUMMY SUPPLEMENT (Animal classification and relation

ships as used in standard biology textbooks)

Another example1. The classification series:

Phylum--ChordataPhylum--e.g., Protozoa Subphylum--Vertebrata

Class--e.g., Sa,rcodina Class--MaaliaOrder--e.9., Lobosa Order--Primates

Family-- Family--HoinidaeGenus--e.g., Amoeba Genus--Honio

Species--e.g., proteuSpecies--erectus, and sapiensSubspecies or variety--

2. Definition of species-- A group of individuals having many characteristicsin common, and differing from all other forms in one or more ways, themembers of the species producing fertile offspring within their own group.They do not interbreed with other species, except in a few cases, to produce sterile hybrids. (Storer & Usinger, 1965, p. 270.)

3. Variety or subspecies--A segment of a species which has become geographically or artificially (as in domestic dogs and cattle) isolated so thatit does not interbreed with the rest of its species, but which £ interbreed with the rest of the species and produce fertile offspring, ifthey are brought back together. During the isolation, the subspeciesshows slight morphological variations from the rest of the species, dueto the hereditary variations which become prominent.

. Note what factors operate to keep the many species of the animal kingdomfrom mixing indiscriminately with the other species and thus producinga conglomeration of organisms which could not be classified into separateand distinct groups (Winchester pp. 91395):(a)The lack of sexual attraction.(b)The fact that hybrids (produced by the mating of two different species)

are usually sterile, and therefore can not continue the morphologicalform they have begun. (This sterility is..fp due to a differencein the number of chromosomes between the two species or thuiromosomesL being iacompThTëT)

(e)Efiina1 barriers which p vent mating. Examples of these isolatingmechanisms are found in: (1 Ecologic isolation during the mating season; e.g., the pig frog, ana gryl'io breeds in deep water while thegopher f g, Rana areo1a°ta breeds in isolated grassy ponds in shallowwater. (2 Behavioral isolation; e.g. the mating call of the graytree fro , Hyla versicolor and that of the closely allied pine woodstree-frog, Hyla femora1is are extremely different, and thus the female of one species does not respond to the call of the male of theper species, even though they may both be breeding in the same pond.

®orphologic

differences in size which prevent hybridization.ifferences in the mating time or season; e.g. some species of

rogs breed several weeks before other species do. (J.M. Savage,1963, pp. 75-77.)

Therefore we must recognize that there is a "hereditary barrier"which keeps each species or genus distinct; as Winchester says, "aspecies is a biological entity" (p. 95). Furthermore, the geologicalrecord found in the strata of the earth shows that this same "heredi-tary barrier" principle was in operation during the past ages. -