“Edward Tyson had earlier, in 1699, unconsciously manipulated what was to be the first scientific description of a great ape, in this case a juvenile chimpanzee…In the post-Darwinian era, throughout the history of paleoanthropology, authorities would commit Tyson’s error time and time again: Neanderthal, Piltdown, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus-each in its turn has been the object of the exaggeration of traits favored by observers whose theories demanded them.”3
“the power of preconceptions, of seeing in the anatomy what you expect to see. ‘Contrary to Simons’ and my original view, Ramapithecus itself does not have a parabolic dental arcade,’4 says Pilbeam. ‘I ‘knew’ Ramapithecus, being a hominid, would have a short face and a rounded jaw-so that’s what I saw.’5 Pilbeam and Simons were not uniquely guilty of this error. It occurs often, such is the uncertainty of interpreting fragmentary anatomy in fossils….The clearest message of the Ramapithecus affair, however, is the power of preconceptions, which in this case led competent scientists to ignore the evidence of other competent scientists because the conclusions drawn from the evidence were at variance with established ideas. All scientists are guided to some degree by a set of assumptions, usually implicit rather than explicit. ‘I try hard to detect them in my own thinking,’ says Pilbeam, ‘to isolate those assumptions that are not articulated because they are so ‘obvious,’ yet will seem so silly a few years from now. I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, ‘theory’-heavily influenced by implicit ideas-almost always dominates ‘data’…Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted.’”6
Regarding various descriptions of Ramapithecus’ anatomy and habits:
“Here then, was a very complete picture of an animal-not just what it looked like, but also how it lived. And all based on a few fragments of upper and lower jaw and teeth…’What we saw in the fossils was the small canines, and the rest followed, all linked together somehow. The Darwinian picture has a long tradition, and it was very powerful,’”7 “Pilbeam and Simmons managed to maintain their support of Ramapithecus [as a hominid], however, mainly by adjusting their lines of argument in concert with the shifting evidence,”8 “Pilbeam began to realize that the fossil material then available simply wasn’t adequate to support the kinds of sweeping conclusions that had been made,”9 “before the decade was out Rama’s ape would be just that-an ape.”10
“‘One no longer has the option of considering a fossil specimen than about eight million years a hominid no matter what it looks like.’11 In other words, he did not care whether Ramapithecus looked like Australopithecus or even Homo sapiens. It was simply too old to be a hominid….Even Louis Leakey joined in the fray, admitting first that ‘I am not qualified to discuss the biochemical evidence,’12 and then going on to assert that it must be wrong because it was at variance with the fossil record…This initial line of criticism by the paleoanthropologists is unequivocal: the biochemistry is wrong because it doesn’t agree with the fossils. Period.”13
Richard Leakey made the following statement regarding Homo habilis, “Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species, at least half probably don’t. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist’s 50 percent is quite the same as another’s.”14