LaVergne Church of Christ |
The Other Side of Evolution (continued)
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION EXAMINED
A thought uppermost in the minds of many people is: "There must be some kind of evidence for evolution or it would not be accepted by so many people." Now this sounds reasonable and would certainly be the case in most fields of study, but not so in regard to the theory of evolution.
Darwinism is a theory which, to a large degree, has been blindly accepted and passed on through several generations without ever being seriously questioned and examined. Many accept it because it seems to be the thing to do. Others accept it because of unwarranted pressure. Clark and Bales point out that "the pressure to accept evolution is so strong that there are many who accept it because they are afraid of what others may think."1 (It may be desirable to review chapter III to see the reasons for such widespread acceptance of evolution.)
But what are the "evidences" used in support of the theory and how substantial are they? There are six stock arguments which have been offered in defense of evolution, all of which are speculative in nature: vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, blood comparison, embryonic recapitulation, mutations and, last, the fossil record. Following is a close look at each of these.
Vestigial organs are those structures in man and lower animals which evolutionists claim to be degenerate and, therefore, useless. We are told that these so-called degenerate structures, while useless to present-day animals, were at one time useful to their evolutionary pre-decessors. These structures are said to be left over remnants which have been passed down through millions of years of evolution.
When this "evidence" first appeared it was argued that there were hundreds of examples of vestigial organs in the human body and many thousands throughout the animal world. However, as this argument was put to the scientific test, the number of such "useless" organs dramatically decreased. Most textbooks now exclude this argument and those that still use it give it only scant discussion and cite no more than a few examples. So-called "vestigial organs" sometimes cited are: the appendix, the coccyx, outer ear muscles and tonsils of man, "legs" of the python and "hip bones" of the whale. Before examining each of it is necessary to note a basic flaw underlying this evidence.
There are some organs in man and other animals which may, given only a cursory look, appear of being vestigial. However, to dogmat-ically claim that such organs are useless, without having examined them, is not at all scientific.
The fact that a function has not been demonstrated for an organ is no real evidence that it has no function. It is quite possible that these structures have a function that has not yet been discovered. For many years the endocrine glands (glands of internal secretion, such as the thyroid, the pituitary, and adrenals, which pour their products into the blood stream) were regarded as vestigial organs. They could be seen and described anatomically, but no function was known for them. Today, of course, we know that these structures are very important for life.2
Because the function of a particular organ is not known does not mean that it has no function. Some organs of the human body have been discovered to be of great value during the embryonic stage, later to serve only insignificantly in the adult. Likewise, some organs have been shown to be essential during infancy and not as important in later years. So there are many things to be considered when discussing the essentiality of an organ. Here are some of the popular examples often said to be "vestigial" organs.
THE APPENDIX
Is this truly a useless organ? Apparently the only men making this claim are those attempting to find support for evolution. However, many men of the medical field are convinced that the appendix is indeed a useful organ. Some have shown that it secretes fluid into the intestines for lubricating purposes while others have shown that it provides digestive juices. Some scientists feel that it manufactures white blood cells.3 It is very likely that the appendix may have a combination of all these functions, which would make it a most useful organ. Some scientists have pointed out that since the appendix is so conspicuous in the embryonic stage that it probably plays a very important role in maintaining life during this delicate period.
Dr. Wilfred Le Gros Clark, of Oxford, stated:
"The significance of the vermiform appendix is still obscure, but in view of its rich blood supply it is almost certainly correct to regard it as a specialized and not a degenerate organ."4
Wm. L. Straus, of Johns Hopkins, adds:
"There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."5
THE COCCYX
The coccyx (caudal vertebrae or "tail bone") according to some evolutionists is supposed to be the remnant of the tail of some distant relative of man. We are told this structure is useless and, therefore, vestigial. But is the coccyx useless? Actually this part of the backbone column and is the connecting point for several muscles, hence, it is very useful. It has also been shown that the coccyx provides support for muscles which control functions of elimination.6 It also aids in sitting and gives support to internal organs when man is standing. To say that the "tail bone" is a vestigial organ is just another attempt at supporting a weak theory.
OUTER EAR MUSCLES
It has been suggested by evolutionists that the outer ear muscles of man must be the remnants of useful muscles in earlier animals. It is argued that since man cannot use them to wiggle his ears as do many lower forms of animal life, these muscles must be vestigial Here again is another weak attempt to support a faulty theory. Is it proper to conclude that these muscles are vestigial simply because man cannot use them to wiggle his ears? Such reasoning assumes that there are no other functions for these muscles. However, this is simply not true.
Although these structures do not serve the usual purpose of muscles, namely that of contraction, they are nevertheless useful in providing facilities for increased blood supply to the organ (ear), thereby diminishing the danger of freezing, etc. Muscle is more than simply a contractile organ. It is actively concerned with metabolism. Without some musculature in its structure the nutrition of the outer ear might be seriously impaired.7
Hence, even though man is not able to wiggle his ears, the muscles of the outer ear serve in a very significant way. To claim that these muscles are vestigial is to neglect the findings of scientific research.
TONSILS
At one time man's tonsils were considered the prime example of a useless organ. Since they could be removed without affecting the body it was falsely assumed that they served no real purpose. However, this idea is now known to be false. For example, it has been demonstrated that tonsils play an important role in protecting children from internal infection. During the early years children are prone to put into their mouths just about everything in hand's reach. Some kind of protection is needed to offset the bacteria which enters.
Dr. Simpson Hall writes:
"Consensus of opinion is that in early childhood the tonsil has pro-tective functions against bacterial infection. Later in life this infection becomes unnecessary and the tonsil atrophies."8
It is interesting to note that many doctors are now encouraging people to keep their tonsils as long as possible. No, the tonsil is not a vestigial organ and no honest, informed man of science would make such a claim, unless, of course, he was attempting to defend a forced theory. So outdated is this argument that the more recent biology textbooks have excluded it altogether.
"LEGS" OF THE PYTHON
There are several snakes possessing internal spur-like structures which are located toward the posterior end of the body in the area where hind legs are found in other animals. In a few cases, such as the Python, these spurs are slightly exposed. Evolutionists interpret these spurs to be vestigial and then proceed to tell us that long ago the snake had ancestors with legs. Obviously, such a claim involves far too many assumptions, and if the argument is true why is the fossil record destitute of such transitional creatures?
However, the point at issue is to determine whether or not these spur-like structures are vestigial. If they can be show to be useful then they are not vestigial at all. And this is precisely the case! These structures enable the snake to strike a powerful blow with its body, in some cases even to cut the victim. Among other things these spurs also aid the snake in locomotion. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the evolutionist.
"HIP BONES" OF THE WHALE
Since the whale possesses certain bones embedded within its flesh near the region where hip bones are found in other animals, evolution-ists claim that these are remnants of hip bones which became fully developed in more ancient animals. However, this claim is completely unfounded. There is nothing in the fossil record supporting the transition this argument requires. But again the question is: "Are these structures really vestigial?" The answer is "No." These so-called remnants of hip bones support some of the internal organs and serve as points of attachment for various muscles.
It is obvious that the argument from vestigial organs is of no use. And even if it could be proved that certain organs were vestigial, at best this would only show that such organs have degenerated. And degenerate structures would tend to indicate a devolving rather than an evolving process, which is not exactly what evolutionists need to prove their theory.
Anatomy has to do with the structure of organisms. Evolutionists point out that when comparisons are made between body structures of various animals there is a gradual progression in size from the simple to the more complex. It is then assumed that this is the result of evolution and that all animals have come from common ancestors. Of this, Dr. Klotz says:
"Much of the reasoning in evolution is based on observed similarities between living things. These similarities are believed to be evidence of descent from a common ancestor, and the degree of similarity is regarded as an indication of the closeness of the relationship.9
In nature there is an obvious increase in size and complexity from lower to the higher forms of life, but this in no way suggests that the higher forms have evolved from the lower. One might just as easily assume that the lower devolved from the higher.
To illustrate their theory evolutionists have created phylogenetic trees by which they attempt to show the relationships between animals. However, they fail to point out that these trees are altogether spectulative and imaginary and that none of them agree.
Is it true that similarity is evidence of descent from a common ancestor? Absolutely not! Yet, this is the crux of the comparative anatomy argument. If skeletons of a mouse, a guinea pig, a raccoon, a fox, a goat and a horse were lined up, some basic similarities would be noticeable. But, would this prove that any one of them evolved from another? Similarity simply does not prove common descent.
It is also interesting to note that evolutionists will often choose the similarities they wish while disregarding those which are unfavorable to their position. Again, Klotz observes:
"It is also true that the evolutionist selects his similarities. There are some similarities which might prove the wrong relationships. These are ignored or are merely explained away."10
A worm and a snake have similarities, but they do not have a common ancestor. Likewise, the bird and bee both have wings and can fly, but there is no common ancestor. The platypus has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, but no common ancestor is claimed for them. Thus, evolutionists avoid those similarities which prove too much. It would almost seem that the so-called evidence of comparative anatomy is nothing more than a glamorized argument designed to appeal to the unsuspecting. It fails to bridge the enormous gap between the various groups of animals. Claiming descent based on similarities is of no value if the fossil record does not bear it out. And, as has been demonstrated, the fossil record does not show anything akin to evolutionary descent. The gaps are there are will remain there.
BLOOD COMPARISON
This "evidence" involves comparing the blood serum of different animals in an effort to determine how closely related they are. For example, the blood of a small animal may be compared with the blood of an ape. The same blood may then be tested with that of man. Theoretically, if the blood of the ape shows greater reaction (precipitation) than that of man, this means the ape is more closely related to the smaller animal.
Experiments along this line are not new, having been begun by George Nutall in the early 1900's. At first these tests were subjected to wholesale fantasy and the results were always interpreted to support evolution. However, it is now known that the argument is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, it has been shown that the serum of whales shows their nearest relatives are bats, while the serum of hoofed animals shows their nearest relatives to be whales. The blood of the whale-bone whale, one species of the baboon, the tiger, the African antelope and man, all show the same amount of reaction when tested with pig serum.11 It is no wonder that Nutall himself said:
"In view of the crudity of our methods, it is not surprising if certain discrepancies may be encountered."12
As Dr. Arthur Brown wisely observes:
"Unless and until we are absolutely certain that blood from two animals cannot be chemically similar without having a common ancestor we have no right to draw the later inference. Without doubt, no such certainty has been proved to exist."13
EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
This argument is described as:
The hypothesis that each species in the development from the ovum to the adult form recapitulates its evolutionary history. It is claimed that the human embryo passes through various stages of development during embryonic life which resemble is succession the ancestral or lower forms of life from which man is evolved. In its development the human embryo is, therefore, said to resemble in turn the fish, the amphibian, the reptile, and the quadruped mammal. Probably no biologist today accepts the theory as originally given, but there are some who still accept it in a much modified form, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, students are still indoctrinated with this hypothesis.14
Does the human embryo actually review a past history of evolution? The answer is "No." But this is another classic example of how men will speculate in order to find support for a weak theory.
It was at one time taught that the human embryo had "gills" like a fish, and the conclusion was that man must be a distant relative of fish. However, when it was proved that these so-called "gills" were not gills at all, evolutionists began speaking of them as "gill-slits" resembling gills of fish. But now it is known that even this idea is false.
But these structures in man are not slits or clefts. They are merely depressions between the corresponding arches which support the blood vessels necessary to support the forepart of the body. Their correct description is that if visceral furrows or grooves.15
Other characteristics of the human embryo have been suggested as indications of recapitulation. For example, during its early stages the human embryo appears to have a "tail." This, it is claimed, shows a relation between man and the tailed animals. Actually this is nothing more than the developing backbone in the embryo. During the later stages the embryo normally develops hair, and this is supposed to show a relationship with man's more advanced "hairy ancestors." Obviously, these are superficial similarities and do not in any way show that the embryo "reviews" a past history of evolution.
But the real weakness in this argument is the fact that evolutionists have been guilty of selecting what seems to suit their theory, while at the same time neglecting the inconsistencies. For example, it has long been claimed that blood vessels evolved before the heart. However, in the human embryo the heart develops before the blood vessels. Like-wise, according to evolutionists teeth evolved before the tongue. But in the embryo this is reversed. Why have these inconsistencies been overlooked? As Reno points out:
"Could it be that the scientists are merely trying to prove a preconceived theory? If this is the case, and it seems to be, they are in the field of speculation, not true science. True science looks at all facts impartially."16
This evidence, first developed by Haeckel in the 1800's, is crude and highly subjective, yet it still appears in some textbooks. Of this evidence Huettner says:
"It has been subjected to careful scrutiny and has been found wanting. There are too many exceptions to it."17
Winchester points out that while there are similarities between the embryos of various animals, these similarities are only incidental and not recapitulation.18
Mutations are sudden, prominent changes in plants and animals from one generation to the next caused by genetic alterations. That such mutations occur is not questioned. Mutations have produced such forms as the seedless orange, hornless cattle and the short-legged Ancon sheep. Of the Ancon sheep, Klotz says:
"In the latter part of the eighteenth century there appeared in a purebred New England flock of sheep a lamb with very short legs. This lamb was bred and gave rise to the Ancon breed of sheep. Such a sudden heritable variation is known as a mutation."19
However, it should be pointed out that such natural mutations are extremely rate. They are so rare that those working in the field of genetics, in order to study mutations, have had to create them artificially.
Another outgrowth of these experiments, however, is that those favoring evolution began to claim that mutations supplied a mechanism (working design) for their theory. And mechanism was the very thing evolution was lacking. Mutations, then, became the solution to the problem of how evolution was supposed to have occurred. All this gave rise to a new area of so-called evidence. But do such mutations really support evolution? The answer is a resounding "No."
First, mutations do not demonstrate new types of animals or plants. The Ancon sheep is still a sheep, the seedless orange is still an orange and hornless cattle are still cattle. Evolutionists need more than mutations, they need transmutations. In other words they need mutations that cross the barriers between different kinds of animals. Of course, this is impossible, even under laboratory controlled experiments. Mutations cannot account for the gigantic changes necessary for evolution. And it must be shown how changes came about which were large enough to span not only the gaps separating species, but also genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms. The impossibility of this is all too apparent.
Secondly, mutations are extremely rare. Evolutionists admit that for evolution to have occurred, there had to be millions upon millions of successive mutations. However, while one mutation occurring in nature would be rare, the possibility of additional mutations in successive second, third and fourth generations would be beyond calculation. And remember, this process would have to be occurring throughout the entire plant and animal worlds.
Thirdly, mutations are almost always defective, in laboratory experiments as well as in nature. The seedless orange cannot reproduce without the aid of man. The Ancon sheep with its short legs would quickly disappear were it not for the protection of man. Most mutations are doomed to death or else are so mutilated they cannot produce offspring. As Dr. Hermann Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, says:
"Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."20
Fourthly, mutations are almost always recessive. This means that they soon vanish away. If animals with mutations are left to them-selves, and if they are able to reproduce, their offspring will almost always lose these mutations. Or, to put it another way, mutations recede as successive generations appear. Dr. Sewell Wright of the University of Chicago, says:
"The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a tendency towards degeneration."21
For over fifty years much ado has been made over the laboratory experiments of the Fruit Fly (drosophila). Many thousands of mutant forms of this fly have been produced by radiation bombardment. Some have interpreted this evidence of evolution. However, it must be noted that these mutant forms do not constitute new and different animals - they are still flies. Also, these mutations have been artificially produced under controlled conditions and are not the result of natural selection; and natural selection is, of course, what evolutionists need to promote their theory.
Before leaving the discussion of the development of new forms, here are two additional cases of breeding experiments. It is argued that since it seems to be a new kind of animal, the mule (a hybrid, the offspring of horse and donkey) is evidence of evolution. While classification of the mule is not certain (and probably never will be) this one fact is - the mule is sterile, or else, in extremely rare cases, reproduces offspring which die. No evidence of evolution here.
Another example, the Raphanobrassica or "Rabbage" (the cross between radish and cabbage) has been placed on a pedestal as one of man's greatest evolutionary triumphs.22 While some labeled it a "new" species, others said it was nothing more than a freak of nature. In any case it lends no support to evolution. In the first place the Raphano-brassica is a product of the laboratory and not natural selection. The Russian scientist, Karpechenko, developer of the new form, subjected these plants to heat shock and other drastic measures to bring about this crass specimen. This is a far cry from natural selection. In the second place the "Rabbage" had roots like a cabbage and spindly leaves like the radish, rendering it quite useless. It does not exist today.
Of the overall picture of mutations, Dr. Henry Morris says:
"The number of uncounted billions upon billions of favorable mutations required to develop the amazing variety and intricate complexity of the present organic world out of some hypothetical primitive common ancestor is beyond our powers to calculate or even to imagine."23
Dr. Heribert Nilsson states:
"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."24
Again, Nilsson says:
"Several new combinations occurring in a species hybrid, which may differ so much from the parents as to form new species, will soon disappear in the struggle for existence in nature. Nature sweeps clean the border lines of the species."25
The evolutionist is virtually cut off at this point by the impassable barrier between species.
As mentioned earlier the geological record is the only source of direct evidence. However, studies in paleontology show that the evidence discovered here does everything but support the theory. According to the fossil record:
1) at the base of the fossil record life appears suddenly and in great complexity;
2) ascending through the strata of earth there is no evidence of any intermediate forms.
Both of these facts stand in direct opposition to evolution. However, in spite of this the concept of evolution is still promoted and men blunder their way into a discussion of the fossil record.
Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla. Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following between the major groups it is fair supposition there never have been any such intergrading types."27
But now look at two areas of the fossil record most often cited in support of evolution.
It is claimed that the geological record contains evidence of horse evolution. But what exactly is this evidence? In different parts of the world fossils have been found which are said to be ancestors of the modern horse. In all a variety of about twenty such specimens have been unearthed, the smallest of which is the Eohippus, about the size of a small dog. By taking various selections of these animals (usually four or five) and placing them in ascending order, according to size, evolutionists have created phylogenetic trees or pedigrees of so-called horse evolution.
Now there may be some resemblances between these extinct animals and between them and the modern horse, however, it cannot be shown that any of these evolved from another. And even if it could be shown that these animals are related this would not prove evolution, for evolutionists themselves identify all of them as horses! But, is there anything to this evidence? Close examination of the findings reveal that, again, evolutionists neglect to report all the facts.
First, more than a dozen different pedigrees of horse evolution have been created and evolutionists are not agreed on the reliability of any one of them. A textbook may display one of these pedigrees but fail to explain to students that there are others totally different. The fact is, horse evolution is only guesswork.
Secondly, evolutionists neglect to point out that not one of these pedigrees represents a series of animals which are from the same general locality. One of the most widely used pedigrees of horse evolution begins with fossils found in India, however, all subsequent fossils in the series were discovered in the United States. However, such information is never explained in the textbooks. Unfortunately, many who promote evolution are not aware of this data.
Another point emphasized by evolutionists is that these "horse ancestors" show a gradual loss of toes. Eohippus has four functional toes on the front legs and three on the hind legs. Supposed later forms show three toes on all four legs. And yet later forms show legs which have one enlarged toe and two small toes, the larger toe resembling a hoof. It is then assumed that these "early horses" evolved into the modern horse with one perfect hoof on each leg. Now whether these fossil remains are even related cannot be proved, and even if they were this provides no support for evolution. The general principle underly-ing evolution is a progression from the simple to the more complex, however, in this instance this is reversed! Wm. O. Davis makes this point very clear.
"Now the five-toed, or four-toed horse would naturally be more complex in this one respect than the one-toed (one hoof) horse of today. Here we have evolution reversed, because evolution is working from the complex to the simple in the reduction of toes which have already consumed millions of years in producing. But the evolutionists want us to believe that in every other area of animal life time was working to bring about the complex from the simple forms. Just how ridiculous can theorists become?"28
Another reconstructed model of so-called horse evolution appears in the American Museum of Natural History. In her book, Thoroughbred Racing Stock, Baroness Wentworth, highly acclaimed as a breeder of thoroughbred horses, made the following observation about this model.
"This pictorial evolutionary series has been subjected to such wholesale fancy reconstruction of missing parts that, as presented to the public, its evidential value amounts to little more than that of a pictorial historical novel. If we accept the reconstruction of Eohippus, his ribs were eighteen. Orohippus dropped to fifteen, Pliohippus jumped to nineteen, Equus Scotti is back to eighteen. Eohippus starts at six or seven lumbars, Orohippus shows eight, and some five million years later, Equus Scotti is back to six. Where scientists differ, ordinary men may stand by their own reasoning until more proof is forthcoming."29
All reconstructions of horse evolution are totally artificial. As Nilsson observes, they are "...put together out of parts which are not homogeneous and cannot for that reason be a continuous transitional series.30
A fossil labeled Archeopteryx has long been cited by evolutionists as a link between reptiles and birds. It was claimed that this animal had features peculiar to both reptile and bird, thus, making it a transitional fossil. However, as more complete fossils of this animal have been discovered it is now known that it is, in fact, a bird. It has fully developed feathers and wings. Though it does have claws and teeth which are characteristic of reptiles, it has been shown that there are birds living today with these same features. The Archeopteryx is a bird, nothing more, nothing less.
Did man come from some kind of monkey? Has this claim ever been made? Often in discussions on evolution someone will be heard to say, "Darwin never said man came from monkey." Did he? In the second edition of Descent of Man, chapter VI, pages 220,221, Darwin's statement reads:
"The Simiade then branched off into two great stems, the Old-World and New-World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder of glory of the universe, proceeded."
So, according to Darwin man is supposed to be the offspring of so-called "New-World" monkeys. And such a claim is not really surpris-ing since, according to evolution, man has evolved from something, and since monkey seems to be the closest thing to man. But exactly how was this supposed to have happened?
Obviously there is a gigantic gulf separating man and monkey. "Something," reasons the evolutionists, "must be found to bridge this gap." But what? At this point there is again an appeal made to the fossil record. The evolutionist seeks to find some evidence of "pre-historic" man. He needs something that is not true monkey and not modern man, something in between. During the past one hundred fifty years several so-called "intermediate" forms have been unearthed and displayed as proof of man's evolution. Drawings or photographs of some of these reconstructions are often placed in science textbooks and the impression is left that these are the ancient ancestors of man. Various dates are given to these so-called prehistoric men and they are then placed on phylogenetic trees. Students seeing these "pedigrees" are influenced to believe that evolution must be true. But it is not quite that simple. The facts surrounding these reconstructions tell an altogether different story.
First, these reconstructions are very artificial and imaginary, in almost every case being created from only a few bones or even fragments of bones. Textbooks often include impressive drawings of these reconstructions as if it is known exactly what they looked like. Actually, it is all guesswork. Reno emphasizes this point.
"In the March 21,1949 copy of Life magazine, several pages were devoted to reconstructions in "A New Giant Appears on Man's Family Tree." In this story of Dr. Broom's search for fossils in South Africa, there is a half-page picture of a bestial-looking face, with the caption, "The biggest ape-man as reconstructed by discoverer Broom has an enormous face but a small brain. Broom guesses as hair, lips, ear." A careful reading of the article shows that the only thing Dr. Broom discovered was a jaw fragment with four teeth. From that, in his reconstruction Dr. Broom guessed not only at hair, lips and ear, but at all the rest of the apelike face and head as well."31
But, to be fair, it should be pointed out that not all discoveries are this fragmentary. Some fossil discoveries are much more complete. However, of these it can be safely said that they all are either human or non-human and never pre-human.
Second, while these reconstructions are represented as unques-tionable prehistoric "missing links," most people do not realize that anthropologists themselves are not in agreement as to their significance and accuracy. Much controversy surrounds all of them.
Third, these findings are always interpreted to fit the preconceived idea of evolution, which approach cannot be considered very scientific. However, such an approach is not surprising, for evolutionists, as a rule, have already closed their minds to any other explanation of man's origin.
Following is a look at some of the better known reconstructed "missing links."
PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS (JAVA MAN)
Pithecanthropus Erectus was discovered in 1890 on the island of Java by Dubois. The original find consisted of a skull cap, a lower jaw with three teeth and a femur.32 Java Man was said by some to be an important find. While subsequent research turned up other fossils nothing significant was added. In fact the findings are so inconclusive that more than a dozen different opinions are held as to just what these fragments represent. Some anthropologists believe them to be the remains of orangutans. Dubois himself eventually said they were the remains of gibbons and not humans.33
AUSTRALOPITHECUS
Found in South Africa by Dart, there is wide disagreement over this find. The first of these specimens was composed of an almost complete fore section of a skull with twenty-four teeth and most of the brain case. Two other forms similar to this one were later found but added little information. Out of these fragments evolutionists have reconstructed an ape-man and labeled it a "missing link." However, what they have not explained is that some anthropologists classify these fossils as pygmies, some as "giants," and yet others see no connection at all between these and modern man.34 That evolutionists expect this to be accepted as evidence of human evolution is absurd.
SINANTHROPUS (PEKING MAN)
The Peking fossils are definitely those of homo sapiens (human). These remains were first discovered in 1922 and consisted of only a few teeth. Since then many more remains have been found including teeth, fragments of skulls, jaw bones, thighbones, arm bones and one broken collarbone. Most of these remains are those of children. Klotz, pointing out that these finds are not pre-human, says: "There is a prominent ridge running down the middle of the skull, a characteristic found today in Eskimos and Australians."35 Dr. Davidson Black states that "all of these skulls (found near Peking and Choukoutien, China) were skulls of men."36
HEIDELBERG MAN
Another famous "ape-man" on display in many museums is the Heidelberg Man, or sometimes, Heidelberg Jaw. It was found near Heidelberg in 1907 and consisted of only a lower jaw complete with teeth. From this lower jaw another missing link was reconstructed. At first it was given a date of about 750,000 years, but later that figure was reduced to 375,000 years. Some change, to say the least. In his book, Did Man Just Happen?, W.A. Creswell writes:
"The identification of the jaw-bone also caused great differences of opinion among the anthropologists. Some claimed it to be a connecting link. Others said it was worthless. One scientist said: "These remains show no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Another distinguished scientist demonstrated that a skull of a modern Eskimo had the same appearance and peculiarities as the Heildelberg Jaw."37
EOANTHROPUS (PILTDOWN MAN)
Discovery of the Piltdown Man (also known as Dawn Man) is credited to Charles Dawson. The find consisted of several skull fragments and a tooth uncovered in a gravel pit near Barkham Manor in England. English paleontologist, Sir. Arthur Woodward, decided these were the remains of some man-like creature and he gave this new "missing link" the title Eoanthropus. For over forty years it was regarded as one of the most significant discoveries of the fossil record.
Photographs of these bones have appeared in almost every textbook on anthropology and it has been estimated that there were over 300 replicas of Piltdown Man in various museums. A monument has been erected at the site of the discovery and the Encyclopedia Britannica listed Piltdown as one of the most important anthropological remains in the world.38
However, for years there was also much disagreement over the Piltdown Man. Its skull capacity, for example, was never settled upon. Its age was always a matter of dispute, some placing it at about 1,000,000 years and others as low as 200,000 years. Even the arrangement of the skull fragments was disputed. In 1953 it was announced by the British Museum that the Piltdown Man was a delib-erately planned hoax. Doctors Weiner, Oakley and Clark proved that the lower jaw fragment and canine tooth belonged to a modern ape and that the tooth had been deliberately filed and stained to give an aged appearance. In the reconstruction the tooth had been placed in the lower jaw (to give a protruding effect) whereas it belonged in the upper jaw. It was finally concluded that "the distinguished paleontologists and archaeologists who took part in the excavations at Piltdown were the victims of a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax, concocted with extraordinary skill."39 The Piltdown Man has long been removed from the science textbooks. Seldom is mention made of this anthropological fraud.
HESPEROPITHECUS (NEBRASKA MAN)
Another proven hoax of anthropology is that of the Nebraska Man. Discovered in Nebraska by Harold Cook is was labeled as evidence of prehistoric man in America. It was supposed to have lived over one million years ago. The Illustrated London News ran a lengthy article about this find which included drawings of both male and female of this ape-like creature. For several years the Nebraska Man received wide circulation as an outstanding fossil remain and an entire race of supposed pre-humans was concocted.
But what was really found? What was the "evidence" that Cook unearthed? He discovered a tooth! Not a jaw full of teeth, not several teeth, but one tooth! From that one tooth a whole race of prehistoric men was created. But to whom (or what) did this tooth belong? It was discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct piccary, a pig! A one million year old race of pre-humans from a not very old pig tooth! What pseudoscience can do with a tooth!
SWANSCOMBE SKULL
In 1935 A.T. Marston found a fossilized occipital (back part of a skull) in a gravel bed at Swanscombe, England. It appeared to be the remains of a female skull and had a cranial capacity similar to modern woman. Most scientists classify this find as purely homo sapiens. The evidence of this is so strong that no reputable anthropologist denies it.
NEANDERTHAL MAN
In 1856 the first of these men was found in a cave in a valley called Neanderthal in Germany and consisted of only one skull cap. Later, however, more remains of this same type individual were discovered.
The total number of Neanderthal fossils is between 80 and 90. However, of these only 13 are adults which have the skull, mandible and some skeletal parts present. The others are juviniles or have only a cranium or jaw bone.40
Neanderthal remains have been found in other areas of Europe suggesting this to be at one time a widespread race. Neanderthal is by far the best preserved find of anthropology, however, there is still much disagreement over its age and significance.
But does the Neanderthal Man support evolution? Is this really a missing link? The answer is No. Though primitive, he is definitely human! As Klotz mentions:
"It should be emphasized that in any case the Neanderthal Man is distinctly human. There is no question but that he is Homo sapiens."41
RHODESIAN MAN
Another African find is that of the Rhodesian Man. It is made up of a rather complete skull, a shin bone, parts of the left femur, a sacrum, portions of the two pelvises and a piece of the upper jaw.42 It has been suggested that these remains did not belong to the same body. It is felt by some that the pelvis, sacrum and leg bones are those of a man while the other bones are those of a woman. None of these bones are extraordinary except the skull which resembles a modern-day gorilla. So the Rhodesian Man is actually nothing more than an imaginary, fragmentary beast.
FOLSOM MAN
The Folsom Man, found near Lubbock, Texas, is dated no older than 10,000 years, hence, he is clearly Homo sapiens.
CRO-MAGNON MAN
The first of this group was found near a rock shelter called Cro-Magnon in the village of Eyzies in France. This discovery consisted of a skull and a few bones of an apparently old woman. Later the remains of four other individuals were found. This form likely lived in various parts of western Europe. A great deal of controversy exists over the Cro-Magnon Man and his relation to modern man has never been settled among evolutionists. Some have suggested these remains to be the ancestors of modern Eskimos while others deny it.
Whatever the case Cro-Magnon is definitely human. His forearms are long in relation to his upper arms, which proportions are character-istic of modern Negroid races. His skull capacity is slightly larger than modern man, which fact does not exactly blend with the evolution theory. Cro-Magnon, by honest scientists, is placed in the human family. He is man, nothing more, nothing less.
GALLEY HILL MAN
The Galley Hill Man was found by workmen in eight feet of gravel near the city of London.
It seems to represent a male about 50 years old and about 5 ft. 3 in. tall. The Galley Hill Man is thought to have had a brain capacity of about 1,350 c.c. Some think that this represents a burial, since the various bones were found close together.42
All this points to the fact that the Galley Hill Man is also to be classified as Homo sapiens.
KEILOR SKULL
This skull was found about ten miles from Melbourne, Australia. It has a high cranial capacity (1,593 c.c.) slightly above modern man. This, obviously, places it on the human level.
TALGAI MAN
Found in 1844 in Queensland, Australia, this skull was immed-iately dated very old. It is thought to be the remains of a boy about the age of 14 or 15.43
An early reconstruction pictured a simian-like human with enormous, canine-like projecting teeth. Further studies have indicated, however, that the canines, although large, did not project unduly and that the palate, although large was quite human in shape.44
MINNESOTA FIND
In 1931 in Pelican Rapids, Minnesota, an almost complete skeleton was found along with a dagger made of bone. This is thought to be the remains of a young girl about fifteen years of age. The skull has Mongoloid features and the teeth are larger than might be expected. However, it is, beyond doubt, Homo sapiens.
ASSELAR MAN
This is another African discovery. It was unearthed in the Sahara Dessert in 1927. It has Negroid features and is, therefore, Homo sapiens.
OLDOWAY MAN
This almost complete skeleton was found in Tanganyika in 1913.
While this find is given a rather ancient date (500,000 to 1,000,000
years ago) it is noted that "the lower incisor teeth have
been chipped or filed, a custom which is still practiced by Africans
today.45 For this reason its supposed ancient date has been seriously
questioned. It is clearly Homo sapiens, resembling very closely
the tall, slender races of east Africa.
ZINJANTHROPUS BOISEI
For years evolutionists had placed the age of the most ancient human fossils at about 1,000,000 years, and even this was considered an outside guess. However, in 1959, L.S.B. Leakey found 400 fragments of a skull which he said to be at least 1,700,000 years old, and definitely human. It was called Zinjanthrous Boise. This meant that the textbooks had to be re-written. Imagine, in the blink of an eye the age of the oldest human fossils was almost doubled! Writers of textbooks gobbled this down and included it in their material. But, five years later Leakey reversed his thinking and decided that "Zingi" was not really an ancestor of man after all. Whoops! The following is taken from the May 1964 issue of Scientific America:
"After stating he had discovered in Africa the bones of creatures he regards as the earliest men, for whom he has proposed the name Homo habilis, L.B. Leakey, British paleontologist, announced that he has abandoned his earlier opinion that Zinjanthropus, a "manlike creature" whose bones he found in Africa, was on the line of evolution to man. A more recent find of a specimen about 200,000 years younger indicates, he said, that Zinjanthropus did not continue toward man."46
So, the textbooks had to again be rewritten! Dr. L.W. Cleveland, while pointing out the similarity between the "Zinji" skull cap and the skull caps of apes, says:
"The fact is, Dr. Leakey found an ape, not a man."47
Following are three important facts to remember when considering the fossil record.
First, fossilization does not imply extremely ancient dates. Fossil remains of men have been found in the ruins of ancient Pompeii, a city covered by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius less than 2000 years ago. A fossilized Mexican sombrero has even been found which could not be more than 200-250 years old.48
Recent discoveries of supposedly ancient dinosaurs have revealed two astonishing facts: 1) the bones were not totally fossilized; 2) they contained traces of protein. Of this find, David Gillette notes:
"The largest dinosaur ever discovered, Seismosaurus, is probably just a large Diplodecus. He is supposedly, at least 65 million years old. An interesting note however is that his bones are not completely fossilized. They even contain protein which is believed to survive only a few thousand years, even under the best conditions. Evolutionists are frantically trying to come up with a story explaining the preservation of these bones and bone protein."49
Secondly, dating methods involving carbon, fluorine, radium and potassium-argon, which are so often used to "prove" ancient dates of fossils, are highly subjective and questionable beyond a few thousand years. They are, to say the least, built on many assumptions and over the years have come under attack.50
Thirdly, fossil evidence is of no value to the theory of evolution. As Davis has noted:
"These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value, and are likely only to mislead the public. To model a bust of Pithecanthropus erectus from the skull cap and two or three teeth is a palpable absurdity. We do not know anything of the minuatiae of the appearance of the Pithecanthropus, Heidelberg, Piltdown or Neanderthal types. We have no knowledge of their hair form, hair distribution, pigmentation and the detail of such features as I have mentioned. So put not your trust in reconstructions."51
Reno adds:
"We should use care in distinguishing between reconstructions and the interpretation of them. Scientists agree that there is only one genus of man living on earth today, genus Homo. We recognize the fact that there have never been any fossils found which show evidence that any men have ever lived that were anything older than Homo. There is no graded series from beastlike creatures to man. There is not even one link in such a supposed series. We find very old fossils some of which lie very deep in undisturbed rock, but they are still human. We can arrive at no other conclusion than that man appeared suddenly on the earth in a form not too different from what we find him today."52
Sir John Graham Kerr of the University of Glasgow, says:
"Paleontological knowledge regarding man's past history is still of the most fragmentary kind. Each additional scrap becomes the subject of a voluminous literature and the basis of an edifice of speculation out of all proportion to the foundation upon which it rests."53
And last, again from the pen of biologist, John W. Klotz:
"In view of the fragmentary fossil record and in view of the present tendency on the part of anthropologists themselves to recognize that the fossils so far discovered belong to the same species as modern man or are at least very similar, the Christian should have little difficulty in accepting the Scriptural account of man's creation. Man was created by God perfect and sinless. We have not had evolution in man, but we have had degeneration and deterioration."54
