Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
OK, Chris. Here it goes.

The Origin of Man

???As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...??? William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153

Amateur biologist Charles Robert Darwin based his theory of evolution on various observations he made as a young naturalist on board the H.M.S Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world to study ???plants and animals everywhere he went, collecting specimens for further study??? (1). Darwin was heavily influenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their different environments. After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics (2). This experience, together with the different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory. In eighteen hundred and fifty nine, he published his views in his book The Origin of Species. In this book, he postulated that all species had descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations. Darwin theorized that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong species, which can adapt to their environment. In eighteen hundred and seventy one, Darwin put forward his thesis that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, which was released in two volumes (2). Based on Darwin???s thesis, modern evolutionists break down man???s origin into four genera, which are in succeeding order: Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the invalidity of human evolution on grounds of insufficient evidence.


Evolutionists say the earliest known ancestor to hominids or bipedal mammals (man) is of the genus Australopithecus, which means "southern ape". It is assumed that Australopithecines first appeared in Africa approximately four million years ago and evolved into Homo habilis one million years ago. Additionally, many evolutionists say that the oldest Australopithecus species is Australopithecus Ramidus; its subgroups being Australopithecus Africanus, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Robustus, and Australopithecus Boisei. Accordingly, an anatomical trait common to each subgroup was ???a small and apelike braincase, comparable in size to those of gorillas and chimpanzees when measured relative to overall body size??? (Yahya). The differences between Australopithecines classify them under two divisions: robust and gracile; Australopithecus Afrensis and Africanus having ???cranio-dental features consistent with a more generalized diet??? while younger Australopithecines, such as A. Boisei (from E Africa) and A. Robustus (from S. Africa) possessed ???very large molars and premolars, very thick jaws, and craniums topped by prominent crests??? (3). Though there is controversy as to what the evolutionary relationship is between the various Australopithecines, paleoanthropologists, such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson, hold that Australopithecines were bipedal thus categorizing them to predecessors of modern man. However, two world-renowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, conducted extensive research on Australopithecine remains. After fifteen years of research, Zuckerman (though an evolutionist himself) came to the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal (Zuckerman: 1974). Moreover, Charles E. Oxnard drew parallels between the skeletal structures of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans (Oxnard:1975).??? The French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, drew attention to the cover of its May nineteen ninety nine issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine called for the removal of Australopithecines from the human family tree (Yahya). In the article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecine fossil known as St W573, it says:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race??? The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree??? Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered??? (6???emphasis added).

As now established, there is no evidence that Australopithecines, which are an extinct species of ape from East and South Africa, explains the origins of modern man

Homo Habilis

In desperate search for an intermediate transition between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, Homo habilis was discovered in nineteen hundred and sixty, by the Leakey team in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. The material was found in the same region where Australopithecus boisei had previously been found, and many researchers of the time did not fully accept that the material was sufficiently different from that material (or maybe A. africanus) to denote a new species (7). However, Louis Leakey was convinced that this was the Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life looking for, and placed this as a direct human ancestor, ???with H. erectus a dead-end side-branch??? (7). According to the Leakeys, Homo Habilis or ???skilled man ???had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools??? (Yahya) thus attributing Homo Habilis with a more pronounced link to modern man than Australopithecus. However, fossils of the same genus unearthed in the late nineteen hundred eighties, demolished the Leakeys??? conclusion. Researchers Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace concluded after examining the skeletal fossil OH 62 that Homo habilis had ???long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure just like Australopithecus and its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing??? with a ???600 cc average cranial capacity??? common to modern apes (Yahya). Anthropologist Holly Smith in nineteen ninety four indicated that Homo habilis was not of a Homo variety, rather unequivocally an African ape. Based of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith said:

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans ( 8 ).

In the same year, anatomists Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, use a method of comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining balance (Yahya). Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:

Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes (Fred Spoor et al:1994---emphasis added).

Interestingly enough, Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." concluding that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus??? (Fred Spoor et al:1994---emphasis added). In other words, Homo habilis, from anatomical scrutiny, proved to be no more than a species of extant apes among side Australopithecus.

Homo Erectus: Just an Ancient Race of Men

According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Homo Erectus is defined as

???extinct hominid living between 1.6 million and 250,000 years ago. Homo erectus is thought to have evolved in Africa from H. habilis, the first member of the genus Homo. Anatomically and physiologically, H. erectus resembles contemporary humans except for a stouter bone structure. The size of its braincase (850???1000 cc), approaches that of H. sapiens, but the cranial bones are more massive than either those of H. habilis or modern humans???(10-emphasis added).

Evolutionists say the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Lubenow:1994). However, in light of updated scientific research, the distinct classifications between members of the Homo series are no more profound than racial differences between men in contemporary times. "Homo erectus" which means "man who walks upright" is classified as primitive because of the cranial capacity of its skull, which varies from 900 to 1100 cc and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are races of men today who display the same cranial size and eyebrow projections, such as pygmies and Native Australians. According to evolutionist Richard Leakey,

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time??? (11). According to Marvin Lubenow, ???It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the brain, rather than on its volume??? (10). Professor William Laughlin, from the University of Connecticut, made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and notedthat these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of modern man (2). He says:

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.

In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in the year two thousand were summarized as the following:

Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus didn't exist

The most famous of the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a twelve-year-old boy, who would have measured 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The evolutionist Donald Johnson describes this fossil as follows: "He was tall and skinny. His body shape and the proportion of his limbs were the same as the current Equator Africans. The sizes of his limbs totally matched with that of the current white North American adults???.
In conclusion, the two genae Australopithecus and Homo habilis have turned out to be extant apes from lower regions from Africa. Despite attempts to label Homo erectus as ???primitive??? because of its smaller cranial capacity, variations between present races of men demolishes this view. Evolution has explained nothing about the origins of man.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???

Messages In This Thread
Se7en - by bar_khela - 12-06-2004, 08:20 PM
[No subject] - by peshitta_enthusiast - 12-06-2004, 09:05 PM
Brain Throb - by bar_khela - 12-07-2004, 10:40 PM
[No subject] - by peshitta_enthusiast - 12-09-2004, 11:12 AM
[No subject] - by bar_khela - 12-09-2004, 05:03 PM
hi - by se7en - 12-14-2004, 03:41 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)