did man come from?
4) finally, the missing links!
is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the
most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny."
have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect
he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
Author of Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
The search for transitional forms
was once thought to be the first find of an actual transitional form. It
was a fossil impression of a feather dated prior to the believed appearance
of birds. The name was coined by Hermann von Meyer, but it was a
collector by the name of Haberlein who acquired the entire fossil.
Haberlein's asking price for it was supposedly so high that the curator
of the Munich fossil collection resorted to publishing a personal sketch
of it. Haberlein's potential fortune was thwarted until, amazingly, he just
happened to turn up another Archaeopteryx. This one he succeeded in selling
for 20,000 German marks.
had been marketed as being the missing link between dinosaurs and birds,
close study revealed that it failed to show any true intermediary signs.
The creature had both fully developed reptilian legs as well as fully developed
bird feathers - no half-scale, half-feather type developments. Blackmore
and Page record,
In 1985, Fred Hoyle
and Chandra Wickramasinghe claimed the fossil was a blatant forgery.
Haberlein, they said, had assembled some dinosaur bones and added feather
marks by pressing real feathers on to a paste of powdered limestone. 26
Fragments of chicken
feathers in the pasting were said to have been detected using a microscope.
Some evolutionists continue to believe Archaeopteryx to be genuine; declaring
it proof that birds descended from dinosaurs. At the same time, other evolutionists
are as convinced the complete opposite is true; that dinosaurs descended
The dinosaurs that
came before Archaeopteryx were all much less birdlike than the ones that
came after. If the BADD (birds are dinosaur descendants) theory were correct,
we would see plenty of very birdlike dinosaurs - Velociraptors and such
- in the fossil record earlier than Archaeopteryx. Where are they? 27
In the end, there
is no consensus among evolutionists of what, if anything, Archaeopteryx
is clear proof. With the significant doubt over this supposed transitional
form, the search for the first genuine proof of Darwinian evolution still
goes on. The most zealous search was, and still is, for the missing link
between modern man and the previous form or forms from which he supposedly
came. During the hundred plus years of searching, six instances of discovery
are of particular importance to mention.
Finally, the missing links!
most zealous search in evolutionary archaeology was, and still is, for the
missing link between modern man and the form, or forms, from which he supposedly
came. During the one hundred plus years of active searching, these six high-profile
discoveries are among evolutionists' greatest finds.
1. Neanderthal Man was the earliest pronouncement
of having linked ape and man. In 1856, an unusual skeleton was found in
a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. The posture indicated
the creature may have walked with an ape-like gate. Eight
years later, scientists began to wonder if this was an ancestral species
of mankind. The discovery of other skeletons in the same cave produced ancestors
that were clearly human.
revealed that the occupant of the initial skeleton had suffered from
a vitamin D deficiency, like rickets. Even Thomas Huxley was confident
that the skeleton was definitely not the missing link. The classification
of Neanderthal Man was consequently changed to Homo sapien. The find had
created such a stir in its day however, that the term "Neanderthal"
remains descriptive of a backwards or crude person, not someone suffering
from a crippling disease.
2. Java Man, or Pithecanthropus erectus,
was the next missing link claim to stir investigation. In 1887, Eugene Dubois
set out for Sumatra in order to find humanity's missing link. Easily enough
he found it, or so he thought. In 1891, Eugene Dubois had found three teeth
and, one hundred yards away, a small piece of a skullcap. One year later
he found a fragment of a left thigh bone. They were all found in a river
bed among the bones of various extinct animals.
The excitement of the
discovery drew twenty-four European scientists to confer on the matter.
However, the majority opinion was that the elements had all come from an
ape. Seven dissenting scientists believed they had all come from a man.
Professor Virchow of Berlin made the comment,
There is no evidence
at all that these bones were parts of the same creature. 28
Later, Dubois produced
two human skulls he had found at the same level as the skullcap and stated
his new belief that the fragments had all come from a gibbon.
remained the feeling that science had just missed discovering the missing
link. Java Man came to be the placecard for the missing link that evolutionists
hoped to someday find. So confident were many in its expected discovery
that Java Man still remains in many textbooks. Donald Johanson, discoverer
of Lucy, even appears to attribute man's first use of hand axes to imaginary
"Java Man". 29
3. Piltdown Man followed as the next discovery
to vie for the title of missing link. In 1912, Charles Dawson presented
to the British Museum a partial skull, bone fragments and teeth he found
along with some primitive tools. They had been found in a gravel pit in
Piltdown, Sussex, England and were estimated to be 500,000 years old. The
missing link was finally found. Then came a discovery in October of 1956.
Scott Huse writes,
Reader's Digest came
out with an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthly, entitled
The Great Piltdown Hoax. Using a new method to date bones based upon fluoride
absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent. Further
critical investigation revealed that the jaw-bone actually belonged to
an ape that had died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down,
and both teeth and bones were discolored with bichromate of potash to
conceal their true identity. 30
It was later testified
to that philosophy writer Teilhard de Chardin had placed them there
in order to expedite the proof of evolutionary theory. Photos of the teeth
show they had been filed down in such an unrealistic manner (each at different
heights and angles) that there is no way natural wear would have produced
such a result. The skull had belonged to a human, the jaw to an orangutan.
Of further note about
Piltdown Man is that during the fifty or so years it was believed authentic,
evolutionists wrote and taught of the apelike features of the skull (which
proved to be human) and the humanlike features of the jaw (which proved
to be orangutan). These falsehoods have had little or no negative impact
on the believability of Darwinism and, incredulously, still serve to support
it to some degree.
4. Nebraska Man was the 1922 entry for proof
of man's evolution from ape. Nebraska Man was also the clinching evidence
presented in the famous Scopes monkey trial of 1925. John Scopes
was accused of teaching evolution in violation of the state law of Tennessee.
Scopes was defended by Clarence Darrow and W.R. Malone who cleverly argued
the legitimacy of teaching evolution in spite of the technical illegality
of their client's actions with respect to then current law. The prosecuting
attorney, William Jennings Bryan, tried to counter this strategy in saying
It is not scientific
truth to which Christians object, for true science is classified knowledge
and nothing can be scientific unless it is true. Evolution, on the other
hand, is not truth; it is merely hypothesis - it is millions of guesses
strung together. 31
Darrow responded by
presenting a discovery that Harold Cook had found in the Pliocene deposits
of Nebraska: a single tooth. With the use of so-called expert testimony,
the tooth was introduced as confirming proof that an ape-man race once inhabited
the prosecutor's own home state one million years ago.
The prosecution asked
for more time to investigate the tooth, but Bryan lost the case. Tragically,
he died five days later. It is especially tragic in light of the fact that
subsequent investigation unearthed the skeleton from which the tooth came.
The tooth was decided to have come from an extinct species of pig. The
decision to allow the teaching of evolution as science, though based on
errant data, was never reversed.
5. Ramapithecus was another supposed ape-man
based on several teeth and part of an upper jaw. Over forty skeletons from
which these came have been found. These have come to be classified as
orangutan-like and not at all on the way to becoming human.
6. Australopithecines, or Lucy, was found
in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia. Lucy is a three and a half foot
skeleton about forty percent complete. However, the knee joint was found
over a mile away and two hundred feet deeper than the rest of the skeleton.
It is that same knee joint, along with a thigh bone, on which Johanson stakes
his claim that the chimpanzee-like creature walked upright three million
years ago. In spite of the fact that the knee joint end of the femur was
crushed, he states
The angle of the thigh
bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end... proved she walked
on two legs." 32
The assertion here is
that walking upright, if that can actually be granted, is proof that humanity
evolved from this creature. Yet, it has been observed that the rain forest
pigmy chimp spends most of its life walking upright. Therefore, the ability
of chimpanzees to sometimes walk upright is insufficient proof of our supposed
evolution from them. One of Johanson's fellow evolutionists, anthropologist
Richard Leaky, dismisses Lucy's authenticity and actually believes
it to be a mosaic of two or more species. 33
Tools of chimps or men?
As recently as May of
2002, CBSnews.com reported a story about living West African chimpanzees
who have been discovered using crude stone tools to break open panda
tree nuts. The chimps retain the same specially selected stones at common
"workstations" where the young, apparently for untold ages, have
learned to reproduce the procedure by watching their parents.
Expectedly, the evolutionists
interviewed were thrilled at the idea they were watching exactly how early
man worked. Their attitude was basically 'We know that early man, too, worked
that way because those are the same kinds of tools we have found and are
displaying in our museums.'
Of course, the most
obvious possibility was not even mentioned in the article - the possibility
that the rocks or "stone tools" in our museums might never have
belonged to early man at all. Two things to come to mind:
1. The stones may
have actually belonged to chimps, not ancient man; and not millions of
years ago, maybe just thousands of years ago. Or even just last week (why
2. If a chimp can
make use of an ancient rock to feed himself today, isn't modern man capable
of doing the same? Yes. Thus the crudeness of an alleged "stone tool"
is not necessarily indicative of how long ago it must have been used.
Neither does its age or condition prove who must have used it, or what
their cranial capacity was.
In this article, researchers
from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology did show
just a little humility in admitting that all the implications of this discovery
were not yet clear. What is clear is that there are always two sides to
the story behind every evolutionary find, and that dedicated evolutionists
have proven not to be the most objective source from which to hear them
both. The next three examples reinforce this point.
The evolution of the horse
A popular example of
evolution in many text books is that of the horse. The Field Museum of
Chicago was the source of this exhibit, showing a range of skeletons
progressing from a rodent-sized creature to that of today's full grown horse.
However, Gene Edward Veith shares the little-publicized truth that
...have nothing to
do with each other. They represent different species, different branches,
and overlapping times, as even evolutionists - called on the matter by
critics of Darwinism - have been forced to admit. The Field Museum, to
its credit, has pulled the showcase, substituting a photo of the old exhibit,
along with an account of the controversy. "Once we told the story
wrong," it confesses, making "the complex seem simple."
The evolution of the finch
The National Academy
of Science's publication Guidebook cites what casual readers
might mistake to be a valid example of natural selection. The example concerns
beaks of finches found on the Galapagos islands. The work Guidebook
cites is by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University (though they
omit the title of the Grant's research paper). Part of the text follows:
...a single year of
drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches.
Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival
of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Drought thus favors birds
with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing
populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that
if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species
of finch might arise in only about 200 years. 79
fills in some critical details that Guidebook omits:
It is no wonder that
the Guidebook's authors did not quote the title of the Grant's
1987 paper in Nature, "Oscillating Selection in Darwin's Finches,"
because that would have signaled to teachers, and perhaps also to bright
students, that the finch-beak example involves no continuing directional
change at all. The drought year in question was followed by a few years
of floods, and the average beak size promptly went back to normal. 80
Contrary to how natural
selection is claimed to progress a species, the adaptation by progressive
generations of finches during drought years did not replace the original
species pattern. The original pattern was restored upon normal environmental
conditions. Evolution cannot explain this backwards adaptation, but normal
variation and known adaptive abilities within a species can. It is regrettable
that the National Academy of Sciences apparently knows this and, for that
reason, had to present the craftily edited tale of natural selection that
The evolution of the moth
One more classic example
of natural selection at work is, or was, that of the peppered moths of England.
The 1999 July/August edition of Touchstone magazine sets up the story:
According to the textbook
story, the moths rest during the day on tree trunks and are eaten there
by birds. While the tree trunks were light-colored, the light moths were
better camouflaged, but the dark moths had the advantage after the trunks
became dark due to the effects of industrial pollution. 81
The story concludes
with the light moth population coming back after air quality was improved
in the 1950's. Furthermore, a 1980's discovery found that those moths do
not even rest on trees, and previous photos of moths on trees were of moths
(dead or alive) hand-placed or glued into position.
If you find any of the above evolutionary falsehoods shocking, you probably
want to ask, "What do more honest evolutionists
have to say about all this? Haven't they spoken out?"
Yes, they have, and
that is the next section.
PART 5) Evolutionists on neo-Darwinism
How the theory
of evolution changed document analysis