Sir,

Bernard A Reeve’s letter "What’s happened to other fossils" (Citizen, Dec 15) downplays and discredits the most important scientific discovery of the year by throwing human evolution along with evolutionary theory in general out the window! I’d like to point out to Mr. Reeve that "prejudiced" scientists haven’t just conjured-up this theory by pulling rabbits out of a hat – the fact remains that evolution is the best model explaining life’s origins based solely on the observable evidence which nature herself presents to us. In fact, the evidence today goes far beyond Darwin. Had we no fossil record whatsoever, the evidence in favour of evolution would still be overwhelming. Almost every scientific discipline plays a significant part in the theory: from quantum physics to genetics. Not even the fact that the Earth is (approximately) round enjoys as much scientific support!

Although it is possible to rebut Mr. Reeve’s letter on a number of points, the most disturbing element which deserves mention is the way in which he quotes prominent scientists out of context. This is tantamount to scholarly deceit! Although, Darwin was bothered by the lack of good transitional fossils (fossils of intermediate structure between ancestral species), he did not base his thesis primarily on such evidence. The idea that all transitional fossil sequences could be found is not one that Darwin supported. There are a number of factors which impede the discovery of "intermediate links", some of which Darwin was not aware of. A few of these factors include: the difficulty with which fossils are formed; the time taken for species to evolve (this is still disputed); discontinuity in fossil-bearing strata; the subsidence and elevation of sedimentary rock; the geographical distribution of fossils, and the identification of fossils in the field. Hence Darwin was fully justified in claiming "the imperfection of the geological record". It is remarkable that we do indeed have transitional fossil sequences at all! In the Daily Telegraph article (Sept. 13, 1995) quoted by Mr. Reeves, geneticist Steve Jones is referring naturally to the fossil evidence in support of human evolution – not all the evidence! In the very same article Jones claims to look forward to seeing that particular statement quoted out of context - perhaps I should send him Mr. Reeve’s letter. As for quoting eminent palaeontologist Steven J. Gould – this has to be regarded as the most famous misquote in evolutionary biology. The two sentences given by Mr. Reeve stem from sentences in the opposite order in the essay (Natural History, Vol 86, 1977). The first sentence quoted by Mr. Reeve is taken out of context. Gould is stressing the lack of adequate transitional fossils in promoting the theory of evolutionary change, called punctuated equilibrium, which he and Niles Eldredge forwarded in the early 1970's. This is merely a debate among evolutionary biologists as to the rate of evolutionary change. The second sentence by Gould quoted by Mr. Reeves is represented here in full: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Note that Mr. Reeve’s quote omitted with ellipses the words "that adorn our textbooks". This distorted the entire meaning of Gould’s sentence, giving the impression that no part of the evolutionary trees was based on actual data. In this quote Gould was criticizing textbooks for not accurately inferring data from the evidence. Mr. Reeve’s strawman approach at discrediting evolution on the grounds that leading scientists remain unconvinced is rather disingenuous – it certainly constitutes no "evidence" against evolutionary biology. This kind of ‘argument from authority’ was abandoned prior to the Enlightenment.

Interestingly, a quick search on the Internet reveals that Mr. Reeves could indeed be associated with the Biblical Creation Society, a Christian fundamentalist organisation which advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis (Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood and a 6000-year-old Earth). This "alternative to evolution" surely represents religious mythology and not science, and It’s sad that the two have become confused. The Sterkfontein hominid deserves a little more respect than this – afterall, its not how I would treat my grandmother.

Marc S. Weinberg