Human "Missing Links" Considered
It is often claimed that various "transitional links" between ape and man have been discovered in the fossil record. Its important to note that in order for these fossils to be interpreted as "missing links", one must already believe that evolution from ape to man has occurred. Since belief in evolution is a prerequisite before we can call them "transitional forms" or "missing links", we cannot then turn around and say that these fossils "prove" evolution. This would be begging the question - the illogical practice of arguing in a circle.
Note that to date, there exists no fossil that can be said to be a transitional link unequivocally. The same "hominids" can and have been interpreted according to the biblical creation and flood account. For example, it should not surprise us to find primate forms not exactly like those living today. The preservation of only two of each kind of animal aboard Noah's ark would have created a genetic bottle neck that would leave primates today with less genetic information for variation. Also note that the flood no doubt brought about major environmental change on our planet. It's reasonable to suppose that nature at that time would have selected primates possessing a variety of traits not seen today in our post flood world. Remember, however, that natural selection does not have creative power, but indicates an overall loss of genetic information. So while the pressures of natural selection in our world today may have caused the survival of certain primate traits, this type of adaptation cannot be used as evidence for evolution since each "adaptation" leaves behind less genetic information for further adaptive change.
Below are some notes on the most famous "missing links". It is clear that they can all be classified as either pure ape, pure man, hoax, or mistake:
a) Piltdown Man
Lubenow (p. 41) states:
"The Piltdown fossils were discovered between 1908 and 1915. It was not until 1953, thirty-eight to forty-five years later, that Kenneth Oakley, Joseph Weiner, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark discovered that Piltdown Man was a fraud."
Lubenow (p. 43):
"However, it is not necessary to know who perpetrated Piltdown to know that if science were really self-correcting, Piltdown should have been uncovered long before it was. Like Boules's reconstruction of the Neandertal skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, there were elements about it that were quite obvious. The file marks on the orangutan teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible. The molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine tooth had been filed so far that the pulp cavity had been exposed and then plugged."
b) Ramapithecus
Recall that Ramapithecus was positioned securely in the human evolutionary continuum on the scantiest fossil evidence. All that was discovered initially were some teeth and jaw fragments. Even Richard Leakey commented:
Richard Leaky, "American Scientist", 64: 174, 1976: "The case for Ramapithecus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragments of fossil material leave many questions open."
Nevertheless, Ramapithecus was securely positioned on the human family tree in the textbooks, without a fossil skull, pelvis or limbs. Dr. Elwin Simons, as quoted in Time Magazine made this telling confession:
"Time" Magazine, Nov 7,1977: "Ramapithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is." (Emphasis mine).
As noted, Ramapithecus was later "dethroned":
David Pilbeam, "Science", 1982, April 6-7,: "A group of creatures once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out of the human family tree…Truthfully, it appears to be nothing more than an orangutan ancestor."
c) Kenyanthropus and Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy)
Not all paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus is a direct ancestor of human beings. Notwithstanding direct evidence of human presence predating the Australopithecus (KP-271, the Latolie footprints, the Zapata track, the Meister print), Australopithecine ape-like anatomy is the strongest argument against our being descended from "Lucy."
Sir Solly Suckerman, Anatomist, "Evolution as Process", 1954: "There is indeed no question which the austalopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference between modern ape and Australopithecus."
Donald Johanson, "Lucy: The beginnings of Human Kind": "I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features."
Notes on Australopithecine Anatomy from Thompson and Cremo, "Forbidden Archaeology", p. 712
The following citations are found in Thompson and Cremo's "Forbidden Archeology", pp. 712-713:
Brain: "Endocraniel casts of the Australopithecus…do not appear to diverge in any material way from existing apes" (Zuckerman 1954, p. 305)
"estimates of endcraniel volume do not depart from the range of size met with in the great apes." (Zuckerman 1954, p. 304)
Teeth and Jaws: "with the exception of their incisors and canines, the size and general shape of the [Australopithecine] jaws and teeth…were very much more like those of the living apes than like acknowledged members of the Hominidae, either living or extinct." (Zuckerman 1954, pp. 306-307)
Shoulder Bone: "does not resemble that of man to any degree…almost as well-adapted structurally for suspension of the body by the limbs as is the corresponding part of the present-day gibbon…more specialized in this respect than in even the highly specialized chimpanzee." (Oxnard 1968, p. 215)
Hand Bones: "quite different from those of humans…evidence seems to relate to abilities for grasping with power reminiscent of what we find in the orang-utan…some are curved enough that they must have operated in this arboreal-grasping mode." (Oxnard 1984, p. 311, citing Susman 1979, Susman and Creel 1979, Susman and Stern 1979).
Pelvis: "although there is no doubt about the similarity in the shape of the iliac bones of man and Sterkfontein pelvis…it is also clear that this blade is positioned quite differently in man and the fossil." (Oxnard 1975 p. 52)
Joint structure in the australopithecine hip "apparently not inconsistent with quadrupedalism." (Zuckerman et al. 1973, p. 152)
Femurs: "show the small heads and inclined femoral necks that might be expected in animals capable of quadrupedal activities" (Oxnard 1975, p. 394)
Talus (ankle bone): "the general morphological similarly…is with the arboreal ape" (Oxnard 1975, p. pp. 86-87)
"in the shape of their talus, the…fossils may be reflecting functions of the foot that may relate to acrobatic arboreal climbing such as is reminiscent of the extant species [of orang-utan]" (Oxnard 1975, p. 89)
Conclusion: "Pending further evidence we are left with the vision of intermediately sized animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees of acrobatics and perhaps of arm suspension" (Oxnard 1975, p. 89)
"At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. … they were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees." Matt Cartmill et al., "One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology," American Scientist, Vol. 74, July-August 1986, p. 417.
Traditionally, evolutionists have cited a particular fossil form (in this case Lucy, the most complete of the Australopithecines) as "proof" of evolution. In time, this "proof" is replaced by another fossil form, the former being relegated to a branch of the family tree leading to extinction. The important point to be made here is that this former "proof" was see as adequate grounds for rejecting Creation. That fact that these fossil forms were dethroned at all can only mean that they were never established as our evolutionary ancestors concretely in the first place. The Australopithecine is not immune, and may be dethroned by a new fossil form - Kenyanthropus:
"Researcher Meave Leakey of the National museums of Kenya said that the chances are "50-50" this species could have been an early ancestor of human beings at that time, instead of Lucy's species." Winnipeg Free Press
Leakey's statement is important. Notice how the options have been controlled: Our ancestor is either Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus. This indecision can only mean that case against both is strong. Consequently, a third, obvious option should be allowed, namely, that neither species is ancestral to humans. Interestingly, Leakey further states that a third possible ancestor may be discovered, as the area under exploration is rich in fossils.
Truly, "hominids" are being classified as such for no other reason than evolution demands ape-like ancestors. Tim White comments:
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199
d) Ardipithecus Ramidus
The "missing link" status of the species (estimated at 4.4 million years old based on radioisotopic dating, geochemical analysis, and biochronological considerations).
Five Lines of Evidence for A. Ramidus as a "Missing Link"
1. Its part of a continuum - Colin Graves states (1995, Gift From Aramis 'the missing link', The Canberra Times, April 11, 1995, p. 7):
"It doesn't exist alone: it's in a context of all those hundreds of other pre-human remains. The ones that are slightly younger than ramidus are slightly more human like; those that are younger still are more human still, and so on. It's a graded series from then to now."
Rebuttal
2. Ramidus' great age - 4.4 million years places this chimp-like species at the far end of the human evolution continuum.
Rebuttal
Accurate dates are essential in determining whether or not a fossil represents a hominid. A. Ramidus' date can hardly be considered definitive:
"Time Magazine" stated that Ramidus was discovered in sediment between volcanic materials (Oct. 3, 1994, p. 69)
"Newsweek" stated that Ramidus was found locked in 4.4 million year old sediment (Oct 3, 1994, p.56)
Tim White stated that the Ramidus remains were surface finds (Australopithecus ramidus a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia, "Nature", 1994, p.306)
It is assumed that the fossil eroded in the places where they were found. However, there is nothing in the reports to exclude their having been washed in during the heavy seasonal rains.
The region where Ramidus was discovered is known to pose radiometric and paleomagnitic dating problems. Since Ramidus' age cannot be considered definitive, it's place as a hominid cannot be considered definitive either.
3. Enamel Thickness - the ratio suggests that Ramidis is an intermediate between the chimp and A. afarensis/africanus/ early Homo (see White, p. 310)
Rebuttal
The enamel thickness on Ramidus was found to be relatively thin compared to humans and other hominids. The enamel thickness indicates Ramidus is a fossil chimp.
4. The first deciduous molar (dm 1) found in the child's mandible is far closer to the chimp's than in any known hominid (White, p. 306)
Rebuttal
Considering the genetic variation in chimp teeth, how does one determine that a tooth is close to being a chimp tooth, without actually being one?
5. The placement of the foramen magnum (the hole in that base of the skull where the nerves of the spinal cord pass as they go from the brain to the body).
Rebuttal
The total evidence is based on two very small fragments of bone from the base of the skull. White stated that the morphology was "strinkingly chimpanzee-like" and that it "may correlate with bipedality although this remains to be demonstrated." (White p. 312)
e) Neandertal Man
First discovered in 1856 from a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. The shape of the skull and the curves of the long bones led many to believe that Neandertal man was a missing link. Evolutionary preconceptions guided the anatomist Marcellin Boule as he restored the Neandertal skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France to a stooped and stooped and stupid hunchback. It was discovered in the 1960's that when healthy, Neandertal man stood straight and erect. Neandertal Man was considered ancestral to Homo sapiens before Homo Erectus Egaster, Homo Habilis / Rudolfensis were discovered. Lubenow notes ("Creation Ex Nihilo Techincal Journal" 12(1):87-98, 1998):
"Evolutionists do not know - and say they may never know - from which of the twigs modern human evolved. However, the Neandertals - through the interpretation of this mt DNA recovery - have now been eliminated from modern human ancestry. Since 1964, the Neandertals have been considered a sub-species of modern humans. They will now almost certainly be moved out of our species and back into a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis."
Neandertals Were Fully Human - The following line of reasoning comes from Marvin Lubenow, "Creation Ex Nihilo Techincal Journal" 12(1):87-98, 1998. The evidence that Neandertals were human falls into 3 categories:
1. Biblical and Cultural Evidence
In 1996, discoveries of items of personal ornamentation used by Neandertals were published (Hublin, J. J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F., ans Condemi, S., 1996 "Nature", A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. 381:224-226 "Discover", January, 1997, p. 33)
Also in 1996, the first example of a Neandertal musical instrument (K. Wong, Sept 1997. Neanderthal notes, "Scientific American" 227(3):17-17, "Science News", November 23, 1996, p. 328)
From Archaeologist Randall White (New York University) ("Discover", January, 1997, p. 33):
"The more this kind of evidence accumulates, the more they look like us."
"Creation" Magazine (vol. 24, No. 3, June-August, 2002, p.7):
"Archeaologists analysing stone tool artefacts have discovered that Neandertals affixed wooden handles to flint knives by means of a 'superglue' made from birch pitch. Despite the 'bumbling' reputation of Neandertals, the ability to make this adhesive reveals substantial technical know-how - it would be difficult for modern manufacturing plants to duplicate. The smouldering process to turn birch bark into useable glue only works at a temperature of 340-400oC (644-752oF) and under the exclusion of oxygen." The source cited was "Discovery Chanel", <dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020114/Neanderthal.html>, 22 March, 2002.
Neandertals Were Fully Human - Following Quotes from National Geographic, Jan, 1996, by Rick Gore, pp. 2-35
Toolmakers:
"Recent excavations and analysis have demonstrated that Neandertal tools on fact required a high level of craftsmanship and mental skills as adept as modern humans'." (p.6)
"An important cache of these early neandertals was unearthed in 1976 at Biache-Saint-Vaast in northern France by workers excavating the foundation for a new steel mill. They found two partial Neandertal skulls, along with hundreds of flint tools and animal bones. The workers had apparently stumbled across a camp where Neandertals butchered animals. French scientists see evidence in these artifacts of a surprisingly advanced tool kit." (p.19)
"[Quoting Jacques Pelegrin of the French Center for Archaeological Research], 'It takes a lot of brains for flint-knapping…I have worked flint 15 years now and can say the technique used by the Neandertals are no less difficult than those used later by modern humans." (p. 28)
Neandertal Language
"To make such tools, as well as to organize a cooperative hunt, Neandertals must have been able to communicate and pass on their knowledge. Scientists have long argued about whether Neandertals had the anatomical equipment for speech. Voice boxes and vocal tracts don't fossilize, but a small structure called the hyoid bone at the back of the tongue does. In modern humans the voice box hangs from this bone. In 1983 an intact hyoid bone was discovered in a 60,000-year-old Neandertal skeleton excavated from a cave called Kebara in Israel. Yoel Rak, a hominid specialist at Tel Aviv University, shows me this inch-and-a-half-long bone, which looks something like a chicken wishbone.
'There's no way to distinguish this from one of our hyoid bones', says Rak, ' so we can infer that Neandertal voice boxes looked very much like ours and could make the same sounds.'" (pp.29-30)
Cave Dwellings
Neandertal dwellings other than caves have been found, also note that thousands of people around the world live in caves today (see "National Geographic", the stone age tribes of New Geunea)
Ralph Solecku (Columbia University) excavated Shanidar Cave, Iraq, he discovered about 80 Kurds had lived in that cave until 1970 during a time of political unrest (Solecki, R.S., 1971 "Shanidar: The First Flower People", Alfred A. Knopf)
Cave Dwellings in the Bible
Genesis 19:30 - Lot and his daughters seek shelter
Genesis 23:17-20 - Abraham purchases property in order to bury Sarah
Genesis 25:7-11 - Abraham buried in the same cave
Genesis 49:29-32 - Jacob instructs his sons that he is to be buried in the same cave. Jacob had also buried his wife Leah there; Isaac and Rebecca were buried there as well. Note the wording of Genesis 23:20:
"So the field and the cave that is in it were deeded to Abraham by the sons of Heth as property for a burial place."
Neandertal Use of Caves - In Complete Accord With the Genesis Record
Evidence that these were family burial grounds or cemeteries:
At four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together. Note that in life, there is a strong desire to be buried with one's own kind. This is strong evidence that Neandertals were fully human.
| Location | Individuals | Source |
| Skull Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Considered to be a burial site of anatomically modern humans | Skhul IV and Skhul IX fossils skulls are closer to the Neandertal configuration than they are to modern humans | Corruccini, RS, 1992. Metrical reconsideration od Skhul IV and Border Cave 1 crania in the context of modern human origins, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology," 87 (4): 433-445 |
| Jebel-Qafzeh, Galilee, Israel, considered a modern human burial site | Qafzeh skull 6 is clearly Neandertal in its morphology | Corruccini, RS, 1992. Metrical reconsideration od Skhul IV and Border Cave 1 crania in the context of modern human origins, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology," 87 (4): 440-442 |
| Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, is a classic Neandertal burial site | The Tabun C2 mandible is more closely aligned with modern mandibles found elsewhere | Quam, R.M. and Smith, F.H., 1996. Reconstruction of the Tabun C2 'Neandertal'. "American Journal of Physical Anthropology," Supplement 22, p. 192 |
| Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia, one of the most studied Neandertal burial sites. At least 75 individuls buried there | Newly identified fragments to the Krapina A skull (also known as Krapina 1) reveals that it is much more modern than was previously thought. Closer in shape to modern humans than it is to Neandertals | Minugh-Purvis, N. and Radovcic, J., 1991. "Krapina A: Neandertal or Not?" "American Journal of Physical Anthropology," Supplement 12, p. 132 |
2. The Fossil Evidence for Gradiations
G.A. Clark (Arizona State University) stated (Neandertal genetics, "Science", 1997, 277:1024):
"That researchers cannot distinguish a 'Neandertal' from a 'modern human' might seem surprising to some, but there is little consensus on what these terms mean."
Classic Neandertal Morphology
Note that any of these characteristics may be found in humans living today - there is nothing profoundly distinct about any of them.
Donald Johanson states regarding Thomas Huxley ("Lucy's Child", Johanson, D., Shreeve, J., 1989, p. 49):
"From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley was able to select a series with features leading 'by insensible gradations' from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo Sapiens."
"Advanced" Neandertal Individuals
At least 25 individuals from 5 sites display features more akin to modern humans. These are labelled "progressive" or "advanced" Neandertals:
| SITE | NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS | SOURCE |
| Vindija Cave Remains | 12 |
Ahern, J.C. and Smith, F.H., 1993. The Transitional nature of the late Neandertal mandibles from Vindija Cave, Croatia, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", Supplement 16, p. 47 |
| Hahnofersand frontal bone, Germany | 1 |
Tattersall, I., Delson, E., and Van Couvering, J., (eds), 1988. Ecyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, p. 241 Stringer, C., and Gable, C., 1993. "In Search of the Neanderthals", pp. 179-180 |
| Starosel'e remains, Ukraine, CIS | 2 |
Tattersall, I., Delson, E., and Van Couvering, J., (eds), 1988. "Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory", p. 56 |
| Stetten 3 humerus, cave deposits, Germany | 1 |
Oakley, K.P., Campbell, B.G., and Molleson, T.I., (eds), 1971, "Catalouge of Fossil Hominids", Trustees of the British Museum - Natural History, London, Part II, p. 209 |
| Ehringsdorf (Weimar) remains, Germany | 9 |
Wolopoff, M., and Caspari, R., 1997. "Race and Human Evolution", pp. 177,182 |
Archaic Homo Sapiens
There are at least 107 individuals from 5 sites who are usually grouped with modern humans. Their morphology is Neandertal-like and these individuals are said to have 'Neandertal affinities' or 'Neandertal features'. These individuals are often described as 'Archaic Homo Sapiens'.
The five sites are:
| SITE | NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS | SOURCE |
| Oberkassel remains, Germany | 2 |
Boule, M., and Vallois, H.V., 1957, "Fossil Men", p. 281 |
| Mladec (Lautsch) cave remains, Czech Republic | Minimum of 98 individuals |
Smith, F.H., Falsetti, A.B., and Liston, M.A., 1989, "Morphometric analysis of the Mladec post cranial remains", "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", 78(2):305 Wolopoff, M.H. and Jelinek, J., 1987 New discoveries and reconstructions of Upper Pleistocene hominids from the Mladec cave, Moravia, CCSR, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", 72(2):270-71 Minugh, N.S., 1883. The Mladac 3 child: aspects of cranial ontogeny in early anatomically modern Europeans, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", 60(2):228 |
| Velika Pecina Cave skull fragments, Croatia | 1 |
Smith, F.S., 1976. A fossil hominid frontal from Velika Pecina (Croatia) and a consideration of Upper Pleistocene hominids from Yugoslavia, "American Journal of Physical Antropology", 44:130-131 Oakley, K.P., Campbell, B.G., and Molleson, T.I., (eds), 1971, "Catalouge of Fossil Hominids", Trustees of the British Museum - Natural History, London, Part II, p.342 |
| Bacho Kiro Cave mandibles, Bulgaria | 2 |
Tattersall, I., Delson, E., and Van Couvering, J., (eds), 1988. Ecyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, pp. 56, 87 |
| Pontnewydd Cave remains, Wales | 4 |
Klein, R.G., 1989, "The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins", pp. 236-237 |
The contamination problem: Ann Gobbon and Patricia Kahn express the problem (DNA from an extinct human,"Science", 1997, 277:176-177):
"Worst, its tough to distinguish DNA intrinsic to an ancient sample from the modern DNA that unavoidably contaminates it - the source of many false claims in the past. Ancient human samples are especially tricky, because their sequences might not differ much from that of contaminating modern human DNA, so it's hard to get a believable result."
The mt DNA Test:
Modern human sequences differ among themselves by an average of 8.0 (+/- 3.1)
A range of 1-24 substitutions.
The difference between the humans and the Neandertal sequence is 27.2 (+/- 2.2)
A range of 22 to 36 substitutions
Interpreting the mt DNA Data
Humans have an average of 8 substitution differences in the sequence. The Neandertal has a minimum of 22 substitution differences from the modern human average. The implication being made is that 14 substitution differences is enough to warrant Neandertal being classified as a different species.
Note that the modern human substitution differences rages from 1-24. That means that there are a few humans who differ by 16 substitutions from the human average of 8. This places them 2 substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal individual. Using the evolutionist's reasoning, logic would demand that we should place these humans living today in a separate species.
Geneticist Simon Easteal (Australian National University) has noted that the amount of in species mt DNA diversity among chimpanzees, gorillas, and other primates exceeds that found in modern humans. He states (Wong, K., Ancestral Quandary, "Scientific American", January 1998, p. 32):
"The among of diversity between Neanderthals and living humans is not exceptional."
Other Interpretations of the mt DNA Data
"Living humans are strangely homogeneous genetically, presumably because…their ancestors underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out many variations."
f) Homo Habilis
Major Problems with the Homo Habilis Taxon
Richard Leakey states that of all the fossils allocated to the Homo Habilis hypodigm,
"…at least half probably don't. But there is no consensus as to which fifty percent should be excluded." ("Origins Reconsidered", Richard Leakey and Rodger Lewin, 1992, p. 132)
4 Interpretations of the Habilis Fossils
| True Homo Habilis - larger-toothed, bigger brained, presumably bigger bodied | Varieties of Australopithecus africanus - smaller fossils, late survivors contemporary with Homo Habilis, and Erectus |
| KNMER 1470 | KNMER 1803 |
| KNMER 1481 | KNMER 1813 |
| KNMER 1390 | Olduvai Hominid 13 |
| Olvudai Hominid 7 | Olduvai Hominid 24 |
| Olduvai Hominid 16 |
Because a transitional species is required between Australopithecine and Erectus, much effort has been made to salvage at least part of the Habilis hypodigm. Milford Wolopoff (University of Michigan) stated (1992, "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" 89(3):401:
"…the phylogenetic outlook suggests that if there weren't a Homo Habilis we would have to invent one."
g) Homo Erectus
Three Major Problems with Homo Erectus:
a. Johanson and White's Model - that the three-foot tall Habilis (@1.8 million years ago) evolved into Homo Erectus @ 1.6 million years ago.
3 Reasons why this explanation fails:
Erectus could not have evolved from Habilis during the 1.8 to 1.6 my window because erectus was already on the scene. Post cranial fossils of erectus have been found in several areas near Koobi For a, Lake Turkana, Kenya. Re: these fossils, Philip Rightmire (State University, New York) states ("The Evolution of Homo Erectus", Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 86):
"The earliest of these fossils must be older than 1.6 million and perhaps as old as 2.0 million years…"
Leakey's proposal - Larger Habilis are ancestral to Erectus - fails because of the reversal problem
Wood's proposal - Habilis be split into to categories: Habilis and Rudolphensis.
Wood futher complicates matters by suggesting that Homo erectus individuals KNMER 3733, 3883, and KNM-WT 15000 be classified as Homo ergaster, African precursors to Homo erectus (see Wood, 13., 1991, "Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo", Nature, 355:783-790).
Wood's proposal places 3 Homo species in the 1.5 to 2.0 million year ago time-frame, with erectus evolving from ergaster. Note that ergaster, habilis, and rudolfensis are contemporaries with a question mark for their origin.
G. Philip Righmire states ("The Evolution of Homo Erectus", Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 43):
"Just how erectus first evolved is one of the major issues in Paleoanthropology. Here the fossils and the stratagraphic record are limited and many details may never be resolved."
2. Lack of Evolution Within Homo Erectus
No descernable evolutionary change in Homo Erectus is documented in the fossil record for over a million years. This is not predicted by the evolution theory, which places erectus as part of an evolutionary continuum.
Some suggest that change can be documented in the Javanese fossils, but the claim is invalid for two reasons:
Rightmire states ("The Evolution of Homo Erectus", Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 202, 204):
"Following the emergence of Homo erectus, systematic change is not easily documented…Populations inhabiting these far flug regions of the Old World are anatomically similar, and the morphology of the species seems to have changed little over more than a million years."
Two theories have been proposed:
The Out of Africa Model - According to the theory, Homo erectus was placed in Europe and Asia 100,000 years ago by Homo Sapiens. This theory fails because at least 67 fossil individuals having Homo erectus morphology have been dated more recently than 100,000 years ago.
The Regional Continunity Model - Theory states that erectus populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa all evolved into Homo sapiens. Geneticist Shaham Rouhani (University College, London) states:
"Even under ecologically identitcal conditions which rarely exist in nature, geographically isolated populations will diverge from each other and eventually become reproductively isolated…it seems to me that the multiregional continuity model of modern human origins is therefore theoretically impossible." (Cited by Leakey and Lewin, "Origins Reconsidered", 1992, pp. 213-214) The same source quotes geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalii Sforza, Stanford University (p.214):
"Very large populations have a genetic inertia…It would take a very long time for mutations tp move through such a population. I don't see how the multiregional model could work."
Was Homo erectus fully human?
There are differing opinions among both evolutionists and creationists, as to whether or not erectus should be regarded as a fully human. Marvin Lubenow, for example, expresses his opinion that erectus was barely distinguishable from the fully human Neandertal man, whereas Cuozzo definitely feels that erectus was representative of a pre-flood (hence more advanced) form of ape.
My own opinion is that without the actual fossils available for study (scientists reying mostly on written reports and casts) we really can't be sure that more than one fossil species hasn't been dumped into the erectus category. As with the phantom "Homo habilis" taxon, erectus may very well consist of a mixture of species.
At the end of the day, I do lean toward the idea that erectus was fully human. Here are some quotes from men more learned than I in this area:
Lubenow ("Bones of Contention", p. 138) states,
"My own conviction is that Homo erectus and Neandertal are actually the same: Homo erectus is on the lower end, sizewise, of a continuum that includes Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens, and Neandertal."
Note the cranial capacities as provided by Lubenow:
| Modern Human | 700 cc to 2200 cc |
| Skull 1470 | 800 cc (National Geographic, June, 1973, p. 820) |
| Homo erectus | 700 cc to 1200 cc (average ,1000 cc, National G. Nov. 85) |
| Archaic Homo sapiens | 1100 cc to 1300 cc |
| Neandertal | 1250 cc to 1740 cc |
Note that the cranial capacity of these three, even taken as a single unit, does not reflect the entire caraniel capacity range of modern humans.
Milford Wolopoff has stated,
"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into Homo sapiens]." From Milford H. Wolopoff, Wu Zin Zhi, and Alan G. Thorne, "Modern Homo Sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involoving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia", The Origins of Modern Humans, Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer, eds., 1984, pp. 465-66, as quoted by Lubenow, p. 136
Franz Weidenreich, who wrote the original descriptions of Sinanthropus pekinensis, stated in 1943 (after making detailed casts):
"…it would not be correct to call our fossil 'Homo pekinensis' or 'Homo erectus pekinensis', it would be best to call it 'Homo sapiens erectus pekinensis'. Otherwise it would appear as a proper species different from Homo sapiens which remains doubtful, to say the least." From Franz Weidenreich, "The Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis", Paleontol Sinica (n.s. D, No. 10, 1943) as Cited by Lubenow, p. 136
Lubenow (p. 136) cites the Time-Life book on Homo erectus, entitled, "The First Men":
>"His bones were heavier and thicker than a modern man's and bigger bones required thicker muscles to move them. These skeletal differences, however, were not particularily noticeable. 'Below the neck', one expert has noted, 'the differences between Homo erectus and today's man could only be detected by an experienced anatomist." Edmund White and Dale Brown, "The First Men", Time-Life Books, 1973, p. 14
Donald Johanson suspected that erectus and sapiens could have produced fertile offspring:
"It would be interesting to know if a modern man and a million year old Homo erectus female could together produce a fertile child. The strong hunch is that they could; such evolution as has taken place is probably not of the kind that would prevent a successful mating. But that deos not flaw the validity of the species definition given above, because the two cannot mate. They are reproductively isolated by time." From, Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind", 1981, p. 144
Richard Leakey ("Origins Reconsidered", pp. 51,67):
"When I hold a Homo erectus cranium in my hand and look at it full face, I get the strong feeling of being in the presence of something distinctly human. It is the first point human human history at which a real humanness impresses itself so forcefully…More or less everything that preceded Homo erectus was distinctly ape-like."
From National Geographic, November, 1985, p609:
"But the brain - that's the difference. Average size is now close to 1,000 milimeters (about two pints), as compared with the 1,350 average for modern humans. With a larger brain erectus may have had more advanced speech. According to evidence of charcoal at Zhoukoudian and elsewhere, he now learns to control fire and cook food. And he makes far better stone stoles and weapons, great quantities of large, doubled-edged, teardropped-shaped "hand axes" (at least we call them that, although no one knows just how they were used)."
From National Geographic, November, 1985, pp. 610-612:
"…no unequivocal skeletal remains of erectus have been found in Europe. A handful of specimens, such as the Arago remains excavated by Henry and Marie Antoinette de Lumley in the Pyrenees foothills of France and the huge Heidelberg jaw from Germany, and the back of a skull from Vertesszollos, Hungary, are sometimes called erectus. A number of authorities, however, regard them as early, or archais Homo sapiens. The description of paleoanthropology as a tricky jigsaw puzzle is particularly apt during this transition between erectus a sapiens. The fossil materials are scarce and fragmentary. Moreover, the datings are uncertain and often controversial."
Concerning erectus / Neandertal similar morphology Lubenow states (p. 138) that:
"In the question and answer period following a lecture by Neandertal authority Erik Trinkaus, I asked him, 'Other than the brain size, what are the differences in cranial morphology between Homo erectus and Neandertal?' His reply was, 'Vitually none'."
C. Loring Brace writes ("Creationists and the Pithecanthropines", Creation / Evolution 19, Winter, 1986-87, p. 23):
"…some scholars even treat Neandertal as late erectus."
Harry L. Shapiro (American Museum of Natural History):
"…when one examines a classic Neanderthal skull, of which there are now a large number, one cannot escape the conviction that its fundamental anatomical formation is an enlarged and developed version of the Homo erectus skull." (Shapiro, "Peking Man", 1974, p. 125)
Jared Diamond, describing the work of Alan Walker (Johns Hopkins University) stated:
"Walkers analysis of skull shape shows that Neandertals were much more similar in this respect to H. erectus than to H. sapiens." ("Extinctions, catastrophic and gradual", Nature, 304, Aug. 4, 1983, p. 397)
Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa):
"Indeed, one may well wonder whether agreement will ever be reached as to which fossils do beling to or represent the taxon, and on what morphological-cum-phylogenic grounds fossil hominids are or are not to be regarded as Homo erectus." (Becky A. Sigmon and Jerome S. Cybulski, eds.,"Homo erectus: Papers in Honor of Davidson Black", U. of Toronto Press, 1981, p. 227)
The quote above is important, and lends support to my suspicion that more than one species is being lumped into the Homo erectus category.
h) Australopithecus africanus (Taung)
Marvin Lubenow (Bones of Contention", 1992):
p. 50: "Until Lucy was discovered in 1974, Taung, the type speciman of Australothipecus Africanus, was considered our oldest direct evolutionary ancestor…Taung was generally considered to be between two and three million years old. That age seemed appropriate for it as an evolutionary ancestor. In 1973, Couth African geologist T.C. Partridge dropped a bomb. His investigations revealed that the cave from which the Taung skull had come could not have formed prior to .87 m.y.a. (see: Nature 246, Nov. 9, 1973, p. 75-79) That meant that the Taung skull could be at most only three-quarters of a million years old. Since it could take up to a million years for the hominids to evolve from one species to another, to go all the way from australopithecines to modern humans in only three quarters of a million years was out of the question. Further, true humans were already on the seen in Africa at 0.75 m.y.a."
Age was only one problem with identifying Taung and our evolutionary ancestor. Morphology was another obsticle:
"Many of the features cited by professor Dart as evidence of human affinity, especially the features of the jaw and teeth mentioned by him are not unknown in the young of the giant anthropoids and even in the adult gibbon." Grafton Elliot Smith, R.A. Dart, "Adventures with the Missing Link", 1959, p. 36
"It is unfortunate that Dart had no access to skulls of infant chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangs, of an age corresponding to that of the Taung skull, for had such material been available he would have realized that the posture and poise of the head, the shape of the jaws, and many details of the nose, face, and cranium upon which he relied for proof of his contention that Australopithecus was nearly akin to man, were essentially identical with conditions met in the infant gorilla and chimpanzee." Smith, as quoted by R.A. Dart, "Adventures with the Missing Link", 1959, p. 38
"Our comparison of the profile and full-face of the Taung specimen with corresponding views of human and anthropoid skulls leaves no doubt as to the true anthropoid status of Australopithecus, viz. that in all its essential characters it is a true anthropoid ape." - Sir Arthur Keith, "New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man", 1931, p. 103
Lubenow then cites A.J.B. Humphrey's attempt to salvage Taung as an evolutionary ancestor:
p. 51: "One point that needs investigation at the outset, however, is the question of the identification of the Taung skull as Australopithecus africanus. The possibility that the Taung skull might represent Homo Habilis or a more advanced creature than A. africanus…certainly deserves some consideration in view of this younger date." (see: Carl W. Butzer, "Paleoecology of South African Australopithicenes: Taung Revisited, Current Anthropology 15:4, Dec., 1974, p. 382)
Lubenow further cites Philip Tobias' attempt to salvage Taung:
p. 51: "…because it's brain and it's dental characters would exclude it from H. erectus, it must be seriously considered whether the Taung child is not a late surviving member of A. robustus or A. cf, robustus" (see: Philip Tobias, "Implications of the New Age Estimates of the Early South African Hominids", Nature 246, Nov. 9, 1973, p. 82)
Tobias then confessed, "Although nearly 50 yr have elapsed since it's discovery, it is true to say that the Taung skull has never yet been fully analyzed and described."
Lubenow then describes how Taung was placed on an evolutionary branch leading to extinction prior to the discovery of the "black skull" in 1985. After this discovery Taung was placed back into our lineage, the problems with its date still left unanswered (Lubenow p. 52).
Note how the fossil evidence has become plastic in the evolutionist's hands. It's age and taxon have both been changed dramatically in order to support the evolution story. The fossils cannot be used as independent confirmation of evolution when its the believe thjat evolution has actually occurred which determines how the fossil evidence is being interpreted.
Conclusion: All the fossil "hominids" thus far discovered have either turned out to be hoaxes, errors, or require great misrepresentations of the data (i.e. making monkeys out of men and vice versa).