More Problems for Alleged Human Evolution
Most of us remember seeing the drawings in science textbooks. The evolution of man depicted in its various “well-documented” stages, from ape-like ancestor to modern Homo sapiens. This “ape-like-ancestor-to-man,” gradual progression entrenched in science textbooks for the past four-five decades, posted in museums of natural history and force-fed to several generations, is currently coming under heavy attack—and not just from creationists.
In 2000, renowned paleontologist Meave Leakey and her co-workers discovered two fossils in Kenya. The team reported on the fossil finds in the August issue of Nature magazine (448:688-691). The fossils Leakey found were of alleged human ancestors named Homo erectus and Homo habilis. It was supposed by many in the scientific community that Homo habilis was the human ancestor that evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into humans. Leakey, et al., reported, however, that the skull they found of Homo erectus was in walking distance to an upper jawbone of Homo habilis (Borenstein, 2007). Thus, the new find suggests to the scientific community that Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus, eliminating another key character from the evolution-of-man progressionary chart.
What reactions has this new find evoked? Borenstein wrote that it “pokes holes in the chief theory of man’s early evolution—that one species evolved from another” (2007). Fred Spoor, a co-author of the Nature article, said the new fossils paint a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us” (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007). Borenstein also interviewed Bill Kimbel, science director of the institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. Kimbel noted that the old idea of human evolution “is just too simple and keeps getting revised.” He noted that the evolutionary scientific community “used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals” (2007).
It is obvious to the unbiased observer that something is dreadfully wrong with alleged human evolution. We are supposed to believe that humans evolved over millions of years from knuckle-walking, ape-like creatures into upright, intelligent, talking humans. When we ask for proof of this idea, we are told that the fossil record verifies the various stages of this evolution, and the evolutionary community is gracious enough to provide cartoon-like illustrations depicting the stages that are supposedly documented by the fossil evidence. Yet, when we begin to analyze the data behind the picture, we are told, “Oh, we’re not sure that ape-like creature had anything to do with human evolution.” Or we are told, “Right, well those two lived at the same time so the one could not have evolved into the other.”
What, then, are we told to do with this ever-shifting, elusive human family tree that is continuously rearranged and redefined? We are simply told to trust that humans really did evolve and not worry over the “details” of how it happened. Susan Anton, another co-author of the Leakey report, said that she expects “anti-evolutionists” will use the new information to attack evolution, but she says that would be a mistake. “This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continous [sic] self-testing process” (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007).
Consider Anton’s statement. We are told that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, given as evidence a series of alleged ancestors, then told that they are not really ancestors at all, but that we should still believe in human evolution. The truth of the matter is, humans did not evolve from lower mammals, and the “evidence” that is constantly being “refined” is so tenuous that a measly skull and jawbone can rewrite an entire family tree that evolutionary scientists have spent millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of work-hours, and half a century concocting. The material in the science textbooks of 50 years ago is useless and obsolete, yet at the time of its printing it was touted as irrefutable evidence for human evolution. The material in the textbook tomorrow will be in the same lamentable shape in another 40 years. Thus, we have a perpetual, vicious cycle in which the idea of human evolution is based on material that is constantly being refuted, but the most recent is said finally to be “it.” When will the evolutionary community cast an honest look back at the sordid history of their beloved theory of human evolution and recognize the cyclic of dishonest in which they are trapped? As one critical writer noted: “These people do not know who begat whom, and they can’t tell dates with any credibility; they keep losing links into gaps and moving things around, yet they expect us to believe they are the Masters of Enlightenment when telling us where we came from” (“Homo habilis Contemporary…,” 2007).
Ms. Anton is right about one thing, however. Unlike modern science, true religion is not continuously “refined on specific points” to completely alter the truthfulness of previous statements. On the contrary, “the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).
Borenstein, Seth (2007), “Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ ylt=Ar1IbU5rxrwuu0f7YDcSgCWs0NUE.
“Homo habilis Contemporary with Homo erectus” (2007), Creation-Evolution Headlines, [On-line], URL: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm.
Leakey, Meave, et al. (2007), “Implications of New Early Homo Fossils from Ileret, East of Lake Turkana, Kenya,” Nature, 448:688-691, August, [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/full/nature05986.html.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.