Spend an exotic holiday in Asia

• The Origin of Man
• Marathon Training: How...
• Las Vegas Vacationing Tips
• Holidays - Out & About...

The Origin of Man Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of features. On the other hand, with similar how living things, including himself, came drawing methods, they humanise apes like into existence, will encounter two distinct Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this explanations. The first is "creation," the method, they seek to "approximate" apes and idea that all living things came into human beings and close the gap between these existence as a consequence of an intelligent two  distinct  living  classes. design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living Neanderthals things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and Neanderthals were human beings who suddenly natural  processes. appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing For a century and a half now, the theory of with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 evolution has received extensive support from years ago. Their only difference from modern the scientific community. The science of man is that their skeletons are more robust biology is defined in terms of evolutionist and  their  cranial capacity slightly bigger. concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which majority of people assume the evolutionist is admitted by almost everybody today. explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, Evolutionists have tried very hard to present they believe evolution to be a theory them as a "primitive species", yet all the supported by the observational findings of findings indicate that they were no different science, while creation is thought to be a from a "robust" man walking on the street belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, today. A prominent authority on the subject, however, scientific findings do not support Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New the theory of evolution. Findings from the Mexico  University  writes: last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal theory. Many branches of science, such as remains with those of modern humans have paleontology, biochemistry, population shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, anatomy that conclusively indicates indicate that natural processes and locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or coincidental effects cannot explain life, as linguistic abilities inferior to those of the  theory  of  evolution  proposes. modern  humans. THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern Darwin put forward his claim that human man and call him "Homo sapiens beings and apes descended from a common neandertalensis". The findings testify that ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned published in 1871. From that time until now, musical instruments, and had cultural the followers of Darwin's path have tried to affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens support this claim. But despite all the living during the same period. To put it research that has been carried out, the claim precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human of "human evolution" has not been backed up race  that  simply  disappeared  in  time. by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly  in  the  fossil  field. Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and  Cro-Magnon  Man The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before claim of human evolution is supported by a contemporary man in the imaginary great deal of firm evidence. The reason for evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists this incorrect opinion is that the subject is do not have much to say about these fossils, frequently discussed in the media and as there are only very minor differences presented as a proven fact. But real experts between them and modern human beings. Some on the subject are aware that there is no researchers even state that representatives scientific foundation for the claim of human of this race are still living today, and evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard point to native Australians as an example. University  paleoanthropologist,  says: Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have thick protruding If you brought in a smart scientist from eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular another discipline and showed him the meagre structure, and a slightly smaller cranial evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget capacity. it; there isn't enough to go on."(( Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere The group characterised as Homo Books  Limited,  Barcelona,  1982,  p.  43.)) heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as archaic Homo sapiens. And William Fix, the author of an important The reason why two different terms are used book on the subject of paleoanthropology, to define the same human racial type is the makes  this  comment: disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo As we have seen, there are numerous heidelbergensis classification suggest that scientists and popularizers today who have people who were anatomically very similar to the temerity to tell us that there is 'no modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even doubt' how man originated. If only they had 740,000 years ago, first in England and then the evidence...(( William R. Fix, The Bone in  Spain. Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York,  1984,  pp.  150-153.)) It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped This claim of evolution, which "lacks any cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of evidence," starts the human family tree with 1,600 cc is above the average for a group of apes that have been claimed to contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow constitute a distinct genus, projections and a bony protrusion at the back Australopithecus. According to the claim, that is characteristic of both Neanderthal Australopithecus gradually began to walk man  and  Homo  erectus. upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But European race, the structure and volume of the fossil record does not support this Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of those of some races living in Africa and the intermediate forms exist, there is an tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it impassable barrier between the fossil remains is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has African race. Some other paleoanthropological been revealed that the species which are finds have shown that the Cro-Magnon and the portrayed as each other's ancestors are Neanderthal races intermixed and laid the actually contemporary species that lived in foundations  for  the  races  of  our  day. the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of As a result, none of these human beings were evolution in the twentieth century, contends "primitive species". They were different in his book One Long Argument that human beings who lived in earlier times and "particularly historical [puzzles] such as either assimilated and mixed with other the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are races, or became extinct and disappeared from extremely difficult and may even resist a history. final, satisfying explanation."(( "Could science be brought to an end by scientists' Species Living in the Same Age as Their belief that they have final answers or by Ancestors society's reluctance to pay the bills?" Scientific  American, December 1992, p. 20.)) What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture: The scenario of "human But what is the basis for the human evolution evolution" is a complete fiction. In order thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is for such a family tree to represent the the existence of plenty of fossils on which truth, a gradual evolution from ape to man evolutionists are able to build imaginary must have taken place and a fossil record of interpretations. Throughout history, more this process should be able to be found. In than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and fact, however, there is a huge gap between most of them have become extinct. Today, only apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or capacities, and such criteria as walking so species of ape, most of which are extinct, upright or bent sharply forward distinguish constitute a rich resource for the humans  from  apes. evolutionists. Another significant finding proving that On the other hand, there are considerable there can be no family-tree relationship differences in the anatomic makeup of the among these different species is that species various human races. Furthermore, the that are presented as ancestors of others in differences were even greater between fact lived concurrently. If, as evolutionists prehistoric races, because as time has passed claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo the human races have to some extent mixed habilis, which, in turn, turned into Homo with each other and become assimilated. erectus, the periods they lived in should Despite this, important differences are still necessarily have followed each other. seen between different population groups However, there is no such chronological order living in the world today, such as, for to  be  seen  in  the  fossil  record. example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits,  native Australians, and many others. According to evolutionist estimates, Australopithecus lived from 4 million up There is no evidence to show that the fossils until 1 million years ago. The creatures called hominid by evolutionary classified as Homo habilis, on the other paleontologists do not actually belong to hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7 to different species of ape or to vanished races 1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, of humans. To put it another way, no example which is said to have been more "advanced" of a transitional form between mankind and than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as apes  has  been  found. from 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million After these general explanations, let us now years older than Homo habilis, of which it is examine the human evolution hypothesis alleged to have been the "ancestor". On the together. other hand, the age of Homo erectus goes as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which The  Imaginary  Family  Tree  of  Man means that Homo erectus appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called The Darwinist claim holds that modern man ancestor,  Homo  habilis. evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 that "there is evidence from East Africa for million years ago, it is claimed that there late-surviving small Australopithecus existed some "transitional forms" between individuals that were contemporaneous first modern man and his ancestors. According to with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus."(( this completely imaginary scenario, the Alan Walker, Science, vol 207, 1980, p. following four basic "categories" are listed: 1103.)) 1. Australopithecines (any of the various Louis Leakey has found fossils of forms belonging to the genus Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo Australopithecus) erectus almost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, in the Bed 2.  Homo  habilis II  layer. 3.  Homo  erectus There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, who was a paleontologist 4.  Homo  sapiens from Harvard University, explained this deadlock faced by evolution, although he was Evolutionists call the genus to which the an  evolutionist  himself: alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged "Australopithecus", which means "southern What has become of our ladder if there are ape". Australopithecus, which is nothing but three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. an old type of ape that has become extinct, africanus, the robust australopithecines, and is found in various different forms. Some of H. habilis), none clearly derived from them are larger and strongly built (robust), another? Moreover, none of the three display while others are smaller and delicate any evolutionary trends during their tenure (gracile). on  earth. Evolutionists classify the next stage of When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo human evolution as the genus Homo, that is sapiens, we again see that there is no family "man". According to the evolutionist claim, tree to talk about. There is evidence showing the living things in the Homo series are more that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens developed than Australopithecus, and not very continued living up to 27,000 years and even much different from modern man. The modern as recently as 10,000 years before our time. man of our day, that is, the species Homo In the Kow Swamp in Australia, some sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest 13,000-year-old Homo erectus skulls have been stage  of  the  evolution of this genus Homo. found. On the island of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old. Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time The  Secret  History  of  Homo  Sapiens to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in The most interesting and significant fact one of the four groups listed above. Each of that nullifies the very basis of the these groupings is also assumed to branch imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory into species and sub-species, as the case may is the unexpectedly ancient history of modern be. man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly Some suggested transitional forms of the like us were living as long as 1 million past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be years  ago. excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist apes. paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the By outlining the links in the chain as Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo Leakey found several fossils that belonged to erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists the Middle Pleistocene and that were no imply that each of these types is the different from modern man. However, the ancestor of the next. However, recent Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago. findings by paleoanthropologists have Since these discoveries turned the revealed that australopithecines, Homo evolutionary family tree upside down, they habilis and Homo erectus existed in different were dismissed by some evolutionist parts of the world at the same time. paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always Moreover, some of those humans classified as contended  that  his  estimates were correct. Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Just when this controversy was about to be Homo erectus of Java: Potential forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that Southeast Asia", it was reported in the the history of Homo sapiens was much older journal Science that Homo erectus fossils than had been assumed. The fossil in question found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this the Atapuerca region of Spain by three "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus Spanish paleoanthropologists from the overlapped in time with anatomically modern University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the humans  (H.  sapiens)  in  Southeast  Asia" face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis 800,000 years since the child died. Discover and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also magazine covered the story in great detail in clearly co-existed. This situation apparently its  December  1997  issue. indicates the invalidity of the claim that one  is  the  ancestor  of  the  other. This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Intrinsically, all findings and scientific Dolina  excavation.  Ferreras  said: research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as We expected something big, something large, evolutionists propose. The fossils, which something inflated-you know, something evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of primitive. Our expectation of an humans, in fact belong either to different 800,000-year-old boy was something like human  races,  or  else  to  species  of ape. Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most Then which fossils are human and which ones spectacular-these are the kinds of things are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of that shake you. Finding something totally them to be considered a transitional form? In unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; order to find the answers, let us have a finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's closer  look  at  each  category. okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the Australopithecus:  An  Ape  Species present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran The first category, the genus Dolina. That would be very surprising. We Australopithecus, means "southern ape", as we don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in have said. It is assumed that these creatures the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face first appeared in Africa about 4 million 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We years ago, and lived until 1 million years were  very  surprised  when  we  saw  it. ago. There are a number of different species among the astralopithecines. Evolutionists The fossil highlighted the fact that the assume that the oldest Australopithecus history of Homo sapiens had to be extended species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. back to 800,000 years ago. After recovering Africanus, and then A. Robustus, which has from the initial shock, the evolutionists who relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, discovered the fossil decided that it some researchers accept it as a different belonged to a different species, because species, and others as a sub-species of A. according to the evolutionary family tree, Robustus. Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species All of the Australopithecus species are called "Homo antecessor" and included the extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Atapuerca  skull  under  this classification. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. A  Hut  1.7  Million  Years  Old There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just There have been many findings demonstrating like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier built for grasping to hold onto branches. than 800,000 years. One of them is a They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s just like today's chimpanzees, male in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Australopithecus is larger than the female. Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo Many other characteristics-such as the Habilis and Homo erectus species had details in their skulls, the closeness of co-existed at the same time. What is even their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their more interesting was a structure Leakey found mandibular structure, their long arms, and in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found their short legs-constitute evidence that the remains of a stone hut. The unusual these creatures were no different from aspect of the event was that this today's  ape. construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built However, evolutionists claim that, although by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans. Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years This claim that australopithecines walked ago. This discovery must surely invalidate upright is a view that has been held by the evolutionary theory that claims that paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey modern men evolved from ape-like species such and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many as  Australopithecus. scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of Footprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million Years australopithecines have proved the invalidity Old! of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two Indeed, some other discoveries trace the world-renowned anatomists from England and origins of modern man back to 1.7 million the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. years ago. One of these important finds is Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by did not walk upright in human manner. Having Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were studied the bones of these fossils for a found in a layer that was calculated to be period of 15 years thanks to grants from the 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, British government, Lord Zuckerman and his they were no different from the footprints team of five specialists reached the that  a  contemporary  man  would  leave. conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape genus and were definitely not The footprints found by Mary Leakey were bipedal, although Zuckerman is an later examined by a number of famous evolutionist himself. Correspondingly, paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson Charles E. Oxnard, who is another and Tim White. The results were the same. evolutionist famous for his research on the White  wrote: subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern Make no mistake about it, ...They are like orang-utans. modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with four-year old were asked what it was, he humans and they are merely an extinct ape would instantly say that somebody had walked species. there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as you.(( Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: Human The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon &  Schuster,  1981,  p.  250.)) The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim from the University of North California made that these creatures walked upright, have the  following  comments: caused great difficulty for evolutionist paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, The arch is raised-the smaller individual had according to the imaginary evolution scheme, a higher arch than I do-and the big toe is Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As large and aligned with the second toe… the genus name Homo (meaning "man") implies, The toes grip the ground like human toes. You Homo erectus is a human species and its do not see this in other animal forms.(( skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is Science  News,  Vol  115, 1979, p. 196-197.)) twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, Examinations of the morphological form of the which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo footprints showed time and again that they erectus, which has a skeleton no different had to be accepted as the prints of a human, from modern man's, is out of the question and moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens). even according to evolutionist theory. Russell Tuttle, who also examined the Therefore, "links"-that is, "transitional footprints  wrote: forms"-are needed. The concept of Homo habilis  arose  from  this  necessity. A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological The classification of Homo habilis was put features, the feet of the individuals that forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family made the trails are indistinguishable from of "fossil hunters". According to the those  of  modern  humans. Leakeys, this new species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively Impartial examinations of the footprints large cranial capacity, the ability to walk revealed their real owners. In reality, these upright and to use stone and wooden tools. footprints consisted of 20 fossilised Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and man. 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were  certainly  modern  people  like  us. New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s, were to completely change This situation put the Laetoli footprints at this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard the centre of discussions for years. Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis tried to come up with an explanation, as it (which means "skillful man", that is, man was hard for them to accept the fact that a capable of using tools) should be classified modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful million years ago. During the 1990s, the southern ape", because Homo habilis had a lot following "explanation" started to take of characteristics in common with the shape: The evolutionists decided that these australopithecine apes. It had long arms, footprints must have been left by an short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure Australopithecus, because according to their just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and theory, it was impossible for a Homo species toes were suitable for climbing. Their jaw to have existed 3.6 years ago. However, was very similar to that of today's apes. Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an Their 600 cc average cranial capacity is also article  in  1990: an indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint presented as a different species by some traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of evolutionists, was in reality an ape species habitually unshod modern humans. None of just  like  all the other australopithecines. their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we Research carried out in the years since Wood are. If the G footprints were not known to be and Brace's work has demonstrated that Homo so old, we would readily conclude that there habilis was indeed no different from had been made by a member of our genus, Australopithecus. The skull and skeletal Homo... In any case, we should shelve the fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints this species had a small cranial capacity, as were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus well as long arms and short legs which afarensis. enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes  do. To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could The detailed analyses conducted by American not have belonged to Australopithecus. The anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated only reason why the footprints were thought that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other to have been left by members of words, "human", at all, but rather Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old unequivocally an "ape". Speaking of the volcanic layer in which the footprints were analyses she made on the teeth of found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus Australopithecus purely on the assumption and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the that humans could not have lived so long ago. following; These interpretations of the Laetoli Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens footprints demonstrate one important fact. satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental Evolutionists support their theory not based development of gracile australopithecines and on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Homo Habilis remain classified with African Here we have a theory that is blindly apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals defended no matter what, with all new are  classified  with  humans. findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard the  theory. Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through Briefly, the theory of evolution is not a totally different method. This method was science, but a dogma kept alive despite based on the comparative analysis of the science. semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining The  Bipedalism  Impasse  of  Evolution balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that: Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridgeable anatomical Among the fossil hominids the earliest gaps between men and apes also invalidate the species to demonstrate the modern human fiction of human evolution. One of these has morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the to  do  with  the  manner  of  walking. semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Human beings walk upright on two feet. This Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble is a very special form of locomotion not seen those  of  the  extant  great  apes. in any other mammalian species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo when they stand on their two hind feet. habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found Animals like bears and monkeys can move in out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal this way only rarely, such as when they want behavior than the australopithecines." This to reach a source of food, and even then only meant that the H. habilis specimen was even for a short time. Normally, their skeletons more ape-like than the Australopithecus lean  forward  and  they  walk  on all fours. species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the the morphologies seen in the quadrupedal gait of apes, as evolutionists australopithecines  and  H.  erectus." claim? This  finding  yielded two important results: Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism never occurred, nor 1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did is it possible for it to have done so. First not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e. of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. advantage. The way in which monkeys move is apes. much easier, faster, and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can neither move by 2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus jumping from tree to tree without descending were creatures that walked stooped to the ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at forward-that is to say, they had the skeleton a speed of 125 km per hour, like a cheetah. of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever On the contrary, since man walks on two feet, to  man. he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most Homo  Rudolfensis:  The  Face  Wrongly Joined unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According to the The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given logic of the theory of evolution, monkeys to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal The species supposedly represented by this stride; humans should instead have evolved to fossil was designated Homo rudolfensis become  quadrupedal. because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most of Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is the paleoanthropologists accept that these that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual fossils do not belong to a distinct species, development" model of Darwinism. This model, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis which constitutes the basis of evolution, is in fact indistinguishable from Homo requires that there should be a "compound" habilis. stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerised research he Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, conducted in 1996, the English presented the skull designated "KNM-ER 1470", paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, showed which he said was 2.8 million years old, as that such a "compound" stride was not the greatest discovery in the history of possible. Crompton reached the following anthropology. According to Leakey, this conclusion: A living being can either walk creature, which had a small cranial capacity upright, or on all fours.(( Ruth Henke, like that of Australopithecus together with a "Aufrecht aus den Baumen", Focus, Vol 39, face similar to that of present-day humans, 1996,  p.  178.)). was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a short while, it was A type of stride between the two is realised that the human-like face of the impossible because it would involve excessive KNM-ER 1470 skull, which frequently appeared energy consumption. This is why a on the covers of scientific journals and half-bipedal  being  cannot  exist. popular science magazines was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull The immense gap between man and ape is not fragments, which may have been deliberate. limited solely to bipedalism. Many other Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts studies issues still remain unexplained, such as on human facial anatomy, brought this to brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so light by the help of computer simulations in on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist 1992: paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession  in  relation  to  this  matter: When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the Four of the most outstanding mysteries about cranium in an almost vertical position, much humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? like the flat faces of modern humans. But 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have recent studies of anatomical relationships they developed such large brains? 4) why did show that in life the face must have jutted they  learn  to  speak? out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of The orthodox answers to these questions are: Australopithecus. 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. yet know'. The list of questions could be Cronin  states  the  following on the matter: considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony  of  the  answers. ... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling Evolution:  An  Unscientific  Faith australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most canine juga and large molars (as indicated by famous and respected scientists in the United remaining roots) are all relatively primitive Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil traits which ally the specimen with members record and conducted many detailed of  the  taxon  A.  africanus. investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his to the same conclusion. As a result of the comments on evolution can not be regarded as analyses he conducted on the jaw and tooth ignorant or prejudiced. After years of structure of skull 1470, he reported that research on the fossils included in the human "from the size of the palate and the evolution scenario however, he reached the expansion of the area allotted to molar conclusion that there is no truth to the roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained family  tree  in  that  is  put  forward. a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition". Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of the sciences", Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist ranging from those he considered scientific from Johns Hopkins University who has done as to those he considered unscientific. much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most maintains that this creature should not be "scientific"-that is, depending on concrete classified as a member of Homo-i.e., as a data-fields are chemistry and physics. After human species-but rather should be placed in them come the biological sciences and then the  Australopithecus  genus. the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be In summary, classifications like Homo habilis most "unscientific", are "extra-sensory or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as perception"-concepts such as telepathy and transitional links between the the "sixth sense"-and finally "human australopithecines and Homo erectus are evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by as  follows: many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. We then move right off the register of All of their anatomical features reveal that objective truth into those fields of presumed they  are  species  of  ape. biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's This fact has been further established by two fossil history, where to the faithful evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood anything is possible - and where the ardent and Mark Collard, whose research was believer is sometimes able to believe several published in 1999 in Science magazine. Wood contradictory  things  at  the  same  time. and Collard explained that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering imaginary, and that the fossils assigned to Archeology, an important publication on the these categories should be attributed to the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The genus  Australopithecus: search for human ancestors gives more heat than light", quoting the confession of the More recently, fossil species have been famous evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim assigned to Homo on the basis of absolute White: brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and retrodictions about We're all frustrated by "all the questions we their ability to fashion stone tools. With haven't  been  able  to  answer." only a few exceptions , the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, and Locke's article reviews the impasse of the the demarcation of Homo, have been treated as theory of evolution on the origins of man and if they are unproblematic. But ... recent the groundlessness of the propaganda spread data, fresh interpretations of the existing about  this  subject: evidence, and the limitations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate Perhaps no area of science is more existing criteria for attributing taxa to contentious than the search for human Homo. origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human ...in practice fossil hominin species are family tree. New branches grow amid great assigned to Homo on the basis of one or more fanfare, only to wither and die in the face out of four criteria. ... It is now evident, of  new  fossil  finds. however, that none of these criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is The same fact was also recently accepted by problematic because absolute cranial capacity Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known is of questionable biological significance. journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Likewise, there is compelling evidence that Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that language function cannot be reliably inferred all the evidence for human evolution "between from the gross appearance of the brain, and about 10 and 5 million years ago-several that the language-related parts of the brain thousand generations of living creatures-can are not as well localized as earlier studies be fitted into a small box." He concludes had  implied... that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely ...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. human invention created after the fact, habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, shaped to accord with human prejudices" and the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. adds: habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to To take a line of fossils and claim that they the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") represent a lineage is not a scientific should be removed from Homo. The obvious hypothesis that can be tested, but an taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer assertion that carries the same validity as one or both of the taxa to one of the bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even existing early hominin genera, is not without instructive,  but  not  scientific. problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. Habilis and H. Rudolfensis What, then, is the reason that makes so many should be transferred to the genus scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why Australopithecus. have they been trying so hard to keep their theory alive, at the cost of having to admit The conclusion of Wood and Collard countless conflicts and discarding the corroborates the conclusion we have evidence  they  have  found? maintained here:"Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history. Creatures that are The only answer is their being afraid of the alleged to be so are actually apes that ought fact they will have to face in case of to be assigned to the genus Australopithecus. abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact The fossil record shows that there is no they will have to face when they abandon evolutionary link between these extinct apes evolution is that God has created man. and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly However, considering the presuppositions they appears  in  the  fossil  record. have and the materialistic philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable Homo  Erectus  and  Thereafter:  Human Beings concept  for  evolutionists. According to the fanciful scheme suggested by For this reason, they deceive themselves, as evolutionists, the internal evolution of the well as the world, by using the media with Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, which they co-operate. If they cannot find then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and the necessary fossils, they "fabricate" them Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens either in the form of imaginary pictures or neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon fictitious models and try to give the man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these impression that there indeed exist fossils classifications are really only variations verifying evolution. A part of mass media who and unique races in the human family. The share their materialistic point of view also difference between them is no greater than try to deceive the public and instil the the difference between an Inuit and an story  of evolution in people's subconscious. African  or  a  pygmy  and  a  European. No matter how hard they try, the truth is Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is evident: Man has come into existence not referred to as the most primitive human through an evolutionary process but by God's species. As the name implies, "Homo erectus" creation. Therefore, he is responsible to means "man who walks upright". Evolutionists Him. have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of Please see this book to know more about the "erectness", because all the available Homo origin  of  other  living  things: erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or Darwinism  Refuted(Book): so-called Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton PDF  file  format: of  modern  man  and  that  of  Homo erectus. Word  file  format: The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the Another useful Book & website in different cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), languages: which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, Evolution  Deceit(Book): there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Website: Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Darwin's  Imagination Australians,  for  instance). The person who put forward the theory of It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that evolution the way it is defended today, was differences in cranial capacity do not an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert necessarily denote differences in Darwin. intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the Darwin had never undergone a formal education brain,  rather  than  on  its  volume. in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. The fossils that have made Homo erectus known His interest spurred him to voluntarily join to the entire world are those of Peking man an expedition on board a ship named H.M.S. and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was Beagle that set out from England in 1832 and realised that these two fossils are not travelled around different regions of the reliable. Peking Man consists of some world for five years. Young Darwin was elements made of plaster whose originals have greatly impressed by various living species, been lost, and Java Man is "composed" of a especially by certain finches that he saw in skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the found metres away from it with no indication variations in their beaks were caused by that these belonged to the same creature. their adaptation to their habitat. With this This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in idea in mind, he supposed that the origin of Africa have gained such increasing life and species lay in the concept of importance. (It should also be noted that "adaptation to the environment". Darwin some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus opposed the fact that God created different were included under a second species named living species separately, suggesting that "Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There they rather came from a common ancestor and is disagreement among the experts on this became differentiated from each other as a issue. We will treat all these fossils under result  of  natural  conditions. the  classification  of  Homo  erectus) Darwin's hypothesis was not based on any The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens scientific discovery or experiment; in time found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome however he turned it into a pretentious Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was theory with the support and encouragement he found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is received from the famous materialist confirmed that the fossil was that of a biologists of his time. The idea was that the 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 individuals that adapted to the habitat in meters tall in adolescence. The upright the best way transferred their qualities to skeletal structure of the fossil is no subsequent generations; these advantageous different from that of modern man. The qualities accumulated in time and transformed American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said the individual into a species totally that he doubted that "the average pathologist different from its ancestors. (The origin of could tell the difference between the fossil these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at skeleton and that of a modern human."(( Boyce the time.) According to Darwin, man was the Rensberger, The Washington Post, November 19, most developed outcome of this imaginary 1984.)) mechanism. Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he Darwin called this process "evolution by laughed when he saw it because "it looked so natural selection". He thought he had found much like a Neanderthal."(( Ibid. )) As we the "origin of species": the origin of one will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals species was another species. He published are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo these views in his book titled The Origin of erectus  is  also  a  modern  human  race. Species, By Means of Natural Selection in 1859. Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and Darwin was well aware that his theory faced modern  man are no more than racial variance: lots of problems. He confessed these in his book in the chapter "Difficulties of the One would also see differences in the shape Theory". These difficulties primarily of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of consisted of the fossil record, complex the face, the robustness of the brows and so organs of living things that could not on. These differences are probably no more possibly be explained by coincidence (e.g. pronounced than we see today between the the eye), and the instincts of living beings. separate geographical races of modern humans. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be Such biological variation arises when overcome by new discoveries; yet this did not populations are geographically separated from stop him from coming up with a number of very each  other  for significant lengths of time. inadequate explanations for some. The American physicist Lipson made the following Professor William Laughlin from the comment  on  the  "difficulties"  of  Darwin: University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the On reading The Origin of Species, I found people living on the Aleut islands, and that Darwin was much less sure himself than noticed that these people were he is often represented to be; the chapter extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a these distinct races were in fact different physicist, I was particularly intrigued by races  of  Homo  sapiens  (modern  man). his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (( H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View When we consider the vast differences that of Darwin's Theory", Evolution Trends in exist between remote groups such as Eskimos Plants,  Vol  2,  No.  1,  1988,  p.  6.)) and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems While developing his theory, Darwin was justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an impressed by many evolutionist biologists erectus specimen] belongs within this same preceding him, and primarily by the French diverse  species. biologist, Lamarck. According to Lamarck, living creatures passed the traits they It is now a more pronounced fact in the acquired during their lifetime from one scientific community that Homo erectus is a generation to the next and thus evolved. For superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like to the Homo erectus class are actually not so animals by extending their necks further and different from Homo sapiens as to be further from generation to generation as they considered a different species. In American tried to reach higher and higher branches for Scientist, the discussions over this issue food. Darwin thus employed the thesis of and the result of a conference held on the "passing the acquired traits" proposed by subject  in 2000 were summarised in this way: Lamarck as the factor that made living beings evolve. Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate But both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus because in their day, life could only be started by Milford Wolpoff of the University studied with very primitive technology and at of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of a very inadequate level. Scientific fields Canberra and their colleagues. They argued such as genetics and biochemistry did not forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity exist even in name. Their theories therefore as a species and should be eliminated had to depend entirely on their powers of altogether. All members of the genus Homo, imagination. from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely While the echoes of Darwin's book spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of conference,  Homo  erectus  didn't  exist. inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery The conclusion reached by the scientists gained great importance in the early 1900s. defending the abovementioned thesis can be This was the birth of the science of summarised as "Homo erectus is not a genetics. Somewhat later, the structure of different species from Homo sapiens, but the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. rather  a  race  within  Homo  sapiens". The discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic On the other hand, there is a huge gap information threw the theory of evolution between Homo erectus, a human race, and the into a great crisis. The reason was the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human incredible complexity of life and the evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This means proposed  by  Darwin. that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior These developments ought to have resulted in evolutionary history. This is a most clear Darwin's theory being banished to the dustbin indication  of  their  being  created. of history. However, it was not, because certain circles insisted on revising, Yet, admitting this fact is totally against renewing, and elevating the theory to a the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of scientific platform. These efforts gain evolutionists. As a result, they try to meaning only if we realise that behind the portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as theory lay ideological intentions rather than a half-ape creature. In their Homo erectus scientific concerns. reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian 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