As we learned in the last seminar, the evolution of the most simple forms of life is—by all standards of measure—impossible. Why then, do evolutionists insist on promoting evolution of higher life forms, and especially man?
The reason should be obvious. If people can be convinced of a link between a monkey and man, then the impossibility of any other stage of evolution is irrelevant. And so the fraudulent “missing links” keep coming.
What’s at Stake is Our Humanity.
According to the Bible, man was made in the image of God:
Genesis 1:26,27: “Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
(Note: In the word “man” is contained two meanings:
(2) Humanity = Male & Female.
Thus there is a unity in our origin. Evolutionists would like to split that unity.)
And also, according to the Bible, man was created to care for God’s creation, which includes “stewardship” of the animals.
Genesis 2:15: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” (Therefore man is distinct from the animals by nature.)
Clearly, the Bible does not allow for the physical evolution of man; however, it does teach the spiritual “devolution of man.”
The Biblical account of man's quest for personal autonomy (or independence) is found in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. Here we have the temptation of Adam and Eve to eat from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Their sin of disobedience ended in separation from the one source of unifying knowledge: God. Their key problem with knowledge was the desire to acquire it rather than receive it. From that point on, though man's technical knowledge would increase, his understanding of purpose and meaning would decrease. The primary loss of humanity was the personal revelation of God to enlighten them about their purpose and meaning. This degenerative process has since separated humanity from the purposeful knowledge we so desperately need.
The Lie, The Fall, and the Flood.
Satan lied to himself saying, “I will make myself… like the Most High.” (Isa. 14:14) Then Satan lied to man saying, “You will make yourself ‘like God.’” (Gen. 3:5)
The result of man’s disobedience was separation from God, other men, and ultimately the entire creation.
The Genesis Flood was the eventual consequence of man’s moral decline. All of humanity had become corrupt, and therefore God had to judge all people—except, by His grace, eight in the family of Noah.
After the Flood, God chose to repopulate the earth. From this act God established the various nations in the family of man. (Note: Nations, not races.)
Acts 17:26,27: “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”
By the way, where did Cain get his wife? (Today, we have no concept of how things were in that day. You see, at that time there was no moral law given against marriage to a sibling. Second, the problems experienced with modern day intermarriage did not exist, since there was no time to accumulate genetic defects within a family lineage. The long time effect of such an accumulation was eventually shorter life spans and the many forms of congenital disease we experience today.)
In any case, the racial variation existing in the modern family of man is clear evidence for a far richer store of genetic options in early man.
The Evolution of Man: Historical Hoaxes and Fossil Frauds
Perhaps you have heard about the numerous cases of fraud associated with what are supposed to be missing links in human evolution. Many of these are described in an outstanding book called Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow (See Bones of Contention). What follows are some of the most notorious “fossil frauds” in history:
This is perhaps one of the greatest cases of fraud in all the history of science. This alleged early human was “discovered” by Charles Dawson in England in 1911.
When made public, it was hailed as one of the great discoveries of science.
Immediately there were imaginative drawings created to promote the evolutionary implications of this discovery to the public.
No less than 500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown Man. These were all scientists who were otherwise competent in their fields.
Finally, in 1953 it was exposed as a fraud. It is now assumed that Charles Dawson, or an accomplice, had taken the skull of a human and the jawbone of an orangutan and filed them to fit together and then chemically treated them so that they would appear very old.
How could such a thing happen among so many scientists?
Fossils are rarely examined directly. They are normally kept far out of the reach and view of everyone including competent anthropologists. What scientists actually study are “casts,” or replicas, taken from the original fossils.
These casts are by nature incomplete and they are often inaccurate.
When it was discovered that Piltdown was a fraud others were finally able to see that the file marks on the molars of the orangutan were obvious.
It must be remembered that financial support for research is provided for those who discover “missing links”—not frauds.
In the end, we must recognize that human nature, even among scientists, will see only what is hoped for. (Remember, all observation is “theory laden.”)
It took 38-40 years to “discover” that the Piltdown Man was nothing but an intentional fraud. Clearly, the idea that science is an efficient, self-correcting worldview cannot be supported on the basis of the Piltdown Man.
In April 1922, Harold J. Cook made what some evolutionists claimed was the most important fossil discovery in America.
During the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” this fossil evidence was used to convince the public that a creature on the evolutionary path to humanity had once lived in America.
Once again, on the basis of this fossil, imaginative drawings were created for the public. (See Nebraska Man) This is an actual drawing created for a double page spread of The Illustrated London News (June 24, 1922).
It is important to note that the fossil that was used to reconstruct this creature and his entire environment was nothing more than a single worn, molar tooth!
Later, in 1925, a fossil-hunter named Thompson discovered some more of these fossil teeth in the same location as did Cook.
Because these teeth were less worn it was obvious that all of the teeth were the remains of an extinct pig.
Though it is true that some of the noted evolutionists of that time withheld judgement on these fossils, it was never made clear to the general public that there was so little and such flimsy evidence for what was originally claimed to be a significant discovery.
Java Man (adapted from Bones of Contention)
Before the turn of the century a Dutch anatomist, Eugene Dubois, went to the East Indies (now Indonesia) in search of the “missing link.” (See Eugene Dubois)
In 1891, along the banks of the Solo River, he found a skullcap that seemed to him to have a combination of human and ape features.
A year later, about fifty feet away, he found a thighbone that was very human in appearance and he simply assumed it belonged with the skullcap.
Dubois named his “missing link” Pithecanthropus erectus, or more popularly “Java Man,” which he went on to sell as one of the single most important fossil finds of the 20th Century. Worldwide fame followed for Dubois.
Much later, after a lesser-known scientist, Stuart A. Smith, published research concerning a modern human fossil, Dubois revealed that he had found modern human fossils in the same site as Java Man. He hid these fossils under the floorboards of his home for thirty years.
Further, it was not until 1924, thirty-three years after the discovery of the skullcap, that Dubois finally published a definitive paper on it. Two years later he published a major paper on the thighbone.
The term Pithecanthropus erectus is now obsolete. The modern term is Homo erectus. Because of the close association of modern human fossils with Homo erectus, virtually all scientists (evolutionist or creationist) believe that Java Man coexisted with Modern Man. Many scientists now realize that Java man cannot be our evolutionary ancestor since they both lived at the same time and place as modern man.
Summary (Lubenow, p. 119): “Dubois went to the Dutch Indies to prove human evolution by discovering fossil evidence. He then undertook a campaign to sell his fossils to the world. He succeeded. The result was that he set the study of paleoanthrology back one hundred years.”
Nut-cracker Man (Zinjanthropus) (See Louis Leakey and Friends)
Louis and Mary Leakey, have been some of the most famous evolutionary paleoanthtropologists of this century. They have worked at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania for many years. “One day in 1959, because Louis was ill, Mary went out alone. At a certain spot she saw teeth sticking out of the ground. Excavation revealed a large cranium having some resemblance to the South African robust australopithecines [an extinct monkey]. Stone tools found in association with the fossils led Louis to believe that this individual was a toolmaker. And to Louis, tool making meant just one thing: man! Believing that they had found the first toolmaker, Louis named the fossils Zinjanthropus, “East Africa Man.” The ridiculously large molars indicated that the individual probably lived on nuts and berries, and so became affectionately known as “Nut-cracker Man.” (Lubenow, p.157)
Now, it may be that Leakey knew that “Zinj” was nothing but a monkey, but financial support is provided for those who find “missing links” for man—not monkeys. It was at this time that the Leakey family financial relationship with the National Geographic Society began.
In the National Geographic article on “Nutcracker Man” Louis Leakey said, “The teeth were projecting from the rock face, smooth and shining, and quite obviously human.” (Louis Leakey, “Finding the World’s Earliest Man,” National Geographic, September 1960: 421. Emphasis added.) (See Figure 4)
“Included in the article was an artist’s painting of what “Zinj” might have looked like. It was quite a piece of work. Whereas our eyes are about midway between our chin and the top of our head, there was hardly any head at all showing above “Zinj’s eyes. He had virtually no brain. But the skill of the National Geographic artists was such that the portrait was almost believable.” (Lubenow, p.158) It was all in the eyes. The eyes were those of a man, the face was that of a monkey. (See Nutcraker Man)
It was not long after this that the Leakeys found fossils that they thought were better candidates for human ancestry. Louis then “realized that “’Zinj’ really was just a super-robust australopithecine, and it is now known as Australopithecus boisei [an extinct monkey]. What Louis claimed was “obviously human” turned out to be “obviously nonhuman.”
Time Magazine cover: “Morphed Man” (How Man Began) (See Figure 5)
In this article from TimeMagazine evolutionists have taken “artistic license” to the opposite extreme. Whereas the other examples were an attempt to make a monkey look like a man, in this case, the artist attempts to make a man look like a monkey. This article deals with what is called Home erectus, which they have depicted by using a computer generated “morph” of a man with a monkey. Can you imagine being asked to pose in order to be devolved with a monkey?
These “historical hoaxes and fossil frauds” are the prime way that evolution is sold to the public. After the falsehood is exposed, evolutionists make no genuine effort to set the record straight in the eyes of the public. Often, these frauds remain in public school textbooks for years after they are known to be false. (Piltdown man for instance.)
What Happened to Neandertal?
Our view of Neandertal Man has changed dramatically over the years since the discovery of the first fossils in 1856 in the Neander Valley of Germany. (See Our Changing View of Neandertal Man)
Soon after their discovery, the brilliant scientist and father of pathology, Rudolf Virchow, examined the bones and made a diagnosis of the health of this individual. His assessment was that this person had suffered from rickets in childhood, and arthritis in old age. This explanation for the rugged, thick bones is as valid today as it was then. Evolutionists now acknowledge these traits and others in the Neandertal fossils.
The characteristic features of the Neandertals skull are as follows:
a distinctive shape, long and low with bulges at sides
In addition Neandertals had an overall body structure that was short, robust and generally more muscular than that of modern humans. These traits do distinguish the average Neandertal from the average modern man, but once again the majority of Neandertal distinctives have been acknowledged by evolutionists to be within the range of modern man. Erik Trinkaus, a noted evolutionist, said this: ("Hard Times Among the Neanderthals," Natural History, 87:10 (December 1978): p.58.):
"Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans."
Today, nearly all evolutionists view Neandertal Man as fully human and acknowledge that many of the skeletal features can be seen in modern northern Europeans. (See Neandertal Man Today) (See Neandertal Modernized) (See Neandertal Urbanized)
What About the Other Missing Links?
It is not as though evolutionists agree on our family tree:
There are many evolutionary family trees, each with significant differences. Two of these are shown on the following diagrams. (see An Evolutionary Family Tree). (Hand out copies of “Evolutionary Family Trees”)
These evolutionary trees all assume a time scale that Biblical creationists should reject; however, even when we accept it, for argument sake, we find that the fossil evidence contradicts evolution.
The discovery of WT17000, the Black Skull, has now put evolutionary tree-making into disarray. In this next Figure (see Another Evolutionary Family Tree) you can see that Australopithecus africanus, an extinct monkey, has moved from the monkey branch to the human branch without any problem.
But keep these diagrams in mind. When we look at a diagram prepared by Time Magazine we will see how easy it is to manipulate these trees in order to sell them to the public.
What or who was Homo erectus?
As you may recall, Neandertal Man has been acknowledged to be uniquely human by evolutionists on the basis of certain characteristics shared with modern man.
According to an evolutionary reconstruction of history Homo erectus was the ancestor of Homo sapiens.On this view Homo erectus lived 1.5 m.y.a.- 300,000 y.a. (1, p160) (4).
Homo erectus fossils have been found in Africa, Southeast Asia, China, Germany, Hungary and Spain.
The average fossils classified in the Homo erectus taxon have a larger brain case (avg. 1,000 cc) and are taller than the average fossils classified in the Homo habilis taxon.
The fossils classified as Homo sapiens (modern humans) have a larger brain case (avg. 1,350 cc) and are taller than Homo erectus. Therefore, Homo erectus is seen as a critical intermediate between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.
Evolutionists generally describe the Homo erectus body structure as modern, but the skull as "primitive." Homo erectus is a diverse form that shows considerable regional variation but which has a characteristically shaped skull. Some of the approximately sixteen characteristic traits shared by these skulls are as follows:
a distinctive pentagonal shape (widest low on the skull with a somewhat pointed top)
heavy brow ridges
cranial wall usually thick overall
slightly jutting face
teeth generally large
brain case: 750 cc - 1250 cc
Now, according to the evolutionary reconstruction of history it was approximately 200,000 y.a. that Homo erectus disappeared and Homo sapiens became fully established (1, p.162). Homo sapiens differ from Homo erectus in a number of ways. Some of the distinctive characteristics of the fossils classified as Homo sapiens are as follows:
brain case: 700 cc - 2200 cc! (with no differences in ability or intelligence)
In addition, the Homo sapiens overall body structure is generally more slender than that of Homo erectus. These traits do distinguish the average modern man from the average Homo erectus; however; the important thing to note is that the range of variation for Homo sapiens is larger than the range for Homo erectus. In other words, Homo erectus, can be included in the range of modern man. This has been acknowledged by a number of evolutionists, as Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State University) has written:
Homo erectus is distinct from modern man (Homo sapiens), but there is a tendency to exaggerate the differences. Even if one ignores transitional or otherwise hard to classify specimens and limits consideration to the Java and Peking populations, the range of variations of many features of Homo erectus falls within that of modern man (Gabriel Ward Lasker, Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973) p.284)
We could summarize these things by saying that if we were to see a person with the unique skull traits of Neandertal Man, as seen in certain Northern Europeans, and a small but modern skeletal trait, such as seen in certain Aborigines, we would be seeing all the traits of Homo erectus.
Finally, according to the Bible, (Mat. 19:4), “At the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'” There were no half man/monkey missing links!
According to the fossil evidence, and the Bible, Homo erectus was a fully human ancestor of modern man.
What Remains of the Missing Links?
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (see Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds).
Nearly everyone has heard of the fossil called Lucy. In 1974, Donald Johnason and his team of paeleoanthropologists found an extinct ape, which is now known as Australopithecus afarensis. Because of its small size, this creature was first thought to be a female, however the name actually came from a particular Beatles’ song that was booming through the camp at the time of the discovery. That song was Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds—an early anthem to the LSD culture. Today, there are many evolutionists who feel that “Lucy” was actually a male. Even though this fossil was so incomplete that scientists were uncertain about the sex on the creature, evolutionists thought it was more complete than any other fossil found from this period, that is, 3 m.y.a. (See Figure 9).
The central claim for Lucy’s being our ancestor, was that she, or he, was “bipedal,” that is, had the ability to walk upright (Bones, p.168). The evidence for “bipedality” is questionable; however, even if it were able to walk upright, what would this prove? Many creatures are “bipedal,” but are not ancestral to humans—ducks, for instance. Further, more recent and more complete fossilsprovide strong evidence (through multivariate analysis) that Lucy was actually a “knuckle-walker” just as apes are today.
In the end, the evidence shows that the famous Lucy fossil, and all her created cousins, are nothing but extinct apes.
The Rehabilitation of Homo habilis
For years there have been questions associated with the fossil category called Homo habilis, or Handy Man, for their supposed use of tools. These questions now appear to be answered. In 1986, Tim White and Donald Johanson discovered the Olduvai Hominid 62 fossils. For the first time a Homo habilis skeletal form was found in close association with its skull. What was discovered is that this creature was not large enough as should be expected for a link between Lucy and Homo erectus. In fact, it was smaller than Lucy—only three feet tall! Further, the fossils placed in this category are generally a mixture of various categories for which the association of tools is taken as evidence of use of tools. However, the conclusion that association of tools corresponds to use of tools is unfounded. In context, it appears that many of these fossils were found at sites where they were actually the victims of the tools not the users of the tools. For these reasons and more, Homo habilis can be disqualified as an intermediate form between Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), and Homo erectus. (Bones, p.164,165)
Then what about the other Australopithecines?
The other members of the category called the Australopithecines include: Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, and Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus aethiopicus, and Australopithecus paranthropus. All of these are extinct apes that even evolutionists agree are not on an evolutionary branch that would lead to man.
How, then, have we been led to believe in human evolution?
Remember what’s a stake. If people can be convinced of a link between a monkey and man, then the impossibility of any other stage of evolution is irrelevant. And so, the misrepresentation of the fossil evidence should be expected. (See The Standard Diagram)
Time Magazine: Humanity’s Long March (Note the deliberate misrepresentation of evolution.) (See The Myth of Monkey to Man Evolution)
Evolutionists do not show all the fossil evidence together as a whole because, even when you accept their faulty dating methods, the evidence shows that all the various kinds of monkeys and men were living at the same time. (Hand out Xerox of “Composite Fossil Chart” from Lubenow, p. 171)
The claims for an evolutionary origin of the hominids has long been invalidated by the very evidences claimed to support this idea. The concerns expressed by many creationists have been effectively summarized by Marvin Lubenow:
"The facts of the big picture are that…
first, fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 m.y.a., according to the evolution time scale. That suggests that true humans were on the scene before the australopithecines (Lucy) appear in the fossil record.
Second, Homo erectus demonstrates a morphological consistency throughout its two-million-year history. The fossil record does not show erectus evolving from something else or evolving into something else.
Third, anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo Sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. None of them evolved from a more robust to a more gracile condition. In fact, in some cases (Neandertal and archaic Homo sapiens) the more robust fossils are the most recent fossils in their respective categories.
Fourth, all of the fossils ascribed to the Homo habilis category are contemporary with Homo erectus. Thus, Homo habilis not only did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not have evolved into Homo erectus.
Fifth, there are no fossils of Australopithecus or of any other primate stock in the proper time period to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans.
As far as we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the fossil record compatible with the concept of Special Creation. This fact is evident even when the fossils are arranged according to the evolutionist's dates for the fossils, although we believe the dating to be grossly in error. In other words, even when we accept the evolutionist's dates for the fossils, the results do not support human evolution. The results, in fact, are so contradictory to human evolution that they effectively falsify the theory. This, then, is the big picture."
Conclusion: In the end, the best explanation for the origin of man is found in the Bible: (See In The Beginning…)
In the beginning…“God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:1,26-27)
Hand out Creation article on “Human/chimp DNA Similarity.”