Human Evolution: What is it?
Human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Much of the alleged evidence that filled text books over the last 50 years has now been reclassified or rejected altogether. The missing links are still missing.
Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence
Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:
Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.1
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.2
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.3
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.4
- Neandertal man (Neanderthal man) was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.5
Human Evolution: The Current Tree
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:
Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.6
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence.7 Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.8
- Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.9
Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.10
Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.
Look at the Alternative Now!
We highly recommend Paul S. Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book: Concise, Easy-to-Understand Facts about the Origin of Man, Man, and the Cosmos (Eden Communications, 1995) for an extensive Reference Section related to Human Evolution and the various frauds, myths, and misunderstandings surrounding the “missing link” fossil evidence.
Ramapithecus -- See, Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins (Macdonald and Janes, 1977), p. 68 to end; W.C.O. Hill, Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, Vol. VIII (Edinburgh University Press, 1970), pp. 536-538. (Ramapithecus had teeth and jaw similar to the Gelada baboon.) See also, J. Greenburg, “Fossils Trigger Questions of Human Origins,” Science News, Vol. 121, No. 5 (January 30, 1982), p. 84; Peter Andrews, “Hominoid Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 295, No. 5846 (1982), pp. 185-186. (Ramapithecus proved to be part of the orangutan lineage.) Others include, William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (Macmillan Publishing, 1984), pp. 16-27; and Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, Vol. 4, No. 9 (November 1983), pp. 36-43.
Piltdown Man -- See, Frank Spencer, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery (Oxford University Press, 1990); Joseph S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (Oxford University Press, 1955); Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 3-43; and Ronald W. Millar, The Piltdown Men (St. Martin’s Press, 1972). (Consistent result: Human skull and ape jaw stained to appear old/teeth filed and jaw damaged purposefully.)
Nebraska Man -- William K, Gregory, “Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape nor a Man,” Science, Vol. 66, No. 1720 (December 16, 1927); Ralph M. Wetzel, et al, “Catagonus, An ‘Extinct’ Peccary, Alive in Paraguay,” Science, Vol. 189, No. 4200 (August 1, 1975), p. 379. (“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” Dr. Time White, Evolutionary anthropologist, U.C. Berkeley.)
Java Man -- Stephen J. Gould, “Men of the Thirty-Third Division: An Essay of Integrity,” Natural History, Vol. 99, No. 4 (April 1990), pp. 12-24. See also, Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), chapters 8-13; Malcom Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Sovereign Publications, 1977), p. 131; and Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Fossils,” in Paul A. Zimmerman, ed., Rock Strata and the Bible Record (Concordia Publishing, 1970), p. 134.
Neanderthal -- See, Jacob W. Gruber, “The Neanderthal Controversy: Nineteenth Century Version,” Scientific Monthly, Vol. 67 (December 1948), pp. 436-439; William Howells, ed., Ideas on Human Evolution (Atheneum, 1962), p. 524; Carle Hodge, “Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told,” The Arizona Republic, Vol. 99, No. 186 (November 20, 1988), p. B-5; and Boyce Rensberger and Jay Matternes, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, Vol. 2, No, 8 (October 1981), pp. 41-50. (“Usual portrayals of Neanderthals as bull-necked, slouching brutes was based on skeletal deformation by age and arthritis.” “The story of human evolution has been fictionalized to suit needs other than scientific rigor.”)
Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) -- Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, No. 1430 (November 15, 1984), pp. 39-40. (“Lucy’s remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp.”) Herbert Wray, “Lucy’s Uncommon Forebear,” Science News, Vol. 123 (February 5, 1983), p. 89. (“The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee.”)
Richard Leakey, son of Louis Leakey, said, “Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination, made of plaster of paris,’ thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.” (The Weekend Australian, (May 7-8, 1983), p. 3. See also generally, Joseph S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (Universe Books, 1971), pp. 45-46. (Australopithecus is a distinctly ape-like creature. Australopithecus stands in strong contrast to modern Homo sapiens.)
Homo erectus-- See, Edmund White and Dale Brown, The First Men (Time-Life Books, 1973), p. 14; Alfred S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 227; and Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, and Frans Zonneveld, “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, No. 6482 (June 23, 1994), pp. 645-648). See also, Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 86-156.
Australopithecus africanus (“Peking Man”) -- Franz Weidenreich, “The Skull of Sinanthropus Pekinensis: A Comparative Study on a Primitive Hominid Skull,” Palaeontologia Sinica, New Series D, No. 10, Whole Series 127 (Geological Survey of China, December 1943), p. 246. See also, Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), chapter 13.
Homo habilis -- Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 161-166.
- Toumai -- M.H. Wolpoff, J. Hawks, et al, “An Ape or The Ape: Is the Toumai TM 266 Cranium a Hominid?” PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50 (2006). See also, Guy Brunet, et al, “A New Hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa,” Nature 418 (6894), pp. 145-151.
What is your response?
Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus
Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus
I still have questions