The Revolution Against Evolution
© 1994
III. EARLY MAN.
Over the last hundred years, evolutionists have gotten mileage out of fossil
"cave men" or "ape-men" discoveries, using it as evidence
that man is a product of evolution. As creationists, we must address this
challenge, and provide answers that are satisfying. Consider these questions:
1. Are the fossils valid?
2. Are the "dating" methods used to estimate the age of the
fossils valid?
3. Do the fossils follow a pattern, gradually increasing in complexity,
resembling modern man as we reach the top strata, or are the findings scattered
among the strata?
4. Are the interpretations of the fossil remains accurate, or is guesswork involved when evolutionists reconstruct them?
As we address each of these questions, we should examine each finding to know what these fossils mean.
If man evolved from the apes, what would we expect to find in the fossil evidence? The first thing we would look for would be a gradual increase in complexity in the fossils, until they looked like man. The "older" fossils would be found in the bottom layers, and the "more recent" fossils would be found in the top layers.
What would happen if we find fossils unmistakably human in the same strata or below the fossils considered to be ape-men? We could conclude that the ape-men could not have been ancestor to human beings, or that the ape-men were not ape men at all. We have already discussed cases in the previous chapter where this is the case.
Piltdown man and the Nebraska man are two examples of how much speculation
and presupposition plays a part in evolutionary thinking. Piltdown man was a
hoax that fooled specialists for forty years: ape and human fossils doctored to
look like they belonged together. The bones were treated with iron salts to
make them look old, and the teeth filed to make them look like ape's teeth.1
Nebraska Man was built up from a single tooth that later turned out to be
that of a pig. Another "skull" assigned to Pithecanthropus
turned out to be an elephant's kneecap. 2
Recently, an article in the Science News told of a researcher who
identified a dolphin's rib as a collar bone of an ape-man. He claimed that the
specimen resembled the clavicle of a pygmy chimpanzee and thought that the
curve of the bone suggested that it walked on its hind legs.3 The
writer jested that the fossil should be called Flipperpithecus! An UPI
press release revealed that a skull fragment hailed by experts as the oldest
human fossil found in Europe, dubbed "Orce Man," was most likely a
piece of the skull of a four-month old donkey!4
Because of the fragmentary nature of the bones, scientists use much liberty of imagination when they reassemble them. Java man, discovered in 1891-1892, consisted of a left thighbone fragment, part of a skull cap and three molar teeth. Eugene DuBois found these parts within a 50-foot range with other bones of animals. Recent finds have essentially identified him with modern man; the skull of a small woman, the femur completely human, and the teeth not belonging with the rest. He concealed the fact that he found other bones, totally human, in the same strata not far away.
Scientists have found over sixty specimens of Neanderthal Man. Evolutionists have for years used Neanderthal man to prove their theory. But, some experts say that if you put a coat and tie on Neanderthal man, you couldn't tell him from anyone else walking down the street. Ivanhoe believed that rickets and arthritis caused the bent over appearance of Neanderthal man. Others believe that Neanderthal suffered from an endocrine disorder such as acromegaly. This would explain their ape-like physical appearance.5,6 Early scientists reasoned that Neanderthal was an ape-man because it just wasn't probable that all of the specimens had rickets. But Ivanhoe's study in 1970 came to the conclusion that they all did.5 In 1908, a Neanderthal was discovered in Poland buried alongside chain mail armor!7,8 That would put him in the time of the Middle Ages. Now an evolutionist might argue that this skeleton couldn't have been a Neanderthal regardless of the morphology. But if they could say that, we could also say the same thing about their finds. It is all in the imagination and interpretation of the evidence. Dr. Jack Cuozzo, an orthodontist, had the opportunity to examine several of the Neanderthal specimens first-hand, and came to some amazing conclusions. He believes that the unusual shape of these skulls did not result from disease, but from normal growth in individuals that had lived over 200 years! (He also disputes the rickets theory). 11
A famous Australopithecus find is the Taung skull, named after the region in South Africa where it was discovered. Recently, specialists analyzed this specimen by computer-aided tomography, to penetrate its rock-filled insides. These tomography pictures have convinced many theorists of human evolution to revise their earlier opinions that A. Africanus was more humanlike than apelike.9
One distinguishing characteristic of an ape is its U-shaped jaw, as opposed to a human V-shaped jaw. Many early finds of Ramapithecus classified as ape-men can now be classified as totally ape, based upon new evidence that their jaws are U-shaped.
Early human fossils are dated from their strata. This means that the dating
of these fossils is dependent upon the assumptions of evolution. The problem
is, truly human fossils were discovered in strata dated older than
Australopithecines, supposedly the oldest ancestor to man. Where the
radiometric date does not agree with evolutionary thinking, it is surprising
how they adjust and massage the data to fit the theory. The radiometric dating
of "Lucy" is an example. After the original date of 3.6 million years
became unpalatable, a geologist suggested that the date should be revised
downward to 3 million years based upon comparative dating of similar volcanic
tuff. Another date was 2.6 million years, then 2.9 million years, and then 1.8
million years. Now, they believe that "Lucy" should be about two
million years old.10
The evidence points to catastrophic and rapid burial, with Lucy buried under
volcanic tuff and Zinjanthropus buried in alternating and successive
layers of shale and volcanic ash. These findings would fit the catastrophic
Biblical explanation of the flood very well.
Fossilized skeletons of Cro-Magnon Man had a superior size and brain capacity to modern man. We could explain this with the Biblical idea that before the flood people lived longer and were healthier because God made the environment with the purpose for man to live forever.
I don't think we need to go "ape" over fossil man. Conclusions about these fossils can only be speculative because of their nature, and cannot prove evolution. Every time a magazine announces that "scientists have found the missing link," check the following:
1. How complete are the fossils?
2. How were these fossils dated?
3. What other bones were found near by the fossils?
4. Can we explain these fossils with a Biblical model?
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES:
1. Genesis 6:13
2. Genesis 5
QUESTIONS FOR STUDY
- What is the
"dating" mechanism used for estimating the age of fossil men?
- Give a possible explanation
why human fossils were discovered in strata "earlier" than so
called apemen fossils.
- How are the fossils of apemen
assembled by scientists?
- Give some examples where the evidence for ape-men was a deliberate
hoax.
- What motivation would someone have for searching for ape-men
fossils?
REFERENCES
'Girouard, Michael. 1990. Ape-Men:
Monkey Business Falsely Called Science. Institute For Creation Research.
Back To Genesis Video Series. P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
2Gish, Duane T. 1985. Evolution: The
Challenge of the Fossil Record. Creation-Life Publishers, Master Books Division,
El Cajon, CA 92022. pp. 187-190.
3W. Herbert, Science News. 123:246
(1983).
4Moline (Illinois) Daily Dispatch, May 14,
1984.
5F. Ivanhoe, "Was Virchow Right About
Neanderthal?" Nature. 227 (August 8, 1970) 577-579.
6E. Trinkaus and W. W. Howells, Scientific
American..241(6):118 (1979).
7Taylor, Ian. In the
Minds of Men. Darwin and the New World Order. Third Edition
1991. TFE Publishing. PO Box 1344 Station F Toronto M4Y2T1 p. 215.
8Girouard, Michael. 1990. Op. Cit.
9Nash, Kim S. "The Real Face Of Mankind's
Past" Cornputerworld. August 20, 1990. Page 20.
10W. Herbert."Lucy: The Trouble With
Dating An Older Woman." Science News. 123:5 (1983).
11Cuozzo, Dr. Jack. Buried Alive: The
Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. http://www.jackcuozzo.com
FURTHER READING
Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of
Contention. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1992
VonFange,
Erich A. "Neanderthal: Oh How I Need You!" Creation Research
Society Quarterly 18:3. December 1981.
Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The
Fossils Still Say No! Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA 1995.
Moore, John N. How to Teach
Origins (Without ACLU Interference) Mott Media, Milford, MI 1983.
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home
page
The
Creation Bookstore
Shopping Cart
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
.
Contact rae.org or send comments about this page HERE.