need to turn to the fossil record to find an answer to the question of
when man appearedon Earth. This record shows thatman goes back
millions of years.These discoveries consist of skeletons and skulls,
and the remains of people who lived at various times. One of the
oldest traces of man are the "footprints" found by the famous
palaentologist Mary Leakey in 1977 in Tanzania's Laetoli region.
These remains caused a great furore in the world of science. Research
indicated that these footprints were in a 3.6-million-year-old layer.
Russell Tuttle, who saw the footprints, wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all
discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that
made the trails are indistinguishable from thoseof modern humans.1
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners.
In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of
a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one.
Such famous paleoanthropologists as Don Johnson and Tim White, who
examined the prints found by Mary Leakey, corroborated that
conclusion. White revealed his thoughts by saying:
Make no mistake about it,... Theyare like modern human footprints. If
one were left in thesand of a California beach today, and a four-year
old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had
walked there. He wouldn't be able to tellit from a hundred other
prints on the beach, nor would you.2
These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists. That
was because for them to accept that these were human footprints would
mean that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape to man
could no longer be maintained. However, at this point dogmatic
evolutionist logic once again showed its face. Most evolutionist
scientists once more abandoned science for the sake of their
prejudices. They claimed that the footprints found at Laetoli were
those of an ape-like creature. Russell Tuttle, who was one of the
evolutionists defending this claim, wrote:
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G
resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their
features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds
than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would
readily conclude that there weremade by a member of our genusHomo...
In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli
footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.3
The remains of a 1.7-million-year-old stone hut
Another of the oldest remains todo with man was the ruins of a stone
hut found in the Olduvai Gorge region by Louis Leakey in the 1970s.
The remains of the hut were found in a layer 1.7 million years old. It
is known that structures of this kind, of which similar examples are
still used in Africa in the present day,could only be built by Homo
sapiens, in other words modern man. The significance of the remains is
that they reveal that man lived at the same time as the so-called
ape-like creatures that evolutionists portray as his ancestors.
A 2.3 million-year-old modern human jaw found in the Hadar region of
Ethiopia was very important from the point of view of showing that
modern man had existed on the Earth much longer that evolutionists
expected.4
One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT1500, also
known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 million-year-old fossil
is described by the evolutionist Donald Johanson in these terms:
He was tall and thin, in body shape and limb proportions resembling
present-day equatorial Africans. Despite his youth, the boy's limb
nearly matched the mean measurements for white North American adult
males.5
It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who
would have been 1.83 metres tall in adolescence. The American
paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average
pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and
that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he
laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a
Neanderthal."6
In its December 1997 edition, Discover, one of the most popular
evolutionist magazines, placed an 800,000-year-old human face on its
cover, alongside a headline taken from evolutionists' surprised
statement, "Is this the face of our past?"One of the human fossils
that has attracted the most attentionwas one found in Spain in 1995.
The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in
the Atapuerca region ofSpain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists
from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face of an
11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been
800,000 years since the child died. This fossil even shook the
convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina
excavation. Ferreras said:
We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you
know, something primitive… Our expectation of an800,000-year-old boy
was something like Turkana Boy. Andwhat we found was a totally modern
face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things
that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not
findingfossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But
the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged
to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a
tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't
expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding
a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very
surprised when we saw it.7
As we have seen, fossil discoveries give the lie to the claim of "the
evolution of man." This claim is presented by some media organizations
as if it werea proven fact, whereas all that actually exist are
fictitious theories. In fact, evolutionist scientists accept this, and
admit that the claim of "the evolution of man" lacks any scientific
evidence.
For instance, by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record" the
evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villie, E. P. Solomon and P. W.
Davis admit that man emerged all of a sudden, in other words with no
evolutionary ancestor.8
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, two evolutionist anthropologists were
forced to say, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution
are unlikely to be reliable." in an article they wrotein 2000.9
No comments:
Post a Comment