The Origin of Man

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question ofdogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists.
how living things, including himself, came intoAs a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a
existence, will encounter two distinct explanations.truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their
The first is "creation," the idea that all living thingsHomo erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously
came into existence as a consequence of andraw simian features. On the other hand, with
intelligent design. The second explanation is thesimilar drawing methods, they humanise apes like
theory of "evolution," which asserts that livingAustralopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this
things are not the products of an intelligent design,method, they seek to "approximate" apes and
but of coincidental causes and natural processes.human beings and close the gap between these
For a century and a half now, the theory oftwo distinct living classes.
evolution has received extensive support fromNeanderthals
the scientific community. The science of biology isNeanderthals were human beings who suddenly
defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That isappeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who
why, between the two explanations of creationdisappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with
and evolution, the majority of people assume theother races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago.
evolutionist explanation to be scientific.Their only difference from modern man is that
Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theorytheir skeletons are more robust and their cranial
supported by the observational findings of science,capacity slightly bigger.
while creation is thought to be a belief based onNeanderthals were a human race, a fact which is
faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientificadmitted by almost everybody today.
findings do not support the theory of evolution.Evolutionists have tried very hard to present
Findings from the last two decades in particularthem as a "primitive species", yet all the findings
openly contradict the basic assumptions of thisindicate that they were no different from a
theory. Many branches of science, such as"robust" man walking on the street today. A
paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics,prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus,
comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate thata paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University
natural processes and coincidental effects cannotwrites:
explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal
THE ORIGIN OF MANremains with those of modern humans have
Darwin put forward his claim that human beingsshown that there is nothing in Neanderthal
and apes descended from a common ancestor inanatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor,
his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871.manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior
From that time until now, the followers ofto those of modern humans.
Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. ButMany contemporary researchers define
despite all the research that has been carried out,Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern man
the claim of "human evolution" has not beenand call him "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The
backed up by any concrete scientific discovery,findings testify that Neanderthals buried their
particularly in the fossil field.dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had
The man in the street is for the most partcultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens
unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim ofliving during the same period. To put it precisely,
human evolution is supported by a great deal ofNeanderthals are a "robust" human race that
firm evidence. The reason for this incorrectsimply disappeared in time.
opinion is that the subject is frequently discussedHomo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and
in the media and presented as a proven fact. ButCro-Magnon Man
real experts on the subject are aware that thereArchaic Homo sapiens is the last step before
is no scientific foundation for the claim of humancontemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary
evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard Universityscheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much
paleoanthropologist, says:to say about these fossils, as there are only very
If you brought in a smart scientist from anotherminor differences between them and modern
discipline and showed him the meagre evidencehuman beings. Some researchers even state that
we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn'trepresentatives of this race are still living today,
enough to go on."(( Richard E. Leakey, The Makingand point to native Australians as an example. Like
of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona,Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also
1982, p. 43.))have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined
And William Fix, the author of an important bookmandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial
on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes thiscapacity.
comment:The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis
As we have seen, there are numerous scientistsin evolutionist literature is in fact the same as
and popularizers today who have the temerity toarchaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two
tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated.different terms are used to define the same
If only they had the evidence...(( William R. Fix,human racial type is the disagreements among
The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company,evolutionists. All the fossils included under the
New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.))Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that
This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence,"people who were anatomically very similar to
starts the human family tree with a group ofmodern Europeans lived 500,000 and even
apes that have been claimed to constitute a740,000 years ago, first in England and then in
distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to theSpain.
claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walkIt is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000
upright, his brain grew, and he passed through ayears ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a
series of stages until he arrived at man's presentbroad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above
state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record doesthe average for contemporary man. His skull has
not support this scenario. Despite the claim that allthick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion
kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is anat the back that is characteristic of both
impassable barrier between the fossil remains ofNeanderthal man and Homo erectus.
man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has beenAlthough the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a
revealed that the species which are portrayed asEuropean race, the structure and volume of
each other's ancestors are actually contemporaryCro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those
species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr,of some races living in Africa and the tropics
one of the most important proponents of thetoday. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that
theory of evolution in the twentieth century,Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some
contends in his book One Long Argument thatother paleoanthropological finds have shown that
"particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin ofthe Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal races
life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficultintermixed and laid the foundations for the races
and may even resist a final, satisfyingof our day.
explanation."(( "Could science be brought to an endAs a result, none of these human beings were
by scientists' belief that they have final answers"primitive species". They were different human
or by society's reluctance to pay the bills?"beings who lived in earlier times and either
Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.))assimilated and mixed with other races, or
But what is the basis for the human evolutionbecame extinct and disappeared from history.
thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is theSpecies Living in the Same Age as Their
existence of plenty of fossils on whichAncestors
evolutionists are able to build imaginaryWhat we have investigated so far forms a clear
interpretations. Throughout history, more thanpicture: The scenario of "human evolution" is a
6,000 species of ape have lived, and most ofcomplete fiction. In order for such a family tree
them have become extinct. Today, only 120to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from
species live on the earth. These 6,000 or soape to man must have taken place and a fossil
species of ape, most of which are extinct,record of this process should be able to be found.
constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.In fact, however, there is a huge gap between
On the other hand, there are considerableapes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial
differences in the anatomic makeup of thecapacities, and such criteria as walking upright or
various human races. Furthermore, thebent sharply forward distinguish humans from
differences were even greater betweenapes.
prehistoric races, because as time has passed theAnother significant finding proving that there can
human races have to some extent mixed withbe no family-tree relationship among these
each other and become assimilated. Despite this,different species is that species that are
important differences are still seen betweenpresented as ancestors of others in fact lived
different population groups living in the worldconcurrently. If, as evolutionists claim,
today, such as, for example, Scandinavians,Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which,
African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, andin turn, turned into Homo erectus, the periods
many others.they lived in should necessarily have followed each
There is no evidence to show that the fossilsother. However, there is no such chronological
called hominid by evolutionary paleontologists doorder to be seen in the fossil record.
not actually belong to different species of ape orAccording to evolutionist estimates,
to vanished races of humans. To put it anotherAustralopithecus lived from 4 million up until 1
way, no example of a transitional form betweenmillion years ago. The creatures classified as
mankind and apes has been found.Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to
After these general explanations, let us nowhave lived until 1.7 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo
examine the human evolution hypothesis together.rudolfensis, which is said to have been more
The Imaginary Family Tree of Man"advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as
The Darwinist claim holds that modern manold as from 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is to say,
evolved from some kind of ape-like creature.Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older
During this alleged evolutionary process, which isthan Homo habilis, of which it is alleged to have
supposed to have started from 4 to 5 millionbeen the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age
years ago, it is claimed that there existed someof Homo erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8
"transitional forms" between modern man and hismillion years ago, which means that Homo erectus
ancestors. According to this completely imaginaryappeared on the earth in the same time frame as
scenario, the following four basic "categories" areits so-called ancestor, Homo habilis.
listed:Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that
1. Australopithecines (any of the various forms"there is evidence from East Africa for
belonging to the genus Australopithecus)late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that
2. Homo habiliswere contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then
3. Homo erectuswith H. erectus."(( Alan Walker, Science, vol 207,
4. Homo sapiens1980, p. 1103.))
Evolutionists call the genus to which the allegedLouis Leakey has found fossils of
ape-like ancestors of man belongedAustralopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus
"Australopithecus", which means "southern ape".almost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge
Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old typeregion of Tanzania, in the Bed II layer.
of ape that has become extinct, is found inThere is definitely no such family tree. Stephen
various different forms. Some of them are largerJay Gould, who was a paleontologist from Harvard
and strongly built (robust), while others are smallerUniversity, explained this deadlock faced by
and delicate (gracile).evolution, although he was an evolutionist himself:
Evolutionists classify the next stage of humanWhat has become of our ladder if there are three
evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man".coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the
According to the evolutionist claim, the living thingsrobust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none
in the Homo series are more developed thanclearly derived from another? Moreover, none of
Australopithecus, and not very much differentthe three display any evolutionary trends during
from modern man. The modern man of our day,their tenure on earth.
that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to haveWhen we move on from Homo erectus to Homo
formed at the latest stage of the evolution ofsapiens, we again see that there is no family tree
this genus Homo.to talk about. There is evidence showing that
Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy",Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens
which appear in the media from time to time andcontinued living up to 27,000 years and even as
are to be found in evolutionist publications andrecently as 10,000 years before our time. In the
textbooks, are included in one of the four groupsKow Swamp in Australia, some 13,000-year-old
listed above. Each of these groupings is alsoHomo erectus skulls have been found. On the
assumed to branch into species and sub-species,island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found
as the case may be.that are 27,000 years old.
Some suggested transitional forms of the past,The Secret History of Homo Sapiens
such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded fromThe most interesting and significant fact that
the imaginary human family tree after it wasnullifies the very basis of the imaginary family
realised that they were ordinary apes.tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly
By outlining the links in the chain asancient history of modern man.
"australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectusPaleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo
> Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that eachsapiens people who looked exactly like us were
of these types is the ancestor of the next.living as long as 1 million years ago.
However, recent findings by paleoanthropologistsIt was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist
have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilispaleoanthropologist, who discovered the first
and Homo erectus existed in different parts offindings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera
the world at the same time. Moreover, some ofregion around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey
those humans classified as Homo erectus probablyfound several fossils that belonged to the Middle
lived up until very recent times. In an article titledPleistocene and that were no different from
"Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potentialmodern man. However, the Middle Pleistocene
Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeastwas a million years ago. Since these discoveries
Asia", it was reported in the journal Science thatturned the evolutionary family tree upside down,
Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "meanthey were dismissed by some evolutionist
ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousandpaleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always
years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H.contended that his estimates were correct.
erectus overlapped in time with anatomicallyJust when this controversy was about to be
modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995
Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis andrevealed in a very remarkable way that the
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearlyhistory of Homo sapiens was much older than had
co-existed. This situation apparently indicates thebeen assumed. The fossil in question was
invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor ofuncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the
the other.Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish
Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research havepaleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid.
revealed that the fossil record does not suggestThe fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy
an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose.who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had
The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be thebeen 800,000 years since the child died. Discover
ancestors of humans, in fact belong either tomagazine covered the story in great detail in its
different human races, or else to species of ape.December 1997 issue.
Then which fossils are human and which ones areThis fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis
apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them toArsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina
be considered a transitional form? In order to findexcavation. Ferreras said:
the answers, let us have a closer look at eachWe expected something big, something large,
category.something inflated-you know, something primitive.
Australopithecus: An Ape SpeciesOur expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was
The first category, the genus Australopithecus,something like Turkana Boy. And what we found
means "southern ape", as we have said. It iswas a totally modern face.... To me this is most
assumed that these creatures first appeared inspectacular-these are the kinds of things that
Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1shake you. Finding something totally unexpected
million years ago. There are a number of differentlike that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is
species among the astralopithecines. Evolutionistsunexpected too, and it's okay. But the most
assume that the oldest Australopithecus species isspectacular thing is finding something you thought
A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, andbelonged to the present, in the past. It's like
then A. Robustus, which has relatively biggerfinding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran
bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers acceptDolina. That would be very surprising. We don't
it as a different species, and others as aexpect cassettes and tape recorders in the
sub-species of A. Robustus.Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000
All of the Australopithecus species are extinctyears ago-it's the same thing. We were very
apes that resemble the apes of today. Theirsurprised when we saw it.
cranial capacities are the same or smaller than theThe fossil highlighted the fact that the history of
chimpanzees of our day. There are projectingHomo sapiens had to be extended back to
parts in their hands and feet which they used to800,000 years ago. After recovering from the
climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, andinitial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the
their feet are built for grasping to hold ontofossil decided that it belonged to a different
branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51species, because according to the evolutionary
in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, malefamily tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000
Australopithecus is larger than the female. Manyyears ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary
other characteristics-such as the details in theirspecies called "Homo antecessor" and included the
skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharpAtapuerca skull under this classification.
molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their longA Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence thatThere have been many findings demonstrating
these creatures were no different from today'sthat Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than
ape.800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by
However, evolutionists claim that, althoughLouis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge.
australopithecines have the anatomy of apes,Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that
unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus
This claim that australopithecines walked upright isspecies had co-existed at the same time. What is
a view that has been held by paleoanthropologistseven more interesting was a structure Leakey
such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johansonfound in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found
for decades. Yet many scientists who havethe remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of
carried out a great deal of research on thethe event was that this construction, which is still
skeletal structures of australopithecines haveused in some parts of Africa, could only have
proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensivebeen built by Homo sapiens! So, according to
research done on various AustralopithecusLeakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis,
specimens by two world-renowned anatomistsHomo erectus and modern man must have
from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckermanco-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.
and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that theseThis discovery must surely invalidate the
creatures did not walk upright in human manner.evolutionary theory that claims that modern men
Having studied the bones of these fossils for aevolved from ape-like species such as
period of 15 years thanks to grants from theAustralopithecus.
British government, Lord Zuckerman and his teamFootprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million Years Old!
of five specialists reached the conclusion thatIndeed, some other discoveries trace the origins
australopithecines were only an ordinary apeof modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One
genus and were definitely not bipedal, althoughof these important finds is the footprints found in
Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These
Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who isfootprints were found in a layer that was
another evolutionist famous for his research oncalculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more
the subject, also likened the skeletal structure ofimportantly, they were no different from the
australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans.footprints that a contemporary man would leave.
Briefly, Australopithecines have no link withThe footprints found by Mary Leakey were later
humans and they are merely an extinct apeexamined by a number of famous
species.paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and
Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented asTim White. The results were the same. White
Humanwrote:
The great similarity between the skeletal andMake no mistake about it, ...They are like modern
cranial structures of australopithecines andhuman footprints. If one were left in the sand of
chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim thata California beach today, and a four-year old were
these creatures walked upright, have causedasked what it was, he would instantly say that
great difficulty for evolutionistsomebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able
paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, accordingto tell it from a hundred other prints on the
to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectusbeach, nor would you.(( Donald C. Johanson & M.
comes after Australopithecus. As the genus nameA. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New
Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is aYork: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.))
human species and its skeleton is straight. ItsAfter examining the footprints, Louis Robbins
cranial capacity is twice as large as that offrom the University of North California made the
Australopithecus. A direct transition fromfollowing comments:
Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape,The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a
to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton nohigher arch than I do-and the big toe is large and
different from modern man's, is out of thealigned with the second toe… The toes
question even according to evolutionist theory.grip the ground like human toes. You do not see
Therefore, "links"-that is, "transitional forms"-arethis in other animal forms.(( Science News, Vol
needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from115, 1979, p. 196-197.))
this necessity.Examinations of the morphological form of the
The classification of Homo habilis was put forwardfootprints showed time and again that they had
in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family of "fossilto be accepted as the prints of a human, and
hunters". According to the Leakeys, this newmoreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens).
species, which they classified as Homo habilis, hadRussell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints
a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability towrote:
walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools.A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made
Therefore, it could have been the ancestor ofthem... In all discernible morphological features, the
man.feet of the individuals that made the trails are
New fossils of the same species unearthed in theindistinguishable from those of modern humans.
late 1980s, were to completely change this view.Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed
Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C.their real owners. In reality, these footprints
Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-foundconsisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a
fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of
"skillful man", that is, man capable of using tools)an even younger one. They were certainly
should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, ormodern people like us.
"skillful southern ape", because Homo habilis had aThis situation put the Laetoli footprints at the
lot of characteristics in common with thecentre of discussions for years. Evolutionist
australopithecine apes. It had long arms, short legspaleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up
and an ape-like skeletal structure just likewith an explanation, as it was hard for them to
Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes wereaccept the fact that a modern man had been
suitable for climbing. Their jaw was very similar towalking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During
that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average cranialthe 1990s, the following "explanation" started to
capacity is also an indication of the fact that theytake shape: The evolutionists decided that these
were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which wasfootprints must have been left by an
presented as a different species by someAustralopithecus, because according to their
evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just liketheory, it was impossible for a Homo species to
all the other australopithecines.have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H.
Research carried out in the years since Wood andTuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990:
Brace's work has demonstrated that Homo habilisIn sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at
was indeed no different from Australopithecus.Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod
The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Timmodern humans. None of their features suggest
White showed that this species had a small cranialthat the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds
capacity, as well as long arms and short legsthan we are. If the G footprints were not known
which enabled them to climb trees just liketo be so old, we would readily conclude that there
modern apes do.had been made by a member of our genus,
The detailed analyses conducted by AmericanHomo... In any case, we should shelve the loose
anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated thatassumption that the Laetoli footprints were made
Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words,by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.
"human", at all, but rather unequivocally an "ape".To put it briefly, these footprints that were
Speaking of the analyses she made on the teethsupposed to be 3.6 million years old could not
of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectushave belonged to Australopithecus. The only
and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated thereason why the footprints were thought to have
following;been left by members of Australopithecus was
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimensthe 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the
satisfying these criteria, patterns of dentalfootprints were found. The prints were ascribed
development of gracile australopithecines andto Australopithecus purely on the assumption that
Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes.humans could not have lived so long ago.
Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals areThese interpretations of the Laetoli footprints
classified with humans.demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists
Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Woodsupport their theory not based on scientific
and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy,findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a
reached a similar conclusion through a totallytheory that is blindly defended no matter what,
different method. This method was based on thewith all new findings that cast the theory into
comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals indoubt being either ignored or distorted to support
the inner ear of humans and apes which providedthe theory.
for sustaining balance. Spoor, Wood andBriefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but
Zonneveld concluded that:a dogma kept alive despite science.
Among the fossil hominids the earliest species toThe Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution
demonstrate the modern human morphology isApart from the fossil record that we have dealt
Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canalwith so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between
dimensions in crania from southern Africamen and apes also invalidate the fiction of human
attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropusevolution. One of these has to do with the
resemble those of the extant great apes.manner of walking.
Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a HomoHuman beings walk upright on two feet. This is a
habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found outvery special form of locomotion not seen in any
that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior thanother mammalian species. Some other animals do
the australopithecines." This meant that the H.have a limited ability to move when they stand on
habilis specimen was even more ape-like than thetheir two hind feet. Animals like bears and
Australopithecus species. Thus they concludedmonkeys can move in this way only rarely, such
that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediateas when they want to reach a source of food,
between the morphologies seen in theand even then only for a short time. Normally,
australopithecines and H. erectus."their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all
This finding yielded two important results:fours.
1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did notWell, then, has bipedalism evolved from the
actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e. humans,quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists claim?
but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. apes.Of course not. Research has shown that the
2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus wereevolution of bipedalism never occurred, nor is it
creatures that walked stooped forward-that is topossible for it to have done so. First of all,
say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They havebipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The
no relation whatsoever to man.way in which monkeys move is much easier,
Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joinedfaster, and more efficient than man's bipedal
The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given tostride. Man can neither move by jumping from
a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. Thetree to tree without descending to the ground,
species supposedly represented by this fossil waslike a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km
designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossilper hour, like a cheetah. On the contrary, since
fragments were found in the vicinity of Lakeman walks on two feet, he moves much more
Rudolf in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologistsslowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is
accept that these fossils do not belong to aone of the most unprotected of all species in
distinct species, but that the creature called Homonature in terms of movement and defence.
rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from HomoAccording to the logic of the theory of evolution,
habilis.monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a
Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils,bipedal stride; humans should instead have
presented the skull designated "KNM-ER 1470",evolved to become quadrupedal.
which he said was 2.8 million years old, as theAnother impasse of the evolutionary claim is that
greatest discovery in the history of anthropology.bipedalism does not serve the "gradual
According to Leakey, this creature, which had adevelopment" model of Darwinism. This model,
small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecuswhich constitutes the basis of evolution, requires
together with a face similar to that ofthat there should be a "compound" stride
present-day humans, was the missing linkbetween bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However,
between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, afterwith the computerised research he conducted in
a short while, it was realised that the human-like1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin
face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequentlyCrompton, showed that such a "compound" stride
appeared on the covers of scientific journals andwas not possible. Crompton reached the following
popular science magazines was the result of theconclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or
incorrect assembly of the skull fragments, whichon all fours.(( Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den
may have been deliberate. Professor TimBaumen", Focus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.)).
Bromage, who conducts studies on human facialA type of stride between the two is impossible
anatomy, brought this to light by the help ofbecause it would involve excessive energy
computer simulations in 1992:consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being
When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed,cannot exist.
the face was fitted to the cranium in an almostThe immense gap between man and ape is not
vertical position, much like the flat faces oflimited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still
modern humans. But recent studies of anatomicalremain unexplained, such as brain capacity, the
relationships show that in life the face must haveability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an
jutted out considerably, creating an ape-likeevolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes the
aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus.following confession in relation to this matter:
The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. CroninFour of the most outstanding mysteries about
states the following on the matter:humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2)
... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattishwhy have they lost their fur? 3) why have they
naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecinedeveloped such large brains? 4) why did they
dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on thelearn to speak?
temporals), strong canine juga and large molarsThe orthodox answers to these questions are: 1)
(as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know';
primitive traits which ally the specimen with3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not yet
members of the taxon A. africanus.know'. The list of questions could be considerably
C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came tolengthened without affecting the monotony of the
the same conclusion. As a result of the analysesanswers.
he conducted on the jaw and tooth structure ofEvolution: An Unscientific Faith
skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of theLord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous
palate and the expansion of the area allotted toand respected scientists in the United Kingdom.
molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470For years, he studied the fossil record and
retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face andconducted many detailed investigations. He was
dentition".elevated to the peerage for his contributions to
Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist fromscience. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore,
Johns Hopkins University who has done as muchhis comments on evolution can not be regarded
research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, maintainsas ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research
that this creature should not be classified as aon the fossils included in the human evolution
member of Homo-i.e., as a human species-butscenario however, he reached the conclusion that
rather should be placed in the Australopithecusthere is no truth to the family tree in that is put
genus.forward.
In summary, classifications like Homo habilis orZuckerman also advanced an interesting concept
Homo rudolfensis which are presented asof the "spectrum of the sciences", ranging from
transitional links between the australopithecinesthose he considered scientific to those he
and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. It hasconsidered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's
been confirmed by many researchers today thatspectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending
these creatures are members of theon concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics.
Australopithecus series. All of their anatomicalAfter them come the biological sciences and then
features reveal that they are species of ape.the social sciences. At the far end of the
This fact has been further established by twospectrum, which is the part considered to be
evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood andmost "unscientific", are "extra-sensory
Mark Collard, whose research was published inperception"-concepts such as telepathy and the
1999 in Science magazine. Wood and Collard"sixth sense"-and finally "human evolution".
explained that the Homo habilis and HomoZuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:
rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, andWe then move right off the register of objective
that the fossils assigned to these categoriestruth into those fields of presumed biological
should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus:science, like extrasensory perception or the
More recently, fossil species have been assignedinterpretation of man's fossil history, where to the
to Homo on the basis of absolute brain size,faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent
inferences about language ability and handbeliever is sometimes able to believe several
function, and retrodictions about their ability tocontradictory things at the same time.
fashion stone tools. With only a few exceptions ,Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering
the definition and use of the genus within humanArcheology, an important publication on the origins
evolution, and the demarcation of Homo, haveof man, writes in that journal, "The search for
been treated as if they are unproblematic. But ...human ancestors gives more heat than light",
recent data, fresh interpretations of the existingquoting the confession of the famous evolutionist
evidence, and the limitations of thepaleoantropologist Tim White:
paleoanthropological record invalidate existingWe're all frustrated by "all the questions we
criteria for attributing taxa to Homo.haven't been able to answer."
...in practice fossil hominin species are assigned toLocke's article reviews the impasse of the theory
Homo on the basis of one or more out of fourof evolution on the origins of man and the
criteria. ... It is now evident, however, that none ofgroundlessness of the propaganda spread about
these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubiconthis subject:
is problematic because absolute cranial capacity isPerhaps no area of science is more contentious
of questionable biological significance. Likewise,than the search for human origins. Elite
there is compelling evidence that language functionpaleontologists disagree over even the most basic
cannot be reliably inferred from the grossoutlines of the human family tree. New branches
appearance of the brain, and that thegrow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in
language-related parts of the brain are not as wellthe face of new fossil finds.
localized as earlier studies had implied...The same fact was also recently accepted by
...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilisHenry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal
and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, the genus HomoNature. In his book In Search of Deep Time,
is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H.published in 1999, Gee points out that all the
rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for thoseevidence for human evolution "between about 10
who do not subscribe to the taxonomicand 5 million years ago-several thousand
subdivision of "early Homo") should be removedgenerations of living creatures-can be fitted into a
from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative,small box." He concludes that conventional theories
which is to transfer one or both of the taxa toof the origin and development of human beings
one of the existing early hominin genera, is notare "a completely human invention created after
without problems, but we recommend that, forthe fact, shaped to accord with human
the time being, both H. Habilis and H. Rudolfensisprejudices" and adds:
should be transferred to the genusTo take a line of fossils and claim that they
Australopithecus.represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis
The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroboratesthat can be tested, but an assertion that carries
the conclusion we have maintained here:"Primitivethe same validity as bedtime story-amusing,
human ancestors" do not exist in history.perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Creatures that are alleged to be so are actuallyWhat, then, is the reason that makes so many
apes that ought to be assigned to the genusscientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why
Australopithecus. The fossil record shows thathave they been trying so hard to keep their
there is no evolutionary link between thesetheory alive, at the cost of having to admit
extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species thatcountless conflicts and discarding the evidence
suddenly appears in the fossil record.they have found?
Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Human BeingsThe only answer is their being afraid of the fact
According to the fanciful scheme suggested bythey will have to face in case of abandoning the
evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homotheory of evolution. The fact they will have to
genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, thenface when they abandon evolution is that God
so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthalhas created man. However, considering the
man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally,presuppositions they have and the materialistic
Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens).philosophy they believe in, creation is an
However all these classifications are really onlyunacceptable concept for evolutionists.
variations and unique races in the human family.For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well
The difference between them is no greater thanas the world, by using the media with which they
the difference between an Inuit and an African orco-operate. If they cannot find the necessary
a pygmy and a European.fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of
Let us first examine Homo erectus, which isimaginary pictures or fictitious models and try to
referred to as the most primitive human species.give the impression that there indeed exist fossils
As the name implies, "Homo erectus" means "manverifying evolution. A part of mass media who
who walks upright". Evolutionists have had toshare their materialistic point of view also try to
separate these fossils from earlier ones by addingdeceive the public and instil the story of evolution
the qualification of "erectness", because all thein people's subconscious.
available Homo erectus fossils are straight to anNo matter how hard they try, the truth is
extent not observed in any of theevident: Man has come into existence not through
australopithecines or so-called Homo habilisan evolutionary process but by God's creation.
specimens. There is no difference between theTherefore, he is responsible to Him.
postcranial skeleton of modern man and that ofPlease see this book to know more about the
Homo erectus.origin of other living things:
The primary reason for evolutionists' definingDarwinism Refuted(Book):
Homo erectus as "primitive", is the cranial capacityPDF file format:
of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller thanWord file format:
the average modern man, and its thick eyebrowAnother useful Book & website in different
projections. However, there are many peoplelanguages:
living today in the world who have the sameEvolution Deceit(Book):
cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, forWebsite:
instance) and other races have protrudingDarwin's Imagination
eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).The person who put forward the theory of
It is a commonly agreed-upon fact thatevolution the way it is defended today, was an
differences in cranial capacity do not necessarilyamateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.
denote differences in intelligence or abilities.Darwin had never undergone a formal education in
Intelligence depends on the internal organisation ofbiology. He took only an amateur interest in the
the brain, rather than on its volume.subject of nature and living things. His interest
The fossils that have made Homo erectus knownspurred him to voluntarily join an expedition on
to the entire world are those of Peking man andboard a ship named H.M.S. Beagle that set out
Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realisedfrom England in 1832 and travelled around
that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Mandifferent regions of the world for five years.
consists of some elements made of plasterYoung Darwin was greatly impressed by various
whose originals have been lost, and Java Man isliving species, especially by certain finches that he
"composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bonesaw in the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the
that was found metres away from it with novariations in their beaks were caused by their
indication that these belonged to the sameadaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind,
creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossilshe supposed that the origin of life and species lay
found in Africa have gained such increasingin the concept of "adaptation to the environment".
importance. (It should also be noted that some ofDarwin opposed the fact that God created
the fossils said to be Homo erectus were includeddifferent living species separately, suggesting that
under a second species named "Homo ergaster"they rather came from a common ancestor and
by some evolutionists. There is disagreementbecame differentiated from each other as a
among the experts on this issue. We will treat allresult of natural conditions.
these fossils under the classification of HomoDarwin's hypothesis was not based on any
erectus)scientific discovery or experiment; in time
The most famous of the Homo erectushowever he turned it into a pretentious theory
specimens found in Africa is the fossil ofwith the support and encouragement he received
"Narikotome Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy"from the famous materialist biologists of his time.
which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. ItThe idea was that the individuals that adapted to
is confirmed that the fossil was that of athe habitat in the best way transferred their
12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83qualities to subsequent generations; these
meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletaladvantageous qualities accumulated in time and
structure of the fossil is no different from that oftransformed the individual into a species totally
modern man. The American paleoanthropologistdifferent from its ancestors. (The origin of these
Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the"advantageous qualities" was unknown at the
average pathologist could tell the differencetime.) According to Darwin, man was the most
between the fossil skeleton and that of a moderndeveloped outcome of this imaginary mechanism.
human."(( Boyce Rensberger, The WashingtonDarwin called this process "evolution by natural
Post, November 19, 1984.))selection". He thought he had found the "origin of
Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that hespecies": the origin of one species was another
laughed when he saw it because "it looked sospecies. He published these views in his book titled
much like a Neanderthal."(( Ibid. )) As we will see inThe Origin of Species, By Means of Natural
the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modernSelection in 1859.
human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also aDarwin was well aware that his theory faced lots
modern human race.of problems. He confessed these in his book in
Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states thatthe chapter "Difficulties of the Theory". These
the differences between Homo erectus anddifficulties primarily consisted of the fossil record,
modern man are no more than racial variance:complex organs of living things that could not
One would also see differences in the shape ofpossibly be explained by coincidence (e.g. the eye),
the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face,and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped
the robustness of the brows and so on. Thesethat these difficulties would be overcome by new
differences are probably no more pronounceddiscoveries; yet this did not stop him from coming
than we see today between the separateup with a number of very inadequate explanations
geographical races of modern humans. Suchfor some. The American physicist Lipson made
biological variation arises when populations arethe following comment on the "difficulties" of
geographically separated from each other forDarwin:
significant lengths of time.On reading The Origin of Species, I found that
Professor William Laughlin from the University ofDarwin was much less sure himself than he is
Connecticut made extensive anatomicaloften represented to be; the chapter entitled
examinations of Inuits and the people living on the"Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows
Aleut islands, and noticed that these people wereconsiderable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was
extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. Theparticularly intrigued by his comments on how the
conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all theseeye would have arisen. (( H. S. Lipson, "A
distinct races were in fact different races ofPhysicist's View of Darwin's Theory", Evolution
Homo sapiens (modern man).Trends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.))
When we consider the vast differences that existWhile developing his theory, Darwin was
between remote groups such as Eskimos andimpressed by many evolutionist biologists
Bushmen, who are known to belong to the singlepreceding him, and primarily by the French
species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable tobiologist, Lamarck. According to Lamarck, living
conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen]creatures passed the traits they acquired during
belongs within this same diverse species.their lifetime from one generation to the next and
It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientificthus evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from
community that Homo erectus is a superfluousantelope-like animals by extending their necks
taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homofurther and further from generation to generation
erectus class are actually not so different fromas they tried to reach higher and higher branches
Homo sapiens as to be considered a differentfor food. Darwin thus employed the thesis of
species. In American Scientist, the discussions"passing the acquired traits" proposed by Lamarck
over this issue and the result of a conferenceas the factor that made living beings evolve.
held on the subject in 2000 were summarised inBut both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken
this way:because in their day, life could only be studied with
Most of the participants at the Senckenbergvery primitive technology and at a very
conference got drawn into a flaming debate overinadequate level. Scientific fields such as genetics
the taxonomic status of Homo erectus startedand biochemistry did not exist even in name. Their
by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan,theories therefore had to depend entirely on their
Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra andpowers of imagination.
their colleagues. They argued forcefully that HomoWhile the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated,
erectus had no validity as a species and should bean Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor
eliminated altogether. All members of the genusMendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865.
Homo, from about 2 million years ago to theNot much heard of until the end of the century,
present, were one highly variable, widely spreadMendel's discovery gained great importance in the
species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks orearly 1900s. This was the birth of the science of
subdivisions. The subject of the conference,genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of the
Homo erectus didn't exist.genes and the chromosomes was discovered.
The conclusion reached by the scientistsThe discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of
defending the abovementioned thesis can bethe DNA molecule that incorporates genetic
summarised as "Homo erectus is not a differentinformation threw the theory of evolution into a
species from Homo sapiens, but rather a racegreat crisis. The reason was the incredible
within Homo sapiens".complexity of life and the invalidity of the
On the other hand, there is a huge gap betweenevolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin.
Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes thatThese developments ought to have resulted in
preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution"Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin of
scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, andhistory. However, it was not, because certain
Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first mencircles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating
appeared in the fossil record suddenly and withoutthe theory to a scientific platform. These efforts
any prior evolutionary history. This is a most cleargain meaning only if we realise that behind the
indication of their being created.theory lay ideological intentions rather than
Yet, admitting this fact is totally against thescientific concerns.