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.

[OneWingedShark]

That's true. But then again in Proverbs it is the personification of wisdom that is "talking". That whole passage in Proverbs illustrates, I believe, that God used wisdom in his work of creation, that is to say that wisdom was "born" along with the rest of the cosmos, but before them, when he 'planned' his work out. Perhaps it could be said that "God is Wisdom", like the Bible says "God is Love", but that seems to me like a cop-out from my earlier statement.

Also consider the beginning of wisdom, as told by the scriptures themselves: (Admittedly this is talking about how to get wisdom.)
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov. 1:7 AND Ps. 111:10).

But the fear of the Lord is also to hate evil.
"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." (Prov. 8:13)
Now, this strongly implies that a good and true "moral compass", (ie an absolute morality), is needed to understand or comprehend wisdom. That if you want to be wise you have to have morality. (And look at the problems that people that ascribe to the moral relativism are having... most all of them could be corrected by tossing out the obviously flawed idea.)

The whole point that I'm trying to make is that wisdom is not a person, or an entity, but an fundamentally required piece of.. life. And that in Proverbs it anthropomorphizes wisdom to illustrate that very point.

Like here:
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you." (Proverbs 4:6)
It seems to be telling us that if we keep with wisdom, then wisdom will keep us out of trouble. I find this to be a true and accurate statement, I have been amazed myself when God has given me wisdom in several personal matters and the insight I had in those moments was astounding... but I always felt sorry for the people that didn't "get it".

[ahayes]

The Hindus say that the all the world's animals were created from clarified butter. Where's the proof they weren't?

I'm allergic to butter. I'm not allergic to many of the world's animals. Therefore, many of the world's animals were not made from clarified butter, although it appears that cows and at least several species of deer were.

[spatso]

"The whole point that I'm trying to make is that wisdom is not a person, or an entity, but an fundamentally required piece of.. life. And that in Proverbs it anthropomorphizes wisdom to illustrate that very point."

Yes, I agree, Proverbs is essentially poetry, sometimes beautiful, highly emotional and even romantic. But, my point from before was more along the lines is that we know the Trinity is never named or talked of in scripture. Indeed the notion of Trinity was not even advanced until well into the 3rd century. Trinity is really a man made notion to try to explain the many faces of God. But Wisdom is named as a gender specific she. It can mean the knowledge of ages but, it can also mean the new knowledge of science and industry. So, I react a little when someone uses scripture to launch an attack on science. Wisdom, knowledge, curiosity and even science are divine gifts.

[David Allen]

Yes, I'm a Christian, and I'm familiar with the letter to the church at Corinthians.

What's YOUR point?

[Dimensio]

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.

Please identify an individual who has claimed "absolute scientific proof", given that nothing in science is ever "absolutely proven".

[Elsie]

My point is that different folks want different 'proof'.

[David Allen]

People draw proof from what they believe.

[Christopher Lincoln]

If you believe - and I do, for whatever my opinion is worth - that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were and are one species, that in no way contradicts the idea of evolution.

[Sopater]

All of the evidence supports the truth. ;-)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

- John 14:6

Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him."

- John 18:37-38

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil."

- John 7:7

[David Allen]

Great, but we're not talking about Jesus.

We're talking about human evolution.

[Sopater]

Sorry, you're absolutely right. My point was that drawing proof from what you believe is irrelevant to what is really true. It is subjective and smacks of post-modernist philosophy. I think that scientists should stick to the facts and not flatly discount a theory simply because they don't like the ramifications of what such a theory might mean.

I also don't think that scientists should dogmatically support a theory by ignoring, manipulating or hiding evidence that seems to debunk it.

I don't dogmatically push for creationist theories, I only insist that the legitimate controversies be openly taught and discussed.

The truth is that there is not enough evidence to state that either evolution or creation are proven. There is plenty of evidence that raises questions for both theories, and all of the evidence (both known and unknown evidence) supports the truth.

[Gumlegs]

No theory is ever proven, but in order for it to be considered scientific, but must be capable of disproof. (When Einstein first proposed his Theory of Relativity, he included two potential observations that would disprove his theory). "Creation" is not a theory because there is no known way to disprove it ... unless you can propose one.

[curiosity]

First of all, PROVE that was a human and not some type of extinct ape.

It's neither human nor ape. It's in between. It's got characteristics of both. That makes it, *gasp*, a transitional fossil!

Compare it to an ape and human skull and see for yourself.

[Echo Talon]

yea yea....

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! Sic 'em Danny!

[F.J. Mitchell]

Sorry about that, Dimensio, I'm giving up on you. I've taught you everything I know and you still don't know nuthin'

[F.J. Mitchell]

Rude is relative. As in rude is in the mind of the beholder, same as beauty except uglier.

[Coyoteman]

LOL! Sic 'em Danny!

Don't egg him on. There are a lot of inaccuracies in his post.

For example, "Post 135, RUDE last line insults Elders."

If you look at #135, it states just the opposite of what is claimed. I posted:

You can learn a lot by listening to your Elders.

That is a true statement, learned even, and is the exact opposite of rude, as was claimed.

In the course of human evolution, for most of our millions of years the wisdom of our elders was our history. Memory went back only a few generations, and the "old stories," the old ways, were the province of the elders. There were fewer of them in those days, and they were more valued than now. Their accumulated knowledge contributed to "survival of the fittest" as the fittest populations were those most able to survive. Knowledge, passed down from the elders played a critical roll in that survival.

Post 135, RUDE last line insults Elders. I don't think so.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Uh oh! Dammit Danny,get your ducks in a row before you march them onto the parade grounds.