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.

[Doc Savage]

When discussing anatomical differences and phenotypic variations it is easy to get lost in the simplicity of discussing relatively large objects or changes; bones, fossils etc.

What is never discussed is how these changes actually physically and chemically occurred at the molecular level. And here Darwinist butt up against their Achilles heel, randomness. The fact that no single mutation can predict or make ready for the next random mutation. And when you have to build proteins that perform or build specific anatomical structures or chemical functions based on acomplex arrangement of amino acids, and that perhaps hundreds of such "dove-tailed" mutations are normally required to produce the end product or result, the difficulty arises.

If the process is random, then it is flawed. Yet if a "designer" structured the process secular Darwinists would have to bid "Mother Nature" goodbye and turn to a higher being. Since Darwinists cannot have or accept anyone "Higher" than Darwin, they revert to thumb-sucking.

Theory becomes fact when???????????

[spatso]

"throughout the scriptures they pointed out certain scientific findings around 7 or 8 thousand years before their scientific discovery?"

That is a pretty good point but it actually carries more of a challenge for those of us who seek understanding in our Bible. As you know in the first account of Creation. God said, "Let their be light...Let there be a vault" and on and on God alone directs that each element of the universe be created. But when he comes to make man God says, "Let us make man in our image." (Gn 1:26) What does God mean in the use of a plural, who is the "us" being addressed? The answer is found later in the Wisdom literature of the Bible "When because of him the earth was drowned, it was Wisdom again who saved it, piloting the virtuous on a paltry piece of wood...it was she who singled out the virtuous man" Wisdom 10:4-5. There is no greater support of science than God's love of Wisdom.

[Elsie]

How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

Or......

How Coherent Is ARE the Human Evolution Story tellers?

[Elsie]

 

Genesis 1 is big-bang and evolution wrapped into one but since there are small inconsistencies with what we know today in the order of events the fanatics can't accept it - to do so would call into question every other detail of the bible as interpretable and "wrong" or misplaced.

 

---

Ya think???

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

 

NIV Genesis 2:18
   The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

[Elsie]

If you have viewpoint, don't be obtuse, state it.

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:20-25
 20.  Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
 21.  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
 22.  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
 23.  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
 24.  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
 25.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

 

[Elsie]

 

 

Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.

 

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

Comparisons     M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = smaller fangs        J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs        I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           more pointy    Teeth incisors = big fangs       H. Eyes =           Bigger    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = Even more          G. Eyes =           real SMALL    Nose =           Real pointy    Teeth incisors = More           F. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin, less         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Smaller         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Holes bigger    Teeth incisors = Bigger         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           narrower    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           big    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

After seeing these pix; do you?

[Elsie]

Remind me not to pay attention to spelling ADVICE from you. Thanks.

No one can tell if I spell correctly when I'm talking.....

[Elsie]

Why can't those Indians get their 'creation' straight??

After all; we all KNOW (Scientists have TOLD us) that each group came from just a small bunch that crossed the Bering land bridge in the last oceanic drawdown.

You'd think that the story would hold to together as they spread out over NA, but it appears man's imagination just had to take over and embellish so much that now we got got Coyoteman (Trickster? ;^) re-telling them on these threads.

[Elsie]

(You can learn a lot by listening to your Elders.)

HMMmmm...

It appears that "Challenge Authority" looms larger.

[Elsie]

Butt a NICE one! ;^)

[Elsie]

This is a private conversation with DaveLoneRanger.

But it's out here in the open; for all to see!

[Elsie]

 

Pink twitted Newts are running, and ruining academia, among other things.

 

 

 

 

 

  

Isaiah 3:9
   The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

[Elsie]

If one didn't keep all the frevolutionists straight in one's mind, however, it might be easy to mix up one insulting member with one who isn't.

HEY!!!

Is this a variation of "They all look alike to me."?

Shame!!

--EvoDude

[Elsie]

Breakfast calls.


Elsiethon will resume at a later time.

[editor-surveyor]

like those who are running from the avalanche of "euclidean cards" and "newtonian cards." Oh and those doggone "mathematics witches" and "arodynamics (sic) nutsos."

I know that rejection of mathematics, particularly statistics, is native to belief in evolution philosophy, but what exactly is your beef with Newton, Euclid, and 'arodynamics' (sic)?

[BrandtMichaels]

Dimensio said: I have witnessed that many creationists reject any science that contradicts what they wish to believe.

Then metmom replied: I know what you're referring to. I was thinking of the comments that creationists reject all science, which they don't. And there is a difference between young earth creationists and old earth creaionists. The latter aren't in that category.

As a YEC, I don't reject science either. What I remain highly skeptical about is folks claiming absolute scientific proof w/o regard to the numerous stated (and more frequently unstated) assumptions that allow for their conclusions.

Look closely enough at the things that are claimed as 'proven', you should see a pattern of ignoring the scientific method. The old earth/universe dating methods include assumptions like uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism is the best reason to reject the global warming crisis. It's even more ridiculous to think that things (i.e. radio isotope decay rates) have always remained constant over thousands (let alone millions/billions) of years.

[OneWingedShark]

Actually the "us" God uses in Genesis has been, traditionally, interpreted to mean the Trinity. That we are of God's image, and unique among the creatures on Earth is intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

Man can create art, use tools, use cause-and-effect reasoning, use problem solving [esp. abstract], convey meaning through secondary means (ie reading and writing). These traits are virtually unique to man (depending on how you define them, a crow using stones to raise the water level to drink could be said to be using tools, cause-&-effect reasoning, and problem-solving.) and indeed only man has a complete mastery of these techniques virtually inborn. In fact, so often a mentally retarded human has more capacity to these than any of the animal world that it is amazing to see one that does not. Truly God has given man much... let's just not forget the saying: "To whom much is given, much is required."

[spatso]

"the us God uses in Genesis has been, traditionally, interpreted to mean the Trinity."

I suppose you could stretch the meaning of Trinity to impute that understanding. But, as interpretation it reaches beyond my understanding of the meaning. Remember in Proverbs, Wisdom says:
"Yahweh created me before his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works, From everlasting I was first set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. The deep was not, when I was born...When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there...I was at his side, a master craftsman." (Proverbs 8:22-24,27,30)

[Coyoteman]

Thank you for the clarification.

Now let the battles resume!

[metmom]

Actually, Scripture doesn't support that conditions were always the same. The Fall brought corruption to the universe, hence change; and the Earth was watered by a dew, or mist, that rose up from the ground before the Flood. Gen 2: 5&6