How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

Institute for Creation Research ^ | William Hoesch, M.S.

[Sopater]

"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.

The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.

The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.

Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.

* William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is an ICR Research Assistant in Geology.

[Coyoteman]

For Evolutionists: Please come prepared to discuss the facts, not to deride creationists in general. And it would be nice if you would be polite too.

You're late to the party! Where you been?

ps. We're always nice.

[Echo Talon]

Oh boy... Ever read the Bible? Also I told you I don't believe your BS "science"

[Dimensio]

Oh boy... Ever read the Bible?

What reason do you have to suggest that the accounts within the text are accurate?

Also I told you I don't believe your BS "science"

I am not surprised. Many creationists reject science because they do not wish to acknowledge when reality contradicts their religious beliefs.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The equally educated scientists, who disagree with the theory of evolution, but are ignored as much as possible by the MSM.

[Echo Talon]

no the church of darwin's reality is BS, just like Al Gore's reality of "Global Warming" is BS. Same thing.

[Oztrich Boy]

All the creation myths teach us great lessons about ourselves and our culture.

But that's true about all myths. legends, stories we tell.

Remember the Alamo (or Masada)? A bunch of rebels got wiped out by the government troops. But that's not the way you (or they) tell it. Because for some societies the willingness of their members to make a stand behind a line from which you will not retreat or surrender is the important aspect of the story,

But if you lose sight of "We believe this becauses we want to be true about ourselves" and start thinking "This is true because we beleive it", then you've become Ally McBeal "My issues are more important because they're mine"

[F.J. Mitchell]

Stone age, bone age, etc., etc.

[Dimensio]

The equally educated scientists, who disagree with the theory of evolution, but are ignored as much as possible by the MSM.

To whom do you refer?

[Dimensio]

no the church of darwin's reality is BS, just like Al Gore's reality of "Global Warming" is BS. Same thing.

You have yet to actually provide evidence that the theory of evolution is invalid or incorrect.

[metmom]

Many creationists reject science because they do not wish to acknowledge when reality contradicts their religious beliefs.

No, many creationists reject the TOE, not science. The two are not synonymous.

[Dimensio]

No, many creationists reject the TOE, not science.

I have witnessed that many creationists reject any science that contradicts what they wish to believe. They often claim that they only reject the theory of evolution, but this is frequently of them claiming that any science with which they disagree is a part of the theory of evolution, even when it is not.

[Echo Talon]

I will paraphrase Donald Runsfeld, if i were to read and dispute everything that you people write it would take all my time.

Your fascination with ramming your faith down other people throats intrigues me.

[Dimensio]

I will paraphrase Donald Runsfeld, if i were to read and dispute everything that you people write it would take all my time.

Making excuses for refusing to provide supporting arguments for your claims does not show that you are correct.

Your fascination with ramming your faith down other people throats intrigues me.

What exactly am I attempting to ram down anyone's throat? How am I attempting to do this? Please be specific. I am not attempting to "ram" anything down anyone's throat; I would like to know if I am doing such a thing so that I can refrain from such actions that present such an impression in the future.

[spatso]

"But that's true about all myths. legends, stories we tell."

Yes, but the Creation myths are especially important in that they share so many common themes across cultures. Humanity is created by a Creator, a Creator cares for and nurtures humanity. Humanity messes up. Creator punishes humanity for messing up. Humanity still messes up. Creator sends flood, wipes out whole bunch of humanity. But, humanity still messes up. Creator finally gives us and accepts us with all our defects. So, rather than being Ally McBeal, we discover that we are flawed and broken but we are not alone. We are loved despite our failings.

[Dimensio]

So, rather than being Ally McBeal, we discover that we are flawed and broken but we are not alone.

Clearly, as we have a Creator who is flawed and broken enough to keep screwing up with its Creation.

[spatso]

"Clearly, as we have a Creator who is flawed and broken enough to keep screwing up with its Creation."

Well he did create the scientists to repair any errors or misunderstandings.

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, I've been at work.

You're always nice? Like when you called me an a**hole?

? I have to call you on that one. As far as I can remember, that is not something I would do.

At least, I think that I have never engaged in such behavior.

If you can show that my memory is incorrect, then accept this apology.

[editor-surveyor]

"Genesis 1 is big-bang and evolution wrapped into one

It would be difficult to make a statement farther from reality than that one. It is 180 degrees off the truth.

"but since there are small inconsistencies with what we know today the evos want to believe in the order of events the evo fanatics can't accept it"

Run, evos run. You'll never outrun the avalanch of falling cards from the house of darwin.