by David Pensgard borrowing heavily from Marvin L. Lubenow's book Bones of Contention
  Emphases and formatting included as an aid to reading.
 
From where do people come? What or Who created the human race? There are two options on the table: Creation by God or Evolution from lower life forms... and ultimately from inanimate matter.
 
Of the many branches of science devoted to studying origins, the branch that investigates human fossils is paleoanthropology.

The scientists who explore the fossil evidence are called Paleoanthropologists. It is their job to dig up, catalog, and analyze human fossils.
 
If a paleoanthropologists is a believer in the evolutionary perspective, then they will claim that there is little fossil evidence available. But if the paleoanthropologists is a believer in the creationist perspective, then they will claim that there is a great deal of evidence. In fact, there are thousands of specimens.
 
What is going on? The basic problem is that there is very little evidence that can be used to support the evolutionary perspective. Although this lack of evidence has persisted for a very long time, evolutionists still work to prove their perspective on human origins.
This page compares the fossil finds of relevant humans and apes along with their dates (according to the evolutionary timescale; see box below).
Dates There is a difference in the way creationists and evolutionists view the age of the Earth. Creationists believe that the Earth is relatively young, about 6,000 years. But, Evolutionists think that it is 4,500,000,000 years old. Creationists explain this by pointing out various errors in the application of Carbon-14 (C14) dating which, they believe, gradually inflates ages the older specimens become.
 

According to more recent discoveries about C14, the evolutionary timeline is severely and exponentially lengthened. Drastic changes in concentrations of radioactive elements (cf. C14) shortly after the global flood (c. 2300 B.C.) have made specimens appear progressively older as one proceeds backward along the time line. This takes us back to the Tertiary/Quaternary boundary.



Beyond the T/Q boundary, evolutionists mistakenly view objects buried during the global flood as being gradually buried over a period of 565 million years, from the Cambrian period to the end of the Tertiary period.

Learn more of the problems with radiometric dating here.
 
Now, on to human evolution
and the fossil evidence. 		Until 1986, human evolution was proposed as a gradual development in linear fashion as follows:
(Listed from oldest to youngest)
  1. Australopithecus afarensis
  2. Homo habilis
  3. Homo erectus
  4. archaic Homo Sapiens
  5. Neanderthal
  6. Cro-Magnon
  7. modern Homo sapiens
 
This progression has been called into question because of the evidence in the chart below. The evidence clearly threw the previous succession into disarray in 1986...  but evolutionists have never informed the public. Instead of doubting the possibility of human evolution, they effectively sit in silence.
 
The chart below lists fossils along with their contemporaries and shows that all varieties of humans (genus Homo) were contemporary, that is, they lived at the same time. Note that this data does not depend upon the dates. These fossils were found in the same location and in the same rock layers... They must have been buried together.
  
Local Contemporaneousness of the Various Fossil Categories
Fossils in each row were found in the same location and in the same rock layers
Evolutionary Date
K=1,000
M=1,000,000		 Location Data given as catalog names/numbers or as a location Reference
Anatomically
Modern Man		 Neanderthal archaic Homo sapiens Homo erectus
10K years ago Coobool Crossing, Aus. many moderns     many erectus 1
30K Willandra Lakes, Aus. many moderns     WHL-50 and others 2
50–100K Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel Skhul 5 & 6 remains near Skhul     3
80K Czech. Mladec Cave Sipka Cave     4
100K Klasies River, Israel Mixed Modern/archaic   Mixed Modern/archaic   5, 6
100K Krapina, Yugoslavia Krapina A  skull many Neanderthal Krapina D  skull   7, 8
105K Skhul Cave, Israel Skhul 5 & 6 Skhul 2, 4, 7, and 9     9
130K Omo River, Ethiopia Omo 1 & 3   Omo 2   10
130K Eyasi Lake, Tanzania Mumba Rock Shelter   Eyasi skull   11
150K Kabwe, Zambia 2-3 moderns   Rhodesian Man skull   12
450K Arago, Tautavel, Fr.     Skull 21 Mandible 13, Innominate 44 13
500K Trinil, Java, Indonesia Sonde tooth, Java Man femur     Java Man skull cap 14, 15
1.64M Koobi Fora, area 103, Kenya Koobi Fora footprints     KNM-ER 730, 737, 1808 16, 17
1.64M Koobi Fora, area 104, Kenya KNM-ER 813     KNM-ER 3733 18, 19
1.64M Koobi Fora, Ileret area (near 103/104), Kenya KNM-ER 813, Koobi Fora footprints     KNM-ER 803, 820, 1507, 3883, WT 15000 16, 18, 19
1.9M Kobi Fora, Kenya KNM-ER 1470, 1481, 1590     KNM-ER 3228 20, 21

Go to References

 

To put it another way (and to reference more data) we see that the range of dates assigned to all relevant fossils makes the proposed evolutionary sequence impossible... since all species of Australopithecine and Homo were contemporaries with modern humans!

 

All Hominid Fossils Are Contemporaneous

This data clearly shows that no "pre-human" has been found to actually pre-date anatomically modern humans. Fossils possessing fully modern human morphology have been found dating back to 4.5 million years. For example the Kanopoi arm fragment (humerus; upper arm bone), Kenya KP 271 is dated at 4.5 mya.


(The information in this chart was compiled using Marvin L. Lubenow's book Bones of Contention) 

Keep in mind that the dates obtained by evolutionary researchers do not take into account the changes in radioactive elements during and after the global flood. As a result, they are unnecessarily elongated.

None of the fossils listed above or referenced in this chart were buried during or before the flood which occurred in about 2320 B.C.
 
How could modern humans have evolved from an Australopithecine (Lucy) if humans predated them? Modern human morphology is found in the oldest fossils.
  • Australopithecus is clearly an ape (not human),
  • Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon are clearly human with morphologies that can be found within the present human population!
 
Cranial Capacity Lastly, I will include data on cranial capacity. This is mostly useless data since intelligence is not directly related to cranial capacity, but since it has been used by evolutionists to fool the public into seeing a progression, I will use it to show that such a progression is not found.
 
This chart will also illustrate the clear difference between the ape genera (Australopithecus, among others) and and the Human genera (Homo).
 

Distinct Groups Seen In Cranial Comparison

This data clearly shows that average cranial capacities for all Homo species are very similar with the erectus being somewhat smaller and the Neanderthal being slightly larger than the average for sapiens. The arrows fade toward the edges to show that fewer individuals exist at these extremes while most exist in the center.


(The information in this chart was compiled using Marvin L. Lubenow's book Bones of Contention) 
 
Keep in mind that brain architecture is far more important than size when comparing intelligence.
 
First, notice that Homo sapiens does not have the largest average cranial capacity,,,

Neanderthal does!

He was supposed to be less evolved, "primitive", yet Neanderthal exhibits expert use of tools, along with the presence of pottery, art, architecture, and religion make this very unlikely. Neanderthal is an extinct race of human which was contemporaneous with modern-looking humans.
Next, notice that the Australopithecines are in a group by themselves. While there may be some overlap, the differences in average cranial capacity are dramatic. The Homo genus groups together and is clearly distinct from the Australopithecus genus.
Conclusion Even Richard Leaky, a paleoanthropologist responsible for many fossil finds relevant to the issue of human evolution, does not believe that evolutionists know very much about the issue:
"I think the study of early man is a science that is just reaching its adolescence. I do not think the science has matured. I think we are still doing a great deal of guessing... I often felt that paleo-anthropology was more of an art than a science... the minute it becomes a science we begin the possibility of really understanding what's going on."
- Richard Leaky, in an AAAS interview
 
Leaky says this because his situation is getting worse. You can hear this happening in other branches of science as well, if you listen closely.

As the dominant paradigm (currently Evolution) starts to conflict with the evidence, it's adherents start to say that it is "an exciting time" in their field of study, or they might say "we're learning so much" when they are actually fighting to keep their theory afloat.

 
But this should not be happening! They should be merely sorting out the details, not rewriting the fundamental aspects of their theory!
 
  • In the early part of the 20th century, evolutionists thought they knew a great deal.
  • By the 1960s they believed they had it figured out.
  • But in 1986 several fossil discoveries threw their theories into disarray.
  • Today, they don't know who evolved into whom... perhaps that is because no one evolved at all?
    • Watch for papers, news article, and TV specials about human evolution. Watch how many times they say that a new discovery "changed everything we believed about human evolution" or that they are working in "an exciting time".

Recommended Resources
Next Article:
Entropy and the Currency of Evolution

References:
The information in this article was compiled using Marvin L. Lubenow's book Bones of Contention; other references include:
1. Ian Tattersall, Eric Delson, and John Van Couvering, eds., Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988), 55.
2. Tattersal et al, 65-67.
3. Rainer Grun, Christopher B. Stringer, and Henry Schwarcz, "ERS dating of teeth from Garrod's Tabun cave collection," Journal of Human Evolution 20:3 (March 1991): 231.
4. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Neanderthal Man (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1975), 45-46.
5. Tattersal et al., 55.
6. R. Caspari and M. H. Wolpoff, "The morphological affinities of the Klasies River Mouth skeletal remains" (abstract), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:2 (February 1990): 203.
7. N. Minugh-Purvis and J. Radovcic, "Krapina A: Neandertal or Not?" (abstract), American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement 12 (1991): 132.
8. J. Radovcic and R. Caspari, "A new construction of the Krapina D skull and a comparison with male western European Neandertals" (abstract), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72:2 (February 1987): 244.
9. R. S. Corruccini, "The forgotten Skhul crania and the 'neopresapiens' theory" (abstract) American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:2 (February 1990): 209.
10. William Howells, Evolution of the Genus Homo (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973), 121-22.
11. M. J. Mehlman, "Early Homo sapiens in northern Tanzania: some evidence from Lake Eyasi basin" (abstract), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 75:2 (February 1988): 249.
12. Kennedy, 54-55.
13. Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 238-39.
14. Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Baker Books, 1992), 86-119
15. ibidem
16. Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Leo F. Laporte, "Footprints of a Pleistocene hominid in northern Kenya," Nature 289 (15 January 1981): 167-69.
17. Craig S. Feibel, Francis H. Brown, and Ian McDougall, "Stratigraphic Context of Fossil Hominids From the Omo Group Deposits: Northern Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78 (April 1989): 611, 613.
18. B. A. Wood, "Evidence on the locomotor pattern of Homo from early Pleistocene of Kenya," Nature 251 (13 September 1974): 135-6.
19. Feibel, Brown, and McDougall, 611, 613.
20. Marvin L. Lubenow, 157-168, 247-266.
21. Feibel, Brown, and McDougall, 613.

Return to Home Page

 

 

 

 .