Mainpage


 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 



Grab to eternal life!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way,
 the truth, and the life

 

 

Why HAS THERE NOT BEEN AN evolution of man?

 

 

 

 

The theory of evolution includes the idea of lower forms of life evolving towards higher forms. Therefore, it is also believed that humans are descendants of some lower form of life. It is thought that humans and apes have had the same progenitor, which had animal features; therefore, researchers try to find skeletons. Their actions are largely guided by preconceptions and expectations. They suppose that beings like man have been on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, in spite of the historical evidence showing that the history of mankind does not extend more than approximately 5,000 years in the past. Next, we are going to examine the evidence connected with these findings and how satisfactory they are.

 

IS THE EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY?

 

When starting to examine the evidence of the “historical” man, one has to note that the evidence is not very convincing. For example, the following observations have been made:

 

Meager evidence. Firstly, the data that has been found and used to try to prove the evolution of man is negligible. Even though one could assume that there would be convincing evidence from a time span of hundreds of thousands of years, no such evidence has been found. This issue could be illustrated by the fact that has often been stated: all of the fossil materials found would fit on a billiard table or a writing table. This shows how little evidence there is. The quotes below also show the lack of evidence. In the first quote, Lyall Watson, a well-known researcher of the theory of evolution, notes how the evidence is very defective and that it would fit into one coffin and there would still be space left over:

 

The number of fossils in the pedigree of man is even smaller than the number of fossil researchers. The surprising truth is that all the evidence of the evolution of man could be fitted into one coffin and there would still be space left over. (1)

 

The researchers of primates can, therefore, be forgiven their groping over the gap of millions of years, from which time we do not have a perfect skeleton of an ape, let alone of the predecessor of man. (…) We have to read the evolution story of primates only from a few handfuls of broken bones and teeth. Besides, those fossils have been found thousands of kilometers from each other on locations on the Continent of the Old World. (Scientific American, June 1956, p. 98)

 

Modern humans in older layers. One point challenging the theory that man originates from lower beings is that remains of the modern man are regularly found from as old, and also from older, layers than fossil remains – in other words, they must be at least as old as these “fossil forefathers”. At least Lady Guadeloupe and the so-called Calaveras skull are well-known fossils:

 

- Lady Guadeloupe. 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 Calaveras skull. Another example is the so-called Calaveras skull that was found in a stratum in America that was believed to be 25 million years old. The skull also closely resembles the skull of the modern man, and below it vessels and tools belonging to modern man were discovered. The skull and the discovered objects are an indication of the fact that the supposed forefathers are not necessarily any older than the modern man. On the contrary, findings of this type indicate that the modern man is at least as old as his “simple” forefathers. It also means that man’s evolution from apish forefathers cannot be true.

 

Why is it then, that the previous findings have not been accepted into the pedigree of man, even though they should be many times older than their fossilized forefathers? Why have they been rejected?

   The answer is that they do not fit into the supposed pedigree of man; they have been put aside because they are dubious findings. If they were accepted, they would challenge the idea of man originating from lower beings. Therefore, we can honestly say that it is a question of a belief in the theory of evolution and the evolution of man, even though observations do not support this belief.

   The next quote deals with the same issue. The quote indicates how remains clearly belonging to modern man have been found again and again in old layers, but they have been rejected because they have been too “modern”. Dozens of similar findings have been made:

 

Parts of human skeletons have been found also in Pliocene strata from the time before the Pleistocene strata, not only the Calaveras skull in America but also others. The reason why they have been put aside – besides the uncertainty as to whether they have been buried in the Pliocene strata at their birth, or whether they have been buried later – is that they have been modern: the evolutionary view of the origin of man has not allowed for them to be accepted as genuine, because according to this view, no modern-type men could have existed at that time. Arthur Keith writes about a method that has been used for a long time: “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.” (Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, introduction). L. B. S. Leakey comments on the same issue: “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.” (L. B. S. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors, p. 230).

   R.S. Lull writes that the Calaveras skull has not been accepted for a Pliocene finding because it has been thought that “he represents, both physically and culturally, a time much later in history. 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.” (R. S. Lull, The Antiquity of Man, The Evolution of Earth and Man, p. 156) (2)

 

The second quote also refers to the same issue. It was a question of a humerus that perfectly resembled the humerus of a human. However, since it was too old, the researchers did not want to accept it into man’s pedigree because it did not fit the timeline of evolution. Several similar findings have been made but they are usually pushed aside because people want to hold on to the supposed evolution of man:

 

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. (3)

 

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. (4)

 

Artistic works. When reading publications, we often find detailed pictures and drawings depicting supposed primitive men. 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:

 

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. (5)

 

Secondly, one should note that several models and pictures have been compiled based on a few bones or teeth only. The Heidelberg Man and the Nebraska Man are examples of this. It is clear that it is not a question of science but the telling of fairy tales:

 

 - The Heidelberg Man, who should be a Homo Erectus, was “created” and “built” based on one jawbone only, i.e., a theory of the whole human race was produced on the grounds of one piece of bone, although many thought that this jawbone resembled that of a modern man!

 

 - The Nebraska Man is another good example; this man – who was used as a “convincing” piece of evidence of the evolution of man in the famous so-called ape trial in the 1920s – was “created” based on one tooth. 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. The only unfortunate thing was that when this issue was examined later on, it was found that the tooth of the Nebraska Man belonged to an extinct pig and not to a man at all!

 

Counterfeits. One issue to be taken into account in the history of fossils are counterfeits. The so-called Pildtown Man, who for a long time was regarded an important intermediate form, is one of them. The significance of the Pildtown 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 Pildtown 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 Pildtown man)

   The second most notable finding (…) was made by Mr. Charles Dawson in Pildtown 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. (6)

 

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 Pildtown 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”. (7)

 

THE MOST IMPORTANT INTERMEDIATE FORMS

 

When studying the pedigree of man, one will find such names as Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and the Neanderthal Man. These have been repeatedly mentioned in several books and publications, and therefore, they are regarded as important intermediate forms. This is why we will now study these forefathers and how reliable the findings connected with them are.

 

Australopithecus. Firstly, Australopithecus is believed to be an important phase that represents the first phases in the chain of man-like beings. The Australopithecuses are believed to have appeared on the Earth almost four million years ago. (Lady Guadeloupe and the so-called Calaveras Skull mentioned above, which clearly belong to a modern man, were situated – according to the evolutionary interpretations – in layers more than 20 million years old. Thus, they should be five times older than the Australopithecus, if the dating is true).

   As far as the research connected with the Australopithecus is concerned, one notices first the small volume of its brain. (The volume of the brain is significant because on grounds of the volume of the brain of a fossil finding, we can best conclude whether it is a question of a man or an ape.). If we examine the most well-known representative of the Australopithecus, i.e., Lucy, we find that the volume of its neurocranium was only a little over 400 cm3 or a third of that of a human and similar to, for example that of the modern chimpanzees and gorillas. Such a small volume of the brain proves that it cannot have been a human. It is likely that Lucy and the other representatives of the same species have been ordinary apes. Apparently, we are looking at an extinct branch, as some researchers have presented.

   The second observation refers to the form of the skull of Lucy and the other Australopithecuses. Their sculls are ape-like and not at all human, and they highly resemble the skull of a chimpanzee, so are we looking at an ordinary chimpanzee or an extinct species? We cannot be looking at a human, because the differences when compared to the modern man are too evident.

   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. Furthermore, it is good to note again that the South apes (Australopithecus) do not appear in fossil material at the “right” time but too late. There are many fossils in the Homo family, which are as old or older than them. Thus, both forms lived at the same time on Earth:

 

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. (8)

 

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. (9)

 

Our discoveries leave hardly no doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (10)

 

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”. (11) 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. (12)

 

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”.

   What about the evidence connected with the Homo habilis? Is there a lot of evidence?

   We must again note that there is little evidence. Firstly, the findings have been quite poor: only a few bits of bone and not even a whole skeleton (the same problem accompanies other human fossils). It has even been impossible to reliably estimate its size. It is also interesting that from the ravine of Olduvai – from which the remains of the first Homo habilis were found in 1960 – a skeleton that clearly belonged to a modern man was dug out nearly at the same level. This proves that people like us lived at the same time as the Homo habilis.

   The position of Homo habilis in the pedigree of man has also been unclear, and researchers have argued about its position as a forefather of man, in the same way they have argued about which fossils generally are representatives of this species and which are not. The following quote refers to the same issue. The quote proves that the Homo habilis is even more apish than Lucy, and that it does not meet the criteria of the human family. Probably it was an ordinary ape:

 

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. (13)

 

In 1964 Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias (University of Witwatersrand, South Africa) and John Napier (University of London) announced a new forefather of man, Homo habilis, in Nature magazine. (…)

   The fossils were object of a hard dispute from the very beginning. Some thought that they were only mixtures of South apes and Homo erectus fossils, so they did not form a class of their own. Even those who took up a positive attitude towards the new class were aware of the fact that the fossils were a mixture of young and old fossils. Material of young individuals is very difficult to estimate because the bones change much in becoming adult.

   (…)There was strong evidence that the Homo habilis class was not genuine but was composed of two or possibly three different classes. One or more of the classes would have been as small as Lucy and another a bit bigger. This finding should have taken away the class Homo habilis as the intermediate form between South apes and Homo erectus. (14)

 

Homo erectus. Homo erectus or the Upright Man, who is thought to have appeared immediately after the Homo habilis, is deemed one of the most important progenitors of man. The Java Man and the Beijing Man have been deemed the best representatives of this species; they were also found in the same places:

 

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 Pildtown 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. (15)

 

Furthermore, the discoverer of the bones, Eugene Dubois, stated many years later that the piece of the skull that was found was the skull of a gibbon, not a human. He also said that bones clearly belonging to a modern man were uncovered from the same layers. These statements by Dubois, to which he clung until his death, should clearly indicate to everyone that the remains of the Java Man cannot have much significance. His position as an intermediate form in the pedigree of man is questionable.

   Furthermore, an interesting episode is connected with the findings of Dubois. 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. (16)

 

The Beijing Man:

 

As mentioned above, in addition to the Java Man, the Beijing Man is another well-known Homo erectus.

   Using him as an intermediate form is, however, questionable. Firstly, the original evidence of the Beijing Man has been lost somewhere in the turmoil of the Second World War in 1941 – it does not exist any more. Secondly, relics of other animals have been discovered among the findings as well. Both of these facts have essentially reduced his evidentiary value as a special intermediate form.

  However, researchers measured the brain volume of the Beijing Man and found it to be exactly the same as that of the modern man, i.e., an average of almost 1,100 cm3. Also, the few bones from the extremities that have been found are also quite similar to those of a modern man. Thus, his structure does not deviate from the modern man.

   The previous findings lead to a question: what exactly is the difference between the modern man and the Beijing Man? If his brain volume is the same and the extremities resemble each other, he must have been a normal modern man. There is no other possibility.

   This is why it has been argued that if we were to meet a Homo erectus on the street, we could not tell the difference between him and other people. He would be just an ordinary man. This also means that the Beijing Man cannot have much significance as to the pedigree of man.

   It is interesting that some fossil researchers have come to the same conclusion. They have recommended connecting Home erectus to Homo sapiens because boundaries between these groups are factitious and do not correspond to practical observations. It means that Homo erectus is in reality a genuine modern man.

 

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. (18)

 

Neanderthal Man. The Neanderthal Man is thought to represent another phase in the evolution of man. He is believed to have suddenly disappeared 31,000 years ago.

   However, if the Neanderthal Man is compared to the modern man, quite obvious similarities can be seen both in the size of the brain and in other structures.

   Firstly, as the size of the brain is deemed the determining difference between a man and an ape, the Neanderthal Man does not differ from a modern man in any way: the size of his brain is very close to the same size, 1,500 cm3 or even larger. This indicates that he cannot have been a lower level being: quite the contrary, if the size of the brain is used as a criterion, he must have been wiser than the modern man. Furthermore, skulls similar to that of the Neanderthal Man have also been discovered over the years. For example, the skull of French Marquis Lafayette, who lived in the 1800s, was very similar to a Neanderthal skull found in Spy, Belgium. Therefore, there is no reason to claim that the Neanderthal Man would have differed from the modern man in any way on grounds of the form and size of the skull. His form of the skull corresponds perfectly to the modern man and fits those ranges that appear in humans.

   As to the structure of Neanderthal men, it has been said that they were not as round-shouldered and animal-like as has generally been thought: instead, many of them suffered from arthritis. Some fossil drawings have been made based on these skeletons of sick people, but later findings showed their structure to be perfectly similar to a modern man’s. This shows that there is not necessarily any difference between them and modern people. Only the imagination of modern people as to the supposed unfolding of evolution leads us to think that they were at a lower level. Bias can shape our belief and determine what we look for.

   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. (19)

 

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.” (20) 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. (21)

 

FLEXIBLE INTERMEDIATE FORMS

 

One indication of the false nature of man’s pedigree is the fact that there can be different opinions about the classification of the same fossils. It is a question of Homo erectus, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens (modern man), which may have been classified (generally) according to how old the fossils were considered to be.

   Since the differences between these groups are insignificant or nonexistent (or it is only a question of variability and differences that can be found in the form of man’s skull, length and other details), it is possible to draw different conclusions when classifying them. Therefore, fossil researchers may strongly disagree about which group some fossils should be put into. They do not want to admit the alternative: that they are all modern man and evolution has not taken place.

   The next quote well illustrates how flexible are the boundaries between different groups. 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 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. (22)

 

FOSSILS IN AGE COMPARISON

 

It has already been mentioned several times that there are no significant differences between the Homo groups (Homo erectus, Neanderthal, Homo sapiens) but in reality they are all the same kind of humans. It is difficult or impossible to observe any differences between them.

   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. (23)

 

 

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. Lyall Watson: The water people, Science digest, vol 90, may 1982, p. 44 – Cit. in "Unohdettu Genesis", Pekka Reinikainen, p. 420.

2. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 157

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

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

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

6. Cit. in "Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi", Wiljam Aittala, p. 88.

7. Sana, Number 48, 3.12.1953

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

9. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93 – Cit. in: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. vit. p. 93,94.

10. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 – cit. in: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. vitn. p. 94.

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

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

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

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

15. W.A. Criswell. :Did man just happen?, Zondervan publishing co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p. 85 - Cit. in "Evoluution romahdus" (The collapse of evolution), Scott M. Huse, p. 103

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

17. 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”, in “The Origins of Moodern Humans”, edit. By Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

                      Jari Iivanainen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





shopify analytics ecommerce