Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 1
[/align]

For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about manâ??s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown â??manâ?� was a hoax, yet Piltdown â??manâ?� was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a. â??... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.â?� Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, â??How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

b. â??Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.â?� Henry Gee, â??Return to the Planet of the Apes,â?� Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature â??without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.â?� Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56â??246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193â??200, 298â??305.

d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

â??How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bonesâ??the cranial fragmentsâ??and â??seeâ?� a clear simian signature in them; and â??seeâ?� in an apeâ??s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientistsâ?? expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.â?� Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.â?�

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[jeepboi]

Im easy I have faith.

Science is great but my faith will win everytime for myself. As for anyone else thats their choice. To each their own

[jeepboi]

i kinda feel like im reading the big bang theory without the jokes

[fdsaasdf]

Oh, you silly christians. You'll say anything just to help you sleep at night. I completely lost respect for the argument when it said that everything everything requires an intelligent creator. It's a little something called 'natural selection'.

[suhl]

I am so glad this topic never dies. the title is priceless :S2:

[bhouncy]

Evolution is a fact.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 2
[/align]

Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hintonâ??s initials, was found in the museumâ??s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, â??Box of Bones â??Clinchesâ?? Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,â?� Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261â??262.]

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g). Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is manâ??s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

Artistsâ?? drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

e. Allen L. Hammond, â??Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,â?� Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, â??False Start of the Human Parade,â?� Natural History, Vol. 88, Augustâ??September 1979, pp. 86â??91.

g. Hammond, p. 43.

â??The dethroning of Ramapithecusâ??from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982â??is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.â?� Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 3
[/align]

Forty years after he discovered Java â??man,â?� Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).

h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolutionâ??a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java â??manâ?� to Java â??gibbon.â?� Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

â??Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.â?� Eugene Dubois, â??On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,â?� Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

â??Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.â?� Ibid., p. 5.

â??The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.â?� W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his â??Introduction to The Origin of Speciesâ?� by Charles Darwin, refers to Duboisâ?? discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java â??manâ?� at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293â??294.] Duboisâ?? claims of finding â??the missing linkâ?� would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

Bowden, pp. 138â??142, 144â??148.

Hitching, pp. 208â??209.

Patrick Oâ??Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139â??142.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 4
[/align]

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking â??manâ?� to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).

i. Bowden, pp. 90â??137.

Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

j. â??[The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.â?� Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in â??Homo Erectus Never Existed?â?� Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.

k. Donald C. Johanson et al., â??New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,â?� Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205â??209.

l. â??We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].â?� Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, â??The Human Genus,â?� Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 5
[/align]

The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).

m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as â??Lucy.â?�

â??... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.â?� Zuckerman, p. 78.

â??Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...â?� Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), â??Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,â?� The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Charles E. Oxnard, â??The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?â?� Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389â??395.

â??For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.â?� Zuckerman, p. 93.

â??His Lordshipâ??s [Sir Solly Zuckermanâ??s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. â??They are just bloody apes,â?? he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.â?� Lewin, [i]Bones of Contention, [i] pp. 164â??165.

â??This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the â??knuckle-walkerâ?? condition, not unlike the extant African apes.â?� Richard E. F. Leakey, â??Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,â?� Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?