Spend an exotic holiday in Asia


The Origin of Man

Anyone who seeks an answer to theevolutionary history. This is a most
question of how living things, includingclear indication of their being created.
himself, came into existence, willYet, admitting this fact is totally
encounter two distinct explanations. Theagainst the dogmatic philosophy and
first is "creation," the idea that allideology of evolutionists. As a result,
living things came into existence as athey try to portray Homo erectus, a
consequence of an intelligent design.truly human race, as a half-ape
The second explanation is the theory ofcreature. In their Homo erectus
"evolution," which asserts that livingreconstructions, they tenaciously draw
things are not the products of ansimian features. On the other hand, with
intelligent design, but of coincidentalsimilar drawing methods, they humanise
causes and natural processes.apes like Australopithecus or Homo
For a century and a half now, the theoryHabilis. With this method, they seek to
of evolution has received extensive"approximate" apes and human beings and
support from the scientific community.close the gap between these two distinct
The science of biology is defined inliving classes.
terms of evolutionist concepts. That isNeanderthals
why, between the two explanations ofNeanderthals were human beings who
creation and evolution, the majority ofsuddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in
people assume the evolutionistEurope, and who disappeared, or were
explanation to be scientific.assimilated by mixing with other races,
Accordingly, they believe evolution toquietly but quickly 35,000 years ago.
be a theory supported by theTheir only difference from modern man is
observational findings of science, whilethat their skeletons are more robust and
creation is thought to be a belief basedtheir cranial capacity slightly bigger.
on faith. As a matter of fact, however,Neanderthals were a human race, a fact
scientific findings do not support thewhich is admitted by almost everybody
theory of evolution. Findings from thetoday. Evolutionists have tried very
last two decades in particular openlyhard to present them as a "primitive
contradict the basic assumptions of thisspecies", yet all the findings indicate
theory. Many branches of science, suchthat they were no different from a
as paleontology, biochemistry,"robust" man walking on the street
population genetics, comparative anatomytoday. A prominent authority on the
and biophysics, indicate that naturalsubject, Erik Trinkaus, a
processes and coincidental effectspaleoanthropologist from New Mexico
cannot explain life, as the theory ofUniversity writes:
evolution proposes.Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal
THE ORIGIN OF MANskeletal remains with those of modern
Darwin put forward his claim that humanhumans have shown that there is nothing
beings and apes descended from a commonin Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively
ancestor in his book The Descent of Man,indicates locomotor, manipulative,
published in 1871. From that time untilintellectual, or linguistic abilities
now, the followers of Darwin's path haveinferior to those of modern humans.
tried to support this claim. But despiteMany contemporary researchers define
all the research that has been carriedNeanderthal man as a sub-species of
out, the claim of "human evolution" hasmodern man and call him "Homo sapiens
not been backed up by any concreteneandertalensis". The findings testify
scientific discovery, particularly inthat Neanderthals buried their dead,
the fossil field.fashioned musical instruments, and had
The man in the street is for the mostcultural affinities with the Homo
part unaware of this fact, and thinkssapiens sapiens living during the same
that the claim of human evolution isperiod. To put it precisely,
supported by a great deal of firmNeanderthals are a "robust" human race
evidence. The reason for this incorrectthat simply disappeared in time.
opinion is that the subject isHomo Sapiens Archaic, Homo
frequently discussed in the media andHeilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man
presented as a proven fact. But realArchaic Homo sapiens is the last step
experts on the subject are aware thatbefore contemporary man in the imaginary
there is no scientific foundation forevolutionary scheme. In fact,
the claim of human evolution. Davidevolutionists do not have much to say
Pilbeam, a Harvard Universityabout these fossils, as there are only
paleoanthropologist, says:very minor differences between them and
If you brought in a smart scientist frommodern human beings. Some researchers
another discipline and showed him theeven state that representatives of this
meagre evidence we've got he'd surelyrace are still living today, and point
say, "forget it; there isn't enough toto native Australians as an example.
go on."(( Richard E. Leakey, The MakingLike Homo sapiens (archaic), native
of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited,Australians also have thick protruding
Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.))eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular
And William Fix, the author of anstructure, and a slightly smaller
important book on the subject ofcranial capacity.
paleoanthropology, makes this comment:The group characterised as Homo
As we have seen, there are numerousheilderbergensis in evolutionist
scientists and popularizers today wholiterature is in fact the same as
have the temerity to tell us that therearchaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two
is 'no doubt' how man originated. Ifdifferent terms are used to define the
only they had the evidence...(( Williamsame human racial type is the
R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillandisagreements among evolutionists. All
Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp.the fossils included under the Homo
150-153.))heidelbergensis classification suggest
This claim of evolution, which "lacksthat people who were anatomically very
any evidence," starts the human familysimilar to modern Europeans lived
tree with a group of apes that have been500,000 and even 740,000 years ago,
claimed to constitute a distinct genus,first in England and then in Spain.
Australopithecus. According to theIt is estimated that Cro-Magnon man
claim, Australopithecus gradually beganlived 30,000 years ago. He has a
to walk upright, his brain grew, and hedome-shaped cranium and a broad
passed through a series of stages untilforehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is
he arrived at man's present state (Homoabove the average for contemporary man.
sapiens). But the fossil record does notHis skull has thick eyebrow projections
support this scenario. Despite the claimand a bony protrusion at the back that
that all kinds of intermediate formsis characteristic of both Neanderthal
exist, there is an impassable barrierman and Homo erectus.
between the fossil remains of man andAlthough the Cro-Magnon is considered to
those of apes. Furthermore, it has beenbe a European race, the structure and
revealed that the species which arevolume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very
portrayed as each other's ancestors aremuch like those of some races living in
actually contemporary species that livedAfrica and the tropics today. Relying on
in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one ofthis similarity, it is estimated that
the most important proponents of theCro-Magnon was an archaic African race.
theory of evolution in the twentiethSome other paleoanthropological finds
century, contends in his book One Longhave shown that the Cro-Magnon and the
Argument that "particularly historicalNeanderthal races intermixed and laid
[puzzles] such as the origin of life orthe foundations for the races of our
of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficultday.
and may even resist a final, satisfyingAs a result, none of these human beings
explanation."(( "Could science bewere "primitive species". They were
brought to an end by scientists' beliefdifferent human beings who lived in
that they have final answers or byearlier times and either assimilated and
society's reluctance to pay the bills?"mixed with other races, or became
Scientific American, December 1992, p.extinct and disappeared from history.
20.))Species Living in the Same Age as Their
But what is the basis for the humanAncestors
evolution thesis put forward byWhat we have investigated so far forms a
evolutionists? It is the existence ofclear picture: The scenario of "human
plenty of fossils on which evolutionistsevolution" is a complete fiction. In
are able to build imaginaryorder for such a family tree to
interpretations. Throughout history,represent the truth, a gradual evolution
more than 6,000 species of ape havefrom ape to man must have taken place
lived, and most of them have becomeand a fossil record of this process
extinct. Today, only 120 species live onshould be able to be found. In fact,
the earth. These 6,000 or so species ofhowever, there is a huge gap between
ape, most of which are extinct,apes and humans. Skeletal structures,
constitute a rich resource for thecranial capacities, and such criteria as
evolutionists.walking upright or bent sharply forward
On the other hand, there aredistinguish humans from apes.
considerable differences in the anatomicAnother significant finding proving that
makeup of the various human races.there can be no family-tree relationship
Furthermore, the differences were evenamong these different species is that
greater between prehistoric races,species that are presented as ancestors
because as time has passed the humanof others in fact lived concurrently.
races have to some extent mixed withIf, as evolutionists claim,
each other and become assimilated.Australopithecus changed into Homo
Despite this, important differences arehabilis, which, in turn, turned into
still seen between different populationHomo erectus, the periods they lived in
groups living in the world today, suchshould necessarily have followed each
as, for example, Scandinavians, Africanother. However, there is no such
pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, andchronological order to be seen in the
many others.fossil record.
There is no evidence to show that theAccording to evolutionist estimates,
fossils called hominid by evolutionaryAustralopithecus lived from 4 million up
paleontologists do not actually belonguntil 1 million years ago. The creatures
to different species of ape or toclassified as Homo habilis, on the other
vanished races of humans. To put ithand, are thought to have lived until
another way, no example of a1.7 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo
transitional form between mankind andrudolfensis, which is said to have been
apes has been found.more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is
After these general explanations, let usknown to be as old as from 2.5 to 2.8
now examine the human evolutionmillion years! That is to say, Homo
hypothesis together.rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years
The Imaginary Family Tree of Manolder than Homo habilis, of which it is
The Darwinist claim holds that modernalleged to have been the "ancestor". On
man evolved from some kind of ape-likethe other hand, the age of Homo erectus
creature. During this allegedgoes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million
evolutionary process, which is supposedyears ago, which means that Homo erectus
to have started from 4 to 5 millionappeared on the earth in the same time
years ago, it is claimed that thereframe as its so-called ancestor, Homo
existed some "transitional forms"habilis.
between modern man and his ancestors.Alan Walker confirms this fact by
According to this completely imaginarystating that "there is evidence from
scenario, the following four basicEast Africa for late-surviving small
"categories" are listed:Australopithecus individuals that were
1. Australopithecines (any of thecontemporaneous first with H. Habilis,
various forms belonging to the genusthen with H. erectus."(( Alan Walker,
Australopithecus)Science, vol 207, 1980, p. 1103.))
2. Homo habilisLouis Leakey has found fossils of
3. Homo erectusAustralopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo
4. Homo sapienserectus almost next to each other in the
Evolutionists call the genus to whichOlduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, in the
the alleged ape-like ancestors of manBed II layer.
belonged "Australopithecus", which meansThere is definitely no such family tree.
"southern ape". Australopithecus, whichStephen Jay Gould, who was a
is nothing but an old type of ape thatpaleontologist from Harvard University,
has become extinct, is found in variousexplained this deadlock faced by
different forms. Some of them are largerevolution, although he was an
and strongly built (robust), whileevolutionist himself:
others are smaller and delicateWhat has become of our ladder if there
(gracile).are three coexisting lineages of
Evolutionists classify the next stage ofhominids (A. africanus, the robust
human evolution as the genus Homo, thataustralopithecines, and H. habilis),
is "man". According to the evolutionistnone clearly derived from another?
claim, the living things in the HomoMoreover, none of the three display any
series are more developed thanevolutionary trends during their tenure
Australopithecus, and not very muchon earth.
different from modern man. The modernWhen we move on from Homo erectus to
man of our day, that is, the speciesHomo sapiens, we again see that there is
Homo sapiens, is said to have formed atno family tree to talk about. There is
the latest stage of the evolution ofevidence showing that Homo erectus and
this genus Homo.archaic Homo sapiens continued living up
Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man",to 27,000 years and even as recently as
and "Lucy", which appear in the media10,000 years before our time. In the Kow
from time to time and are to be found inSwamp in Australia, some 13,000-year-old
evolutionist publications and textbooks,Homo erectus skulls have been found. On
are included in one of the four groupsthe island of Java, Homo erectus remains
listed above. Each of these groupings iswere found that are 27,000 years old.
also assumed to branch into species andThe Secret History of Homo Sapiens
sub-species, as the case may be.The most interesting and significant
Some suggested transitional forms of thefact that nullifies the very basis of
past, such as Ramapithecus, had to bethe imaginary family tree of
excluded from the imaginary human familyevolutionary theory is the unexpectedly
tree after it was realised that theyancient history of modern man.
were ordinary apes.Paleoanthropological findings reveal
By outlining the links in the chain asthat Homo sapiens people who looked
"australopithecines > Homo habilis >exactly like us were living as long as 1
Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", themillion years ago.
evolutionists imply that each of theseIt was Louis Leakey, the famous
types is the ancestor of the next.evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who
However, recent findings bydiscovered the first findings on this
paleoanthropologists have revealed thatsubject. In 1932, in the Kanjera region
australopithecines, Homo habilis andaround Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey
Homo erectus existed in different partsfound several fossils that belonged to
of the world at the same time. Moreover,the Middle Pleistocene and that were no
some of those humans classified as Homodifferent from modern man. However, the
erectus probably lived up until veryMiddle Pleistocene was a million years
recent times. In an article titledago. Since these discoveries turned the
"Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potentialevolutionary family tree upside down,
Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens inthey were dismissed by some evolutionist
Southeast Asia", it was reported in thepaleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always
journal Science that Homo erectuscontended that his estimates were
fossils found in Java had "mean ages ofcorrect.
27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago"Just when this controversy was about to
and this "raise[s] the possibility thatbe forgotten, a fossil unearthed in
H. erectus overlapped in time withSpain in 1995 revealed in a very
anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens)remarkable way that the history of Homo
in Southeast Asia"sapiens was much older than had been
Furthermore, Homo sapiensassumed. The fossil in question was
neandarthalensis and Homo sapiensuncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina
sapiens (modern man) also clearlyin the Atapuerca region of Spain by
co-existed. This situation apparentlythree Spanish paleoanthropologists from
indicates the invalidity of the claimthe University of Madrid. The fossil
that one is the ancestor of the other.revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy
Intrinsically, all findings andwho looked entirely like modern man.
scientific research have revealed thatYet, it had been 800,000 years since the
the fossil record does not suggest anchild died. Discover magazine covered
evolutionary process as evolutioniststhe story in great detail in its
propose. The fossils, whichDecember 1997 issue.
evolutionists claim to be the ancestorsThis fossil even shook the convictions
of humans, in fact belong either toof Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead
different human races, or else tothe Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras
species of ape.said:
Then which fossils are human and whichWe expected something big, something
ones are apes? Is it ever possible forlarge, something inflated-you know,
any one of them to be considered asomething primitive. Our expectation of
transitional form? In order to find thean 800,000-year-old boy was something
answers, let us have a closer look atlike Turkana Boy. And what we found was
each category.a totally modern face.... To me this is
Australopithecus: An Ape Speciesmost spectacular-these are the kinds of
The first category, the genusthings that shake you. Finding something
Australopithecus, means "southern ape",totally unexpected like that. Not
as we have said. It is assumed thatfinding fossils; finding fossils is
these creatures first appeared in Africaunexpected too, and it's okay. But the
about 4 million years ago, and livedmost spectacular thing is finding
until 1 million years ago. There are asomething you thought belonged to the
number of different species among thepresent, in the past. It's like finding
astralopithecines. Evolutionists assumesomething like-like a tape recorder in
that the oldest Australopithecus speciesGran Dolina. That would be very
is A. Afarensis. After that comes A.surprising. We don't expect cassettes
Africanus, and then A. Robustus, whichand tape recorders in the Lower
has relatively bigger bones. As for A.Pleistocene. Finding a modern face
Boisei, some researchers accept it as a800,000 years ago-it's the same thing.
different species, and others as aWe were very surprised when we saw it.
sub-species of A. Robustus.The fossil highlighted the fact that the
All of the Australopithecus species arehistory of Homo sapiens had to be
extinct apes that resemble the apes ofextended back to 800,000 years ago.
today. Their cranial capacities are theAfter recovering from the initial shock,
same or smaller than the chimpanzees ofthe evolutionists who discovered the
our day. There are projecting parts infossil decided that it belonged to a
their hands and feet which they used todifferent species, because according to
climb trees, just like today'sthe evolutionary family tree, Homo
chimpanzees, and their feet are builtsapiens did not live 800,000 years ago.
for grasping to hold onto branches. TheyTherefore, they made up an imaginary
are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) andspecies called "Homo antecessor" and
just like today's chimpanzees, maleincluded the Atapuerca skull under this
Australopithecus is larger than theclassification.
female. Many other characteristics-suchA Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
as the details in their skulls, theThere have been many findings
closeness of their eyes, their sharpdemonstrating that Homo sapiens dates
molar teeth, their mandibular structure,back even earlier than 800,000 years.
their long arms, and their shortOne of them is a discovery by Louis
legs-constitute evidence that theseLeakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai
creatures were no different from today'sGorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey
ape.discovered that Australopithecus, Homo
However, evolutionists claim that,Habilis and Homo erectus species had
although australopithecines have theco-existed at the same time. What is
anatomy of apes, unlike apes, theyeven more interesting was a structure
walked upright like humans.Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II).
This claim that australopithecinesHere, he found the remains of a stone
walked upright is a view that has beenhut. The unusual aspect of the event was
held by paleoanthropologists such asthat this construction, which is still
Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johansonused in some parts of Africa, could only
for decades. Yet many scientists whohave been built by Homo sapiens! So,
have carried out a great deal ofaccording to Leakey's findings,
research on the skeletal structures ofAustralopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo
australopithecines have proved theerectus and modern man must have
invalidity of that argument. Extensiveco-existed approximately 1.7 million
research done on variousyears ago. This discovery must surely
Australopithecus specimens by twoinvalidate the evolutionary theory that
world-renowned anatomists from Englandclaims that modern men evolved from
and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman andape-like species such as
Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that theseAustralopithecus.
creatures did not walk upright in humanFootprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million
manner. Having studied the bones ofYears Old!
these fossils for a period of 15 yearsIndeed, some other discoveries trace the
thanks to grants from the Britishorigins of modern man back to 1.7
government, Lord Zuckerman and his teammillion years ago. One of these
of five specialists reached theimportant finds is the footprints found
conclusion that australopithecines werein Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in
only an ordinary ape genus and were1977. These footprints were found in a
definitely not bipedal, althoughlayer that was calculated to be 3.6
Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.million years old, and more importantly,
Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, whothey were no different from the
is another evolutionist famous for hisfootprints that a contemporary man would
research on the subject, also likenedleave.
the skeletal structure ofThe footprints found by Mary Leakey were
australopithecines to that of modernlater examined by a number of famous
orang-utans.paleoanthropologists, such as Donald
Briefly, Australopithecines have no linkJohanson and Tim White. The results were
with humans and they are merely anthe same. White wrote:
extinct ape species.Make no mistake about it, ...They are
Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presentedlike modern human footprints. If one
as Humanwere left in the sand of a California
The great similarity between thebeach today, and a four-year old were
skeletal and cranial structures ofasked what it was, he would instantly
australopithecines and chimpanzees, andsay that somebody had walked there. He
the refutation of the claim that thesewouldn't be able to tell it from a
creatures walked upright, have causedhundred other prints on the beach, nor
great difficulty for evolutionistwould you.(( Donald C. Johanson & M. A.
paleoanthropologists. The reason isEdey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind,
that, according to the imaginaryNew York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p.
evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes250.))
after Australopithecus. As the genusAfter examining the footprints, Louis
name Homo (meaning "man") implies, HomoRobbins from the University of North
erectus is a human species and itsCalifornia made the following comments:
skeleton is straight. Its cranialThe arch is raised-the smaller
capacity is twice as large as that ofindividual had a higher arch than I
Australopithecus. A direct transitiondo-and the big toe is large and aligned
from Australopithecus, which is awith the second toe… The toes grip the
chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus,ground like human toes. You do not see
which has a skeleton no different fromthis in other animal forms.(( Science
modern man's, is out of the questionNews, Vol 115, 1979, p. 196-197.))
even according to evolutionist theory.Examinations of the morphological form
Therefore, "links"-that is,of the footprints showed time and again
"transitional forms"-are needed. Thethat they had to be accepted as the
concept of Homo habilis arose from thisprints of a human, and moreover, a
necessity.modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell
The classification of Homo habilis wasTuttle, who also examined the footprints
put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys,wrote:
a family of "fossil hunters". AccordingA small barefoot Homo sapiens could have
to the Leakeys, this new species, whichmade them... In all discernible
they classified as Homo habilis, had amorphological features, the feet of the
relatively large cranial capacity, theindividuals that made the trails are
ability to walk upright and to use stoneindistinguishable from those of modern
and wooden tools. Therefore, it couldhumans.
have been the ancestor of man.Impartial examinations of the footprints
New fossils of the same speciesrevealed their real owners. In reality,
unearthed in the late 1980s, were tothese footprints consisted of 20
completely change this view. Somefossilised footprints of a 10-year-old
researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C.modern human and 27 footprints of an
Loring Brace, who relied on thoseeven younger one. They were certainly
newly-found fossils, stated that Homomodern people like us.
habilis (which means "skillful man",This situation put the Laetoli
that is, man capable of using tools)footprints at the centre of discussions
should be classified as Australopithecusfor years. Evolutionist
habilis, or "skillful southern ape",paleoanthropologists desperately tried
because Homo habilis had a lot ofto come up with an explanation, as it
characteristics in common with thewas hard for them to accept the fact
australopithecine apes. It had longthat a modern man had been walking on
arms, short legs and an ape-likethe earth 3.6 million years ago. During
skeletal structure just likethe 1990s, the following "explanation"
Australopithecus. Its fingers and toesstarted to take shape: The evolutionists
were suitable for climbing. Their jawdecided that these footprints must have
was very similar to that of today'sbeen left by an Australopithecus,
apes. Their 600 cc average cranialbecause according to their theory, it
capacity is also an indication of thewas impossible for a Homo species to
fact that they were apes. In short, Homohave existed 3.6 years ago. However,
habilis, which was presented as aRussell H. Tuttle wrote the following in
different species by some evolutionists,an article in 1990:
was in reality an ape species just likeIn sum, the 3.5-million-year-old
all the other australopithecines.footprint traits at Laetoli site G
Research carried out in the years sinceresemble those of habitually unshod
Wood and Brace's work has demonstratedmodern humans. None of their features
that Homo habilis was indeed nosuggest that the Laetoli hominids were
different from Australopithecus. Theless capable bipeds than we are. If the
skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found byG footprints were not known to be so
Tim White showed that this species had aold, we would readily conclude that
small cranial capacity, as well as longthere had been made by a member of our
arms and short legs which enabled themgenus, Homo... In any case, we should
to climb trees just like modern apes do.shelve the loose assumption that the
The detailed analyses conducted byLaetoli footprints were made by Lucy's
American anthropologist Holly Smith inkind, Australopithecus afarensis.
1994 indicated that Homo habilis was notTo put it briefly, these footprints that
Homo, in other words, "human", at all,were supposed to be 3.6 million years
but rather unequivocally an "ape".old could not have belonged to
Speaking of the analyses she made on theAustralopithecus. The only reason why
teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis,the footprints were thought to have been
Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis,left by members of Australopithecus was
Smith stated the following;the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer
Restricting analysis of fossils toin which the footprints were found. The
specimens satisfying these criteria,prints were ascribed to Australopithecus
patterns of dental development ofpurely on the assumption that humans
gracile australopithecines and Homocould not have lived so long ago.
Habilis remain classified with AfricanThese interpretations of the Laetoli
apes. Those of Homo erectus andfootprints demonstrate one important
Neanderthals are classified with humans.fact. Evolutionists support their theory
Within the same year, Fred Spoor,not based on scientific findings, but in
Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, allspite of them. Here we have a theory
specialists on anatomy, reached athat is blindly defended no matter what,
similar conclusion through a totallywith all new findings that cast the
different method. This method was basedtheory into doubt being either ignored
on the comparative analysis of theor distorted to support the theory.
semi-circular canals in the inner ear ofBriefly, the theory of evolution is not
humans and apes which provided forscience, but a dogma kept alive despite
sustaining balance. Spoor, Wood andscience.
Zonneveld concluded that:The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution
Among the fossil hominids the earliestApart from the fossil record that we
species to demonstrate the modern humanhave dealt with so far, unbridgeable
morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast,anatomical gaps between men and apes
the semi-circular canal dimensions inalso invalidate the fiction of human
crania from southern Africa attributedevolution. One of these has to do with
to Australopithecus and Paranthropusthe manner of walking.
resemble those of the extant great apes.Human beings walk upright on two feet.
Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied aThis is a very special form of
Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53,locomotion not seen in any other
and found out that "Stw 53 relied lessmammalian species. Some other animals do
on bipedal behavior than thehave a limited ability to move when they
australopithecines." This meant that thestand on their two hind feet. Animals
H. habilis specimen was even morelike bears and monkeys can move in this
ape-like than the Australopithecusway only rarely, such as when they want
species. Thus they concluded that "Stwto reach a source of food, and even then
53 represents an unlikely intermediateonly for a short time. Normally, their
between the morphologies seen in theskeletons lean forward and they walk on
australopithecines and H. erectus."all fours.
This finding yielded two importantWell, then, has bipedalism evolved from
results:the quadrupedal gait of apes, as
1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilisevolutionists claim?
did not actually belong to the genusOf course not. Research has shown that
Homo, i.e. humans, but to that ofthe evolution of bipedalism never
Australopithecus, i.e. apes.occurred, nor is it possible for it to
2. Both Homo habilis andhave done so. First of all, bipedalism
Australopithecus were creatures thatis not an evolutionary advantage. The
walked stooped forward-that is to say,way in which monkeys move is much
they had the skeleton of an ape. Theyeasier, faster, and more efficient than
have no relation whatsoever to man.man's bipedal stride. Man can neither
Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wronglymove by jumping from tree to tree
Joinedwithout descending to the ground, like a
The term Homo rudolfensis is the namechimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km
given to a few fossil fragmentsper hour, like a cheetah. On the
unearthed in 1972. The speciescontrary, since man walks on two feet,
supposedly represented by this fossilhe moves much more slowly on the ground.
was designated Homo rudolfensis becauseFor the same reason, he is one of the
these fossil fragments were found in themost unprotected of all species in
vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Mostnature in terms of movement and defence.
of the paleoanthropologists accept thatAccording to the logic of the theory of
these fossils do not belong to aevolution, monkeys should not have
distinct species, but that the creatureevolved to adopt a bipedal stride;
called Homo rudolfensis is in facthumans should instead have evolved to
indistinguishable from Homo habilis.become quadrupedal.
Richard Leakey, who unearthed theAnother impasse of the evolutionary
fossils, presented the skull designatedclaim is that bipedalism does not serve
"KNM-ER 1470", which he said was 2.8the "gradual development" model of
million years old, as the greatestDarwinism. This model, which constitutes
discovery in the history ofthe basis of evolution, requires that
anthropology. According to Leakey, thisthere should be a "compound" stride
creature, which had a small cranialbetween bipedalism and quadrupedalism.
capacity like that of AustralopithecusHowever, with the computerised research
together with a face similar to that ofhe conducted in 1996, the English
present-day humans, was the missing linkpaleoanthropologist Robin Crompton,
between Australopithecus and humans.showed that such a "compound" stride was
Yet, after a short while, it wasnot possible. Crompton reached the
realised that the human-like face of thefollowing conclusion: A living being can
KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequentlyeither walk upright, or on all fours.((
appeared on the covers of scientificRuth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Baumen",
journals and popular science magazinesFocus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.)).
was the result of the incorrect assemblyA type of stride between the two is
of the skull fragments, which may haveimpossible because it would involve
been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage,excessive energy consumption. This is
who conducts studies on human facialwhy a half-bipedal being cannot exist.
anatomy, brought this to light by theThe immense gap between man and ape is
help of computer simulations in 1992:not limited solely to bipedalism. Many
When it [KNM-ER 1470] was firstother issues still remain unexplained,
reconstructed, the face was fitted tosuch as brain capacity, the ability to
the cranium in an almost verticaltalk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an
position, much like the flat faces ofevolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes
modern humans. But recent studies ofthe following confession in relation to
anatomical relationships show that inthis matter:
life the face must have jutted outFour of the most outstanding mysteries
considerably, creating an ape-likeabout humans are: 1) why do they walk on
aspect, rather like the faces oftwo legs? 2) why have they lost their
Australopithecus.fur? 3) why have they developed such
The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J.large brains? 4) why did they learn to
E. Cronin states the following on thespeak?
matter:The orthodox answers to these questions
... its relatively robustly constructedare: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do
face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus,not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know';
(recalling australopithecine dished4) 'We do not yet know'. The list of
faces), low maximum cranial width (onquestions could be considerably
the temporals), strong canine juga andlengthened without affecting the
large molars (as indicated by remainingmonotony of the answers.
roots) are all relatively primitiveEvolution: An Unscientific Faith
traits which ally the specimen withLord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most
members of the taxon A. africanus.famous and respected scientists in the
C. Loring Brace from Michigan UniversityUnited Kingdom. For years, he studied
came to the same conclusion. As a resultthe fossil record and conducted many
of the analyses he conducted on the jawdetailed investigations. He was elevated
and tooth structure of skull 1470, heto the peerage for his contributions to
reported that "from the size of thescience. Zuckerman is an evolutionist.
palate and the expansion of the areaTherefore, his comments on evolution can
allotted to molar roots, it would appearnot be regarded as ignorant or
that ER 1470 retained a fullyprejudiced. After years of research on
Australopithecus-sized face andthe fossils included in the human
dentition".evolution scenario however, he reached
Professor Alan Walker, athe conclusion that there is no truth to
paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkinsthe family tree in that is put forward.
University who has done as much researchZuckerman also advanced an interesting
on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintains thatconcept of the "spectrum of the
this creature should not be classifiedsciences", ranging from those he
as a member of Homo-i.e., as a humanconsidered scientific to those he
species-but rather should be placed inconsidered unscientific. According to
the Australopithecus genus.Zuckerman's spectrum, the most
In summary, classifications like Homo"scientific"-that is, depending on
habilis or Homo rudolfensis which areconcrete data-fields are chemistry and
presented as transitional links betweenphysics. After them come the biological
the australopithecines and Homo erectussciences and then the social sciences.
are entirely imaginary. It has beenAt the far end of the spectrum, which is
confirmed by many researchers today thatthe part considered to be most
these creatures are members of the"unscientific", are "extra-sensory
Australopithecus series. All of theirperception"-concepts such as telepathy
anatomical features reveal that they areand the "sixth sense"-and finally "human
species of ape.evolution". Zuckerman explains his
This fact has been further establishedreasoning as follows:
by two evolutionist anthropologists,We then move right off the register of
Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whoseobjective truth into those fields of
research was published in 1999 inpresumed biological science, like
Science magazine. Wood and Collardextrasensory perception or the
explained that the Homo habilis and Homointerpretation of man's fossil history,
rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa arewhere to the faithful anything is
imaginary, and that the fossils assignedpossible - and where the ardent believer
to these categories should be attributedis sometimes able to believe several
to the genus Australopithecus:contradictory things at the same time.
More recently, fossil species have beenRobert Locke, the editor of Discovering
assigned to Homo on the basis ofArcheology, an important publication on
absolute brain size, inferences aboutthe origins of man, writes in that
language ability and hand function, andjournal, "The search for human ancestors
retrodictions about their ability togives more heat than light", quoting the
fashion stone tools. With only a fewconfession of the famous evolutionist
exceptions , the definition and use ofpaleoantropologist Tim White:
the genus within human evolution, andWe're all frustrated by "all the
the demarcation of Homo, have beenquestions we haven't been able to
treated as if they are unproblematic.answer."
But ... recent data, freshLocke's article reviews the impasse of
interpretations of the existingthe theory of evolution on the origins
evidence, and the limitations of theof man and the groundlessness of the
paleoanthropological record invalidatepropaganda spread about this subject:
existing criteria for attributing taxaPerhaps no area of science is more
to Homo.contentious than the search for human
...in practice fossil hominin speciesorigins. Elite paleontologists disagree
are assigned to Homo on the basis of oneover even the most basic outlines of the
or more out of four criteria. ... It ishuman family tree. New branches grow
now evident, however, that none of theseamid great fanfare, only to wither and
criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebraldie in the face of new fossil finds.
Rubicon is problematic because absoluteThe same fact was also recently accepted
cranial capacity is of questionableby Henry Gee, the editor of the
biological significance. Likewise, therewell-known journal Nature. In his book
is compelling evidence that languageIn Search of Deep Time, published in
function cannot be reliably inferred1999, Gee points out that all the
from the gross appearance of the brain,evidence for human evolution "between
and that the language-related parts ofabout 10 and 5 million years ago-several
the brain are not as well localized asthousand generations of living
earlier studies had implied...creatures-can be fitted into a small
...In other words, with the hypodigms ofbox." He concludes that conventional
H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assignedtheories of the origin and development
to it, the genus Homo is not a goodof human beings are "a completely human
genus. Thus, H. habilis and H.invention created after the fact, shaped
rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu latoto accord with human prejudices" and
for those who do not subscribe to theadds:
taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo")To take a line of fossils and claim that
should be removed from Homo. The obviousthey represent a lineage is not a
taxonomic alternative, which is toscientific hypothesis that can be
transfer one or both of the taxa to onetested, but an assertion that carries
of the existing early hominin genera, isthe same validity as bedtime
not without problems, but we recommendstory-amusing, perhaps even instructive,
that, for the time being, both H.but not scientific.
Habilis and H. Rudolfensis should beWhat, then, is the reason that makes so
transferred to the genusmany scientists so tenacious about this
Australopithecus.dogma? Why have they been trying so hard
The conclusion of Wood and Collardto keep their theory alive, at the cost
corroborates the conclusion we haveof having to admit countless conflicts
maintained here:"Primitive humanand discarding the evidence they have
ancestors" do not exist in history.found?
Creatures that are alleged to be so areThe only answer is their being afraid of
actually apes that ought to be assignedthe fact they will have to face in case
to the genus Australopithecus. Theof abandoning the theory of evolution.
fossil record shows that there is noThe fact they will have to face when
evolutionary link between these extinctthey abandon evolution is that God has
apes and Homo, i.e., human species thatcreated man. However, considering the
suddenly appears in the fossil record.presuppositions they have and the
Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Humanmaterialistic philosophy they believe
Beingsin, creation is an unacceptable concept
According to the fanciful schemefor evolutionists.
suggested by evolutionists, the internalFor this reason, they deceive
evolution of the Homo genus is asthemselves, as well as the world, by
follows: First Homo erectus, thenusing the media with which they
so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens andco-operate. If they cannot find the
Neanderthal man (Homo sapiensnecessary fossils, they "fabricate" them
neanderthalensis), and finally,either in the form of imaginary pictures
Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens).or fictitious models and try to give the
However all these classifications areimpression that there indeed exist
really only variations and unique racesfossils verifying evolution. A part of
in the human family. The differencemass media who share their materialistic
between them is no greater than thepoint of view also try to deceive the
difference between an Inuit and anpublic and instil the story of evolution
African or a pygmy and a European.in people's subconscious.
Let us first examine Homo erectus, whichNo matter how hard they try, the truth
is referred to as the most primitiveis evident: Man has come into existence
human species. As the name implies,not through an evolutionary process but
"Homo erectus" means "man who walksby God's creation. Therefore, he is
upright". Evolutionists have had toresponsible to Him.
separate these fossils from earlier onesPlease see this book to know more about
by adding the qualification ofthe origin of other living things:
"erectness", because all the availableDarwinism Refuted(Book):
Homo erectus fossils are straight to anPDF file format:
extent not observed in any of theWord file format:
australopithecines or so-called HomoAnother useful Book & website in
habilis specimens. There is nodifferent languages:
difference between the postcranialEvolution Deceit(Book):
skeleton of modern man and that of HomoWebsite:
erectus.Darwin's Imagination
The primary reason for evolutionists'The person who put forward the theory of
defining Homo erectus as "primitive", isevolution the way it is defended today,
the cranial capacity of its skullwas an amateur English naturalist,
(900-1,100 cc), which is smaller thanCharles Robert Darwin.
the average modern man, and its thickDarwin had never undergone a formal
eyebrow projections. However, there areeducation in biology. He took only an
many people living today in the worldamateur interest in the subject of
who have the same cranial capacity asnature and living things. His interest
Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) andspurred him to voluntarily join an
other races have protruding eyebrowsexpedition on board a ship named H.M.S.
(Native Australians, for instance).Beagle that set out from England in 1832
It is a commonly agreed-upon fact thatand travelled around different regions
differences in cranial capacity do notof the world for five years. Young
necessarily denote differences inDarwin was greatly impressed by various
intelligence or abilities. Intelligenceliving species, especially by certain
depends on the internal organisation offinches that he saw in the Galapagos
the brain, rather than on its volume.Islands. He thought that the variations
The fossils that have made Homo erectusin their beaks were caused by their
known to the entire world are those ofadaptation to their habitat. With this
Peking man and Java man in Asia.idea in mind, he supposed that the
However, in time it was realised thatorigin of life and species lay in the
these two fossils are not reliable.concept of "adaptation to the
Peking Man consists of some elementsenvironment". Darwin opposed the fact
made of plaster whose originals havethat God created different living
been lost, and Java Man is "composed" ofspecies separately, suggesting that they
a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone thatrather came from a common ancestor and
was found metres away from it with nobecame differentiated from each other as
indication that these belonged to thea result of natural conditions.
same creature. This is why the HomoDarwin's hypothesis was not based on any
erectus fossils found in Africa havescientific discovery or experiment; in
gained such increasing importance. (Ittime however he turned it into a
should also be noted that some of thepretentious theory with the support and
fossils said to be Homo erectus wereencouragement he received from the
included under a second species namedfamous materialist biologists of his
"Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists.time. The idea was that the individuals
There is disagreement among the expertsthat adapted to the habitat in the best
on this issue. We will treat all theseway transferred their qualities to
fossils under the classification of Homosubsequent generations; these
erectus)advantageous qualities accumulated in
The most famous of the Homo erectustime and transformed the individual into
specimens found in Africa is the fossila species totally different from its
of "Narikotome Homo erectus" or theancestors. (The origin of these
"Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake"advantageous qualities" was unknown at
Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed thatthe time.) According to Darwin, man was
the fossil was that of a 12-year-oldthe most developed outcome of this
boy, who would have been 1.83 metersimaginary mechanism.
tall in adolescence. The uprightDarwin called this process "evolution by
skeletal structure of the fossil is nonatural selection". He thought he had
different from that of modern man. Thefound the "origin of species": the
American paleoanthropologist Alan Walkerorigin of one species was another
said that he doubted that "the averagespecies. He published these views in his
pathologist could tell the differencebook titled The Origin of Species, By
between the fossil skeleton and that ofMeans of Natural Selection in 1859.
a modern human."(( Boyce Rensberger, TheDarwin was well aware that his theory
Washington Post, November 19, 1984.))faced lots of problems. He confessed
Concerning the skull, Walker wrote thatthese in his book in the chapter
he laughed when he saw it because "it"Difficulties of the Theory". These
looked so much like a Neanderthal."((difficulties primarily consisted of the
Ibid. )) As we will see in the nextfossil record, complex organs of living
chapter, Neanderthals are a modern humanthings that could not possibly be
race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also aexplained by coincidence (e.g. the eye),
modern human race.and the instincts of living beings.
Even the evolutionist Richard LeakeyDarwin hoped that these difficulties
states that the differences between Homowould be overcome by new discoveries;
erectus and modern man are no more thanyet this did not stop him from coming up
racial variance:with a number of very inadequate
One would also see differences in theexplanations for some. The American
shape of the skull, in the degree ofphysicist Lipson made the following
protrusion of the face, the robustnesscomment on the "difficulties" of Darwin:
of the brows and so on. TheseOn reading The Origin of Species, I
differences are probably no morefound that Darwin was much less sure
pronounced than we see today between thehimself than he is often represented to
separate geographical races of modernbe; the chapter entitled "Difficulties
humans. Such biological variation arisesof the Theory" for example, shows
when populations are geographicallyconsiderable self-doubt. As a physicist,
separated from each other forI was particularly intrigued by his
significant lengths of time.comments on how the eye would have
Professor William Laughlin from thearisen. (( H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's
University of Connecticut made extensiveView of Darwin's Theory", Evolution
anatomical examinations of Inuits andTrends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p.
the people living on the Aleut islands,6.))
and noticed that these people wereWhile developing his theory, Darwin was
extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus.impressed by many evolutionist
The conclusion Laughlin arrived at wasbiologists preceding him, and primarily
that all these distinct races were inby the French biologist, Lamarck.
fact different races of Homo sapiensAccording to Lamarck, living creatures
(modern man).passed the traits they acquired during
When we consider the vast differencestheir lifetime from one generation to
that exist between remote groups such asthe next and thus evolved. For instance,
Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known togiraffes evolved from antelope-like
belong to the single species of Homoanimals by extending their necks further
sapiens, it seems justifiable toand further from generation to
conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectusgeneration as they tried to reach higher
specimen] belongs within this sameand higher branches for food. Darwin
diverse species.thus employed the thesis of "passing the
It is now a more pronounced fact in theacquired traits" proposed by Lamarck as
scientific community that Homo erectusthe factor that made living beings
is a superfluous taxon, and that fossilsevolve.
assigned to the Homo erectus class areBut both Darwin and Lamarck were
actually not so different from Homomistaken because in their day, life
sapiens as to be considered a differentcould only be studied with very
species. In American Scientist, theprimitive technology and at a very
discussions over this issue and theinadequate level. Scientific fields such
result of a conference held on theas genetics and biochemistry did not
subject in 2000 were summarised in thisexist even in name. Their theories
way:therefore had to depend entirely on
Most of the participants at thetheir powers of imagination.
Senckenberg conference got drawn into aWhile the echoes of Darwin's book
flaming debate over the taxonomic statusreverberated, an Austrian botanist by
of Homo erectus started by Milfordthe name of Gregor Mendel discovered the
Wolpoff of the University of Michigan,laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much
Alan Thorne of the University ofheard of until the end of the century,
Canberra and their colleagues. TheyMendel's discovery gained great
argued forcefully that Homo erectus hadimportance in the early 1900s. This was
no validity as a species and should bethe birth of the science of genetics.
eliminated altogether. All members ofSomewhat later, the structure of the
the genus Homo, from about 2 milliongenes and the chromosomes was
years ago to the present, were onediscovered. The discovery, in the 1950s,
highly variable, widely spread species,of the structure of the DNA molecule
Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks orthat incorporates genetic information
subdivisions. The subject of thethrew the theory of evolution into a
conference, Homo erectus didn't exist.great crisis. The reason was the
The conclusion reached by the scientistsincredible complexity of life and the
defending the abovementioned thesis caninvalidity of the evolutionary
be summarised as "Homo erectus is not amechanisms proposed by Darwin.
different species from Homo sapiens, butThese developments ought to have
rather a race within Homo sapiens".resulted in Darwin's theory being
On the other hand, there is a huge gapbanished to the dustbin of history.
between Homo erectus, a human race, andHowever, it was not, because certain
the apes that preceded Homo erectus incircles insisted on revising, renewing,
the "human evolution" scenario,and elevating the theory to a scientific
(Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, andplatform. These efforts gain meaning
Homo rudolfensis). This means that theonly if we realise that behind the
first men appeared in the fossil recordtheory lay ideological intentions rather
suddenly and without any priorthan scientific concerns.



1 A B C D 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117