Why has there not been an evolution of man?

Did man evolve from monkey-like primordial humans or was he created? Read how evolutionists' own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

This article discusses the origin and early history of man, i.e. is man the result of evolution or creation and when did he appear in the world. Many people have the idea that man has been on earth for hundreds of thousands of years and that he descends from ape-like ancestors. It is assumed that the grunting and primitive ancestors gradually transformed into the civilized form of Homo sapiens. It is not considered possible that man appeared in this world fully developed and ready only a few millennia ago. This traditional view, which appears e.g. In Genesis, is rejected as old fashioned.

    But how is it? What is the origin of man and when did he appear in the world? That's what we're going to investigate.

Did hydrogen gas turn into a human? When it is assumed that humans descend from ape-like ancestors, according to the naturalistic view, this development actually began much earlier: from hydrogen gas created in the Big Bang. The hydrogen gas should have turned into humans and other life forms. We should all be heirs to this gas.

    Instead, the actual theory of evolution usually starts with the primordial cell, which was in the primordial ocean. In the theory of evolution, it is required that all current forms of life: plants and animals, evolved from one cell. It has been estimated that hundreds of millions of years have passed for evolution. This has been the traditional understanding of the evolution of life on Earth.

    But what is the practical evidence? If we first think that we are the heirs of hydrogen gas, this idea is a rejection of common sense. How can the hydrogen or helium gas that appeared in the beginning form itself into fish, chirping birds, people, seas, rocks, trees or beautiful flowers? Certainly, none of them would form by themselves from some gas - after all, nothing like that is observed happening now. Or has anyone noticed that the gas has experienced such large changes? Where does that happen?

    What about the evolution that took millions of years and that everything comes from the same primordial cell? If this notion is true, we should consequently see gradual evolution in both fossil and modern species. There should be plenty of examples of intermediate forms and new, evolving senses and organs. Gradual evolution is necessary if all species are derived from a single primordial cell.

   But can these be seen? What is the practical evidence if this matter is looked at through fossils and modern nature?

   First, the fossils. It has been known for a long time that no gradual development can be seen in fossils, even though evolutionary theory requires the birth of senses, organs and new species through this. For example, Steven M. Stanley has stated: "There is not a single example in the known fossil record where an important new structural feature is developing for the species” (1). The lack of gradual development has also been acknowledged by several leading paleontologists. Even Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, has admitted the same, although in the following comment he appeals to the inadequacy of the fossil record, as Darwin did in his time. However, this argument can no longer be used, because more than a hundred million fossils have already been excavated from the earth. If no gradual development has been observed in this material, it certainly won't appear in the material that is still inside the country either. A comment by Richard Owen, a contemporary of Darwin, fits the subject well. He knew the fossil record better than Darwin and pointed out that our only basis for predicting the future is based on what has already come to light. This comment is relevant even today.

Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries. (2)

Richard Owen: So far, durable and useful conclusions have really only been built on sure information. Now we are asked to accept the assumption by appealing to a lack of information. Geological records are said to be so imperfect! But what human record would not be imperfect? -- But when Mr. Darwin, in referring to the absence of fossil intermediate forms which his hypothesis presupposes -- to the absence of the innumerable intermediate forms which, according to the "theory of natural selection," must have existed at some stage in the world's history -- when Mr. Darwin loudly declares what may or may not be may be found in the layers yet to be excavated, we would answer that our only basis for predicting the future is on the basis of what has already come to light -- Has there been a single case in which a fossil has been proven to be such an intermediate form based on the facts observed? We have been searching in vain for such examples. (3)

What about species changes in modern times? More than 150 years have passed since the publication of Darwin's theory, but has anyone seen species changes during that time, even one - one where a basic species has changed into another? If that had happened, it would certainly have been written about in science journals with big headlines, but is it not the fact that nothing of that kind has been observed? Change in the framework of heredity - beak size, resistance, dark and light colors - does happen, but that is an entirely different phenomenon than fish turning into a man.

    We are going to look at another comment from Dawkins. It refers to current species. Dawkins states that every species and every organ in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. In other words, the species are fully developed and ready-made. This too does not fit well with the thought model of gradual development, but it clearly supports creation and that the species were ready-made and separate from each other from the beginning:

Richard Dawkins: The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (4)

What about the evolution of man? Above, it was brought up how fossils and modern nature do not show gradual development or changes in species. The evidence does not support the primordial cell-to-man theory in any way, but suggests that the species have been ready and separate from each other from the beginning, as required by the creation model. Or if someone does not accept this, he should show concrete examples of species changes and gradual evolution - which is something that many well-known paleontologists have denied.

    What about human development? If the theory of evolution and the gradual development associated with it are not true, then the evolution of man can also be questioned. For if there has been no evolution of the rest of creation, it is unlikely that man has evolved from simpler forms. Why would a human constitute an exception?

  Despite all this, evolutionists don’t see it that way. They believe humans evolved from ape-like primitive creatures. According to their estimates this process may have lasted for a few million years, whereas development from the primordial cell is believed to have begun hundreds of millions of years ago. The following points should be considered, however:

Descent relationship. When the theory of evolution became accepted in the 19th century, Ernst Haeckel, whose books were even more widely distributed than Darwin's On the Origin of Species, played an important part in it. Haeckel has become particularly famous for his fake fetal photos that have appeared in biology books for decades. For example, Darwin considered these pictures to be the strongest evidence for his theory. He admitted that in one of his letters to Asa Gray.

     However, already during Haeckel's lifetime, these pictures were found to be forgeries, and Haeckel had to admit his fraud. For example, the well-known English embryologist Michael Richardson stated in Science magazine (277, 1997, pp. 1435) about these images:

This is turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.

Haeckel has also become famous for the fact that he drew up the first evolutionary tree, which started from the protoplasm Monera and eventually ended up with monkeys and humans. This tree drawn by Haeckel has decorated biology books in the same way as his fetus pictures. After Haeckel, other evolutionary trees have also been drawn about the assumed evolution of organisms and humans.

    Is it then possible to draw reliable family trees of the evolution of organisms and humans? To this evolutionists may answer "yes", but the correct answer is "no". The reason is simple, because it is impossible to know the kinship and descent relationships of different organisms afterwards. Organisms can be arranged in some kind of evolutionary order that man has invented on his own, but it is impossible to know the relationships of descent afterwards. The well-known Dr. Meave Leakey has stated: "It may never be possible to say exactly what developed why." (5)

    In addition, it is worth remembering that fossils do not show gradual development, as Richard Dawkins and several leading paleontologists have admitted. Thus, if there is no gradual development, evolutionary trees and human family trees can also be questioned. How can they be true without gradual evolution?

Modern human fossils inside old strata. As discussed above, there are many evolutionary trees representing human evolution that categorize fossils in a certain evolutionary order.  In general, the following development line has been seen in the history of human evolution, specifically in its final stages:

Ardipithecus Ramidus (Ethiopian man) or Ardi / 4.5 – 3.8 million years ago

Australopithecus or Southern ape / 4.2 – 2.0 million years ago

Homo Habilis or Handy Man / 2.0 – 1.5 million years ago

Homo Erectus or Upright Man / 1.5 million – 40,000 years ago

Neanderthal man / 200,000 – 30,000 years ago

Homo Sapiens or modern man / less than 20,000 years ago

However, one fact that calls into question the theory of human's descent from lower beings is that the remains of modern man are regularly found in strata as old, but also older than those where fossil remains have been found. They must therefore have been at least as old as their "fossil ancestors". Among other things, the following discoveries have been made:

• Fossils that clearly belong to modern humans have been found inside rocks and coal deposits (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). Also, things belonging to man, such as dams, have been found in coal deposits, as well as footprints in equally old deposits. The findings mean that modern humans should have already lived in the Carboniferous period, a couple of hundred million years before the dinosaurs. Goods and fossils belonging to humans have also been found in Cretaceous deposits. According to the evolutionary view, dinosaurs lived in the Cretaceous period.

• Lady Guadeloupe is a famous discovery. The bones of this person were found in a stone stratum that was, according to the evolutionists’ age chart, 28 million years old. However, when the bones were examined more closely, it was noted that they completely resemble those of a modern woman, so it is certainly a question of an ordinary modern woman. Thus, she must be at least as old or even “millions of years” older (according to the evolution schedule) than her first forefathers.

• The so-called Calaveras skull was found in a stratum in America that was believed to be 25 million years old. The skull closely resembles the skull of the modern man, and below it vessels and tools belonging to modern man were discovered

• The most famous form of Homo erectus has been the Java man, which was found by Eugene Dubois in the 19th century. However, we also know that Dubois found clear modern human remains in the same stratum as well – the so called Wadjak man – a discovery he hid for 30 years. But what made him hide this discovery? The reason is simple: he wanted to make sure that his Java man gets established as an ancestor for humans. He did not want to offer his critics an opportunity to prove his Java man was as old as the modern human.

   Another interesting point about Dubois and his Java man concerns a tooth discovery, which was made near Dubois’ excavation site. It was very clearly a tooth from a modern human, but it was inside a much older stratum than Dubois’ discovery. George Grant MacCurdy wrote about this in 1924:

Selenka’s research team during 1907-1908… found a tooth, which according to Walkhoff definitely belonged to a human. It is the third lower molar found in a nearby riverbank strata, which are older (Pliocene) than strata the Pithecanthropus erectus was found from. If this tooth turns out to be a human tooth, Pithecanthropus can no longer be considered a human ancestor. (6)

• Well-known discoveries include Laetoli's footprints and a fragment of a humerus found in Kanapoi. They were found in 3.7 and 4.4 million-year-old (according to the evolutionary scale) strata - that is, from a couple of million years before modern humans and during the period when the early human ancestor, Australopithecus (Southern ape), is supposed to have lived on earth.

    First, we will address the Laetoli footprints, which were discovered inside a 3,7-million-year-old stratum.  They correspond in shape and size to the footprints of modern humans. For example, Mary Leakey stated that the footprints are "amazingly similar to those of modern man" ⁽⁷⁾ Similarly, Russell H. Tuttle, who made a detailed study of the footprints, stated that they cannot be distinguished from the footprints of modern man:

Based on the observable features, the tracks of Laetoli G cannot be distinguished from the tracks of barefoot humans (Homo sapiens). (8)

Another example is a piece of humerus from Kanapoi, whose age was determined to be 4.4 million years old. However, this fossil resembled exactly the same piece of humerus as found in modern humans. Marvin L. Lubenow describes this discovery:

In the lower part of the scheme, concerning anatomically modern fossils like Homo sapiens, there is our old friend, Kanapoi KP271. We discussed the humerus in Chapter 5. William Howells had the same problem with this fossil as Russell Tuttle with the footprints of Laetol. According to evolution, it was too old to belong to a man. I quote Howells again:

The piece of the humerus of Kanapoi, which is approximately 4.4 million years old, cannot be distinguished morphologically from the man (Homo sapiens) and no differences were observed in a multivariable analysis done by Patterson and myself in 1967 (nor in later examinations by others). We suggested that it could be a South ape, because at that time the classification as a man (Homo) seemed idiotic, although this alternative had been right without the time element. ⁽⁹⁾

The evolutionists refuse to call old fossils by their right names. The reason is the protection of the evolution theory. It is apparent that we are not dealing with science but rather with a substance resembling mercury. We could describe methods of the evolutionists in many ways, but my mother, who did not joke about issues, had a clear name for it. (10)

Then why is it that discoveries like the previous one have not been accepted into the human family tree, even though they should be many times older than their fossilized ancestors? Why have they been rejected?

    The answer is that they did not fit into the supposed human family tree and therefore they were moved aside as uncertain. If they were to be accepted, it would call into question the whole descent of man from lower beings. Honestly, it's about believing in evolution and human development, even if the observations don't even support it.

    The following quotes tell more about it. Well-known researchers admit that remains that clearly belong to modern humans have been found in old strata every now and then, but they have been rejected because they were too modern in quality. Dozens of similar discoveries have been made:

Arthur Keith: “If human remains were found from the older Pleistocene strata, and they proved to be modern as comes to the size and shape, they were rejected as false antiquities, regardless of their degree of fossilization. But if the remains proved to be non-modern as comes to the quality, they were accepted as genuinely old, even though they might be imperfectly fossilized.” (11)

L.B.S. Leakey: “I have no doubt that that human remains belonging to these [Acheul and Chelles] cultures, have been found several times (...) but either they have not been identified as such or they have been rejected because they were the Homo sapiens type, and therefore they could not be regarded as old.” (12)

R.S Lull: … Such remains of skeletons have appeared again and again. (…) Any of them, even though they fulfill the other requirements of old age – being buried in old layers, appearing of animal remains among them and the same fossilization grade, etc. – are not enough to satisfy the requirements of physical anthropology, because none of them have any features of the body that the American Indians would not have nowadays.” (13)

Another important observation is that in age comparison of fossils it is impossible to observe any descent in the supposed order of evolution (1. Australopithecus, 2. Homo habilis, 3. Homo erectus, 4. Neanderthal, 5. Homo Sapiens). Instead, several finds indicate that all these groups in reality lived on Earth at the same time; even so that many more fossils clearly belonging to a modern man have been found in old layers than fossils of the supposed forefathers. This clearly nullifies the evolution theory and indicates that it has never taken place.

   The next quote refers to the same issue. It indicates how it is impossible to show the evolution of man, and how all forms appear without any clear evolutionary order. A teacher gave his students a task to inquire about the most important fossils and their classification and the ages the evolutionists have given to them. T The work of every student had to include at least five documented references to sources. The summary includes the following:

Because I know the literature concerning the evolution of man well, the outcomes of the task given by me were quite expected. After about three weeks, several students came to me moaning that there were major differences of opinion – concerning either the age or classification of some fossil – between different evolutionary sources. The ages of many fossil finds from the first half of the 20^th century are very questionable. In spite of that, many of these fossils form the backbone of human evolution. I could have told this to my students in a lecture but it would not have had a similar effect on them as their own studies.

   (…) At last, “the Fossil Day” of our course came. The students shared their reports to their classmates and set their fossils on a scheme following the ages and classifications given by evolutionists. As the pieces gradually snapped into place, the students understood more and more clearly that the fossils did not inevitably prove the evolution of man.

   If the evolution of man were true, the fossils would be placed on a time line from the South ape, through some form of Homo habilis, Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens, and finally to modern Homo sapiens (that is us, who are great and beautiful). Instead, the fossils will be placed here and there without any clear evolutionary order. Even though the students used the datings and classifications of the evolutionists themselves, it became clear to them that the fossil material rather nullifies the evolution of man. Any lecture or lecture series by me would not have been as impressive as a study the students did themselves. Nothing that I could have said would have had such a great effect on the students as the naked truth about the human fossil material itself.

   When I told people about this project, some of them were horrified: “Aren’t you taking quite a huge risk? What if it won’t work as you have thought? Wouldn’t it cause you an embarrassing situation as a professor?” In spite of the obscurities concerning some fossils, there are, however, so many fossils that the result will always be clear. The project always works! The obscurities have only a little effect on the result. The key is that you try to clarify all found human fossils and not only those that the evolutionists use as the proof of human evolution. Therefore, you seldom (or never) find a perfect fossil catalogue from the books handling the evolution of man. (14)

Age of Homo erectus fossils. Above, it was brought up how Sapiens-type fossils have appeared in the fossil record before the Australopithecus and lived simultaneously with them throughout their entire history. This should indicate that the Southern Ape cannot be a human ancestor. Charles Dynard, an expert on Southern Apes, has stated that "the genus Homo may actually be so old that it is completely contemporary with the genus Australopithecus, thus removing the latter from a direct place in the human family". ⁽¹⁵⁾

    Furthermore, if modern man, Homo sapiens, is at least as old as the Southern Apes, it means that modern man has been on earth longer than the post-Southern Ape forms: Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal man. The supposed ancestors of modern humans cannot be older than the Sapiens form, rather the opposite. This conclusion is reached if all the findings are taken into account and even if they use the evolutionists' own datings and ages.

   One indication that the human evolution tree cannot be correct are also the discoveries related to Homo erectus. Some of them are too old, some too young.

First, the old finds. According to the concept of evolution, Homo erectus appeared on earth 1.5 million years ago. However, Marvin L. Lubenow already stated in the early 2000s about the Homo erectus discoveries that "there are at least ... 32 discoveries that are dated to be older than 1.5 million years." ⁽¹⁶⁾ In other words, if evolutionists' own age classifications are used, Homo erectus has lived at least as long as its supposed ancestor Homo Habilis (the category, however, is unclear). This shows that Homo erectus could not have descented from Homo habilis.

    Another problem is the too young Homo erectus fossils. There have been dozens of discovered Homo erectus fossils that indicate a young age; meaning that they have coexisted with modern humans. This should not be possible, because according to the evolution concept, Homo erectus appeared on earth more than a million years before modern humans and disappeared from the earth before modern humans appeared.

    Marvin L. Lubenow raises this issue. It is questionable to put the different forms (1. Australopithecus, 2. Homo habilis, 3. Homo erectus, 4. Neanderthal, 5. Homo Sapiens) in chronological order, if the finds suggest that they lived simultaneously on earth, even in the recent past. For example, the so-called Cossack skull, which was found in Australia, suggests that Homo erectus might have lived on Earth a few hundred or 6500 years ago, at most.

There are at least 78 Homo erectus fossils dated to less than 30,000 years old, with the youngest being 6,000 years old. Since from the Bible's point of view, Homo erectus and modern man could interbreed, there would be time to progress from Homo erectus morphology to modern human morphology through natural genetic recombination. Only 6,000 years, on the other hand, is not enough to develop Homo erectus into modern humans using the mechanisms of evolution. Therefore, evolutionists must forget these fossils, deny the dating results, deny the morphology and claim that it was Homo sapiens. It can also be argued that it was the backyard of evolution that led to extinction. Those 78 fossil individuals of Homo erectus will still not disappear anywhere. (17)

Problems related to discoveries. If you read evolution literature, you will notice that they do not deal much with the problems of the theory of evolution. It is normal to show sure conclusions about the beginning of life itself and how the simple primordial cell turned into more and more complex forms of life. In the same way, sure conclusions can be made about events millions of years ago and what kind of climate prevailed at a certain time. It does not take into account that such things are difficult, even impossible to prove afterwards. Major conclusions are made with rather questionable data.

    Similar problems are related to the human family tree and discoveries made from the earth. Many people have the image that the discoveries are perfect skeletons and that the discoveries prove the development of man without gaps, but this image is far from reality. In reality, discoveries are fragile bones here and there, and researchers may argue about the significance of each discovery. Among other things, the following problems are common:

Do the bones belong together? As stated, discoveries usually aren’t whole skeletons with every piece still in place. Instead, there might be a single tooth, a jawbone, humerus, piece of a skull or some other singular bone. Or the bones could be in little pieces, scattered far away from each other, and they might even be mixed with a variety of animal bones. This is the reality of excavations. This comes apparent from the case of the so-called Turkana boy (160 cm tall, about 12 years old boy, who many admit to have completely resembled a modern man), who was the first Homo erectus fossil, in which the skull and the rest of the skeleton unquestionably belonged together. The well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey has described what kind of problems are encountered in the search for fossils:

Deducing evolutionary relationships from fragmented bone fragments is much more difficult than most realize, and many pitfalls require the unwary...most fossils found are just small fragments: a piece of skull, a cheekbone, a piece of ulna, and teeth. Identifying a species based on such scarce material is not an easy task – sometimes it is impossible. Because of the uncertainty, researchers disagree on both the number of species and the relationships between them. This… branch of biology is one of the most contentious fields of research. (18)

To make matters clearer, we are going to look at a few well-known fossil discoveries. These examples will illustrate, how deficient finds can be, and how bones might not belong to the same individual at all, or even to the same species:

Ardi is one example of discoveries. It was collected from 17 different places and over a distance of more than one and a half kilometers. There were also bones, bone parts, teeth and tooth chips of other vertebrate species near the remains found, so the possibility of mixing is considerable. To make matters even worse, almost every bone had been shattered and in danger of breaking into fine dust. The following quotations will tell more about the subject:

Finally, in 2009, it became clear that researchers had unearthed a large number of fossil bone pieces and fragments in 1994-1995, from which they were able to reconstruct most of the skeleton of an adult Ardipithecus. The problem was that almost every found bone was crushed. Tim White, who led the research team, said the skull fossil resembled the remains of an animal flattened under cars on the highway. In addition, the bone fragments were surrounded by very tightly packed clay. When trying to extract the fossils from the clay, they disintegrated into fine dust. The researchers had to moisten and strengthen each bone fragment fossil separately.

    … More than 6,000 fossils from different vertebrate species have been found in the same place: bones, bone parts and fragments, teeth and tooth chips. (19)

The material found consisted of 125 bone fragments that were hand-raked from the area of the middle course of the Awash River. First found (1992) were a child's jawbone, a tooth and a few pieces of bone. Two years later, one of the searchers found a piece of bone a stone's throw from where the teeth had been found. The researchers were crawling on all fours next to each other trying to find more. The animals had messed up the area, trampling the bones to pieces. By chance, part of a tibia and parts of a crushed skull and pelvis were found at the edge of the area. Bone chips were found in an area of several meters. Parts were found up to 1.5 km apart and some of them belonged to around 35 different individuals. Some of the bone pieces had to be embedded in plaster. They were too fragile to handle otherwise. (20)

Lucy. One of the best-known and best-preserved fossils is Lucy, a member of the Australopithecus group. It is estimated that about 40% of its skeleton has been recovered. However, Lucy is also assembled from numerous pieces of bone. The skeleton was badly fragmented and the parts were spread over a wide area, so it cannot be considered completely certain that the bones belong to the same individual. Some fossil scientists have considered Lucy's group Australopithecus Afarensis to be a mixture of several species.

The findings related to Homo habilis, or Handy Man, are very incomplete, consisting of only a few bone fragments. Even its size has not been reliably estimated. An indication of the incompleteness of the findings is the fact that several researchers do not consider Homo habilis as an authentic class, but think it is a mixture of different classes.

In 1964, Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias (University of the Witwaterstand, South Africa) and John Napier (University of London) published in the journal Nature a new human ancestor, Homo Habilis...

    Fossils were the subject of fierce controversy from the beginning. Some thought that they were just a mix of Southern apes and Homo erectus fossils, so they didn't form a class of their own. Even those who had a positive attitude to the new class were aware that the fossils were a mixture of juvenile and adult fossils. It is really difficult to analyze young individual’s material, because bones go through so many changes when growing up.

    ...So there was strong evidence that the Homo habilis class was not genuine, but consisted of a mixture of two or possibly three separate classes. One or more of the classes would have been as small as Lucy and the other slightly larger. This discovery should have removed the class Homo habilis from the position of the intermediate form of the Southern apes and Homo erectus. (21)

Homo rudolfensis, or skull KNM-ER 1470, was originally included in the genus Homo habilis, but is now considered a separate group. The parts of this skull were broken into hundreds of bone fragments and it was missing important parts such as teeth, lower jaw and cheekbones. Many have doubted the reconstruction of skull 1470. Science author Roger Lewin explains further:

One factor of uncertainty was the angle at which the facial part connected to the skull. Alan Walker remembers a situation where he, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey examined two parts of the skull: "You could hold the the maxilla bone further and form an elongated face, or you could place it nearer, making the face shorter," he recalls. "How you held it, depends on your presuppositions. It was interesting to see what people did with it." Leakey also remembers the incident: "Yes, if you held it in a certain way, in a certain position, it looked like one option (human), if you liked it in another way, it looked like something else (Southern ape)." (22)

The Java Man. For years, the Java Man has been regarded as the most important find in the pedigree of man. In the quote above, Encyclopedia Britannica (part 14, p. 763) stated it to be “the find that shines the most light on evolution.” The Encyclopedia Britannica listed as the second most important find the so-called Piltdown Man that was later found to be a counterfeit.

   As far as the finds of the Java Man are concerned, it is curious that no unified whole has been found, only a few parts that were located very far from each other. The found parts, which were a piece of skull, 3 teeth and a left femur, were at best 15 meters away from each other, and the sixth part, a part of the lower jaw, was found on the other side of the island, about 40 km away from the other parts! In addition, the remains of about 27 other different animals were found in the area of the first discovery site!

    A good question is, how scientific is it to collect bone chips that are 15 meters apart, in the middle of other bones, and add a piece of bone that is 40 km away, and claim that they belonged together? No one can know they all came from the same creature. Professor Virchow from Berlin has raised a problem related to the discoveries:

Nothing at all proves that these bones are parts of the same animal. (23)

Denisova man. One of the most recent discoveries is Denisova man. This discovery appears in the new evolutionary literature and has been given great credit. However, this discovery consists of only a few pieces of bone. Juha Valste tells about the Denisova man as follows in his book Neandertalinihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri (p. 35,36), published in 2015. He also mentions the Heidelberg man, whose skull size (approx. 1200 cm3) and shape completely correspond to the skull of modern humans. The quote illustrates, how far fetched conclusions researchers can make based on small discoveries. Boldface in the text has been added afterwards:

About 0.6 million years ago, the first, very large Heidelberg humans (Homo heidelbergensis) evolved from the Upright Man in Africa. They had larger brains than the Upright Man: the brain size of fossils found varies from 1100 to 1450 cubic centimeters. The skull was also rounder and the face more upright than in modern humans. Many of their features remind us of modern humans, but they also resembled Neanderthals. Because of their modern appearance, they used to be often called early modern humans.

    The Heidelberg man was also successful and in turn spread to Asia and Europe. In Europe and Southwest Asia, it evolved into Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis), in Central and Southeast Asia into Denisovan (there is no scientific name yet, because only one tooth and one toe and one finger bone are known from the species) and in Africa into modern man (Homo Sapiens)...

    These three human forms that evolved from Heidelberg man – modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals – evolved from the same stock form, so they are sister species. However, quite a few researchers are of the opinion that it is only about three different subspecies of one species, i.e. humans (Homo sapiens).

Counterfeits. One problem to be taken into account in the history of fossils is the existence of counterfeits. The so-called Piltdown Man, who for a long time was considered an important intermediate form, is one of them. The significance of the Piltdown Man in the pedigree of man can be illustrated by the fact that more than 500 Dissertations on him were written and e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 14, p. 763) wrote about it and the Java man:

The find that shines the most light on evolution was made in Java in 1891 and 1892 (…). He is deemed the intermediate form between man and ape (…) the real missing link.

   (The previous refers to the Java Man, but the text below refers to the Piltdown man)

   The second most notable find (…) was made by Mr. Charles Dawson in Piltdown of Sussex between the years 1911 and 1915 (…). It was found that the gravel layer had stratified in the early Pleistocene period and it is certain that the fossil remains of this human skull are as old as the layer. (24)

Piltdown man was considered the second most important discovery a little over a hundred years ago. However, as the skull was later examined, it was found to be a fraud. The skull was a combination of a modern man’s skull and of an ape’s jawbone, and therefore could not be a genuine fossil. Its teeth had been filed and its bones dyed, so that its true origin would not be noticed.

   Finally in 1953, when forty years had passed, this “second most notable find after the Java Man” was proven a fake. The newspapers wrote about the new twist and the sensation that surprisingly came to light. One of the biggest frauds in the history of science was revealed and became well-known:

London, 22 November (1953)

British anthropologists were greatly surprised on Saturday when they found out that they had been fooled for 40 years. Namely, it has been found out that the jaws and teeth of the world-famous Piltdown Man are that of a modern chimpanzee and not of a man who lived 100,000 years ago.

   On Saturday, the British Museum published a report of an analysis indicating that “the jaws and teeth had been joined in a fraudulent way to this skull that is otherwise prehistoric”. (25)

Why, then, did the fraud involving the Pildtown man only come to light decades later? One reason may be that the researchers did not have a proper opportunity to study the fossil discovery. For example, Louis Leakey tells in his book Adam's Ancestors about his attempt to study the original Pildtown fossils in more detail, but they were only given to him for a short time. He was then given a replica to continue working on.  However, traces of filing were not detectable in the replica, like they were in the original fossil.

    In this example, the problem related to fossil discoveries becomes very clear: few people get to study the original discoveries in more detail. They might be behind the vaults, where only people sympathetic to the matter are allowed to go, those who agree in advance with the person who made the discoveries. Or the effort is made to protect fossils because of their fragility. They break down easily if touched and moved. This all makes human fossil research quite a mysterious field, where the researchers cannot access the fossils, and some fossils don’t even have replicas. Marvin L. Lubenow describes this secretive area of science:

Access to primitive fossils is virtually impossible even for most of those who write and teach in the field of paleoanthropology. In addition, only a small number of fossils have replicas available. Copies, on the other hand, are not recommended for use when preparing scientific publications, and the publications in question are not able to adequately tell about the differences between the fossils. So it seems that paleoanthropology is a very problematic field of "science". (26)

Artists’ contribution. If we go back to the 1920s, so then was one of the most famous human ancestors the so-called Nebraska man. It was used as "convincing" evidence in the so-called monkey trial. Several pictures of it and its life were published, so that it was not unclear to anyone how it had lived and where humans have evolved from.

    But what was the background of Nebraska man? When the case was investigated, it turned out that this human ancestor was created only based on one tooth! What did this tooth belong to? It didn't belong to a human but to an extinct pig! This shows how important artists are in creating mental images. In this case, the imagery had no scientific basis.

    Detailed images and drawings depicting supposed early humans are precisely what greatly impact people’s belief on human evolution today. They are usually depicted with slightly ape-like and hunchbacked features, as well as an essence that is believed to resemble these creatures. The older a find is considered, the more animal features are drawn.

   However, the problem with these models is that they are based on mere preconceptions and imagination of the artists rather than what really is known. It is because the bones are often broken and the facial bones are completely missing. Similarly, it is quite impossible to draw the soft parts of the face and facial expressions based on the bones alone. It has been said that artists can just as well shape, for example, the features of a monkey or a philosopher on a Neanderthal skull, so there is plenty of choice! Only the creativity of the artists poses the limits to the pictures and drawings of the primordial man: The following comment tells more about the topic:

E.A. Hooton: When noting that we only have fractional parts of most of the skulls, and the facial parts are usually missing, we can easily understand how mere restoration of the facial bones (reconstruction) leaves room for doubt. Restoration of the soft parts is an even more dubious undertaking. The lips, eyes, ears, and the tip of the nose do not offer any reference as comes to the bones below. One can as well model the features of an ape as those of a philosopher on a Neanderthal skull. Restoration of the ancient human beings has very little, if any, scientific value, and it will probably only lead the public astray.  (27)

Dating problems. When it comes to determining the age of supposed human ancestors, we often read about long periods of time such as hundreds of thousands or a few million years. How have these datings and long ages been obtained? Very often it is the Kalium/Argon method, which does not measure the age of the fossil itself, but the age of igneous rocks found in nearby deposits. If the age of the layer above can be determined, the bones below it must be at least as old or older.

    Are these methods reliable? There is certainly no need to doubt that the correct potassium/argon concentrations are found out in the measurements. The results are certainly accurate in terms of concentrations, but it is questionable to relate concentrations to age.

    The reason for the former is that the Potassium/argon method has been tested in practice, and it has not worked out very well. A good example is the St. Helena volcano, which erupted between 1980 and 1986. Well-known geologist Steven A. Austin studied lava samples from this area (Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano/Steven A. Austin, 1996). What were the results? A well-known research institute in the field gave the samples ages from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years! In reality, the deposits and samples were only 10-16 years old, which shows the unreliability of the Potassium/Argon method.

    Another example is Nguaruhoe, one of New Zealand's most active volcanoes. It is known that it has erupted at least 60 times since Europeans first noticed its activity in 1849. In 1975 there was one of the most violent eruptions.

    Also, samples from this volcano's lava eruptions were sent to a well-known laboratory for Potassium/Argon dating. According to eyewitnesses, the age of the rocks was 25-50 years, but the results were of the same order as in the case of the St. Helena volcano. They can be seen in the following table.

What conclusions can we draw from the Potassium/argon method? If it gives the fresh rocks (10-16 years or 25-50 years) the same age as the deposits where the oldest Australopithecus, Homo erectus and other fossils have been found, the age classification of these fossils can be questioned. In reality, they may be only a few hundred or thousands of years old. This possibility should be taken into account.

MAIN INTERMEDIATE FORMS. When it comes to human descent, it was already stated earlier how it is impossible to draw a single evolutionary series of human development. The reason is simple: fossils that clearly belong to a modern human have been found inside strata that are at the very least as old as our supposed ancestors’ strata. It means that modern man has been on earth for at least as long as the ancestors, who are considered simple.

    Despite everything, researchers have tried to draw developmental series and family trees. Names such as Ardi, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus and Neanderthal have appeared in it. We will briefly examine these groups. 

Ardipithecus Ramidus or Ardi. It was already stated earlier how Ardi was assembled from several fragile bone fragments that were far from each other. There is no guarantee that all the bone chips belonged to the same individual or species, because there were also other vertebrate species with bone chips and tooth chips at the discovery site.

    The size of Ard's brain has been mentioned as only 300-350 cm³, which is a quarter of the size of a modern human brain. It shows that it is an ordinary monkey, e.g. a creature like a chimpanzee.

    Many scholars in the field disagree on the meaning of Ardi. They don't see it as an important intermediate form but as a monkey. Esteban E. Sarmiento and Rex Dalton wrote their own views on the subject in Science magazine and Nature ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5982/1105  

and  http://www.nature.com/_news/2010/100527/_full/news.2010.267.html ).

Australopithecus or Southern apes. The appearance of Australopithecus has been considered as one important stage in the development. It is believed to have appeared on Earth 2-4 million years ago and appeared after the aforementioned Ard.

    In the research related to Australopithecus, the first thing that comes across is the small size of the brain. For example, the brain volume of Lucy, the most famous representative of the Australopithecus, has been measured at just over 400 cm3 - a volume that is only about a third of the size of the human brain and the same as that of modern chimpanzees and gorillas. Such a small size of the brain shows that it cannot be a human at least. Most likely, Lucy and other representatives of the same species were just ordinary monkeys. Apparently, it is a question of a dead branch of the family tree, as some researchers have suggested.

    Another observation relates to the skull shape of Lucy and other Australopithecus. It is very ape-like and not human-like at all. It is very similar in shape and size to the skull of a chimpanzee; so is it just a regular chimpanzee or an extinct species? It can't be a human at all, because the deviations from modern humans are too great.

    The following quotes also show how questionable it is to consider Australopithecus as a representative of the human species, since it is clearly similar to modern apes, not humans. There is a clear distinction between it and the genus homo:

The Australopithecus was only an upright walking, intelligent anthropoid, not a human. The small cranium with intense bone crests above the eyes and on top of the head is similar to that of an anthropoid ape. (28)

When comparing the skulls of a man and an anthropoid, the skull of an Australopithecus clearly more resembles the skull of an anthropoid. Claiming otherwise would be the same as asserting that black is white. (29)

Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (30)

Handling the fossil material of the South apes is needless. They are simply extinct primates. The fact that sapiens-type fossils have appeared in the fossil material before the South apes and have lived simultaneously with them through their whole history reveals that the South apes have nothing to do with the origin of man. An expert of the South apes, Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) concludes that “the family Homo can actually be so old that it is contemporary with Australopithecus family, so it takes away from the last mentioned the direct place in man’s family tree”. ⁽³¹⁾ The fossil scheme on page 313 indicates this to be true.

   Also other paleoantropologists have stated that they believe that the South apes were not forefathers of humans. In a review of a paleoanthropological examination in the course of the last hundred years, Matt Cartmill (Duke University) and late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) state that the South apes are quickly sinking to the position of specialized apes. (32)

Well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey tells more about the subject. He mentions studies related to the locomotion of Australopithecus. According to research, Australopithecus (southern apes) were ape-like, while all homo species have a human-like structure:

A couple of years ago, Robert Martin's colleague, anthropologist Peter Schmid from Zϋrich, got to study Lucy's famous fossil. Using fiberglass molds made from fossil bones, Schmid began constructing Lucy's skeleton. He expected it to be shaped like a human skeleton. Schmid was amazed by the result: Lucy's chest was conical in shape; thus it resembled apes rather than humans with a barrel-shaped chest. Lucy's shoulders, body and waist also had strong ape-like features... Today's apes are heavy-built compared to their height: they weigh twice as much as a human of the same height. The measurements of the fossils could also be divided into the now familiar two clear groups. The body structure of the Southern apes was ape-like, and all Homo species were human-like. (33)

Homo habilis, or Handy man, has been considered the next stage of evolution after Australopithecus. The school textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 184) says that “From the early Australopithecus, the evolutionary line obviously continues to primitive people, i.e., to Homo habilis, a representative of prehistoric humans”.

    However, the position of Homo habilis in the human family tree has always been questionable and only a few bone fragments have been found. Many researchers do not even consider Homo habilis as an authentic class, but think it is a mixture of different classes. According to some estimates, it may have been even more ape-like than Lucy, the best-known member of the Australopithecus genus:

The part of a skeleton that Don Johanson found with his fellow workers from the valley of Olduvai was named Homo habilis (OH 62). Besides some distinctive marks resembling the jawbone of a man, it has quite big molar teeth and the dimensions of the body resemble an ape even more than those of the famous partial skeleton Lucy. (…)

   In order for a fossil to belong in the family Homo in the most limited sense, the fossil must meet the following criteria: human-like upright walking posture, a volume of brain larger than 800 cm³, and the ability to practice culture (including language). Based on these criteria, the Habilis cannot belong to this group… (34)

Homo rudolfensis, also known as the Turkana man, is primarily based on the skull KNM-ER 1470. This discovery was briefly discussed earlier. This skull was shattered into hundreds of little pieces and missed some crucial parts, like teeth, the lower jaw and cheekbones. Many have also doubted the reconstruction of skull 1470. However, its brain volume is estimated to be 750 cm³, hence it might be a human.

Homo erectus, or Upright Man. If the aforementioned Homo habilis (a mixture of several species) and Homo rudolfensis (a skull created from hundreds of bone fragments, the reconstruction of which has been questioned by many) are ambiguous categories, then Homo erectus is in a sense a clearer case; it's a real human. Evolutionists would like to see some kind of difference between this class and modern humans, but it is questionable due to e.g. of the following factors:

The time factor is the first reason. It was already noted how the remains of modern humans have been found in strata that are at least as old or even older than those of their supposed ancestors. Thus, modern man must have been on earth longer than these "ancestors".

    The oldest Homo erectus fossils found are only approx. 2 million years old (according to the evolutionary scale), but the remains and footprints of modern humans have been found in 3-4 million year old strata. In addition, there are indications that Homo erectus have lived in the very recent past. The so-called Cossack skull suggests that Homo erectus could have lived on earth only a few hundred years or at most 6,500 years ago.

    The second observation is related to the Javan man, the most famous Homo erectus of his time. For in 1907, a research team (17 experts at most) was sent to the area of Java, where Eugene Dubois had excavated his Javanese people. The purpose of the expedition was to confirm Dubois' findings and search for more Javanese remains, but it was not successful.

    Instead, some interesting observations were made regarding the dating. They showed that Dubois had seriously overestimated the age of the strata in which he found his fossils.

    Perhaps the most interesting of the observations is related to the origin of the deposits from which Dubois's fossil, Pithecanthropus, was excavated. When nature's activity is high in those areas, it could be concluded that the deposits cannot be at all 500,000 years old, but only 500 – 600 years. Therefore, the report concluded that the deposits were far too young to contain any information about human origins:

Perhaps the most surprising part of the report described violent eruptions of a nearby volcano Lawu-Kukusa and floods after them in this part of Java approximately at intervals of thirty years. The geological activity was so violent that the report states volcanic Trinil’s sediments of Pithecanthropus to be quite too young to offer any information about man’s origin. The local traditions tell that the Solo River changed its direction in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. This would mean that the Trinil layers were only 500 years old – not at all 500,000 years old, as is believed. Because volcanic material is very mineralized, the report states that the fossilizing grade of the Pithecanthropus is caused by the chemical nature of the volcanic material, not by its age.

    Max Blankerhorn wrote a summary of the report. He apologized in it to the readers that their wishes to confirm the finds of Dubois looked like nullifying Dubois’ work. He used the German word meaning “fruitless” to describe his failure to confirm Dubois’ claims about Java Man as our evolutional forefather. (35)

Brain size. The size of the modern human brain can vary between approx. 750-2100 cm³, so the range is very wide. The average brain size is approx. 1350 cm3, while it is, for example, 400 cm3 in modern apes and 400-500 cm³ in representatives of the Australopithecus class. The difference between humans and these two groups is notable: nearly 1000 cm³.

    On the other hand, Homo erectus fits well into the category that modern humans have in terms of brain size. The brain sizes of Homo erectus are approx. 900-1100 cm³, so there is no difference with modern humans. In addition, the basic structure of the skull is very similar to modern humans, as the following quote shows:

Although the morphology of the skull, with its strong brow arches, low and backward-curving head, and massive jaws, seems to be clearly different from modern humans, this does not apply to the basic structure of the skull. However, they had a brain size suitable for the range of modern humans (900-1100 cm3), a human-like brain structure (inferred from the mould taken from the interior of the skull) and human-like seams at the base of the skull. It also had an entirely human-like nose structure. The structure of the bones of the body and limbs was very similar in proportions to a modern human and it was exceptionally strong. Several skeletal fragments found in Africa indicate that these forms walked upright in a human-like manner. (36)

Walking upright. The previous quote mentioned how Homo erectus walked upright like a modern human. It is considered one of the important criteria that it is a human being. Instead, e.g. representatives of the Australopithecus class were probably more tree climbers. Their structure, such as hands suitable for hanging and climbing, massive shoulder bones and short necks, resemble modern apes more than humans.

Tools and culture are related to Homo erectus. Stone tools, signs of the use of fire, burial and the use of red ocher, and even signs of water travel by boats, have been found at several Homo erectus sites. Such signs clearly indicate humanity. The following quote tells more about the subject: 

Even archeological evidence shows that the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is artificial. Archaeological material is always limited. However, all the evidence that shows the full humanity of Homo erectus and that could reasonably be expected to be found has already been found.

    Of the 83 places where Homo erectus fossils have been found, stone tools have also been found in at least 40 places. The eight Homo erectus sites also give indications of the controlled use of fire. However, the most significant thing is that at the oldest sites, which are dated to 1.5 and 2.0 million years old, both tools and fire have been found in connection with Homo erectus... Three Upper Pleistocene sites of Homo erectus give indications of burial, one site of cremation, one of the use of red ocher and one of a bone-chopping tool... There are also indications that Homo erectus used seaworthy boats. Michael Morwood (University of New England, NSW, Australia) reports on the astonishing discovery of Flores Island in Indonesia in 1994. (37)

When it comes to tools that were possibly created by the Homo erectus, it is interesting that similar tools have also been used by modern humans, especially isolated populations. For example, Mary Leakey has told how distant Turkana tribes use similar stone axes when opening the nuts of the doum palm ⁽³⁸⁾. Similarly, it is known that there are communities in New Guinea that have used stone tools, although at the same time their language has been complex and developed. These examples show that Homo erectus populations may have been as advanced as modern humans.

    Another example of culture. In his book The Origin of Humankind, Richard Leakey tells about a person named Nicholas Toth, who became familiar with the technique of making stone objects. Leakey wrote how the making of stone axes was not a one-day affair:

This is shown by the objects called hand axes: they were drop-shaped tools that required great skill and patience to make. It took several months for Toth and other experimenters to achieve such a skill that they could produce hand axes of the same quality as those found in archaeological excavations of the time. (39)

Researchers' comments. If the volume of the brain of Homo erectus is the same as that of modern humans and the limbs also resemble the limbs of modern humans, it must be considered a real human. There is no other possibility. The presence of tools and culture in connection with bone finds also points to an ordinary modern man.

    That is, if a Homo erectus were to walk the streets today, it would have no noticeable differences to other people around it. He would be an ordinary human.

    It is interesting to note that some fossil researchers have come to the same conclusion. They have proposed to associate Homo erectus in the species Homo sapiens, because the boundaries between these groups are artificial and do not correspond to practical observations. It means that Homo erectus was actually a genuine modern man. The last comment refers to Milford Wolpoff, who has also proposed to include Homo Erectus in the category Homo sapiens. What makes this evolutionist paleontologist's statement remarkable is that he is said to have seen more of the original hominid fossil record than anyone else.

Gabriel Ward Lasker: Homo erectus differs from modern humans (Homo sapiens), but the differences tend to be exaggerated. Even if we ignore intermediate forms or otherwise difficult-to-classify individuals and limit our consideration to the populations of Java and Beijing, the range of many features of Homo erectus fits the range of modern humans. (40)

F. Clark Howel and Bernard Campbell: His bones were heavier and thicker than those of modern man. Larger bones require larger muscles to move them. However, the skeletal differences were not particularly noticeable. From below the neck, as one expert has pointed out, the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans can only be noticed by an experienced anatomy expert. (41)

Donald C. Johanson: It would be interesting to know if a modern man and a million-year-old Homo erectus woman could have a child together. A strong hunch says they might. The evolution that has taken place is probably not the kind that would prevent successful mating. But this does not invalidate the correctness of the species definition above, since the two cannot mate. Time separates them two in the sense of procreation. (42)

Wolpoff has been one of the loudest evolutionists who have demanded that the Homo erectus class should be connected to the Homo sapiens. He writes together with Wu Xin Zhin (Institute of Paleoanthropology, Beijing) and Alan G. Thorn (National University of Australia): “According to our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the boundary between Homo erectus / Homo sapiens is arbitrary and use a non-morphological (or chronological) criterion for its defining, or Homo erectus should be connected to [Homo sapiens].” ⁽⁴³⁾

   Connecting Homo erectus to Homo sapiens means that all “classes” in evolution-theoretical line from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens. These would include the early Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster and the Neanderthals. (44)

Neanderthal man. If Homo erectus completely resembles modern man, the same is true of Neanderthal man. Its brain size is equivalent to that of a modern human, or was even larger than the brain size of an average modern human. Similarly, the shape of the skull fully corresponds to modern humans and fits the variations that occur in modern humans.

    Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas Huxley also did not consider the Neanderthal man as our evolutionary ancestor, but as an ordinary person. Donald Johanson and James Shreeve write in their book Lucy's Child (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1989, p. 49):

From a collection of human skulls, Huxley was able to select a series in which the features gradually changed from the average human to the Neanderthal skull. So it was not qualitatively different from today's Homo sapiens.

What about the structure of Neanderthals? It is likely that many of them suffered from rickets and arthritis, and some fossil drawings have been made from these diseased skeletons. However, later discoveries have shown that they completely resemble modern humans. There doesn't have to be any difference between us and them.

    Thus, when you meet "people from history" and pay attention to their features, it is not necessarily a question of anything other than ordinary variations observed also among modern people. Even today, there are tall and short people with very different skeletal structures. Similarly, the shape and appearance of the skull can vary greatly. The mentioned "people of history" can therefore be the same people as the present ones. They fit into the crowd that meets us on the streets:

As Pithecanthropus-Sinanthropus fossils from Java and China and different Neanderthal people are described, generally attention is paid to their differences when compared to us. It is assumed that fossils have unusually thick skulls, exceptionally large teeth, and it is claimed that they have a massive protruding chin. (...) Many present-day Americans perfectly fit in with the fossils as comes to the thickness of their skulls. With certain reservations, it is possible to show that there is no clear difference between a present-day American and a paleoanthropologic fossil: the living men and women of today could be representatives of these fossils. (...)

   It is quite clear that the tooth size of present-day Americans fits within the limits posed by these fossils, as does the thickness of the skull. We cannot reach any actual classification based on these features. (...) When comparing the fossils to a fairly small group (258) of present-day Americans, it looks like that the size and form of our chin are the same as those of the fossils. Except for a couple of exceptions, all the euhominides, erectuses and sapienses would fit perfectly in a group of modern white Americans. (...) Once again, it seems that the fossils are no different from us as comes to quality. (45)

Secondly, there are enough finds about the culture and art of the Neanderthal people – finds that indicate they were real humans. There is no reason to suppose that they differed from modern man. Only our preconceived notion of man’s evolution leads us to draw different conclusions:

Fortunately, the appreciation of the Neanderthal culture may be increasing. Recent finds include personal ornaments and possibly a flute used by the Neanderthals. Archaeologist Randall White (University of New York) says about the Neanderthals, “The evidence like this we accumulate, the more they look like us.” ⁽⁴⁶⁾ It can be said that we have now found almost everything that can be expected from fossil and archaeological evidence. It indicates that the Neanderthals are genuine men. Some authorities of the area have not confessed it yet. (47)

What about the genetic connection of Neanderthal man to modern man? Svante Pääbo, in his fairly recent book (Neandertalilainen, kadonnutta perimää etsimässä / Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes, 2014, p. 267, 231) has referred to how the Neanderthal man's DNA has been preserved in modern man and how Neanderthal man and modern man are the same species. He came to this result with his team of researchers after years of studying the genetics of both. These studies suggest that the Neanderthal man must have been an ordinary human:

I looked at David and Nick's results on the computer screen. They hadn't made a technical mistake. Neanderthals had influenced the DNA of modern humans. I had dreamed of such an achievement for 25 years. We had irrefutable evidence of the answer to the fundamental, decades-debated question of human origin, and the answer was surprising. It showed that the human genome did not come entirely from ancestors who lived in Africa, and disproved the strict African-origin hypothesis, which had been outlined by, among others, my supervisor Allan Wilson. It contradicted my own perceptions. Neanderthals were not completely extinct, as their DNA was preserved in modern humans.

… Many consider a species to be a group of organisms that can produce reproductive offspring with each other, but not with other groups. From this point of view, we had shown that Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species. 

In his fairly recent book (Neandertalinihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri, 2015), Juha Valste has brought out more features of Neanderthals that completely resemble modern humans. He mentions that these people could talk, they interbred with modern humans, they were not hairy, they had an upright walking posture, they cared for the disabled and the elderly, they looked human and not ape-like, and their culture was at a high level. All these signs point to the fact that these were ordinary people.

     In addition, Juha Valste tells in his book (pp. 8,14) how the image of Neanderthals has been constantly changing among researchers. They used to be considered a bit monkey-like, but not anymore.

The one-sided image of Neanderthal man that I had early on began to change when, later in the 1960s, I got my hands on new books dealing with human evolution. They had taken into account the mistakes that Boule had made in describing the structure, postures and mental abilities of Neanderthal man. In France, the reputation of Neanderthals had already been "cleansed" in the mid-1950s. They had turned into real people…. While writing books and articles about human evolution and lecturing about it at the University of Helsinki from 2002 to 2011, I had to renew the parts about Neanderthals every year.

    … Just about none of the things that “everyone knows” about Neanderthals are true. The few things that are even roughly true are interpreted differently nowadays than they were in the middle of the 20th century. Since the middle of the 20th century, researchers have been forced to change one perception after another... However, we can just as well consider that we belong to the same species as the Neanderthals. The name of this species is man – modern man and Neanderthal were two different subspecies, both exactly the same distance from chimpanzee.

Sliding intermediate forms. As stated, it is difficult to draw a line between the Homo erectus group, Neanderthal man, and modern man. They are very similar to each other and the fossils found fit well into the range that exists even today. Instead, the difference between all of them, e.g. to the Australopithecus class, is huge because the brain size of the Australopithecus class was only a third of the size of a modern human's brain and their body structure resembled chimpanzees and gorillas. They certainly weren't human.

    One example of how absurd it is to define species differences from human fossils is the fossil collection of the Sima de Los Huesos cave in Spain. The remains of dozens of people have been found in this cave, the range and diversity of which is amazing. One of the adult skulls is one of the smallest skulls of this era and the other one of the largest. Furthermore, the skulls share roughly equal similarities with all three groups; Homo erectus, Neanderthal and modern man. It is clear that such a variation is not due to evolution and long periods of time, since it is a population that lived at approximately the same time and in the same area. Instead, the Sima de Los Huesos fossil collection is a good example of the variation that has occurred in the past and still occurs among humans today; height, skull shape and size, and other characteristics may vary.

    The following quote shows well how slippery the boundaries between different groups are and how questionable it is to distinguish between the classes Homo erectus, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. They resemble each other too much. It's about fossils from Europe that were originally classified as Homo erectus. However, when it was concluded between 1968 and 1976 that no Homo erectus fossils could have occurred in Europe, the same fossils were redefined as "ancient Homo sapiens" and even after that as Neanderthals. The classification of the groups therefore changed in a short time so that the same fossils represented three different groups. It just goes to show how artificial and slippery the boundaries between these groups are. In reality, it has most certainly been the question of ordinary modern people all along:

One or more competent paleoanthropologists had, however, classified most of the “ancient” fossils found from Europe at that time as Homo erectus before drawing this “conclusion.” Among them were the fossils from Montmaur, Bilzingsleben, Castel di Guido, Arago, Vertesszöllös, Mauer and Petralona. These and other fossils were reclassified as “ancient Homo sapiens” so that they could be differentiated both from the Homo erectus and the Neanderthals. Only on the grounds of finds in one place, all these fossils are now classified as Neanderthals. I cannot think of any other example that could indicate more clearly the insignificance of these classes. Neither can I think of any other example that would indicate more clearly the imperfectness of man’s evolution, since a find only in one place causes a revolution like this in the interpretation of so many fossils. The issue concerned at least 68 fossils in 16 places. (48)

THE ORIGIN OF MAN. When it comes to human origins, we often hear the following two arguments:

• The similarity between humans and chimpanzees is 98.5%

• Man has lived on earth for tens or hundreds of thousands of years

Are these claims based on science and real facts?

    First, the similarity between humans and chimpanzees, about 98.5%. This idea was already presented in the 1970s, but at that time only part of the genotype of humans and great apes was known. Most of their genotype was uncharted, so the claims made in the 1970s were premature and incorrect in this respect. In addition, the research has been criticized because large parts of the DNA were deliberately ignored. Whether this is true or not, it is certain that the number 98.5% will appear in many publications for years to come because it is so ingrained in people's minds.

    However, there has been a change in this area. Roy Britten, who in the 1970s published a figure of 98.5%, already presented a figure of 94.5% or less years ago. In addition, it has been admitted in scientific journals that the differences between humans and chimpanzees may be more than has been assumed until now.

    The percentages in themselves are not important. Everyone can notice for themselves that the differences between humans and chimpanzees are greater than 1.5 percentage points. Chimps don't drive cars, study in schools, write or read thrillers, fly airplanes, build skyscrapers, or pray. These features are characteristic only of man, who according to the Bible is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.), but not for chimpanzees or other animals.

   What about the idea that man has lived on earth for tens or hundreds of thousands of years? We often read that some discoveries related to humans may be of that age or, for example, cave paintings 15,000-30,000 years old. The problem with these finds, however, is that there are no labels on them to determine their age. On the other hand, some cave paintings are so finely made that not many people today are capable of similar works of art. How would grunting people who had just risen from the level of animals level be able to do that? This kind of thinking makes no sense?

    What, then, is the true history of man? One of the most remarkable things is that the known history of man only goes back about 4000 to 5000 years. Suddenly and simultaneously appeared such things as writing, building, cities, farming, culture, complex mathematics, pottery, tool making, and other things considered characteristic of man. Many evolutionists like to talk about prehistoric and historical times, but there is no proper evidence that prehistoric times existed e.g. 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, because buildings and the aforementioned things are not known for sure from that time.

    It is completely strange that man would have evolved already a couple of million years ago, but his culture would have suddenly erupted a few millennia ago. A better explanation is that man has only existed for a few millennia, and therefore buildings, cities, language skills and culture have only appeared during that time.

    The following quotes refer to the same thing. They show how suddenly Civilization has appeared in the world. In the first of the statements, the developer of the radiocarbon method, professor W.F. Libby, who said at the time in the Science magazine on March 3, 1961 (p. 624) that verified history only goes back about 5,000 years. He talked about the ruling families of Egypt, in the dating of which there may also be hundreds of years of errors (This was reported, e.g., in a three part TV series called ”Faaraot ja kuninkaat”, which was presented on Finnish television in December of 1996):

"Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (49)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the diggers would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (50)

One indication of how Civilization suddenly appeared in the world is also mathematics. For example, the square root was already known 4000-5000 years ago. A good question is, why was it not known before or why did it appear at this particular time? Such things fit well with the model that the book of Genesis presents: that is, man was complex from the beginning, and he has not been on earth for many thousands of years. The following quote tells more about the subject. It also discusses mathematics:

Around 2000 BC, the schoolboys of the small Sumerian settlement of Šadippur had a 'textbook' in which the solution to Euclid's famous triangle problem was presented 1700 years before Euclid...

    The 'textbooks' made of clay by Šadippur schoolboys contain, like an encyclopedia, the main features of the scientific knowledge of the time, which forces a thorough review of the history of the development of science and therefore also the history of the development of the human mind...

    This suggests that around 2000 BC, mathematics reached a level of development that archaeologists and historians of natural science had never imagined possible. (51)

DNA and the age of fossils. Interestingly, DNA has successfully been extracted from Neanderthal humans. These samples should be 35 000 years old.

   How long can DNA stay preserved, however? DNA examinations have proven this substance to decay rather quickly. Yle uutiset (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012), a Finnish news outlet, reported that DNA has a very limited preservation time: its half-life was measures to be only 521 years. The news also reported the following:

The last limit of DNA preservation was found - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended

Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. DNA does not survive nearly as long, not even in the ideal conditions, according to a recent study…

   By comparing the age of the samples and the decay rates of the DNA, scientists were able to calculate a half-life of 521 years. This means that after 521 years half of the nucleotide joints in the DNA have broken apart. After another 521 years this has also happened to half of the remaining joints and so on.

What does the previous news mean? If DNA has a half-life of 521 years, it is impossible for it to exist in fossils more than 35,000 years old. Because if you do the calculations, after 5210 years the amount of DNA should only be 1/1024 of the amount that was originally in the organism. After 10,420 years, the amount of DNA should only be 1/1,048,576 (ie about one millionth) of the original amount. 35,000 years is already such a number of years that it is absolutely impossible that there is any DNA left after such a long time. The math shows this.

    What is characteristic of this area is that even from old human mummies that have been studied, DNA samples cannot always be obtained because this material has been spoiled. A good example is when Svante Pääbo studied the tissue samples of 23 mummies in the Berlin museum in Uppsala. He was able to isolate DNA from only one mummy, indicating that this substance cannot last very long (Nature 314: 644-645).

    The conclusion that can be drawn from the DNA measurements is clear. It cannot be about fossils as old as has been thought. In all probability, these are fossils only a few millennia old. If DNA samples cannot be obtained from mummies whose age is approximately known, how can the same be possible for fossils whose age is about ten times greater? Here, researchers should think more carefully and stop making assumptions about tens of thousands and millions of years. You shouldn't trust them completely.

Population growth. As stated, it is reasonable to believe that civilization appeared in the world only a few millennia ago. The reason for this is simple: man did not exist before that. There is no convincing evidence on the basis of which one could conclude that man lived on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago.

    Population growth also does not support the idea that the beginning of humanity is somewhere far away in the past. We can see that from the following examples:

• According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years (Even shorter times for doubling have been presented. In addition, it must be noted that in the past there was no abortion and birth control to the same extent as today.). If this doubling rate and the idea that there were people already 16,000 years ago were used as a basis, then in this time (16,000 years) the current population should have been approx. 1,099,510,000,000, which is almost 200 times the current population. That is such a large number that the earth could not even have such a population. It would be too small for that. The number also shows that the starting point of mankind cannot be pushed very far, otherwise the surface of the Earth would have been filled with dead bodies and the current population would be many times larger:

The total population of six billion mentioned in the beginning will be reached in 1999. Thus, there has been an increase of five billions in less than 200 years. A hundred years ago, scientists estimated that the Earth will not be able to carry a population of more than six billion. In 1950, the population was only about 2.5 billions, but the limit of five billion was already exceeded in 1987. Only 11 years was needed for the last increase of one billion. For the sake of comparison, one can calculate that the present speed of population increase will lead to people filling up the entire surface of the Earth in the year 3530, and in 6826 all the people will not fit in the entire known universe.

   If we count backwards from today's figures and take the current reproduction rate of 1.6% as annual growth, we will come to the conclusion of the first family living in 625 A.D. or 1,375 years ago.

   The supporters of the theory of evolution are not wiling to calculate figures connected to the increase of the population, because over a period of time of millions of years, the figures become so huge that the situation becomes impossible. After hundreds of millions of years, the crust of the Earth would in practice be covered by dead animals and the remains of humans, and this number of people alone would fill the entire known universe. However, the theory of evolution requires long periods of time. According to the theory, the Homo erectus who lived 1.6 million years ago, for example, was long and muscular, almost like a modern man, and certainly very reproductive as well. (52)

• If we use the speed of doubling mentioned above as the basis (the population doubling every 400 years) and go back 4,000 years in time, there should have been more than 1,000 times less people than nowadays or only about 5 million people. This seems to be a plausible estimate and fits together with the idea that the first people lived on Earth only a couple of thousand years ago and that from them have come all the present people. The matter is mentioned also in Genesis (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.)

Moreover, it is good realize that while people originally began spreading from the Middle East to other locations, and when population started to grow (Gen 1:28: ”…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,..."), such places like North -and South America and Australia were primarily inhabited only after the 18^th century, once immigration brought in more settlers. Earth becoming full of people this late, also shows that our origin must only be a few millennia away.

• If there had been only two persons 100,000 years ago, and the population doubled once every thousand years, the current population should be 2,535, 300,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000. This is quite an absurd figure compared to the current 6 billion (= 6,000,000,000), and indicates that people cannot have existed at that time. It indicates that the beginning of mankind must be much more recent, only a couple of thousand years in the past.

• The current rate of population growth on the Earth is about 1.7 percent per year. If this same rate had continued for only 1,300 years it would be enough to bring about the current number of 6 billion people. This shows that the Earth can become inhabited already in a short time, and it does not even take tens of thousands of years, as has been suggested.

But then why did the above things appear so late and almost at the same time? Is there a reasonable explanation for that?

    The answer, of course, is that people did not exist before and did not inhabit the earth. Already in the previous paragraphs, it was stated how the population has gradually increased, and that, for example, 2000 years ago (the time of the Roman Empire) there were far fewer people than now, and in 2000 BC even fewer than during the Roman Empire. In fact, if we go back only a few millennia, we will very soon come across a zero point, when there were no humans on earth. It is the only reasonable conclusion if we accept the late appearance of civilization on the earth and the gradual growth of the population.

REWRITING HISTORY. Regarding the origin of man, one idea in the evolutionary literature is that man's original home was in Africa. Evolutionists assume that the first humans lived in Africa and moved from there to other places.

    But what is the historical and correct understanding? Decades ago, it was much more clearly understood that man's original home is in the Middle East, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris. This was indicated by the people's lores, that the first buildings were built in this area and that the world's cereals originate from the same region. The following quote tells more about the subject:

William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

    Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (53)

The Flood is another thing denied by evolutionists. They rewrite history and claim that it never happened. But what is geological and historical evidence? It is known from geology that marine sedimentary rocks are much more common than any other sedimentary rocks combined. James Hutton, who is said to be the father of geology, referred to this phenomenon more than two hundred years ago:

We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)

J.S. Shelton: On the continents, marine sedimentary rocks are far more common and widespread than all other sedimentary rocks combined. This is one of those simple facts that demands explanation, being at the heart of everything related to man's continuing efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (54)

Secondly, remains of marine plants and animals are known to occur in all high mountains; The Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes... If this is not enough evidence for the Flood, hardly any other evidence will convince a person who has decided not to believe in the historicity of the Flood. So it is remarkable that scientists and geologists themselves have observed this fact - the remains of marine plants and animals on high mountains - but are unable to connect it to the Flood. Here are some quotes from their own books:

While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

What about historic oral tradition about the Flood? According to some estimates there are roughly half a thousand Flood stories, in which water is described as the cause of havoc. The universal nature of these stories suggests this event is historically accurate:

Lenormant says in his book "Beginning of History":

"We have the opportunity to prove that the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, and such a certain and uniform tradition as this cannot be considered an imagined fable. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a strong impression on the minds of the first parents of the human family that even their descendents could never forget it. (55)

Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the natives of the American continent had stories that had kept alive the memory of the great flood. Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe. (56)

If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these tales as individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable. (The Earth)

Next, we have more references to the Flood. Many historians have referred to it as a real historical event. However, today people try to erase this flood catastrophe by rewriting history and adding hundreds of thousands of years to our past with no convincing evidence to support those years.

• Historian Josephus and Babylonian Berossus have mentioned the remains of Noah’s ark.

• Greek historian Herodotus refers to the Scythians in the fifth part of his work The Histories. He says they are the descendants of Japhet (Noah’s son) (Gen 10:1,2: Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras..)

• In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapisthim is ordered to build a ship: "O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu. Tear down your house and build a ship, give up wealth, seek the afterlife, despise property, save your life. Take the seed of all living things to the ship you are building. Measure her dimensions well." 

• As mentioned earlier, Egyptian chronology might be off by centuries. Early Egyptians did not have lists of their rulers, instead they were compiled by an Egyptian priest Manetho centuries later (ca. 270 BC). It is believed he made mistakes, e.g., in assuming that some kings ruled after one another, when it since has been revealed that they ruled simultaneously.

Despite his errors, Manetho confirms the historicalness of the First Book of Genesis. He “wrote that ‘after the Flood’ Ham, son of Noah, had a son ‘Egyptos, also known as Mizraim’, who was the first to settle in the current region of Egypt back when the tribes began to disperse”. (57)

REFERENCES:

1. Steven M. Stanley: Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co. 1979, p. 39

2. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

3. Richard Owen; sit. Søren Løvtrup (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm

4. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

5. Rick Gore: The First Steps, National Geographic 191, nro 2 (helmikuu 1997):88

6. George Grant MacCurdy: Human Origins (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1924), 1: 316

7. Mary D. Leakey: Footprints in the Ashes of Time, National Geographic (huhtikuu 1979): 446

8. Russell H. Tuttle ja D.M Webb: “The Pattern of Little Feet”, absrakti, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78, nro 2 (helmikuu 1989): 316

9. Howells: “Homo erectus in human descent”, 79-80

10. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 285

11. Arthur Keith: "The Antiquity of Man", johdanto

12. L.B.S. Leakey: "Adam's Ancestors", p. 230

13. R.S. Lull: The Antiquity of Man”, The Evolution of Earth and Man, p. 156

14. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 20-22

15. Charles E. Oxnard: “The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doupt?” Nature 258 (4. joulukuuta 1975): 389

16. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 104

17. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 106

18. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 24,38

19. Juha Valste: Ihmislajin synty, p. 87-89

20. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 156

21. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 259

22. Roger Lewin: Bones of Contention, 160

23. W.A. Criswell. :Did man just happen?, Zondervan publishing co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p. 85 - Sit. kirjasta "Evoluution romahdus", Scott M. Huse, p. 103

24. Sit kirjasta "Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi", Wiljam Aittala, p. 88.

25. Sana, N:o 48, 3.12.1953

26. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 30

27. E.A. Hooton: Up from the Ape, p. 329

28. Robert L. Lehrman: The Long Road to Man, 1961, p. 115

29. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, january 1966, p. 93 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witn. p. 93,94.

30. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. witn. p. 94.

31. Charles E. Oxnard: “The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doupt?” Nature 258 (4. joulukuuta 1975): 389

32. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 260

33. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 70,71

34. Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 251, 258

35. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 100

36. Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 258, 259

37. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 115

38. Mary D. Leakey: Primitive Artifacts from Kanapoi Valley, Nature 212, (5.11.1966):446

39. Richard Leakey: Ihmiskunnan juuret (The Origin of Humankind), p. 55

40. Gabriel Ward Lasker: Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), 284

41. Edmund White ja Dale Brown: The First Men (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), 14.

42. Donald C. Johanson ja Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 144

43. Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi ja Alan G. Thorne, ”Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia”, teoksessa The Origins of Moodern Humans, toim. Fred H. Smith ja Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66.

44. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 161

45. S.M. Garn: Human evolution: Readings in physical anthropology holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1967, p. 102-107 - Sit. teoksesta "Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto", Matti Leisola, p.31,32.

46. Tim Folger ja Shanti Menon, ”…Or Much Like Us?” Discover 18, nro 1 (January 1997): 33

47. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 206

48. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 174-175

49. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624

50. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.

51. The New York Times, 8.1.1950, p. 1, 28

52. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 144,145

53. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

54. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated

55. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

56. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29

57. J. Ashton: Evolution Impossible, Master Books, Green Forest AZ, 2012, p. 115, lainaa viitettä 1, p. 7

More on this topic:

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

Grap to eternal life!

More on this topic:

Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory

Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution

Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance

Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are

Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense

Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?