Question of the Week:
Explain why the earlier skeletons of man look so different than ours today.
In reality, the earlier skeletons of man did not look different than ours do today. I think a better question to ask is: Did humans really evolve from apes?
For those who have been following this blog, remember we made a decision in the previous blogs; ‘I put my faith and trust in the word of God’ acknowledging the bible is true (the whole, entire bible – not just the parts you like. After all, what kind of supreme being would give us His word and then put parts in it that are false.) We will proceed with this foundation in mind. Now, I would like all you readers to approach this question scientifically. Remember, science is testable, observable, and repeatable.
So let’s take the lesson most of us learned in school about the evolution of man. Remember the chart of the hunched over monkey/ape, then the next pictures shows the ape a little straighter, the next one depicts the ape walking upright but very hunched over, the next one the ape/man is even straighter, the next picture denotes a man/ape almost upright but with hunched shoulders and so on until you get to a modern looking, walking man? These drawings also depict long arms and an elongated snout getting shorter until we get to the picture of the modern man.
Well, let’s analyze this representation. First there are some truths represented here; and there are some falsehoods. Can you see which one is which?
Truths; we know for a fact that monkeys and apes exist and have existed in the past. We know for a fact that humans exist and have existed in the past. This is the truth. Not only do we find physical evidence in the form of fossils but we also have the word of God.
Falsehoods; what is in question is the transitional forms. First of all, the lack of a case for macroevolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. (Remember do not get macro and micro evolution mixed up). If it were a real process, macroevolution should still be occurring, and there should be many ‘transitional’ forms that we can observe today. Including ape-men. I am a wildlife biologist and have spent many years in the field. Colleges of mine have spent many years in the field in Africa. No one has ever observed this ape/man transitional form of life. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct ‘kinds’ of plants and animals. In this case monkeys, apes and humans.
Let’s take a look what a fossil is and isn’t (since the skeletal remain in question are in the form of fossils):
“· A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show ‘evolution’ only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
· Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to ‘transitional forms,’ the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
· If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best ‘missing links’ evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.” Answers In Genesis, May 19, 2009, Ida (Darwinius masillae): the Missing Link at Last? Does Ida Deserve the Attention? http://www.answersingenesis.org/ articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link
Indeed, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo sapien nearnderthalensis (Neandertal man) Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Sinanthropus (Peking man), Eoanthropus (Piltdown man), Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man), have all be reclassified as fully ape, fully human, a hoax or none of the above (Piltdown man was made up from the tooth of a pig!)
So let’s go over the facts one more time. Science is observable – we observe no transitional forms of macroevolutions occurring today or in the fossil record. Science is testable – different geneses of lemurs, monkeys, and apes, being breed together, cannot produce offspring let alone a transitional form. Repeatable – these observations and tests can be repeated, with the same results.
So, the skeletons of ‘early man’ differ from modern man because they are not human. The single exception is Neanderthal man. Their skeletons were stooped and disfigured. It is now known these human beings’ skeletal malformations were due to disease. It is thought that the Neanderthal valley was place were the very old and disease were brought. Which of course, would also explain the large brow ridges in the skulls. FYI our brow ridges never stop growing. If we live a very long time, our brow ridges will become thick and elongated. Hmmm…didn’t the bible say people lived a lot longer before and right after the flood?
Going farther –
These are the geneses and species that everyone (including the secular scientific community) agrees are not pre-human, intermediates, between apes and humans.
- “Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)-150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an “ape-man’. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
- Ramapithecus-once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
- Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)-a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
- Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)-based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
- Pithecanthropus (Java man)-now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
- Australopithecus africanus-this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
- Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
- Australopithecus-there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil “Lucy”. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that “Lucy" and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
- Homo habilis-there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types-such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an “invalid taxon”. That is, it never existed as such.
- Homo erectus-many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
In conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, “then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7).” Answers in Genesis, January 21, 1998, Is There Really Evidence that Man Descended from the Apes? http://www.answersingenesis.org /articles/1998/01/21/evidence-man-from-ape.
The Word of God – The written truth!
Institute for Creation Research, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Morris, Henry M., Ph.D., http://www.icr.org/ home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/