Main page | Jari's writings

Why has there not been an evolution of man?



Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution



This text discusses the origin and early history of man, i.e., are we a product of evolution or creation and when did we appear on this earth. Many are under the impression that humans have been here for hundreds of thousands of years and descend from ape-like ancestors. It is believed that our grunting primitive ancestors slowly evolved into civilized Homo sapiens. It is not seen possible that humans could have appeared on the planet fully developed a few millennia ago. This traditional view from the First Book of Genesis is being discarded as old-fashioned.

What is the truth? Where do we come from, and when did we come? This is what we are going to investigate next.


Did hydrogen gas transform into a human? In the idea that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures, according to naturalistic views, this process began much earlier: it began from hydrogen gas that formed in the Big Bang. This hydrogen gas had to then evolve into humans and other organisms. We should all originate from this gas.

But principal evolution theory often begins with the original cell, which floated in the primordial seas. Evolution theory stipulates that everything evolved from one original cell: all the plants and animals. This process is estimated to have lasted for hundreds of millions of years. This is the general view regarding the evolution of life on earth.

Is there practical evidence? Firstly, if we succumb to the idea that we are descended from hydrogen gas, we have said goodbye to all common sense. How could primordial hydrogen -or helium gas transform itself into fish, singing birds, humans, the sea, rocks, trees or into beautiful flowers? I am sure none of these things would never develop from some gas by themselves – i.e., such a phenomenon is not observed today either. Or is there someone who has seen gas going through such drastic changes? Where would it occur?

What about millions of years of evolution and the idea that everything stems from one original cell? If these notions are true, we should be able to detect gradual development in both, fossils and in current species. We should see an array of examples of intermediate forms, and new senses and organs in development. Gradual development is crucial if all the species descend from one single original cell.

Do we see signs of gradual development? What is suggested by practical evidence, when looking at this through fossils and current nature?

Firstly, we will address fossils. It has been known for a long time now that fossils do not carry any signs of gradual development, despite it being one of the essential requirements for evolution theory. For instance, Steven M. Stanley has stated: “Our fossil records do not contain a single example, where a species is developing an important new structural feature (1) Many front-line paleontologists have also acknowledged the lack of gradual development in fossils. Even the well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, has admitted this, even though in his next comment he refers to the incompleteness of our fossil records, as did Darwin in his time. However, this argument is no longer valid, because there are over a hundred million fossils that have been dug up from the ground already. If this extensive data does not contain any examples of gradual development, there likely will be any examples still underground. We have a fitting comment from Richard Owen, a contemporary of Darwin. He knew fossil records better than Darwin and noted that the only way to predict the future is to look at the past. This remark is still timely, even today. 


Richard Dawkins: Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. - - For example, strata from the Cambrian period from 600 million years ago are the oldest strata that contain fossils from most of the vertebrate phyla. On top of that, many of them are already quite far developed. Because there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared on these strata from thin air… Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries. (2)


Richard Owen: It is true that so far, permanent and useful conclusions have been based on the information we have. Now we are asked to accept the hypothesis by pleading insufficient information. People say that the geological chronicles are so incomplete! On the other hand, is there any human chronicle that is fully complete? (...) But when Mr Darwin, when referring to the lack of the fossil intermediate forms that are a requirement for his hypothesis – the lack of the countless intermediate forms that should have existed at some point during the history of the world according to the "theory of natural selection" – loudly proclaims what can or cannot be left to be found in the layers that have not been touched yet, we would reply that we can only predict the future based on what we have already found. (...) Are there any cases in which a fossil has been proven to be such an intermediate form based on the facts observed? We have been searching in vain for such examples. (3)


What about species changes today? It has been over 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s theory, but has anyone witnessed species changing drastically during this time, even a single case – a case, in which a species changes from one basic kind into another? If this had happened, I am sure we would have already heard of it in science magazines, but this is not the case, is it? Variation within the limits of heredity – beak size, resistance, light and dark colors – does occur, but that is an entirely different phenomenon to fish turning into a man.

We are going to look at another comment from Dawkins. It refers to our current species. Dawkins states that every species, and every organ in any species that has been studied so far, is good at what it does. In other words, every species is fully developed and in its finished form. This too is at odds with the idea of gradual development, and clearly supports creation, a model where species have been fully formed and separate from the beginning:


Richard Dawkins: The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (4)


What about the evolution of man? Earlier, we brought up how fossils and current nature do not seem to carry signs of gradual development or drastic changes in species. Evidence does not at all support the molecule-to-man theory, but instead suggests that species have been fully finished and separate from each other from the start, as posed by the creation model. And if someone does not accept this, they ought to present us with concrete evidence of species transforming into another and of gradual development, which is something that many distinguished paleontologists have already disclaimed.

How about the evolution of man? If evolution, and gradual development associated with it, do not hold up, we have reason to doubt the evolution of man. That is, if evolution did not affect other organisms, it is unlikely humans would have evolved from simpler forms either. Why would humans be the only exception?

Despite all this, evolutionists don’t see it that way. They believe humans evolved from ape-like primitive creatures. According to their estimates this process may have lasted for a few million years, whereas development from the original cell is believed to have begun hundreds of millions of years ago. The following points should be considered, however:


Filial relationships. Ernst Haeckel played a major role in the 19th century, when the evolution theory was beginning to be popularized, and his books were more widely spread than On the Origin of Species by Darwin. Haeckel has become especially notorious for his fraudulent embryo drawings, which have decorated the pages of biology books for decades. For instance, Darwin considered these drawings to be the most concrete evidence for his theory. He said this in one of his letters to Asa Gray.

However, these images were proven fake already during Haeckel’s own lifetime, and he had to admit his fraud. For example, a well-known English embryo researcher, Michael Richardson, stated the following in the Science magazine (277, 1997, pp. 1435) regarding the images:


This is becoming one of the most notorious frauds in biology.


Haeckel also became known for compiling the first evolutionary tree, which started off with protoplasm Monera at the bottom and eventually ended in primates and humans at the top. This tree drawn by Haeckel has been all over biology books like his embryo drawings. There have also been other iterations of the evolutionary tree depicting the supposed evolution of man and other living organisms.

Is it possible to draw a reliable family tree illustrating the evolution of living organisms and humans? Evolutionists might say “yes”, but the real answer is “no”. There is a simple reason for that, because it is impossible to determine filial -and family relationships of different organisms afterwards. Sure, we can arrange organisms in a certain evolutionary order we came up with, but afterwards there is no way of knowing filial relationships. Distinguished doctor Meave Leakey has stated: “It might never be possible to say exactly, what evolved into what.” (5)

Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that fossils do not carry signs of gradual development, as acknowledged by Richard Dawkins and many front-line paleontologists. Therefore, if gradual development does not exist, we have reason to doubt evolutionary trees that depict human development. How could they be true without gradual development?


Modern human fossils inside old strata. As discussed above, there are many evolutionary trees representing human evolution that categorize fossils in a certain evolutionary order. This is often how evolution of man is depicted, especially in the end tiers:


Ardipithecus Ramidus (the Ethiopian human), also known as Ardi / 4,5 – 3,8 million years ago


Australopithecus, also known as the Southern ape / 4,2 – 2,0 million years ago


Homo habilis, also known as the Walking Man / 2,0 – 1,5 million years ago


Homo erectus, also known as the Upright Man 1,5 million – 40 000 years ago


Neanderthal / 20 000 – 30 000 years ago


Homo Sapiens, also known as modern human / less than 20 000 years ago


There is an occurrence that gives us reason to question this theory, according to which humans stem from primitive creatures, and it is the fact that modern human remains are frequently being found inside strata that is as old, and older, than strata, where the fossilized remains of our “older ancestors” lie – which means that these modern human remains must be at least as old as their fossilized “ancestors’” remains. Here are a few examples of such discoveries:


• Fossils that clearly belong to a modern human have been found inside rocks and coal deposits (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). Also, there have been discoveries of items that belong to man, like pots in coal deposits and footprints in equally old strata. These findings suggest that modern humans should have existed during the Carboniferous period, a few hundred million years before dinosaurs. Strata from the Cretaceous period have also revealed objects and fossils belonging to man. According to evolution, dinosaurs lived during the Cretaceous period.

Lady Guadeloupe is a famous discovery. The bones of this person were found in a stone stratum that was, according to the evolutionists’ age chart, 28 million years old. However, when the bones were examined more closely, it was noted that they completely resemble those of a modern woman, so it is certainly a question of an ordinary modern woman. Thus, she must be at least as old or even “millions of years” older (according to the evolution schedule) than her first forefathers.


• The so-called Calaveras skull was found in a stratum in America that was believed to be 25 million years old. The skull closely resembles the skull of the modern man, and below it vessels and tools belonging to modern man were discovered


• The most famous form of Homo erectus has been the Java man, which was found by Eugene Dubois in the 19th century. However, we also know that Dubois found clear modern human remains in the same stratum as well – the so called Wadjak man – a discovery he hid for 30 years. But what made him hide this discovery? Here’s what: he wanted to make sure that his Java man gets established as an ancestor for humans. He did not want to offer his critics an opportunity to prove his Java man was as old as the modern human, at most.

Another interesting aspect about Dubois and his Java man concerns a tooth discovery, which was made near Dubois’ excavation site. It was very clearly a tooth from a modern human, but it was inside a much older stratum than Dubois’ discovery. George Grant MacCurdy wrote about this in 1924:


Selenka’s research team during 1907-1908… found a tooth, which according to Walkhoff definitely belonged to a man. It is the third lower molar found in a nearby riverbank strata, which are older (Pliocene) than strata the Pithecanthropus erectus was found from. If this tooth proves out to have belonged to a modern human, we can no longer consider the Pithecanthropus as our predecessor. (6)


• Other famous discoveries include the Laetoli footprints and a fragment of humerus found in Kanapoi. They were found in 3,7-million -and 4,4-million-year-old strata (according to evolutionary time scales) – which is believed to be the time that our early ancestor Australopithecus (Southern ape) lived, a few million years before the modern human.

First, we will address the Laetoli footprints, which were discovered inside a 3,7-million-year-old stratum. They are the same in size and shape as modern humans’ footprints. For instance, Mary Leakey stated that the footprints are “astonishingly similar to modern human’s” (7) Similarly, Russel H. Tuttle, who conducted a thorough examination on the footprints, noted that they were indistinguishable with modern human footprints:


Based on noticeable features, Laetoli G’s tracts cannot be distinguished from human’s (Homo sapiens) barefooted tracts. (8)


Our other example is the humerus fragment in Kanapoi that was determined to be 4,4 million years old. This fossil, however, resembled a humerus bone you would find on a modern human. Marvin L. Lubenow explains this discovery:


In the lower part of the scheme, concerning anatomically modern fossils like Homo sapiens, there is our old friend, Kanapoi KP271. We discussed the humerus in Chapter 5. William Howells had the same problem with this fossil as Russell Tuttle with the footprints of Laetol. According to evolution, it was too old to belong to a man. I quote Howells again:


The piece of the humerus of Kanapoi, which is approximately 4.4 million years old, cannot be distinguished morphologically from the man (Homo sapiens) and no differences were observed in a multivariable analysis done by Patterson and myself in 1967 (nor in later examinations by others). We suggested that it could be a South ape, because at that time the classification as a man (Homo) seemed idiotic, although this alternative had been right without the time element. (9)


The evolutionists refuse to call old fossils by their right names. The reason is the protection of the evolution theory. It is apparent that we are not dealing with science but rather with a substance resembling mercury. We could describe methods of the evolutionists in many ways, but my mother, who did not joke about issues, had a clear name for it. (10)


Why aren’t these kinds of discoveries accepted in the human evolutionary tree, although they should be much older than their fossilized ancestors? Why are they always discarded?

It is because they don’t fit in the supposed evolutionary tree for humans, and that is why they have been set aside as unclear material. If we were to accept them, they would completely eradicate the idea that humans descend from more primitive creatures. Quite frankly, it is about believing in evolution and in human evolution, even when the evidence is against it.

The following quotations will explore this further. Distinguished researchers admit, how remains that clearly belong to modern humans, have been frequently found in old strata, but have also been discarded, because they have been too modern. There have been dozens of similar discoveries:


Arthur Keith: “If human remains were found from the older Pleistocene strata, and they proved to be modern as comes to the size and shape, they were rejected as false antiquities, regardless of their degree of fossilization. But if the remains proved to be non-modern as comes to the quality, they were accepted as genuinely old, even though they might be imperfectly fossilized.” (11)


L.B.S. Leakey: “I have no doubt that that human remains belonging to these [Acheul and Chelles] cultures, have been found several times (...) but either they have not been identified as such or they have been rejected because they were the Homo sapiens type, and therefore they could not be regarded as old.” (12)


R.S Lull: … Such remains of skeletons have appeared again and again. (…) None of them, even though they fulfill the other requirements of old age – being buried in old layers, having animal remains among them and the same fossilization grade, etc. – are enough to satisfy the requirements of physical anthropology, because none of them have any features of the body that the American Indians do not have nowadays.” (13)


Another important observation is that in age comparison of fossils it is impossible to observe any descent in the supposed order of evolution (1. Australopithecus, 2. Homo habilis, 3. Homo erectus, 4. Neanderthal, 5. Homo Sapiens). Instead, several findings indicate that all these groups in reality lived on Earth at the same time; even so that many more fossils clearly belonging to a modern man have been found in old layers than fossils of the supposed forefathers. This clearly nullifies the evolution theory and indicates that it has never taken place.

   The next quote refers to the same issue. It indicates how it is impossible to show the evolution of man, and how all forms appear without any clear evolutionary order. A teacher gave his students a task to inquire about the most important fossils and their classification and the ages the evolutionists have given to them. The work of every student had to include at least five documented references. The summary includes the following:


Because I know the literature concerning the evolution of man well, the outcomes of the task given by me were quite expected. After about three weeks, several students came to me moaning that there were major differences of opinion – concerning either the age or classification of some fossil – between different evolutionary sources. The ages of many fossil findings from the first half of the 20th century are very questionable. In spite of that, many of these fossils form the backbone of human evolution. I could have told this to my students in a lecture but it would not have had a similar effect on them as their own studies.

   (…) At last, “the Fossil Day” of our course came. The students shared their reports to their classmates and set their fossils on a scheme following the ages and classifications given by evolutionists. As the pieces gradually snapped into place, the students understood more and more clearly that the fossils did not inevitably prove the evolution of man.

   If the evolution of man were true, the fossils would be placed on a time line from the South ape, through some form of Homo habilis, Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens, and finally to modern Homo sapiens (that is us, who are great and beautiful). Instead, the fossils will be placed here and there without any clear evolutionary order. Even though the students used the datings and classifications of the evolutionists themselves, it became clear to them that the fossil material rather nullifies the evolution of man. Any lecture or lecture series by me would not have been as impressive as a study the students did themselves. Nothing that I could have said would have had such a great effect on the students as the naked truth about the human fossil material itself.

   When I told people about this project, some of them were horrified: “Aren’t you taking quite a huge risk? What if it won’t work as you have thought? Wouldn’t it cause you an embarrassing situation as a professor?” In spite of the obscurities concerning some fossils, there are, however, so many fossils that the result will always be clear. The project always works! The obscurities have only a little effect on the result. The key is that you try to clarify all found human fossils and not only those that the evolutionists use as the proof of human evolution. Therefore, you seldom (or never) find a perfect fossil catalogue from the books handling the evolution of man. (14)


The age of Homo erectus fossils. Above, we brought up how Sapiens-type fossils have appeared in strata above the Southern apes (Australopithecus) and how they have coexisted with the Southern apes throughout their whole history. This should be enough to prove that the Southern ape is not our ancestor. Southern ape expert Charles Dynard has stated that “genus Homo might actually be old enough to have coexisted with genus Australopithecus, meaning that it would remove the previously mentioned direct link from the human evolutionary tree”. (15)

Furthermore, if modern human, Homo sapiens, is at least as old as the Southern ape, we would have been here longer than what came after the Southern apes: Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal. It cannot be that our supposed ancestors are younger than us, it should be the other way around. This reversed order is where we end up in if we include every discovery and use evolutionists’ own timing and ages.

Discoveries relating to Homo erectus give us another indication telling that the human evolutionary tree is inaccurate. Some of the findings are too old and some are too young.

First, we will go over the ones that are too old. According to evolution, Homo erectus appeared on the planet 1,5 million years ago. However, Marvin L. Lubenow stated, already in the beginning of the 21st century, the following about Homo erectus: “currently there are at least … 32 discoveries, which are older than 1,5 million years.” (16) In other words, if we use evolutionists’ own age determination, Homo erectus has lived as long as its supposed ancestor Homo habilis (a genus that is unclear, however) has. This shows that Homo erectus cannot be a descendant from Homo habilis.

Homo erectus fossils that are too young pose another issue. There have been dozens of discovered Homo erectus fossils that indicate a young age; meaning that they have coexisted with modern humans. This should not be possible, because according to evolution, Homo erectus appeared on the planet more than a million years ago before the modern human, and then disappeared from the planet before we appeared.

Marvin L. Lubenow brings up this issue. It is questionable to place different forms (1. Australopithecus, 2. Homo habilis, 3. Homo erectus, 4. Neanderthal, 5. Homo sapiens) in a specific time frame if our findings suggest that they coexisted on the planet, and not even so long ago. For example, the so-called Cossack skull, which was found in Australia, suggests that Homo erectus might have lived here a few hundred or 6500 years ago, at most.


There are at least 78 Homo erectus fossils that are dated less than 30 000 years old, while the youngest are dates as 6000 years old. Because according to the biblical view, Homo erectus and the modern human could procreate, there is time to move on from Homo erectus morphology to modern human morphology through natural genetic recombination. 6000 years is not enough evolutionary wise for homo erectus to evolve into a modern human. That is why evolutionists must forget these fossils, deny results of dating, deny morphology and claim it was a Homo sapiens.


Problems with discoveries. If you read evolution literature, you might notice that they don’t talk much about the issues within evolution theory. Normally you see certain conclusions about life beginning by itself and how a simple original cell changed into more complex life-forms. Similarly, you might find confidently presented assumptions about events that supposedly took place millions of years ago, and the kind of climate that might have existed during certain periods. It is not taken into consideration that these kinds of things are difficult, if not even impossible, to confirm afterwards. Major conclusions are made with rather questionable data.

Similar issues plague the human evolutionary tree and discoveries from the ground. Many are under the impression that findings come as these fully preserved skeletons and that they without question confirm human evolution. However, this idea is far from the truth. In reality, discoveries often come in the form of fragile bone fragments that are found here and there, and researchers might argue about the significance of each discovery. For instance, the following problems are frequent:


Do the bones belong together? As stated, discoveries usually aren’t whole skeletons with every piece still in place. Instead, there might be a single tooth, a jawbone, humerus, piece of a skull or some other singular bone. Or the bones could be in little pieces, scattered far away from each other, and they might even be mixed with a variety of animal bones. This is the reality of excavations. This comes apparent from the case of the so-called Turkana boy, who was 160 cm tall, about 12 years old, who many said to completely look like a modern human, but he was the first Homo erectus fossil that undeniably had a skull and the rest of the body belonging together. Well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey illustrates which kinds of issues you might face in fossil searches:


Figuring evolutionary links from scattered fragmented bones is much more difficult than many people realize, and many traps require prudent…the majority of discovered fossils are little fragments: fragment of a skull, a cheekbone, a piece of the ulna, and teeth. Identifying the species based on this sparse data is not an easy task – sometimes it’s even impossible. Due to uncertainty, researchers disagree on the number of species, as well as, their kinships. This… field of biology is one of the most contentious research fields out there. (18)


To make matters clearer, we are going to look at a few well-known fossil discoveries. These examples will illustrate, how deficient findings can be, and how bones might not belong to the same individual at all, or even be of the same species:


Ardi serves as one of our example cases. It was gathered from 17 different places within one-and-a-half-kilometer radius. Near the found bone fragments were also other vertebrates’ bones, bone fragments, teeth, and teeth fragments, which increased the risk of misplacement immensely. To make matters even worse, almost every bone had been shattered and in danger of breaking into fine dust. The following quotations will tell more about the subject:


Finally, in 2009 it became clear that in 1994-1995 researchers had dug up large portions of fossilized bone parts and fragments, from which they were able to reconstruct the majority of an adult Ardipithecus’ bones. The problem was that almost all of the bones that were found, were shattered. The leader of the research group, Tim White, said that the fossil of the skull resembled that what is left of the bones on the remnants of a raod kill. On top of everything, the bone fragments were covered in clay, which had built up tightly all around the fragments. When trying to separate the fossils from the clay, the fossils broke down into fine dust. The researchers had to moisten and strengthen all the fossils of the bone fragments separately.

… Over 6000 fossils have been found altogether from the same place, and the fossils belong to different vertebrate species: bones, parts and fragments of bones, teeth and fragments of teeth. (19)


The found material contained 125 bone parts, which had been scoured by hand from the middle region of the river Awash. A child’s jawbone, tooth and a few other bone parts were found first (1992). Two years later one of the researchers found a part of a bone stone throw away from the location, where they had earlier found teeth from. The researchers were crawling on all fours next to each other trying to find more. Animals had messed the location by stomping on the bones and breaking them. A piece of shinbone and a shattered skull and hip fragments were found by accident from the edge of the region. Bone fragments were found on an area, which was many meters wide. Some parts were even found 1,5 km away from each other and some of them belonged to around 35 different individuals. Some of the bone parts had to be set in plaster. Otherwise they would have been too fragile to be handled with. (20)


Lucy. One of the most known and well-preserved fossils include Lucy, which belongs in the genus Australopithecus. It is estimated that around 40 % of its bone material has been collected. However, Lucy is also gathered from many different bone fragments. The skeleton was badly shattered, and the pieces were spread across a vast area, which is why we cannot be absolutely certain that all the pieces belong to the same individual. Some fossil researchers have considered Lucy’s genus, Australopithecus Afarensis, as a mixture of several different species.


Homo habilis, also known as the handy man, is surrounded by discoveries that are extremely incomplete and only consist of a few bone fragments. We cannot even accurately estimate its size. Several researchers do not consider Homo habilis as a real genus, but as a mixture of different genera, which illustrates how poor the discoveries are.


In 1964 Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias (Witwaterstand University, South Africa) and John Napier (London University) revealed a new human ancestor, Homo habilis, in the Nature magazine…

The fossils have been a target for many disputes even from the start. Some thought it was merely a mixture of Southern apes’ and Homo erectus’ fossils, which is why it would not form its own genus. Even those who favored the new genus recognized the fossils as a mixture of young and adult individuals. It is really difficult to analyze young individual’s material, because bones go through so many changes when growing up.

…There was strong evidence that the genus Homo habilis was not authentic, but a mixture of two, or possibly three, different genera. One or more of the genera would have been as small as Lucy, and the other one slightly larger. This discovery should have removed genus Homo habilis from the intermediate spot between Southern apes and Homo erectus. (21)


Homo rudolfensis, also known as KNM-ER 1470, was originally included in the genus Homo habilis, but now it is considered as its own genus. The pieces of his skull were shattered in hundreds of fragments, and some significant parts were missing, like teeth, the lower jaw and the cheek bones. Many have doubted the reconstruction of skull 1470. Science author Roger Lewin explains further:


There is uncertainty in the angle, in which the face part connects to the skull. Alan Walker recalls a situation, where he, Michael Day and Richard Leakey examined the two parts of the skull: “You might have held the maxilla further forming a long face, or you might have placed it deeper in the face, making the face shorter”, he recalls. “The way you hold it, depends on your preconceptions. It was interesting to see, what people would do with it.” Leakey also remembers another incident: “Indeed, if you held it in a certain  way in a particular position, it did look like one option (human), or if you held it differently, it looked like something else (Southern ape).” (22)


The Java Man. For years, the Java Man has been regarded as the most important finding in the pedigree of man. In the quote above, Encyclopedia Britannica (part 14, p. 763) stated it to be “the finding that shines the most light on evolution.” The Encyclopedia Britannica listed as the second most important finding the so-called Piltdown Man that was later found to be a counterfeit.

   As far as the findings of the Java Man are concerned, it is curious that no consistent unity has been found, only a few parts that were located very far from each other. The parts that were found – a piece of a skull, three teeth, and a left femur (thighbone) – were 15 meters apart at best, and the sixth part or a part of the mandibular (lower jaw) was uncovered as far away from the other parts as on the opposite side of the island, approximately 40 kilometers from the other parts! In addition, from the area of the first findings, the remains of 27 other animals were found.

   Therefore, one may ask how scientific it is to collect bone splinters about 15 meters away from each other amidst other bones, to add a piece of a bone from the one that was found forty kilometers away, and then claim that they all belong together? It is certainly quite a bold hypothesis because nobody can be certain that all these parts are parts from the same being. Virchow, a professor of Berlin, comments on the issue:


Nothing at all proves that these bones are parts of the same animal. (23)


Denisovans. One of the more recent discoveries include the Denisovans. This discovery can be found in new evolutionary literature and has received high praise. However, this finding only consists of a few bone fragments. Below, you can see what Juha Valste tells about the Denisovans in his book Neandertalinihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri [Neanderthal, lost fellow species] (p. 35,36) published in 2015. He also mentions the Heidelberg human, whose skull size (ca. 1200 cm3) and shape are entirely the same as modern humans’ skulls. The quotation illustrates, how far fetched conclusions researchers can make based on small discoveries. Boldface in the text has been added afterwards:


From the Upright Man evolved the first significantly tall Heidelberg humans (Homo heidelbergensis) in Africa approximately 0,6 million years ago. They had larger brains than the Upright Man: the size of the brain in found fossils varies from 1100 to 1450 cubic centimeters. The braincase was also rounder and the face more vertical than in modern humans’ heads. Many of their features are reminiscent of the modern human, but they also resemble the Neanderthal. Because of their modern human type-look they were often referred to as early modern humans in the past.

The Heidelberg human was also succeeding and spread to Asia and Europe. In Europe and Southwest Asia it evolved into the Neanderthal (Homo Neanderthal), and in Middle -and Southeast Asia it evolved into the Denisovans (there is no scientific name yet, since we only know a tooth, a phalanx of the toe and a finger from this species) and in Africa it evolved into the modern human (Homo Sapiens)...  

These three human types developed from the Heidelberg human – modern human, Denisovans and Neanderthals – evolved from the same ancestor, making them sister species. However, a considerable number of researchers consider these three as subspecies of one species: the species of humans (Homo sapiens).


Counterfeits. One problem to be taken into account in the history of fossils is the existence of counterfeits. The so-called Piltdown Man, who for a long time was regarded an important intermediate form, is one of them. The significance of the Piltdown Man in the pedigree of man can be illustrated by the fact that more than 500 dissertations on him were written and the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, (part 14, p. 763) contains a section on the Piltdown Man and the Java Man:


The finding that shines the most light on evolution was made in Java in 1891 and 1892 (…). He is deemed the intermediate form between man and ape (…) the real missing link.

   (The previous refers to the Java Man, but the text below refers to the Piltdown man)

   The second most notable finding (…) was made by Mr. Charles Dawson in Piltdown of Sussex between the years 1911 and 1915 (…). It was found that the gravel layer had stratified early in the Pleistocene period and it is certain that the fossil remains of this human skull are as old as the layer. (24)


Piltdown man was considered the second most important discovery a little over a hundred years ago. However, as the skull was later examined, it was found to be a fraud. The skull was a combination of a modern man’s skull and of an ape’s jawbone, and therefore could not be a genuine fossil. Also, the teeth had been filed and bones colored so that no one would notice the real origin of the finding.

   Finally in 1953, when forty years had passed, this “second most notable finding after the Java Man” was proven a fake. The newspapers wrote about the new twist and the sensation that surprisingly came to light. One of the greatest frauds showed up and became well-known:


London, 22 November (1953)

British anthropologists were greatly surprised on Saturday when they found out that they had been fooled for 40 years. Namely, it has been found out that the jaws and teeth of the world-famous Piltdown Man are that of a modern chimpanzee and not of a man who lived 100,000 years ago.

   On Saturday, the British Museum published a report of an analysis indicating that “the jaws and teeth had been joined in a fraudulent way to this skull that is otherwise prehistoric”. (25)


How come this Piltdown human fraud was not revealed until decades later? One of the reasons might be that the researchers did not have a proper opportunity to examine this fossil discovery. For instance, Louis Leakey tells in his book Adam’s ancestors about his attempt to better examine the original Piltdown fossils, but he was only allowed to look at them for a short while. After which, he was given a replica that he could continue working with. However, traces of filing were not detectable in the replica, like they were in the original fossil.

This example clearly illustrates the issue with fossil discoveries: only a select few get to examine the original pieces with more care. The fossils might be put behind closed doors, and only those are allowed a more thorough look, who already agree with the discoverer. Or these fossils might be put under protection, due to their fragile nature. They can break fairly easily, when touched or moved. This all makes human fossil research quite a mysterious field, where the researchers cannot access the fossils, and some fossils don’t even have replicas. Marvin L. Lubenow describes this secretive area of science:


Accessing original fossils is practically impossible, even for the majority who write and teach in the field of paleontology. Moreover, only a fraction of fossils are made into replicas. Replicas are not recommended to be used for scientific publications, and such publications will fail to sufficiently talk about differences between fossils. It would seem that paleontology is quite a problematic field of “science”. (26)


Artists’ contribution. If we go back to the 1920s, one of the most famous human ancestors were the so-called Nebraskan humans. This man was used as a “convincing” piece of evidence of the evolution of man in the famous so-called ape trial. Several double page pictures about this man and his life were published in order to leave no doubt as to how he had lived and from where he came.

But what lies behind the Nebraskan human? When the case was investigated, it turned out that this human ancestor was created only based on one tooth! Whose tooth was it? It did not belong to a human, but to a pig that had gone extinct! This shows the kind of significance artists have in creating perceptions. In this case, those perceptions had nothing to do with science.

Detailed images and drawings depicting supposed early men are precisely what greatly impact people’s belief on human evolution today. Generally, the drawings show slightly apish and round-shouldered figures because primitive men are believed to have been like that. The older a finding is regarded, the more animal features are drawn.

   However, the problem with these models is that they are based on mere preconceptions and imagination of the artists rather than what really is known. This is because the bones are often broken and the facial bones are completely missing. Also, it is quite impossible to draw the soft parts and expressions of the face merely on the grounds of bones. It has been said that the artists could just as well model the features of an ape as those of a philosopher on a Neanderthal skull – in other words, there are many alternatives! Only the creativity of the artists poses the limits to the pictures and drawings of the primitive men:


E.A. Hooton: When noting that we only have fractional parts of most of the skulls, and the facial parts are usually missing, we can easily understand how mere restoration of the facial bones (reconstruction) leaves room for doubt. Restoration of the soft parts is an even more dubious undertaking. The lips, eyes, ears, and the tip of the nose do not offer any reference as comes to the bones below. One can as well model the features of an ape as those of a philosopher on a Neanderthal skull. Restoration of the ancient human beings has very little, if any, scientific value, and it will probably only lead the public astray.  (27)


Issues with dating. When it comes to determining the age of our supposed ancestors, we often hear about long time periods, like hundred thousand -or a few million-year periods. How did we end up with these long estimates and ages? Most often we are looking at results from a potassium/argon method, which does not directly date the age of the fossil, but the age of volcanic rocks in nearby strata. If they can determine the age of the above stratum, the bones in the stratum below must be the same age, at least, or older.

Are these methods reliable? We do not need to doubt the accuracy of potassium/argon concentrations that these measures tell. They are quite accurate in telling the right concentrations, but there necessarily isn’t a correlation between concentrations and age.

We know this, because the potassium/argon method has undergone practical tests, which did not go as well as expected. We have a good example in the case of St. Helens volcano, which erupted between the years 1980 and 1986. Well-known geologist Steven A. Austin examined lava samples from this area (Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano/Steven A. Austin, 1996). What were the results? An established research center got ages ranging from 350 000 all the way to 2,8 million years! In reality, the samples were only 10 to 16 years old, which showcases the unreliable nature of the potassium/argon method.

Another example comes from Ngauruhoe, one of the most active volcanos in New Zealand. It is on record that it has erupted at least 60 times since the Europeans noticed its activity for the first time in 1849. One of the strongest eruptions took place in 1975.

Samples from the eruptions of this volcano were also sent to a notable laboratory for a potassium/argon dating. According to eyewitnesses, these rocks were 25 to 50 years old, but the laboratory results were similar to the St. Helens case. The results can be seen in the table below.


Sample/ pc



◄270 000


◄290 000


800 000


1 000 000


1 200 000


1 300 000


1 500 000


3 500 000


What conclusions can we make of the potassium/argon method? If it gives similar ages to newly formed stones (10-16 years or 25-50 years), as it does to strata that has been home to the oldest Australopithecus, Homo erectus and other fossil discoveries, we have reason to doubt the age classifications of these said fossils. In reality, they might be only a few hundred or thousand years old. This possibility should be taken into consideration.


THE MOST CRUCIAL INTERMEDIATE FORMS. When it comes to human ancestry, it is impossible to draw a simple evolutionary chain of human evolution, as previously noted. The reason is simple: fossils that clearly belong to a modern human have been found inside strata that are at the very least as old as our supposed ancestors’ strata. This means that the modern human has been on the planet for as long as our supposed primitive ancestors have been.

Despite everything, researchers have attempted to compile evolutionary sequences and trees. In these trees we often find names, such as Ardi, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal. We are going to briefly look at these groups.


Ardipithecus Ramidus, also known as Ardi. As previously brought up, Ardi was constructed from several brittle bone fragments, which were spread far apart. Nothing guarantees that the bone fragments belong to the same individual or even to the species, because the discovery site also contained bone and tooth fragments from other vertebrae as well.

The brain size of Ardi is said to be only 300-350 cm3, which is only a fourth from modern human’s brain size. This shows that Ardi is merely a regular primate, like the chimpanzee, e.g.

Many researchers in the field disagree on the significance of Ardi. They don’t see it as an important intermediate form, but as a primate. Esteban E. Sarmiento and Rex Dalton wrote their own views in the subject matter in the Science and Nature magazines (  

and ).


Australopithecus, also known as the Southern ape. The appearance of Australopithecus has been seen as one of the major stages in evolution. It is estimated to have roamed the earth 2-4 million years ago, and to have appeared after the previously mentioned Ardi.

We are first faced with the small brain size of Australopithecus. For instance, Lucy’s brain, the most famous of the Australopithecus, is measured to be a little over 400 cm3, which is only about a third of the size of the human brain and the same as current chimpanzees and gorillas have. This small brain size tells us that it cannot be a human. Lucy and other members of this species have most likely been regular primates. It could be an extinct branch, as some researchers have proposed.

Another observation has to do with the skull shape of Lucy and of other Australopithecus. The shape is very ape-like, and nothing like the human skull shape. It closely resembles the shape of a chimpanzee skull by its shape and form; so, could it be just a regular chimpanzee or an extinct species? In any case, it cannot be a human, because it is too much distinguished from a modern human. 

The quotes below indicate that it is questionable to consider Australopithecuses a representative of the human species, because they clearly resemble present anthropoids, not humans. There is a clear distinction between it and the genus homo:


The Australopithecus was only an upright walking, intelligent anthropoid, not a human. The small cranium with intense bone crests above the eyes and on top of the head is similar to that of an anthropoid ape. (28)


When comparing the skulls of a man and an anthropoid, the skull of an Australopithecus clearly more resembles the skull of an anthropoid. Claiming otherwise would be the same as asserting that black is white. (29)


Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (30)


Handling the fossil material of the South apes is needless. They are simply extinct primates. The fact that sapiens-type fossils have appeared in the fossil material before the South apes and have lived simultaneously with them through their whole history reveals that the South apes have nothing to do with the origin of man. An expert of the South apes, Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) concludes that “the family Homo can actually be so old that it is contemporary with Australopithecus family, so it takes away from the last mentioned the direct place in man’s family tree”. (31) The fossil scheme on page 313 indicates this to be true.

   Also other paleoantropologists have stated that they believe that the South apes were not forefathers of humans. In a review of a paleoanthropological examination in the course of the last hundred years, Matt Cartmill (Duke University) and deceased Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) state that the South apes are quickly sinking to the position of specialized apes. (32)


Well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey tells more. He mentions research that studied the movement of the Australopithecus. According to the study, Australopithecines (Southern apes) looked like ape-men, whereas all homo species’ structure is human-like:


A few years ago, Robert Martin’s colleague, anthropologist Peter Schmid from Zürich, got the opportunity to study the famous Lucy fossil. Using fiberglass casts made from the fossilized bones, Schmid began to construct Lucy’s skeleton. He expected it to be shaped like a human skeleton. Schmid was astonished by the result: Lucy’s ribcage was a conical shape; it made her look more like a primate than a human, whose ribcage is barrel-shaped. Lucy’s shoulders, body, and waist also had strong ape-like features… Modern primates are heavily built in comparison to their height: they weigh twice as much as a human with the same height. It was now also possible to put fossil measures into two clear and already familiar groups. Southern apes’ body structure was ape-like, and all the Homo species’ body structure was human-like.  (33)


Homo habilis. The next phase in the evolution of man is believed to be the Homo habilis or the Handy Man. In a school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 184) it is stated that “From the early Australopithecus, the evolutionary line obviously continues to primitive people, i.e., to Homo habilis, a representative of prehistoric humans”.

   Homo habilis’ status, however, in the human evolutionary tree has always been debatable, since there are no more than a few bone fragment discoveries. Thus, many researchers do not consider Homo habilis as an authentic genus, but as a mixture of different genera. According to some estimates, it might have been even more ape-like than Lucy, the most famous specimen of the genus Australopithecus.


The part of a skeleton that Don Johanson found with his fellow workers from the valley of Olduvai was named Homo habilis (OH 62). Besides some distinctive marks resembling the jawbone of a man, it has quite big molar teeth and the dimensions of the body resemble an ape even more than those of the famous partial skeleton Lucy. (…)

   In order for a fossil to belong in the family Homo in the most limited sense, the fossil must meet the following criteria: human-like upright walking posture, a volume of brain larger than 800 cm3, and the ability to practice culture (including language). Based on these criteria, the Habilis cannot belong to this group… (34)


Homo rudolfensis, also known as the Turkana Boy, is primarily based on the skull KNM-ER 1470. This discovery was briefly discussed earlier. This skull was shattered into hundreds of little pieces and missed some crucial parts, like teeth, the lower jaw and cheekbones. Many have also doubted the reconstruction of skull 1470. However, its brain volume is estimated to be 750 cm3, hence it might be a human.


Homo erectus, also known as the Upright Man. If our previous cases, like Homo habilis (a mix of several species) and Homo rudolfensis (skull made out of hundreds of bone fragments, which makes it debatable for many) seem like unclear genera, Homo erectus will be clearer in some sense; it is a real human. Evolutionists would like to see some kind of difference between this group and modern humans, but forcing this idea on fossils is questionable, because of these factors, e.g.:


Time factor is our number one reason. As previously mentioned, modern human remains have been found inside strata that have been as old, at least, if not even older, than strata of our supposed ancestors. That is why modern humans must have been on the planet before their “ancestors” have.

The oldest Homo erectus fossils are only ca. 2 million years old (according to evolution), but traces and remains of modern humans have been found in 3-4-million-year-old strata. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting Homo erectus might have existed not so long ago. For instance, the so-called Cossack skull indicates that Homo erectus might have lived even a few hundred years ago, or at the very least 6500 years ago.

Another instance has to do with the Java Man, the most famous Homo erectus of its time. For in 1907 an expedition (at least 17 experts) was sent to Java, where Dubois had dug out his Java Man. The purpose of the expedition was to confirm the findings of Dubois and to look for more remains of Java Man but it was not successful.

   Instead, interesting observations concerning the dating were made. They indicate how Dubois had seriously overestimated the age of the layers from where he found his fossils.

   Perhaps the most interesting observation is connected with the birth of those layers from which Dubois’ fossil, Pithecanthropus, was dug out. As the activity of nature is great in the areas in question, it could be noted that the layers cannot be at least 500,000 years old but only 500 to 600 years old. Therefore, it was noted in the report that the layers are far too young to include any information about man’s origin:


Perhaps the most surprising part of the report described violent eruptions of a nearby volcano Lawu-Kukusa and floods after them in this part of Java approximately at intervals of thirty years. The geological activity was so violent that the report states volcanic Trinil’s sediments of Pithecanthropus to be quite too young to offer any information about man’s origin. The local traditions tell that the Solo River changed its direction in the 13th and 14th centuries. This would mean that the Trinil layers were only 500 years old – not at all 500,000 years old, as is believed. Because volcanic material is very mineralized, the report states that the fossilizing grade of the Pithecanthropus is caused by the chemical nature of the volcanic material, not by its age.

    Max Blankerhorn wrote a summary of the report. He apologized in it to the readers that their wishes to confirm the findings of Dubois looked like nullifying Dubois’ work. He used the German word meaning “fruitless” to describe his failure to confirm Dubois’ claims about Java Man as our evolutional forefather. (35)


Brain size. Modern humans’ brain size may vary between ca. 750-2100 cm3, making the range rather large. The average brain size is ca. 1350 cm3, whereas modern primates have an average of 400 cm3 and Australopithecus specimens have an average of 400-500 cm3. The difference between humans and these two groups is notable: nearly 1000 cm3.

Whereas, Homo erectus fits well within modern humans in terms of brain size. Brain sizes in the Homo erectus group are ca. 900-1100 cm3, which is no different to modern humans. Moreover, the basic structure of their skull closely resembles that of a modern human, as can be seen in the following quotation:


Although the skull’s morphology with its strong supraorbital ridge, back arching low forehead and massive jaws might look fairly distinct from a human skull, this does not apply to the basic structure in the skull, however. They still had a brain size (900-1100 cm3) that fit within in the range of modern humans, human-like brain structure (inferable from a cast made out of the skulls’ inner parts) and human-like joints in the base of the skull. It also had an entirely human-like nose structure. Proportion wise the bone structure of the body and limbs were strikingly close to modern humans and the structure was exceptionally strong. Several skeletal parts found in Africa indicate that these forms walked upright like humans. (36)


Walking upright. The former quotation mentions, how the Homo erectus walked upright much like the humans. It is one of the most important criteria in considering it a human. Whereas, Australopithecines, e.g., were most likely tree climbers. Their structure, like their hands that were suited for hanging and climbing, massive shoulder bones and a short neck, have a closer resemblance to modern primates than to modern humans.


Tools and culture can be associated with Homo erectus. Many Homo erectus discovery sites have also been home to findings that include stone tools, signs of use of fire, burials and use of red ocher, and even signs of water travel by boats. These kinds of signs are clear indications of definitive humanity. The following quotation will further elaborate:


Even archeological evidence shows distinction between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus as artificial. Archeological material is always limited. All the evidence showing Homo erectus’ full humanity and all the evidence we might expect to find, has already been found.

From the 83 sites, where Homo erectus fossils have been found, at least 40 have also contained stone tools. Eight Homo erectus locations also give indications of controlled use of fire. The most remarkable thing is, however, that the oldest sites, dated as 1,5 million and 2,0 million years old, have been discovery sites for stone tools and fire associated to Homo erectus… Three upper Pleistocene Homo erectus sites give an indication of burial, one of the sites evidencing cremation, the second the use of red ocher, and the third contains a bone chopping tool… There is also evidence that Homo erectus used seaworthy boats. Michael Morwood (University of New England, NSW, Australia) reports on the astonishing discovery made in 1994 in Flores, Indonesia. (37)


When it comes to tools that were possibly created by the Homo erectus, it is interesting that modern humans have used the same kinds of tools, especially isolated human populations. For instance, Mary Leaky tells how distant Turkana tribes used the same stone axes for opening nuts from the doum palm tree (38). We also know that there are communities in the New Guinea that used stone tools, despite their language being complex and sophisticated at the same time. These examples indicate that Homo erectus might have been as advanced as modern humans.

Here is one more example of culture. Richard Leakey tells in his book (The Origin of Humankind) about a person named Nicholas Toth, who familiarized himself with the making of stone objects. Leakey writes how the making of a stone axe was not a one-day-job:


This is shown by item called hand axe: it was a tear shaped tool, and to craft it required great skill and patience. For Toth and other attempters it took several months to achieve the skill of producing as high-quality hand axes as the ones found in archeological excavations. (39)


Comments from researchers. If the skull size of Homo erectus is the same as that of a modern human, and the limbs are also similar to modern human limbs, it should be regarded as a real human. There is no other alternative. Discoveries of stone tools and culture, together with bone discoveries, indicate to a regular modern human.

That is, if a Homo erectus were to walk the streets today, it would have no noticeable differences to other people around it. He would be seen as a regular human.

Interestingly, some fossil researchers have come to the same conclusion. They have suggested “immersing” the Homo erectus with the Homo sapiens species, because distinctions between these two groups are artificial and do not corroborate with practical evidence. This means that Homo erectus has been a real modern human. The last quotation refers to Milford Wolpoff, who has also suggested joining the Homo erectus with the Homo sapiens species. This statement by an evolutionist paleontologist is remarkable, because it is said that he has seen more of the original hominid fossil material than anyone else.


Gabriel Ward Lasker: Homo erectus deviates from the modern human (homo sapiens), but there is a tendency to exaggerate the differences. Even if we exclude all the intermediate forms and otherwise hard-to-categorize individuals and limit our investigation only to the Java and Beijing populations, the range in many Homo erectus’ features are still acceptable in modern human range. (40)


F. Clark Howel and Bernard Campbell: His bones were heavier and thicker than modern human bones. Larger bones require larger muscles to move them. Differences in bones were not distinctive enough, however, Below the neck, as one expert has noticed, differences between Homo erectus and modern human can only be detected by an experienced anatomical expert. (41)


Donald C. Johanson: It would be interesting to find out, whether a modern man and a Homo erectus woman from million years ago could have a baby together. A strong feeling says that they could. Evolution likely was the kind that would prevent successful procreation. But this does not falsify the authenticity of the above species definition, because these two cannot procreate. Time separates them two in the sense of procreation. (42)


Wolpoff has been one of the loudest evolutionists who have demanded that the Homo erectus class should be connected to the Homo sapiens. He writes together with Wu Xin Zhin (Institute of Paleoanthropology, Beijing) and Alan G. Thorn (National University of Australia): “According to our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the boundary between Homo erectus / Homo sapiens is arbitrary and use a non-morphological (or chronological) criterion for its defining, or Homo erectus should be connected to [Homo sapiens].” (17)

   Connecting Homo erectus to Homo sapiens means that all “classes” in evolution-theoretical line from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens. These would include the early Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster and the Neanderthals. (44)


Neanderthal. Where Homo erectus fully resembles the modern human, the same goes for Neanderthals. Its brain size is equal to modern humans’ brain size, and it may have even been slightly larger than the average brain size today. Similarly, their skull shape is exactly like that of modern humans and it fits within the variations modern humans have.

Darwin’s “bulldog” Thomas Huxley did not consider Neanderthal to be our evolutionary ancestor either, but instead he considered it to be a regular human. Donald Johanson and James Shreeve have written in their book Lucy’s Child (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1989, p. 49):


Huxley was able to pick a sequence of skulls from a modern human skull collection, where the features gradually changed from a modern human skull to Neanderthal skull. Meaning it wasn’t different to modern day Homo sapiens quality wise.


What about the structure of Neanderthals? It is likely that many of them suffered from rickets and arthritis, and some fossil illustrations have been drawn based on these diseased skeletons. However, later discoveries have shown Neanderthals to fully resemble a modern human. There is no need for distinction between us and them.

So, as we find these “historical people” and pay attention to their features, it is not necessarily a question of anything other than ordinary variations observed also among modern people. There are tall and short people nowadays, and their skeletal structure might be very different. In the same way, the form of the skull and appearance can vary a lot. These previously mentioned “historical people” might thus be the same people as modern humans. They fit in to the same group of people we meet on the streets:


As Pithecanthropus-Sinanthropus fossils from Java and China and different Neanderthal people are described, generally attention is paid to their differences when compared to us. It is assumed that fossils have unusually thick skulls, exceptionally large teeth, and it is claimed that they have a massive protruding chin. (...) Many present-day Americans perfectly fit in with the fossils as comes to the thickness of their skulls. With certain reservations, it is possible to show that there is no clear difference between a present-day American and a paleoanthropologic fossil: the living men and women of today could be representatives of these fossils. (...)

   It is quite clear that the tooth size of present-day Americans fits within the limits posed by these fossils, as does the thickness of the skull. We cannot reach any actual classification based on these features. (...) When comparing the fossils to a fairly small group (258) of present-day Americans, it looks like that the size and form of our chin are the same as those of the fossils. Except for a couple of exceptions, all the euhominides, erectuses and sapienses would fit perfectly in a group of modern white Americans. (...) Once again, it seems that the fossils are no different from us as comes to quality. (45)


Secondly, there are enough findings about the culture and art of the Neanderthal people – findings that indicate they were real humans. There is no reason to suppose that they differed from modern man. Only our preconceived notion of man’s evolution leads us to draw different conclusions:


Fortunately, the appreciation of the Neanderthal culture may be increasing. Recent findings include personal ornaments and possibly a flute used by the Neanderthals. Archaeologist Randall White (University of New York) says about the Neanderthals, “The evidence like this we accumulate, the more they look like us.” (46) It can be said that we have now found almost everything that can be expected from fossil and archaeological evidence. It indicates that the Neanderthals are genuine men. Some authorities of the area have not confessed it yet. (47)


What about the Neanderthal’s genetic link with modern humans? In his book (Neandertalilainen, kadonnutta perimää etsimässä / Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes, 2014, p. 267, 231) Svante Pääbo refers to how Neanderthal DNA has persisted in the modern human DNA, and how the Neanderthal and the modern human are the same species. He came to this conclusion with his research team after having studied both genomes for decades. These studies suggest that Neanderthal might be a regular human:


I had a peek of Davis and Nick’s results from the computer screen. They had not made a technical error. Neanderthals had affected modern human DNA. I had dreamt of such achievement for 25 years. We had undeniable proof for the fundamental answer, a controversial question of human origin for decades, and the answer was surprising. It showed that human genome did not entirely originate from ancestors living in Africa, cancelling the strict Africa-based hypothesis, which my supervisor Allan Wilson, among others, had been outlining. It conflicted with my own understanding. Neanderthals had not gone extinct entirely, since their DNA had survived in modern humans.

… In many people’s opinion, a species is a group of organisms that can create fertile offspring, but they cannot do that with another group. From this perspective, we had shown that Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species.


Juha Valste has brought up more Neanderthal features that are completely similar to modern humans features in his book (Neandertalinihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri [Neanderthal, the lost fellow species], 2015). He mentions that these people could talk, they interbred with modern humans, they were not hairy, they were walking upright, they took care of the wounded and elderly, they looked like humans rather than like apes, and their culture was highly sophisticated. All these signs suggest they were normal humans.

Juha Valste tells more in his book (p. 8,14) about how researchers’ image of the Neanderthals has changed over the years. Before, they were considered slightly ape-like, but not anymore.


My early one-sided perception of the Neanderthal began to change, when later in the 1960s I got a hold of some new books addressing human evolution. They had heeded Boule’s mistakes in describing the structure, posture, and intellectual capabilities of Neanderthals. In France Neanderthal’s reputation was “cleared” already in the middle of the 1950s. They had become real humans… When writing books and articles about human evolution and giving lectures in Helsinki university in 2002-2011, I had to redo all my parts about Neanderthals every year.

… Almost nothing that “everyone knows” about the Neanderthals is true. Those rare facts that still are relatively accurate, are being interpreted differently today than they were interpreted up until the mid-20th century. Researchers have had to change an assumption after another since the mid-20th century… We can as easily see, however, that we are the same species with the Neanderthals. This species is called humans – modern -and Neanderthal humans are two subspecies, which both are equally far away from the chimpanzees.


Flexible intermediate forms. As discussed, it is difficult to draw a line between the genus Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and modern humans. They are very similar to each other, and all discovered fossils fit within the range we see today. Whereas, their difference to, e.g., the genus Australopithecus is humongous, because that groups’ brain size is only a third of modern humans’ brain size and their body structure resembles that of a chimpanzee and a gorilla. It seems they were not humans.

One example illustrating the absurdity of determining species distinctions in human fossils, comes from a cave fossil collection in Sima de Los Huesos, Spain. This cave has been home to dozens of human-remain discoveries, and their variation and dissimilarity has astonished people. One of the adult skulls is one of the smallest of its era and another one is the largest. Moreover, the skulls have roughly the same amount of similarities with all three groups; Homo erectus, Neanderthal and modern human. It is clear that this kind of variation has not resulted from evolution and long time periods, because this is a population that lived roughly at the same time and in the same place. Instead, the fossil collection in Sima de Los Huesos is a good example of variation, which has occurred in the past and occurs today between different people, as seen in height, skull shape and size, and in other varying features.

The next quote well illustrates how flexible are the boundaries between different groups and how questionable it is to make distinctions between genus Homo erectus, -Neanderthal and -Homo sapiens. They are too similar. It is about fossils in Europe that were originally classified as Homo erectuses. However, in the period between 1968 and 1976 researchers determined that there could not have been any Homo erectus individuals in Europe, the same fossils were reclassified as “ancient Homo sapiens”. Then the classification was changed again to Neanderthal. Changing classification of fossils three times over such a short period of time illustrates how factitious and flexible the boundaries are between these classifications. In reality, the fossils were quite certainly those of ordinary modern men all the time:


One or more competent paleoanthropologists had, however, classified most of the “ancient” fossils found from Europe at that time as Homo erectus before drawing this “conclusion.” Among them were the fossils from Montmaur, Bilzingsleben, Castel di Guido, Arago, Vertesszöllös, Mauer and Petralona. These and other fossils were reclassified as “ancient Homo sapiens” so that they could be differentiated both from the Homo erectus and the Neanderthals. Only on the grounds of findings in one place, all these fossils are now classified as Neanderthals. I cannot think of any other example that could indicate more clearly the insignificance of these classes. Neither can I think of any other example that would indicate more clearly the imperfectness of man’s evolution, since a finding only in one place causes a revolution like this in the interpretation of so many fossils. The issue concerned at least 68 fossils in 16 places. (48)


HUMAN ORIGIN. When talking about human origin, we often hear these two claims:


• Similarity between humans and chimpanzees is 98,5 %

• Humans have lived on the planet for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years


Is the basis of these claims in science and in real facts?

First, we address the humans’ rough 98,5 % similarity with chimpanzees. This idea was presented already in the 1970s, although they did not know everything about human -and primate genome back then. A larger part of these genomes was not mapped out yet, making the claims of the 1970s premature and inaccurate. Moreover, the study has been criticized, due to its deliberate efforts to overlook parts of the DNA. Whether it is true or not, we can be certain that the number 98,5 % will appear for decades to come in many publications, because it is deeply ingrained in people’s minds.

However, there has been little change in this department. Even Roy Britten, who published the number 98,5 % in the 1970s, has presented a new number of 94,5 % or less many years ago. Furthermore, science magazines are beginning to acknowledge that similarity between humans and chimpanzees might be less than we have thought after all.

Percentages aren’t necessarily significant. Everyone can see for themselves that the difference between humans and chimpanzees is more than 1,5 percentage points. Chimpanzees do not drive cars, study in schools, write or read thriller novels, fly planes, build skyscrapers or pray. These qualities are only distinct to humans, who according to the Bible were created in the image of God (1 Moos 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.), but this is not the case with chimpanzees or with other animals.

What about the idea that humans have existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years on the planet? We can often find it in texts that some human related findings might be that old or, e.g., that cave paintings might be 15 000-30 000 years old. The issue, however, with these discoveries is that they do not come with age tags. On the other hand, some cave paintings are so wonderfully executed that many people today cannot achieve the same level of artistry. How could grunting humans, who had just emerged from the animal layer, achieve such fine art? These ideas are absurd.

What does real human history look like then? Remarkably, known human history extends only ca. 4000-5000 years back. Such things as literacy, building, cities, agriculture, culture, complex mathematics, ceramics, making of tools and other human specific things appeared simultaneously and suddenly. Many evolutionists like to talk about the prehistoric -and historic times, but there is no proper evidence suggesting that prehistoric times even existed, e.g., 10 000 – 20 000 years ago, because we do not know with certainty any buildings or any other things mentioned above.

It is completely strange to think that humans might have evolved a few million years ago, but that their culture only sprung to life suddenly a few millennia ago. A far better explanation would be that humans have existed for a few millennia, and that is why buildings, cities, language, and culture appeared during those times.

The following quotations also suggest the same. They show how suddenly civilization has arisen in this world. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon dating, professor W.F. Libby, who said on the 3rd of March 1961, on Science magazine (p.624), that documented history only extends as far back as around 5000 years. He spoke about the ruling generation of Egypt, and how their timed listing might contain over hundred-year-errors. (This was reported, e.g., in a TV series called “Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was presented on Finnish television in 1996):


Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical date. (49)  


The earliest notes we have of the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)


In the recent excavations, the most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (50)


Mathematics gives us another example of how abruptly civilization appeared into this world. For instance, square root was already known 4000-5000 years ago. A good question is, why wasn’t it known before that, and why did it appear at this certain time? These kinds of phenomena go well with the model given in the First Book of Genesis: humans have been sophisticated from the beginning, and we have not been here for that many thousand years. The following quotation will tell more about this. It also discusses mathematics:


The schoolboys of a small Sumerian Šadippur population center had around 2000 BC. a ‘textbook’, where Eukleides’ famous algorithm was proposed 1700 years before Eukleides even existed…

The clay ‘textbooks’ of the Šaidippur schoolboys contained the outlines of scientific data of the time similarly to encyclopedias, what forces us to thoroughly revise the scientific developmental history and also the developmental history of the human mind…

This suggests that such a level was achieved in the development of mathematics around 2000 BC., which archeologists and the history of natural sciences researchers would have never imagined possible. (51)


DNA and the age of fossils. Interestingly, DNA has successfully been extracted from Neanderthal humans. These samples should be 35 000 years old.

How long can DNA stay preserved, however? DNA examinations have proven this substance to decay rather quickly. Yle uutiset ( > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012), a Finnish news outlet, reported that DNA has a very limited preservation time: its half-life was measures to be only 521 years. The news also reported the following:


The limit to DNA’s preservation revealed – aspiration to clone dinosaurs falls through


Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. DNA will not stay preserved close to this time all, not even in the ideal conditions, new study reports…

By comparing ages from the samples and from DNA’s decay process, researchers calculated that DNA halves in every 521 years. Meaning that after 521 years, half of the nucleoid ties in the DNA will have been broken. After 521 years this has happened to half of the ties left, and so on…


How significant is this information? If the half-life of DNA is 521 years, it is not possible that there still be any left in 35 000-year-old fossils. That is, a bit of math will show us that after 5210 years the amount of DNA should only be 1 / 1024 of the original amount. After 10 420 years there should only be 1 / 1 048 576 (which is about one-millionth) of the original amount, left of the DNA. 35 000 years is such a large number that it is absolutely impossible for any DNA to still be present after all that time. This is pure mathematics.

Old studied human mummies illustrate the fragileness of DNA, since researchers were not able to find any traces of DNA in them, because all of it had already decayed. A good example comes from Svante Pääbo’s studies in Uppsala, where he conducted examinations on soft tissues from 23 mummies that were from the Berlin museum. He was able to extract DNA from one mummy only, which goes to show how this substance will not stay preserved for a very long time (Nature 314: 644-645).

We can draw a clear conclusion from these DNA tests. These fossils cannot be as old as people have thought them to be. They are most likely a few thousand years old. If we cannot get DNA samples out of mummies that we know the age of, how could we get them from fossils that should be roughly ten times older? Researchers really ought to think about this with more care and reconsider their ideas about tens and thousands of millions of years. These numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.


Population growth. As noted earlier, we have reason to believe civilization appeared in this world only a few millennia ago. Here is why: humans did not exist before that. There are no convincing pieces of evidence, based on which we could draw the conclusion that humans lived on the planet hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Neither does population growth support the idea that mankind’s origins lie somewhere far in the past. We can see that in the following examples:


• According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years. (Shorter times for this doubling have also been mentioned. We must also note that abortions and contraception were not possible in the past as they are nowadays.) If we use this doubling factor and assume that humans existed 16,000 years ago then our current population should be more than one trillion people (1,099,510,000,000) -- almost 200 times greater than it is, in fact. It is such a huge figure that such a population could not even exist on Earth. This also suggests that the beginning of mankind cannot be pushed too far into the past. Otherwise the surface of the Earth would have filled up with dead bodies and the present population would be many times larger:


The total population of six billion mentioned in the beginning will be reached in 1999. Thus, there has been an increase of five billions in less than 200 years. A hundred years ago, scientists estimated that the Earth will not be able to carry a population of more than six billion. In 1950, the population was only about 2.5 billions, but the limit of five billion was already exceeded in 1987. Only 11 years was needed for the last increase of one billion. For the sake of comparison, one can calculate that the present speed of population increase will lead to people filling up the entire surface of the Earth in the year 3530, and in 6826 all the people will not fit in the entire known universe.

   If we go backwards from the figures of today and assume the annual growth at the current speed or 1.6%, we will come to the conclusion of the first family living in 625 A.D. or 1,375 years ago.

   The supporters of the theory of evolution are not wiling to calculate figures connected to the increase of the population, because over a period of time of millions of years, the figures become so huge that the situation becomes impossible. After hundreds of millions of years, the crust of the Earth would in practice be covered by dead animals and the remains of humans, and this number of people alone would fill the entire known universe. However, the theory of evolution requires long periods of time. According to the theory, the Homo erectus who lived 1.6 million years ago, for example, was long and muscular, almost like a modern man, and certainly very reproductive as well. (52)


• If we use the speed of doubling mentioned above as the basis (the population doubling every 400 years) and go back 4,000 years in time, there should have been more than 1,000 times less people than nowadays or only about 5 million people. This seems to be a plausible estimate and fits together with the idea that the first people lived on Earth only a couple of thousand years ago and that from them have come all the present people. The matter is mentioned also in Genesis (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.)

Moreover, it is good realize that while settlements originally began spreading from the Middle East to other locations, and with population growth (Gen 1:28: ”…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,..."), such places like North -and South America and Australia were primarily inhabited only after the 18th century, once immigration brought in more settlers. Earth becoming full of people this late, also shows that our origin must only be a few millennia away.


• If there had been only two persons 100,000 years ago, and the population doubled once every thousand years, the current population should be 2,535, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This is quite an absurd figure compared to the current 6 billion (= 6,000,000,000), and indicates that people cannot have existed at that time. It indicates that the beginning of mankind must be much more recent, only a couple of thousand years in the past.


• The current rate of population growth on the Earth is about 1.7 percent per year. If this same rate had continued for only 1,300 years it would be enough to bring about the current number of 6 billion people. This suggests that the Earth could have been populated quite quickly and that tens of thousands of years are not needed, as claimed.


But what could be the reason for the things mentioned above to have appeared this late and roughly at the same time? Is there a rational explanation?

The answer, of course, is that there simply were no people before that to inhabit the earth. In earlier chapters it was already mentioned, how population has gradually increased, and that, e.g., 2000 years ago (during the Roman Empire) there were far less people than there are now, and 2000 BC there were even less. In fact, if we go back a few millennia, we should rather quickly reach point zero, when there were absolutely no people at all on earth. It is the only logical conclusion if we accept the late appearance of civilization and this gradual population growth.


REWRITTEN HISTORY. When it comes to human origin, evolutionary literature presents us with an idea that mankind originated from Africa. Evolutionists assume first humans resided in Africa and from there began populating other areas.

But what is historically accurate? Decades ago, it was well-understood that humans originate from the Middle East, from the Euphrates and Tigris area. This was told in nations’ oral tradition, i.e., that first buildings were built in this area and that all crop species of the world come from this area too. The following quotation will elaborate further:


William Dawson assures in Modern Science that he and other prominent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region must – from a geological perspective – have been the only place where people at first could live.

   Dr. Armstrong says the same in Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of the human kind? The learned pretty much disagree on this and on the question of racial integrity. The high regions giving birth to the Euphrates and the Tigris are considered to be the cradle of the human race. This is proven by many facts, such as the fact that the traditions of almost all tribes mention this part of the world as their original home. Furthermore, all of the types of grain used as human food originate here. Geological studies also lead to the same conclusion.” (53)


The Flood is another thing denied by evolutionists. They rewrite history and claim that it never happened.

But what can we make of geological and historical evidence?

We know from geology that oceanic sediment rocks are far more common than any other sediment rocks combined. James Hutton, who is said to be the father of geology, already referred to this phenomenon more than two hundred years ago:


We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)


J.S. Shelton: On mainland, oceanic sediment rock foundations are far more common and wider than all the other sediment rock foundations combined. This is one of the simple facts that requires explanation, as it is in the core of everything that is associated with humans’ continuous efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (54)


Secondly, we know that remains of marine plants and -animals can be found in all high mountain ranges; the Himalayas, the Alp, the Andes… If this is not enough proof for the Flood, then I doubt nothing else will convince such people, who have decided not to believe in the historicalness of the Flood. Therefore, it is odd that scientists and geologists have made these observations – remains of marine plants and -animals high in the mountains – but are unable to link them with the Flood. Next, we’ll look at some quotations from their works:


While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)


There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)


Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)


What about historic oral tradition about the Flood? According to some estimates there are roughly half a thousand Flood stories, in which water is described as the cause of havoc. The universal nature of these stories suggests this event is historically accurate:


Lenormant made the following statement in Beginning of History:

“We are able to prove that the story of the Flood is part of the universal traditions in all branches of the human family, and anything that is such definite and uniform in the tradition can surely not be considered an imaginary tale. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a huge impact on the first of the human race that even their descendents have not forgotten it.” (55)


Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the Native Americans had their own stories, which had kept alive the memory of a great flood; Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe. (56)


If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable. (The Earth)


Next, we have more references to the Flood. Many historians have referred to it as a real historical event. However, today people try to erase this flood catastrophe by rewriting history and adding hundreds of thousands of years to our past with no convincing evidence to support those years.


• Historian Josephus and Babylonian Berossus have mentioned the remains of Noah’s ark.


• Greek historian Herodotus refers to the Scythians in the fifth part of his work The Histories. He says they are the descendants of Japhet (Noah’s son) (Gen 10:1,2: Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras..)


• In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapisthim is ordered to build a ship: “O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubara-tutu. Demolish the house, build a boat, abandon riches and seek survival, spurn property and save life. Put on board the boat the seed of all living creatures. 'The boat that you are going to build, her dimensions should all be matching.”


• As mentioned earlier, Egyptian chronology might be off by centuries. Early Egyptians did not have lists of their rulers, instead they were compiled by an Egyptian priest Manetho centuries later (ca. 270 BC). It is believed he made mistakes, e.g., in assuming that some kings ruled after one another, when it since has been revealed that they ruled simultaneously.

Despite his errors, Manetho confirms the historicalness of the First Book of Genesis. He “wrote that ‘after the Flood’ Ham, son of Noah, had a son ‘Egyptos, also known as Mizraim’, who was the first to settle in the current region of Egypt back when the tribes began to disperse”. (57)







1. Steven M. Stanley: Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co. 1979, p. 39

2. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

3. Richard Owen; sit. Søren Løvtrup (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm

4. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

5. Rick Gore: The First Steps, National Geographic 191, nro 2 (helmikuu 1997):88

6. George Grant MacCurdy: Human Origins (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1924), 1: 316

7. Mary D. Leakey: Footprints in the Ashes of Time, National Geographic (huhtikuu 1979): 446

8. Russell H. Tuttle ja D.M Webb: “The Pattern of Little Feet”, absrakti, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78, nro 2 (helmikuu 1989): 316

9. Howells: “Homo erectus in human descent”, 79-80

10. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 285

11. Arthur Keith: "The Antiquity of Man", johdanto

12. L.B.S. Leakey: "Adam's Ancestors", p. 230

13. R.S. Lull: The Antiquity of Man”, The Evolution of Earth and Man, p. 156

14. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 20-22

15. Charles E. Oxnard: “The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doupt?” Nature 258 (4. joulukuuta 1975): 389

16. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 104

17. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 106

18. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 24,38

19. Juha Valste: Ihmislajin synty, p. 87-89

20. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 156

21. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 259

22. Roger Lewin: Bones of Contention, 160

23. W.A. Criswell. :Did man just happen?, Zondervan publishing co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p. 85 - Sit. kirjasta "Evoluution romahdus", Scott M. Huse, p. 103

24. Sit kirjasta "Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi", Wiljam Aittala, p. 88.

25. Sana, N:o 48, 3.12.1953

26. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 30

27. E.A. Hooton: Up from the Ape, p. 329

28. Robert L. Lehrman: The Long Road to Man, 1961, p. 115

29. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, january 1966, p. 93 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witn. p. 93,94.

30. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witn. p. 94.

31. Charles E. Oxnard: “The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doupt?” Nature 258 (4. joulukuuta 1975): 389

32. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 260

33. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 70,71

34. Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 251, 258

35. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 100

36. Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 258, 259

37. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 115

38. Mary D. Leakey: Primitive Artifacts from Kanapoi Valley, Nature 212, (5.11.1966):446

39. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 55

40. Gabriel Ward Lasker: Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), 284

41. Edmund White ja Dale Brown: The First Men (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), 14.

42. Donald C. Johanson ja Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 144

43. Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi ja Alan G. Thorne, ”Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia”, teoksessa The Origins of Moodern Humans, toim. Fred H. Smith ja Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66.

44. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 161

45. S.M. Garn: Human evolution: Readings in physical anthropology holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1967, p. 102-107 - Sit. teoksesta "Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto", Matti Leisola, p.31,32.

46. Tim Folger ja Shanti Menon, ”…Or Much Like Us?” Discover 18, nro 1 (January 1997): 33

47. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 206

48. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 174-175

49. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624

50. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.

51. The New York Times, 8.1.1950, p. 1, 28

52. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 144,145

53. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

54. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated

55. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

56. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29

57. J. Ashton: Evolution Impossible, Master Books, Green Forest AZ, 2012, p. 115, lainaa viitettä 1, p. 7



More on this topic:

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?















Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?