Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: The Standard Story of Human Evolution: A Critical Look

Eric Hedin
October 26, 2022
Human evolution, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Casey Luskin writes:

Despite disagreements, there is a standard story of human evolution that is retold in countless textbooks, news media articles, and documentaries. Indeed, virtually all the scientists I am citing here accept some evolutionary account of human origins, albeit flawed. 

Starting with the early hominins and moving through the australopithecines, and then into the genus Homo, I will review the fossil evidence and assess whether it supports this standard account of human evolution. As we shall see, the evidence — or lack thereof — often contradicts this evolutionary story.

Photo: Ardipithecus ramidus, by Tiia Monto, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

Early Hominins

In 2015, two leading paleoanthropologists reviewed the fossil evidence regarding human evolution in a prestigious scientific volume titled Macroevolution. They acknowledged the “dearth of unambiguous evidence for ancestor-descendant lineages,” and admitted, 

[T]he evolutionary sequence for the majority of hominin lineages is unknown. Most hominin taxa, particularly early hominins, have no obvious ancestors, and in most cases ancestor-descendant sequences (fossil time series) cannot be reliably constructed.1

Nevertheless, numerous theories have been promoted about early hominins and their ancestral relationships to humans.

One leading fossil is described below:

Ardipithecus ramidus: Irish Stew or Breakthrough of the Year?

In 2009, Science announced the long-awaited publication of details about Ardipithecus ramidus (pictured above), a would-be hominin fossil that lived about 4.4 million years ago (mya). Expectations mounted after its discoverer, UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist Tim White, promised a “phenomenal individual” that would be the “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism.”17 The media eagerly employed the hominin they affectionately dubbed Ardi to evangelize the public for Darwin.

Discovery Channel ran the headline “‘Ardi,’ Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled,” and quoted White calling Ardi “as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.”18 The Associated Press declared, “World’s Oldest Human-Linked Skeleton Found,” and stated that “the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor.”19 Science named Ardi the “breakthrough of the year” for 2009,20 and introduced her with the headline, “A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled.”21

Calling Ardi “new” may have been a poor word choice, for it was discovered in the early 1990s. Why did it take some 15 years to publish the analyses? A 2002 article in Science explains the bones were “soft,” “crushed,” “squished,” and “chalky.”22 Later reports similarly acknowledged that “portions of Ardi’s skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction,” including the pelvis, which “looked like an Irish stew.”23

Claims about bipedal locomotion require accurate measurements of the precise shapes of key bones (like the pelvis). Can one trust declarations of a “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism” when Ardi was “crushed to smithereens”? Science quoted various paleoanthropologists who were “skeptical that the crushed pelvis really shows the anatomical details needed to demonstrate bipedality.”24

Even some who accepted Ardi’s reconstructions weren’t satisfied that the fossil was a bipedal human ancestor. Primatologist Esteban Sarmiento concluded in Science that “[a]ll of the Ar. ramidus bipedal characters cited also serve the mechanical requisites of quadrupedality, and in the case of Ar. ramidus foot-segment proportions, find their closest functional analog to those of gorillas, a terrestrial or semiterrestrial quadruped and not a facultative or habitual biped.”25 Bernard Wood questioned whether Ardi’s postcranial skeleton qualified it as a hominin,26 and co-wrote in Nature that if “Ardipithecus is assumed to be a hominin,” then it had “remarkably high levels of homoplasy [similarity] among extant great apes.”27 A 2021 study found that Ardi’s hands were well-suited for climbing and swinging in trees, and for knuckle-walking, giving it a chimp-like mode of locomotion.28 In other words, Ardi had ape-like characteristics which, if we set aside the preferences of Ardi’s promoters, should imply a closer relationship to apes than to humans. As the authors of the Nature article stated, Ardi’s “being a human ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation.”29Sarmiento even observed that Ardi had characteristics different from both humans and African apes, such as its unfused jaw joint, which ought to remove her far from human ancestry.30

Whatever Ardi was, everyone agrees the fossils was initially badly crushed and needed extensive reconstruction. No doubt this debate will continue, but are we obligated to accept the “human ancestor” position promoted by Ardi’s discoverers in the media? Sarmiento doesn’t think so. According Time magazine, he “regards the hype around Ardi to have been overblown.”31

Full article at Evolution News.

Notes

  1. Bernard Wood and Mark Grabowski, “Macroevolution in and around the Hominin Clade,” Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation, and Evidence, eds. Serrelli Emanuele and Nathalie Gontier (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2015), 347-376.
  2. Michel Brunet et al., “Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?,” Nature 419 (October 10, 2002), 582.
  3. Michel Brunet et al., “A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa,” Nature 418 (July 11, 2002), 145-151. See also Michel Brunet et al., “New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad,” Nature 434 (April 7, 2005), 752-755. 
  4. Smithsonian Natural Museum of Natural History, “Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/sahelanthropus-tchadensis (accessed November 30, 2020).
  5. “Skull Find Sparks Controversy,” BBC News (July 12, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2125244.stm (accessed October 26, 2020).
  6. Milford Wolpoff et al., “Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?” Nature 419 (October 10, 2002), 581-582.
  7. Roberto Macchiarelli et al., “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” Journal of Human Evolution 149 (2020), 102898.
  8. Macchiarelli et al., “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis.”
  9. Madelaine Böhme, quoted in Michael Marshall, “Our supposed earliest human relative may have walked on four legs,” New Scientist (November 18, 2020), https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24833093-600-our-supposed-earliest-human-relative-may-have-walked-on-four-legs/ (accessed November 30, 2020).
  10. Bob Yirka, “Study of partial left femur suggests Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a hominin after all,” Phys.org (November 24, 2020), https://phys.org/news/2020-11-partial-left-femur-sahelanthropus-tchadensis.html (accessed November 30, 2020).
  11. Potts and Sloan, What Does It Mean to Be Human?, 38.
  12. John Noble Wilford, “Fossils May Be Earliest Human Link,” New York Times (July 12, 2001), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/world/fossils-may-be-earliest-human-link.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
  13. John Noble Wilford, “On the Trail of a Few More Ancestors,” New York Times (April 8, 2001), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/world/on-the-trail-of-a-few-more-ancestors.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
  14. Leslie Aiello and Mark Collard, “Our Newest Oldest Ancestor?” Nature 410 (March 29, 2001), 526-527.
  15. K. Galik et al., “External and Internal Morphology of the BAR 1002’00 Orrorin tugenensis Femur,” Science 305 (September 3, 2004), 1450-1453.
  16. Sarmiento, Sawyer, and Milner, The Last Human, 35.
  17. Tim White, quoted in Ann Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science 295 (February 15, 2002), 1214-1219.
  18. Jennifer Viegas, “‘Ardi,’ Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled,” Discovery News (October 1, 2009), https://web.archive.org/web/20110613073934/http://news.discovery.com/history/ardi-human-ancestor.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
  19. Randolph Schmid, “World’s Oldest Human-Linked Skeleton Found,” NBC News (October 1, 2009), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33110809 (accessed October 26, 2020). 
  20. Ann Gibbons, “Breakthrough of the Year: Ardipithecus ramidus,” Science 326 (December 18, 2009), 1598-1599.
  21. Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40.
  22. White, quoted in Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” 1214-1219, 1215-1216.
  23. Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, “Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle,” Time (October 1, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1927289,00.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
  24. Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40, 39.
  25. Esteban Sarmiento, “Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus,” Science 328 (May 28, 2010), 1105b.
  26. Gibbons, “New Kind of Ancestor,” 36-40.
  27. Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison, “The Evolutionary Context of the First Hominins,” Nature 470 (February 17, 2011), 347-352.
  28. Thomas C. Prang, Kristen Ramirez, Mark Grabowski, and Scott A. Williams, “Ardipithecus hand provides evidence that humans and chimpanzees evolved from an ancestor with suspensory adaptations,” Science Advances 7 (February 24, 2021), eabf2474.
  29. New York University, “Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry,” ScienceDaily (February 16, 2011), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132034.htm (accessed October 26, 2020).
  30. See Eben Harrell, “Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn’t?,” Time (May 27, 2010), http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1992115,00.html (accessed October 26, 2020).
  31. Harrell, “Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn’t?”
Comments
Since CD, while honestly admitting that Ardi is 'under debate', (which is still an understatement on his part), still alluded to Lucy as supposed proof of human evolution, it is good to look at the infamous Lucy fossil(s).
Australopithecines and Retroactive Confessions of Ignorance Casey Luskin - October 26, 2022 Excerpt: The best-known australopithecine fossil is Lucy (which belonged to afarensis), one of the most complete known fossils among pre-Homo hominins. She is often described as a bipedal ape-like creature that is an ideal precursor to humans. Yet only 40 percent of Lucy’s bones were found, with a large percentage being rib fragments. Very little useful material from Lucy’s skull was recovered, and yet she is one of the most significant specimens ever found. Bernard Wood refutes the misapprehension that she resembled some ape-human hybrid: “Australopithecines are often wrongly thought to have had a mosaic of modern human and modern ape features, or, worse, are regarded as a group of ‘failed’ humans. Australopithecines were neither of these.”7 Others have questioned whether Lucy walked like humans or was significantly bipedal. An article in Nature observed that much of her body was “ape-like,” especially with respect to the “relatively long and curved fingers, relatively long arms, and funnel-shaped chest.”8 It further reported “good evidence” from Lucy’s hand-bones that her species “‘knuckle-walked,’ as chimps and gorillas do.”9 A New Scientist article adds that Lucy appears well-adapted for climbing, since “Everything about her skeleton, from fingertips to toes, suggests that Lucy and her sisters retain several traits that would be very suitable for climbing in trees.”10 Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin argue that A. afarensis and other australopithecines “almost certainly were not adapted to a striding gait and running, as humans are.”11 They recount paleontologist Peter Schmid’s striking surprise upon realizing Lucy’s nonhuman qualities: “What you see in Australopithecus is not what you’d want in an efficient bipedal running animal.”12 As for Lucy’s pelvis, many claim it indicates bipedal locomotion, but Johanson and his team reported it was “badly crushed” with “distortion” and “cracking” when first discovered.13 These problems led one paper to propose Lucy’s pelvis appears “different from other australopithecines and so close to the human condition” due to “error in the reconstruction…creating a very ‘human-like’ sacral plane.”14 Another paper concluded that a lack of clear fossil data prevents paleoanthropologists from making firm conclusions about Lucy’s mode of locomotion: “The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations.”15 More Differences from Humans Other studies confirm australopithecine differences from humans, and similarities with apes. Their inner ear canals — responsible for balance and related to locomotion — are different from Homo but similar to great apes.16 Traits like their ape-like developmental patterns17 and ape-like ability for prehensile grasping by their toes18 led a Nature reviewer to say that “ecologically they [australopithecines] may still be considered as apes.”19 Another analysis in Nature found the australopithecine skeleton shows “a mosaic of features unique to themselves and features bearing some resemblances to those of the orangutan,” and concluded that “the possibility that any of the australopithecines is a direct part of human ancestry recedes.”20 A 2007 paper reported “[g]orilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles,” which was “unexpected,” and “cast[s] doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”21 Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello states that when it comes to locomotion, “[a]ustralopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn’t just in the brain.”22 The “something major” was the abrupt appearance of the human-like body plan — without direct evolutionary precursors in the fossil record. Next, “The Human Fossil Record Lacks Intermediaries.” https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/australopithecines-and-retroactive-confessions-of-ignorance/ "a team of paleo-experts from the State University of New York, Stony Brook, (which includes distinguished leaders in the field such as Tuttle, Tardieu, Senut, Susman, Stern, and Jungers, among others) insist Lucy was predominately a tree dwelling ape that did not habitually walk upright" Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 6 - Chapter 6 "Australopithecus afarensis" - "Lucy") by Paul Giem - 25:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/QHZnhOUAe4c?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=1435 26:00 minute mark: Craig Stanford 2012, ",, Afarensis as an arboreal adapted species is still valid and still represents the consensus view held by paleoanthropologists today". 35:00 minute mark: Body size of an ape Skull of an ape Shoulders of an ape Rib cage of an ape Spine of an ape Hip of an ape Hands of an ape Feet of an ape Knee joint of an ape Conclusion: Lucy's kind in mostly ape. 36:00 minute quote: "Lucy's distinctly ape-like nature is defended by numerous experts in the field who have published in highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journals such as,,," "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". - Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990. Human ancestor 'Lucy' was a tree climber, new evidence suggests - November 30, 2016 Excerpt: "Our results show that the upper limbs of chimpanzees are relatively more heavily built because they use their arms for climbing, with the reverse seen in humans, who spend more time walking and have more heavily built lower limbs," says Ruff. "The results for Lucy are convincing and intuitive." Other comparisons carried out in the study suggest that even when Lucy walked upright, she may have done so less efficiently than modern humans, limiting her ability to walk long distances on the ground, Ruff says. In addition, all of her limb bones were found to be very strong relative to her body size, indicating that she had exceptionally strong muscles, more like those of modern chimpanzees than modern humans. - per phy org Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013 Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/ Lucy, the Knuckle-walking abomination? by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 24, 2012 Excerpt: We would submit that the anterior migration of the afarensis foramen magnum occurred not deep in the evolutionary history of humanity but quite possibly sometime after 1992 in the laboratory. - per AIG A Look at Lucy’s Legacy - 2015 Excerpt: Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23 https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/ Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing evolutionists reconstructing the pelvis of Lucy to match the false Darwinian narrative of human evolution - 32:08 mark of video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928
Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy that is widely displayed by Darwinists in museums
Lucy - fraudulent reconstruction http://www.live-news24.com/assets/news_photos/2016/08/29/image-13376.jpg
And here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Lucy - a correct reconstruction - picture https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg
Other 'Lucy' fossils have been found since the 'powersaw incident' that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.
A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012 Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 1994-25 and 2010-26 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,, Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/
bornagain77
October 27, 2022
October
10
Oct
27
27
2022
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
CD I will agree with your position if you can show me one scientific test one scientific experiment that can be carried out on the Ardi fossil that shows how we know for sure it is ancestral to any other hominid fossil. The reason the whole thing is a mess is because there are no test no experiments only conjecture , and if you cant test or do experiment to show your position its hardly what you would call a scientific endeavour. But maybe I am wrong so I await your test or experimental response.Marfin
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
chuck
This is a classic example of an Evolution News piece by Casey Luskin published, it would appear, to solely take digs (pun intended) at paleontologists for a story that is thirteen years old:
alright. So something more recent (May 2021), and from a Darwinist:
When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever … People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science — Sergio Almécija (a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506142133.htm
a big mess :)))))))))))martin_r
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Relatd/4
Genesis 2:21 “So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.” 2:22 “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
There is a classic - and certainly funnier - take on that story here Seversky
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
This is a classic example of an Evolution News piece by Casey Luskin published, it would appear, to solely take digs (pun intended) at paleontologists for a story that is thirteen years old:
Indeed, virtually all the scientists I am citing here accept some evolutionary account of human origins, albeit flawed. (emphasis added)
I would hope so; after all the discovery of Ardi would be the oldest hominid find to date, coming in at 4.4 mya, over a million years older than Lucy. Everyone studying human evolution understands that Ardi’s place within the hominid grouping is still under debate. So, again, other than taking cheap shots, it’s hard to glean the point of Luskin’s article. BTW, News flash, BA77, Gould’s statement is over 30 years old and Gould’s been dead for 20 years….chuckdarwin
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Genesis 2:21 "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh." 2:22 "And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII, 1880: 5. "Still, the purpose We have set before Us is not to recount, in detail, benefits of this kind; Our wish is rather to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time."relatd
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Of related interest to Darwinists telling 'narratives', i.e. just so stories, about human evolution this following, fairly recent, article is interesting. In May 2021, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated that the human evolution ‘narrative’, (as it is portrayed to the general public by Darwinists) is “just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
Scientists Conclude: Human Origins Research Is a Big Mess – Günter Bechly – May 10, 2021 Excerpt: Finally, the article concludes with this gem: “Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey to explain essential aspects such as the origins of erect posture, the freeing of the hands, or brain enlargement (166). Intriguingly, such narratives have not drastically changed since Darwin (166). We must be aware of confirmation biases and ad hoc interpretations by researchers aiming to confer their new fossil the starring role within a preexisting narrative. Evolutionary scenarios are appealing because they provide plausible explanations based on current knowledge, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories” (167).” Hardly any ID proponent could have said it better. Fancy storytelling in the style of Kiplingesque “just-so stories” is indeed a hallmark of the soft science of modern evolutionary biology in general, and paleoanthropology in particular.,,, In this press release the senior author of the new study, Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, is also quoted as offering this remarkable admission: “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.” https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/scientists-conclude-human-origins-research-is-a-big-mess/
Likewise, in the past even leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr themselves honestly admitted that the purported evidence for human evolution is, basically, just “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”.
“most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.” – Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, page 126 (W.W. Norton, 1980). “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” – Ernst Mayr – What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198 (2004).
As should be needless to say, having a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, and leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould, and Ernst Mayr, all say that the evidence for human evolution boils down to, basically, “just a big mess", “elaborate storytelling”, and “historical narrative”, certainly does not bode well for any Darwinist who tries to claim that the supposed fossil record for human evolution is beyond all dispute.
Matthew 19:4 Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
bornagain77
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
To promote evolution, especially human evolution, earlier forms are needed because we share a common ancestor with apes, or so the story goes. Instead, what do we have? Neanderthals, as painted in the 1960s, were primitive men that lived in caves and TOTALLY separate from human beings. As the decades passed, paintings of Neanderthals began to look more and more like so-called MODERN humans. Then scientists discovered that modern humans have Neanderthal DNA. Denisovians were presented as another "primitive" ancestor. Then scientists discovered modern humans had Denisovian DNA. The obvious falsehood is that unguided evolution had no reason to "upgrade" alleged early humans and turn them into modern humans. And the so-called "early" humans could mate with modern humans, proving that they are not ancestors but fully human. Look at the skull shapes of Asians, Africans and Europeans. The so-called ancestors of "modern" humans appear to be nothing more than other racial types. If they were "primitive" ancestors then they should not have been able to interbreed with modern humans.relatd
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Fossils and Human Evolution (full series thus far) https://evolutionnews.org/tag/fossils-and-human-evolution-series/bornagain77
October 26, 2022
October
10
Oct
26
26
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
1 … 5 6 7

Leave a Reply