The Origin Of Mankind—References

Author: Paul S. Taylor of Christian Answers

This references section is designed to be used in conjunction with the main text, or as a concise listing of additional quotes and resources related to this topic.

194

  • J.S. Jones, Department of Genetics and Biometry, University College, London: “It is very likely that no fossil hominid yet found is on the direct line of descent to modern humans.”

    [J.S. Jones,“A Thousand and One Eves,” Nature, Vol. 345, No. 6274 (May 31, 1990), p. 395-396.]

  • Robert Eckhardt: “Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability [naturally occurring differences between individuals within a species] is considered, the answer appears to be no.”

    [Robert B. Eckhardt, “Population Genetics and Human Origins,” Scientific American, Vol. 226, No. 1 (January 1972), p. 94 (emphasis added).]

  • “So one is forced to conclude that there is no clearcut scientific picture of human evolution.” (Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London)

    [Robert Martin, “Man Is Not an Onion,” New Scientist, Vol. 75, No. 1063 (August 4, 1977), p. 285.]

RAMAPITHECUS

195

  • Ramapithecus had teeth and dental characteristics very similar to the Gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada). See:

    Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins (London: Macdonald and Janes, 1977), p. 68+.

    W.C.O. Hill, Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, Vol. VIII Cynopithecinae (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970), pp. 536-538.

  • David Pilbeam and Peter Andrews proved that Ramapithecus was not in the lineage of man, but rather “part of the orangutan lineage.” See:

    J. Greenburg, “Fossils Trigger Questions of Human Origins,” Science News, Vol. 121, No. 5 (January 30, 1982), p. 84.

    Peter Andrews, “Hominoid Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 295, No. 5846 (1982), pp. 185-186.

  • David Pilbeam, “New Hominoid Skull Material From the Miocene of Pakistan,” Nature, Vol. 295, No. 5846 (1982), pp. 232-234.

  • William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan Publ. Co., 1984), pp. 16-27.

  • Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, Vol. 4, No. 9 (November 1983), pp. 36-43.

  • Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, No. 7 (1979), pp. 86-91 (p. 91 "The case for Ramapithecus as an ancestral human has been weak from the start and has not strengthened with the passage of time." / Also discusses the fact that Louis Leakey incorrectly pieced the skull fragments together to more closely resemble a human jaw).

  • Leonard O. Greenfield, “A Comment on Relative Molar Breadth in Ramapithecus,” Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 4, No. 3 (May 1975), pp. 267-273 (Ramapithecus molars indicate it was an ape / Greenfield is an Evolutionist and former faculty member of the Department of Anthropology of the University of Michigan. He measured and examined all the Ramapithecus specimens at Yale Peabody Museum, The Geological Survey of India in Calcutta, and the National Museums of Kenya in Nairobi. / p. 268 Greenfield says, concerning the broad molars, “These comparisons suggest that Ramapithecus is like its closely related Indian relatives, D. [Dryopithecus] indicus and D. [Dryopithecus] sivalensis.” / p. 272 Ramapithecine broad molars are not relatively broader than those of most pongids.) (Note: The Family Pongidae includes such apes as the orangutan.)

AUSTRALOPITHECUS

196

  • Evolutionist and paleoanthropologist Professor Joseph Weiner, although claiming Australopithecus as an ancestor of man, has conceded: “The first impression given by all the skulls from the different populations of Australopithecus is of a distinctly ape-like creature The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit. In this respect, and also in the lack of chin and in the possession of strong supra-orbital ridges, Australopithecus stands in strong contrast to modern [man] Homo sapiens.”
    [Joseph S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (New York: Universe Books, 1971), 255 pp. (quote from pp. 45-46 emphasis added).]

197

  • John W. Cuozzo's testimony can be viewed in the Creationist motion picture, “The Origin of Mankind” (PO Box 577, Frankfort KY 40602, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) / Dr. Cuozzo has found examples of modern human jaws which are extremely similar to those of modern apes in the degree of angulation in the jaw and demonstrated a large range of variability in the degree of jaw angulation within both humans and apes. For example, he says there are modern human jaws which are extremely similar to those of known apes in this particular feature. He found a little girl that had a 10- to 12-degree angulation between the two rows of her lower teeth. This happens to be very similar to that of a young chimpanzee.

  • Suggested source for related evidence: Gerald Duffett, “Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-Preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (September 1980), pp. 96-104.

198

  • See: Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? second edition (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981).

  • Malcolm Bowden: Civil Engineer / Author / Creationist / An independent Christian researcher, specializing in Creation-Evolution topics, especially the origin of man / Member of the Institute of Civil Engineering.

199

  • In fact, “Australopithecus” literally means “southern ape.”

200

  • Malcolm Bowden in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, “The Origin of Mankind” (PO Box 577, Frankfort KY 40602, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983).

Australopithecus and Multivariate Analysis

  • Evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, formerly Professor of Anatomy at the University of Southern California and the University of Chicago: “These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”
    [Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987), p. 227.]

  • Oxnard conducted multivariate computer analysis on all the fossil parts and subsequently strongly rejected australopithecines as being hominids or having anything to do with the ancestry of man. They were simply an extinct form of ape.

    [See: Charles E. Oxnard, University of Chicago Magazine (Winter 1974), p. 11, The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983), and “Relationship of Australopithecus and Homo: Another View,” Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 8, No. 4 (May 1979), pp. 427-432, and “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, No. 5 (May 1979), pp. 264-276, and “The Place of Australopithecus in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt,” Nature, Vol. 258, No. 5534 (December 4, 1975), pp. 389-395.]

  • Paul DuBois, “Lucy Out of Context: A Reply,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3 (December 1987), pp. 117-119 (discusses Oxnard's views).

201

  • Sir Solly Zuckerman: “The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian [ape], as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” (Zuckerman has been Professor of Anatomy at the Univ. of Birmingham, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and chief scientific advisor to the British government.)
    [Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (London: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970), p. 78.]

202

  • Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Mankind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981).

203

  • Richard Leakey is the Director of National Museums of Kenya, Africa. He is the son of Louis Leakey, whose “missing link” research was often reported in National Geographic.

204

  • “Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he [Richard Leakey] added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.”
    [The Weekend Australian (May 7-8, 1983), p. 3.]

205

  • Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (September 1981), pp. 99-102.

  • G.H. Duffett, “Human Origins and the Olduvai Finds,” in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt and W.J. Ouweneel, editors, Concepts in Creationism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1986).

  • Paul DuBois, “Creationist Evaluation of Australopithecus Afarensis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (September 1988), pp. 65-69.

  • William L. Jungers, “Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 24 (June 1982), pp. 676-678 (analysis of “Lucy's” anatomical structure shows she may not normally have walked upright).

  • Albert W. Mehlert, Book Review, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 92-102, and “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 23-27.

  • Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1987).

  • Henry M. McHenry, “The Capitate of Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 62, No. 2 (1983), pp. 187-198 (p. 187—Compares the post-cranium of both Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus, and shows they are “strikingly similar” / p. 196—“Lucy's” pelvis is “astoundingly similar” to some specimens of africanus).

  • Jack T. Stern, Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anataomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60 (March 1983), pp. 279-317. (Two researchers from New York University have reportedly shown that “Lucy's” thumbs, limb proportions, and toes indicate she probably lived in trees much of the time.)

  • Ivan M. Suzman, “A Comparative Study of the Hadar and Sterkfontein Australopithecine Innominates,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 57, No. 2 (February 1982), p. 235 (Compares the pelvises of africanus and “Lucy” and says they are “strikingly similar”—differences are within the range of variation found between human individuals / Says “Lucy” may be africanus).

  • William L. Jungers, “Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 24 (June 1982), pp. 676-678 (analysis of “Lucy's” anatomical structure shows she may not normally have walked upright).

  • Two researchers from New York University have reportedly shown that “Lucy's” thumbs, limb proportions, and toes indicate that much of the time “she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys.” [Jack T. Stern, Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anataomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60 (March 1983), pp. 279-317.]

Other Evidence Against Australopithecines as Ancestors of Humans

  • Paul DuBois, “Creationist Evaluation of Australopithecus Afarensis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (September 1988), pp. 65-69.

  • Albert W. Mehlert, Book Review, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 92-102, and “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 23-27.

  • Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1987).

  • G.H. Duffett, “Human Origins and the Olduvai Finds,” in E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt and W.J. Ouweneel, editors, Concepts in Creationism (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1986).

  • Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (September 1981), pp. 99-102.

  • Paul Lysen, “Was Australopithecus Bipedal?: The Evidence from Morphometric Analysis”, Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: January/February 1984), pp. 1-2, 4.

206

  • Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, University of California at Santa Cruz: “Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp” [although there are some differences]. [Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, No. 1430 (November 15, 1984), pp. 39-40 (quote from: p. 39).]

  • Herbert Wray, “Lucy's Uncommon Forebear,” Science News, Vol. 123 (February 5, 1983), p. 89.

  • “The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.” (Former Evolutionist and paleoanthropology researcher Albert William Mehlert, Australia) [Albert W. Mehlert, “Lucy Evolution's Solitary Claim for an Ape/Man: Her Position is Slipping Away,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (December 1985), p. 145 (emphasis added).]

  • Albert W. Mehlert, “A Study of Comments by Evolutionist Authorities on the Alleged Hominids Found in the Hadar/Afar Region of Africa,” Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Bible-Science Association, January 1987), pp. 1-2, 4 (Evidence that “Lucy” was “probably a chimp-like ape”).

207

  • Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, and Frans Zonneveld, “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, No. 6482 (London: Macmillan Magazines, June 23, 1994), pp. 645-648.

HOMO HABILIS

208

  • Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 161-166.

HOMO ERECTUS (Pithecanthropus erectus)

209

  • Stephen J. Gould, “Men of the Thirty-Third Division: An Essay on Integrity,” Natural History, Vol. 99, No. 4 (April 1990), pp. 12-24.

    Eugene Dubois, “On the Gibbon-like Appearance of Pithecanthropus erectus,” Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, proceedings, Vol. 38 (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie, 1935), p. 578, and “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37 (January 1937), p. 4 (latter as cited by Dr. Walter T. Brown, Jr.).

    Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1955), p. 299.

    C. Loring Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution: An Introduction to Biological Anthropology (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

  • Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), especially chapters 8-13.

    Dubois also found 2 totally human skulls nearby at approximately the same level in strata which some say are dated similarly (the Wadjak skulls). At the time that Dubois was widely promoting Java Man as a missing link, he never mentioned these skulls for obvious reasons. If he had shown these very human skulls at the same time that he exhibited his Java Man, nobody would have accepted Java Man as the “missing link”. He kept them secret for 30 years. It was not until 1920 that he released this information to the scientific world. See:

    Eugene Dubois, “The Proto-Australian Fossil Man of Wadjak, Java,” Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, proceedings, Vol. 13 (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie, 1920), p. 1013.

    Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), p. 131.

    Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Fossils,” in Paul A. Zimmerman, editor, Rock Strata and the Bible Record (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 134.


HOMO ERECTUS (Sinanthropus pekinensis)

210

  • Some researchers have suggested that the mysterious disappearance of the bones of these apes and the concealment of the human remains at the site may have been part of a cover-up by overzealous Evolutionists trying to keep belief in Peking Man alive. Others believe it was just a twist of fate.

  • Patrick O'Connell, The Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis (Hawthorne, California: Christian Book Club, 1969), pp. 108-138.

  • Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), chapter 13.

  • Franz Weidenreich, “The Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A Comparitive Study on a Primitive Homind Skull,” Palaeontologia Sinica, New Series D, No. 10, Whole Series 127 (Pehpei, China: Geological Survey of China, December 1943), p. 246.

211

  • Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 140.

212

  • Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, and Frans Zonneveld, “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, No. 6482 (London: Macmillan Magazines, June 23, 1994), pp. 645-648.

  • Edmund White and Dale Brown, The First Men (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), p. 14 (“‘Below the neck,’ one expert has noted, ‘the differences between Homo erectus and today’s man could only be detected by an experienced anatomist.’”). Alfred S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 227 [“Actually, the differences between a modern man and ‘Pithecanthropus’ are, viewed impersonally, rather minor ones (particularly if we keep in mind the considerable variations found even today)”].

213

  • Stephen Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 56-57 (“These individuals with smaller cranial capacities are normally functioning and intellectually competent individuals; in fact, there are many persons with 700 to 800 cubic centimeters.”/ Homo erecutus range: 775-1200cc / Australian Aboriginees average: 1256cc).

214

  • Researcher Marvin Lubenow states,“When we compare the crania of Homo erectus with those of archaic Homo sapiens and Neandertal, the similarities are striking. My own conclusion is that Homo erectus and Neandertal are actually the same: Homo erectus is on the lower end [of brain size] of a continuum that includes Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens, and Neandertal.” (p. 138) [Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 86-156.]

  • Charles R. Pellegrino, Time Gate: Hurtling Backward Through History (Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books, Inc., 1985), p. 120 (Evolutionist Pellegrino indicates that the differences between erectus and Homo sapiens are “superficial” and that if they interbred they would probably produce “fertile Homo erectus/Homo sapiens offspring.”)

  • Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi, and Alan G. Thorne, “Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia,” in Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer, editors, The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), pp. 464-469 (argues that Homo erectus should be part of Homo sapiens).

NEANDERTHAL MAN

215

  • Currently, Neanderthals are officially classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

  • C. Loring Brace, physical anthropologist and Evolutionist of University of Michigan confirms that Neanderthal traits still persist in some people today:

  • “If modern cranial form is appraised worldwide in regard to these same attributes, then it is clear that northwest Europeans can be distinguished from the rest of the people in the world by precisely the same set of characteristics.” [Carle Hodge, “Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told,” The Arizona Republic, Vol. 99, No. 186 (Phoenix: November 20, 1988), p. B-5 (emphasis added) (Hodge: “Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features, Brace reported at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Phoenix Indeed, the present-day European skulls resemble Neanderthal skulls more closely than they resemble the skulls of American Indians or Australian aborigines, he said. And their skulls are about the same height and length as those of Neanderthals. Brace measured more than 500 relatively modern northwestern European craniums last year in museums in Denmark, Norway, Finland and England.” (emphasis added).]

  • For more on Neanderthals as fully human, see: John W. Cuozzo, “Neanderthal Children's Fossils: Uncovering Evolutionary Reconstructions,” Bible-Science News, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Minneapolis: Bible-Science Assn., March 1995), pp. 1-7. Boyce Rensberger and Jay Matternes, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, Vol. 2, No. 8 (October 1981), pp. 41-50 (Mentions that the usual portrayals of Neanderthals as bull-necked, slouching brutes was based on a skeleton deformed by age and arthritis, La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton / Mentions newer evidence that Neanderthals took care of the lame and old, buried loved ones with ceremony, etc. / Author concludes: “The story of human evolution has been fictionalized to suit needs other than scientific rigor.”). Erich A. von Fange, “Neanderthal, Oh How I Need You!,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3 (December 1980), pp. 140-154. Arthur C. Custance, “The Fallacy of Anthropological Reconstructions,” Doorway Paper No. 33 (P.O. Box 291, Brockville, Ontario, Canada K6V 5V5: Doorway Publications, 1966), pp. 5-12. Jacob W. Gruber, “The Neanderthal Controversy: Nineteenth-Century Version,” Scientific Monthly, Vol. 67, (December 1948), pp. 436-439; and Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4 (March 1967), p. 24 (In 1947 two skulls of Homo sapiens-sapiens were found lower than the tools of Neanderthals). William Howells, editor, Ideas on Human Evolution (NYC: Atheneum, 1962), p. 524 (Homo sapiens predated Neanderthals). Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (Santee, California: Master Books, 1979), pp. 106-162.

216

  • Charroux says 1600 cubic centimeters was the average brain capacity of Neanderthals. [Robert Charroux, Masters of the World (New York: Berkley Medallion Book, 1974), p. 248.]

  • Van der Veer and Moerman say the average for humans today is 1450 to 1500 cubic centimeters (others put the average even smaller). [M.H. van der Veer and P. Moerman, Hidden Worlds (New York: Bantam Books, 1972), p. 31.]

217

  • George Constable, The Neanderthals (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), pp. 14-17.

  • Frank E. Poirier, Fossil Man (St. Louis: Mosby, 1973), pp. 176-177.

  • D.J.M. Wright, “Syphilis and Neanderthal Man,” Nature, Vol. 229, No. 5284 (February 5, 1971), p. 409.

  • Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?,” Nature, Vol. 227, No. 5258 (August 8, 1970), pp. 577-579.

  • William L. Straus, Jr. and A.J.E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology (1957), pp. 348-363.

218

  • See: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, News, Museum Notes No. 54, Vol. 55, No. 11 (1975), p. 2 (Evidence that Neanderthal characteristics are common among historic Indians).

NEBRASKA MAN

219

  • Named after its discoverer, geologist Mr. Harold J. Cook.

220

  • G. Elliot Smith, “The Ape-Man of the Western World,” The Illustrated London News (June 24, 1922), p. 944, and The Evolution of Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), pp. 7, 9.

  • Harris H. Wilder, The Pedigree of the Human Race (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1926), pp. 156-157.

221

  • Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,” Science, Vol. 60, No. 1427 (May 5, 1922), p. 463, and “Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,” American Museum Noviates, No. 37 (1922), p. 2, and “Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,” Nature, Vol. 110 (1922), p. 281.

  • Dr. William K. Gregory and Mr. Milo Hellman, “Further Notes on the Molars of Hesperopithecus,” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. XLVII (1923), p. 509.

  • Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935): Evolutionist / Paleontologist, vertebrate specialist / Eugenicist (how to improve the human race through selective breeding) / President of American Museum of Natural History for 25 years / Former faculty member of Princeton University (1891) / Founded the Department of Biology at Columbia University / Fought against the anti-Evolutionism statute of Tennessee made famous by the Scopes “Monkey” Trial.

222

  • Although it has sometimes been reported that Evolutionist Clarence Darrow exhibited a picture of “Nebraska Man” during the trial and said, “See, Bryan, even your own state of Nebraska has a fossil that shows there are missing links and that Evolution is viable,” there is evidently no record of such an exchange in the court transcripts, if it indeed took place.

223

  • G. Elliot Smith, “Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World,” Illustrated London News, Vol. 160 (June 24, 1922), pp. 942-944 (two illustrations).

224

  • The pig was then identified as Prosthennops serus (equivalent to Catagonus wagneri), but in 1972 it was discovered that the same species is alive today in Paraguay Catagonus ameghino. [William K. Gregory, “Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape nor a Man,” Science, Vol. 66, No. 1720 (December 16, 1927); Ralph M. Wetzel, et al, “Catagonus, An ‘Extinct’ Peccary, Alive in Paraguay,” Science, Vol. 189, No. 4200 (Aug. 1, 1975), p. 379.]

  • Commenting on a similar situation, Dr. Tim White (Evolutionary anthropologist, University of California at Berkeley) is quoted as saying: “A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [a so-called 'ape-man'] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” [Ian Anderson, “Hominoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin's Rib,” New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1355 (April 28, 1983), p. 199.]

PILTDOWN MAN

225

  • Piltdown Man: Human skull + ape jaw (teeth filed and jaw damaged to hide true identity) / Bones stained to appear old.

  • Frank Spencer, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery (NYC: Oxford University Press, 1990), 272 pp. (suggests the forger was anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith).

  • Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 3-43 (provides great detail on the fraud / Agrees with Stephen J. Gould's and Louis Leakey's assessment that the hoaxer was the well-known and ardent Evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J.).

  • Ronald W. Millar, The Piltdown Men (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972), 264 pp. (suggests Australian anthropologist Grafton Smith was the hoaxer).

  • Joseph S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (London: Oxford University Press, 1955) (suggests Charles Dawson was the hoaxer), and “Obituaries of the Piltdown Remains,” Nature, Vol. 175, No. 4457 (April 2, 1955), p. 569.

  • Report from meeting of Geological Society, “The Piltdown Bones and Implements,” Nature, Vol. 174, No. 4419 (July 10, 1954), p. 61.

  • Kenneth P. Oakley and Joseph S. Weiner, “Piltdown Man,” American Scientist, Vol. 43, No. 4 (October 1955), and “Chemical Examination of the Piltdown Implements,” Nature, Vol. 172, No. 4389 (December 12, 1953), p. 1110.

  • Anonymous, “Piltdown Man,” Nature, Vol. 172, No. 4387 (November 28, 1953), p. 981.

226

  • Evolutionist Zuckerman, D.Sc. in Anatomy, M.D.: “No scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time speaking in geological terms without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for cautionThe record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.”

    [Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1970), p. 64 (emphasis added).]

  • “Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” (Evolutionary anthropologist Dr. L. Watson)

    [Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, Vol. 90, No. 5 (May 1982), p. 44 (emphasis added).]

MOLECULES OF APES AND MEN

227

  • Evolutionist and paleoanthropologist Joseph Weiner: “It is quite obvious that modern man could not have arisen from any ape, let alone monkey, at all similar to those of today it is ridiculous to describe man as a `naked' or any other kind of ape.” [Joseph S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (New York: Universe Books, 1971), p. 33 (emphasis added).]

228

  • L. James Gibson, “A Creationist View of Chromosome Banding and Evolution,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, 1986) (contains more than 100 citations giving a thorough overview of chromosome banding).

  • A.J. Jones, “A Creationist Critique of Homology,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 (December 1982), pp. 156-175.

Molecular Studies Are Failing Evolutionism

  • Professor Phillip Johnson, University of California, Berkeley:

    “The molecular evidence therefore fails to confirm either the reality of the common ancestors or the adequacy of the Darwinist mechanism. In fact, testing Darwinism by the molecular evidence has never even been attempted. As in other areas, the objective has been to find confirmation for a theory which was conclusively presumed to be true at the start of the investigation. The true scientific question Does the molecular evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwinism when evaluated without Darwinist bias? has never been asked.”

    [Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 99 (emphasis added).]

  • Michael Denton, Ph.D., M.D.:

    “The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even further by the uncomfortable fact that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be explained by descent from a common ancestor.”

    [Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), p. 151 (emphasis added).]

  • Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.:

    “It has often been claimed, moreover, that these new and momentous findings have at last unearthed the true mechanism of evolution, and that we are presently on the brink of discovering precisely how macroevolution has come about. However, the truth of the matter is very much the opposite: now that the actual physical structure of what might be termed the biochemical mainstays of life has come into view, scientists are finding frequently to their dismay that the evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before on the molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order stand out with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences dissent. On the funamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstratable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so-called missing links are indeed non-existent.”

    [Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (P.O. Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988), p. 8 (emphasis added).]

  • “Hence, for the gorilla-chimp-human portion of the phylogeny, there is a strong rejection of the molecular clock hypothesis… Moreover, the molecular clock hypothesis was rejected at the 1% level.” (Evolutionist Alan Templeton in the journal of the Society for the Study of Evolution) [meaning they are 99% sure that this hypothesis concerning apes and humans is wrong] (Evolutionist Alan Templeton in the journal of the Society for the Study of Evolution)

    [Alan Templeton, Evolution, Vol. 37, No. 2 (March 1983), pp. 221-244 (quote is from pp. 238 and 242—emphasis added).]

  • Biochemist and molecular Evolutionist Christian Schwabe of the Department of Biochemisty at the Medical University of South Carolina disagrees with Evolutionists who say molecular biology confirms common descent in every respect:

    “…It seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.”

    [Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 7 (July 1986), pp. 280-283 (quote is from p. 280).]

  • Evolutionists Lisa Vawter and Wesley Brown suggest there is evidence for:

    “Robust rejection of a generalized molecular clock hypothesis of DNA evolution.”

    [Lisa Vawter and Wesley M. Brown, “Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Comparisons Reveal Extreme Rate Variation in the Molecular Clock,” Science, Vol. 234, No. 4773 (October 10, 1986), pp. 194-196 (quote is from their abstract).]

Differences Between Humans and Apes More Information

230

  • Anatomy expert Arthur Keith lists 312 characteristics that are only found in man. [Bernhard Grzimek, editor, Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Mammals I, (1975), p. 488.]

  • Kevin C. McLeod, “Studying the Human Brain,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (September 1983), pp. 75-79 (Provides evidence that man and his brain are unique creations).

  • Jerry Bergman, “Is Language an Exclusive Ability of Man?,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (March 1981), pp. 214-216, 226.

  • John W. Klotz, “Is the Ability to Use Language Uniquely Human?,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4 (March 1981), pp. 217-218, 226.

  • Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (September 1981), pp. 102-104.

  • Brian D. Forquer, “The Origin of the Human Speech and Hearing Mechanisms,” Origins Research, Part I (Vol. 1, No. 2), Part II (Vol. 1, No. 3), Part III (Vol. 3, No. 2) (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Students for Origins Research, 1980).

231

  • DIPLOID CHROMOSOME NUMBER IN BODY CELLS
    • 2 Worm (Ascaris)
    • 6 Mosquito
    • 8 Vinegar fly
    • 12 Housefly
    • 16 Onion (Allium cepa)
    • 18 Cabbage & Radish
    • 20 Indian corn
    • 22 Bean
    • 24 Yellow pine & Tomato
    • 32 Honeybee (female) & Hydra
    • 38 Cat
    • 40 Mouse (Mus musculus) & Pig
    • 42 Rat & Bread wheat (Triticum vulgare)
    • 46 Human
    • 48 Tobacco, Rhesus monkey, Platyfish & Potato
    • 52 Upland cotton
    • 54 Sheep
    • 60 Cattle
    • 66 Horse
    • 78 Dog & Chicken
    • 94 Goldfish
    • 100 Crayfish
    • 254 Shrimp (Eupagurus ochotensis)

      [Edmund W. Sinnott, L.C. Dunn, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Principles of Genetics, 5th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958), p. 11.]

      [Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1976), p.43]

For Layman-level Discussion of Chromosome Numbers

  • Paul A. Bartz, “Questions and Answers on Creationism: Does the Chromosome Number Have Anything to do with the Supposed Evolutionary Placement of Creatures?”, Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 25, No. 7 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible-Science Association, July 1987), p. 12.

232

  • Molecular genetics researcher Michael Denton, molecular biologist and medical doctor:

    “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series.”

    [Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, Publishers, 1986), p. 289.]

  • Biochemistry researcher Mark Dwinell concerning the “molecular clock” idea which seeks to show Evolutionary relationships between creatures:

    “The seemingly plausible theory, however, is fraught with difficulties for the evolutionists Any attempt to promote this theory as reasonable and valid in light of so many discrepancies seems deceptive or duplicitous.”

    [Mark Dwinell, “Molecular Evolution or Bust,” Origins Research, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Students for Origins Research, 1985), pp. 1-11 (quote from pp. 1 and 11 emphasis added).]

For More Info on Homologies

  • Wendell R. Bird, “The Postulated Evidence for Macroevolution and Darwinism: Darwinian Arguments and the Disintegrating Neo-Darwinian Synthesis Part II,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (September 1988), pp. 74-81.

  • Luther D. Sunderland, “Homology,” in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), pp. 122-130.

  • Gary E. Parker, “Evidence of Creation in Living Things,” in Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, Revised and Expanded edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1987), pp. 52-61.

  • Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, Publishers, 1986 and London: Burnett Books, 1985), 368 pp.

  • Mark Dwinell, “Molecular Evolution or Bust,” Origins Research, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Students for Origins Research, 1985), pp. 1-11.

  • Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (September 1981), p. 95.

233

  • Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, Publishers, 1986 and London: Burnett Books, 1985), 368 pp.

BIAS IN RECONSTRUCTIONS

234

  • Evolutionist Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London:

    “In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which are based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity by and large, written by authors with a formal academic background, but they shared the same tendency [as Robert Ardrey's African Genesis] to abandon scientific method for dogmatism. Prominent among them were On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, Love and Hate by Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, and The Imperial Animal by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox. Ardrey himself followed up with a series of derivative books at roughly five-year intervals: The Territorial Imperative, The Social Contract and The Hunting Hypothesis.”

    [Robert Martin, “Man Is Not an Onion,” New Scientist, Vol. 75, No. 1063 (August 4, 1977), pp. 283-285 (quote from p. 283, emphasis added).]

235

  • Behavioral scientist and evolutionist W. Fix:

    “The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools. Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence.”

    [William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984), p. 150 (emphasis added).]

  • “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin.”

    [Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, Vol. 90, No. 5 (May 1982), p. 44.]

  • “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing that about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject. ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.”

    [John Reader, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?,” New Scientist, Vol. 89, No. 1246 (March 26, 1981), pp. 802-805 (emphasis added).]

236

  • A cover illustration of Neanderthal in Science 81, Vol. 2, No. 8 (October 1981) is one of the few exceptions it shows a completely bald Neanderthal male.

237

  • Earnest A. Hooton, Up from the Ape (New York: Macmillan, 1946), p. 329 (Hooton was a well-known anthropologist at Yale University who said that there is very little, if any, scientific value in the alleged reconstructions of ancient man and they are likely to mislead the public).

238

  • Paleoanthropologist Professor Alan Mann, University of Pennsylvania:

    “Human evolution is a big deal these days. Leakey's world known, Johanson is like a movie star, women swoon over him and ask for his autograph. Lecture circuit. National Science Foundation: big bucks. Everything is debatable, especially where money is involved. Sometimes people deliberately manipulate data to suit what they're saying.”

    [Michael H. Brown, The Search for Eve (New York: Harper & Row, 1990), p. 241.]

  • Professor Phillip Johnson, University of California, Berkeley:

    “Physical anthropology the study of human origins is a field that throughout its history has been more heavily influenced by subjective factors than almost any other branch of respectable science. From Darwin's day to the present the `descent of man' has been a cultural certainty begging for empirical confirmation, and worldwide fame has been the reward for anyone who could present plausible evidence for missing links. the question they debate is whose set of fossil candidates tells the story of human evolution most accurately, not whether fossil proof of the ape-human transition exists. That there might be no reliable fossil evidence of human evolution is out of the question. Solly Zuckerman, one of Britain's most influential scientists and a leading primate expert compared it [physical anthropology] to parapsychology and remarked that the record of reckless speculation in human origins `is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.'”

    [Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), pp. 80-82 (emphasis added).]

  • Evolutionist Dr. Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University:

    “Not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments”

    [Grey Kirby in an address presented at a meeting of the Biology Teachers' Association of South Australia (1976). As cited in Andrew Snelling, The Revised Quote Book (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1990), p. 16.]

  • “It is worth remembering that the generic name Homunculus was actually accorded to an Argentinean fossil primate by Amheghino, its discoverer, in the mistaken belief that it was ancestral to man. Subsequent fossil finds and improvements in techniques of comparative study have demonstrated that this fossil was no more than an early (Miocene) relative of New World monkeys. Yet the tendency for individual paleontologists to trace human history directly back to their own fossil finds has persisted to the present day.” (Evolutionist Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London)

    [Robert Martin, “Man Is Not an Onion,” New Scientist, Vol. 75, No. 1063 (August 4, 1977), pp. 283-285 (quote from p. 285).]

  • Arthur C. Custance, The Fallacy of Anthropological Reconstructions, Doorway Paper No. 33 (P.O. Box 291, Brockville, Ontario, Canada K6V 5V5: Doorway Publications, 1966).

  • Museums and textbooks controlled by believers in Evolutionism have frequently taught that there is abundant evidence that man and ape evolved from common ancestors. The public is shown imaginative pictures which claim to depict how man's ancestors looked and behaved. But what are the facts? Did the human beings evolve? The safest analysis of the evidence seems to indicate all the fossils involved are either of extinct apes or humans or hoaxes.

Lack of Transitional Forms Between Humans and Apes More Info

239

  • Gary E. Parker, “The Fossil Evidence Human Beings,” in Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, revised and expanded edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1987), pp. 151-163.

  • John N. Moore, “Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (March 1986), pp. 183-188.

  • “There are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors.”

    William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984) (an Evolutionist).

  • Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (September 1981), pp. 93-110, 134.

  • Albert W. Mehlert, “Alleged Evolution of the Order Primates, Including Monkeys and Apes,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1 (June 1981), pp. 20-21.

  • Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981).

  • “The evidence is poor, fragmentary, uncertain and fraught with controversy. Evolutionists assign the material to Homo because they think it evolved into Homo, not because of what the creature looked like In reality, the small-brained, primitive creature looks like an australopithecine.”

    Chris C. Hummer, “Unthinking Homo Habilis,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 204, 212-214 (emphasis added).

  • Arthur C. Custance, Evolution or Creation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).

HAS MAN ALWAYS BEEN MAN?
Have Apes Always Been Apes?

240

  • Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard has admitted:

    “We're not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever we are what we are.”

    [Stephen Gould in an October 1983 speech reported in “John Lofton's Journal,” The Washington Times (February 8, 1984) (emphasis added).]

    “Humans are not evolving.” (Ronald Strahan, former Senior Research Secretary and Director of Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, Australia and Honorary Secretary of ANZAAS)

    [The Northern Territory News (September 14, 1983) (emphasis added).]

241

  • Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man, revised edition (Emsworth: Evolution Protest Movement, 1971).

242

  • REMAINS WHICH SOME RESEARCHERS HAVE SUGGESTED (BUT NOT PROVEN!) AS EVIDENCE THAT THE VARIOUS “MISSING LINKS” WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR THAT MAN AND THESE CREATURES WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS

    • PETRALONA MAN [Aris N. Poulianos, Current Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (June 1981), p. 287 (Petralona Man found in a stalagmite in Greece, “dated 700 thousand years old”). Also, see: Chicago Tribune, Reuters dispatch (June 6, 1976) (Petralona Man “The skeleton was found preserved in a stalagmite during an exploration of the Petralona Cave in the Chalkidike Peninsula in southern Greece, said Dr. Aria Poulianos, President of the Greek Anthropological Society, Friday ‘We discovered the cooked meat of rhinoceros, bear and deer, which proves men who lived in the cave made logical use of fire,’ Poulianos said.”); as cited in Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1985), pp. 187-189.]

    • CHINESE “HUMAN” JAWBONE [“Chinese Report Jawbone Goes Back 2 Million Years,” Mesa Tribune (PO Box 577, Frankfort KY 40602, USA: November 20, 1988) (“A human jawbone… with several teeth was discovered in 1986 near the upper reaches of the Yangtze River in Sichuan province” / “dated” 2 million years old “Peking Man” and “Java Man” are generally “dated” at less than 500 thousand years old).]

    • MOUNT CARMEL (PALESTINE) HOMO SAPIENS-SAPIENS remains said to be contemporary with Neanderthal remains, discrediting Neanderthal as the ancestor [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (P.O. Box 88, Bromley, Kent, England BR2 9PF: Sovereign Publications, 1977), p. 155.]

    • CASTENEDOLO MAN SKULL found in a clay stratum in Castenedolo, Italy (Pliocene). It is said that there was no evidence of intrusive burial through the strata above or below. [Samuel Laing, Human Origins (London: Chapman and Hall, 1893), p. 371-372; Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925), 376 pp., see pp. 334-341; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 66-67, 77.]

    • “HUMAN” SKELETON (OLDOWAY MAN) found by Hans Reck in Bed-II, Olduvai Gorge in the stratum immediately above Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) [Hans Reck, “The Oldoway Skeleton from Tanganyika Territory,” Man, Vol. 31 (1931), pp. 10-11; Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), pp. 244-245; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 173-179.] Some have suggested this skeleton is an intrusive burial. [P.G.H. Boswell, “The Oldoway Human Skeleton,” Nature, Vol. 130 (August 13, 1932), pp. 237-238.]

    • SWANSCOMBE MAN [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 16, 57, 63, 68-70, 71-72, 76, 151-154, 180] William Fix: “In conjunction with Swanscombe, Steinheim, and Fontechevade, it certainly shows that there is significant evidence that modern-type humans were in existence long before Neanderthal. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how Neanderthal could have been our ancestor.” [William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984), p. 105.]

    • VERTESSZOLLOS MAN [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 57, 63, 76, 151, 154.]

    • FONTECHEVADE MAN [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 57, 63, 76, 151, 153, 158.]

    • FOXHALL MAN JAW from Foxhall, England (Pliocene) [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Ken, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), p. 80.]

    • NATCHEZ MAN, fossilized pelvis (Lower Pleistocene) [Charles Lyell, Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man (Philadelphia: J.W. Childs, 1863); Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol. 2, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925), 376 pp., see pp. 465-467; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 75-76].

    • GALLEY HILL MAN skeleton (mid-Pleistocene) [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 55, 68-74, 76, 152, 182.]

    • CLICHY MAN skeleton (mid-Pleistocene) [Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925)., pp. 275-280; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Public., 1977), pp. 74, 76.]

    • ABBEVILLE JAW found in 1863 in Abbeville, France (early Pleistocene) [Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925), pp. 267-275; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 74, 77.]

    • KANAM JAW [M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 180-182.]

    • KANJERA JAW [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 70, 169, 177, 180.]

    • “SOPHISTICATED” STONE TOOLS FOUND IN MEXICO in beds “dated” at 250 thousand years old [Virginia Steen-McIntyre, et al, “Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico,” Quaternary Research, Vol. 16 (1981), pp. 1-17.]

    • EVIDENCE OF MAN AT AUSTRALOPITHECINE SITE [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 167-168.]

    • EVIDENCE OF MAN AT PEKING MAN SITE [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 78-123.]

    • SMALL CLAY FIGURINE OF A HUMAN DISCOVERED NEAR NAMPA, IDAHO, 1889, under basalt (Tertiary). [Samuel Laing, Human Origins (London: Chapman and Hall, 1893), p. 385; G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 11 (1889), pp. 379-381, and in “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho,” Scribners (February 1890); Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. 24 (1890), p. 424; “The Genuineness of the ‘Nampa Image’,” Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 37 (1890).] D. Brinton suggested that this figurine was actually an intrusive burial of a clay toy made by the nearby Pocatello Indians. [D.G. Brinton, “Review of Man and the Glacial Period,” Science, Vol. 20 (October 28, 1892), p. 249.]

    • LAETOLIL FOOTPRINTS WITH A HUMAN APPEARANCE found by Mary Leakey “dated” at 3.75-million years old, and thus “older” than various supposed “missing links.” Laetolil, Africa (Pliocene) [Mary D. Leakey and R.L. Hay, “Pliocene Footprints in the Laetolil Beds at Laetoli, Northern Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 278, No. 5702 (March 22, 1979), pp. 317-323; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 234-236.]

    • GOLD CHAIN said to have been found in coal, Morrisonville, Illinois, 1800s (Pennsylvanian). [“A Necklace of a Prehistoric God,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois: June 11, 1891); Mysteries of the Unexplained, (New York: Reader's Digest, 1982), p. 46; J.R. Jochmans, Strange Relics From the Depths of the Earth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Forgotten Ages Research Society, 1979), p. 17.]

    • “CERAMIC LADLE” discovered by Myrana Burdick “in bituminous coal”, 1937 [Ron Calais, “Fossil Artifacts Found in Coal,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 4 (September-November 1988), p. 41 (includes photo, and mentions several other out-of-place artifacts as well); Harry Wiant, “A Curiosity from Coal,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1976), p. 74.]

    • IRON “POT” (later lost) supposedly found in coal mined near Wilburton, Oklahoma, 1912 (Pennsylvanian).

    • METAL BELL-SHAPED VESSEL said to have been found in “solid rock” [Scientific American, Vol. 7 (June 1851), pp. 298-299.]

    • “CARVED STONES” said to have been found deep underground [Frank Edwards, Strange World (New York: Ace, 1964), p. 109.]

    • “BRONZE COIN OR MEDALLION” said to have been found at a depth of 114 feet near Chillicothe, Illinois, 1871 [Frank Edwards, Strangest of All (New York: Ace, 1962), p. 101; J.R. Jochmans, Strange Relics From the Depths of the Earth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Forgotten Ages Research Society, 1979), pp. 13-15.]

    • METAL CUBE Austria, 1885 (presently at Heimathaus Museum, Vocklabruck) (Paleocene) [Nature (November 11, 1886), p. 36; L'Astronomie (Paris: 1886), p. 463; J.R. Jochmans, Strange Relics From the Depths of the Earth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Forgotten Ages Research Society, 1979), pp. 16-17.]

    • “IRON THIMBLE” 1883 [J.Q. Adams, “Eve's Thimble,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 5 (1883).]

    • SKULLS OF “HOMO ERECTUS” FOUND IN AUSTRALIA and supposedly “dated” 10 thousand years old and said, therefore, to be contemporaneous with man.

    • HOMO SKULL ER-1470 [Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1985), pp. 183-185; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 183-185.]

    • HOMO SKELETON IN KENYA [Boyce Rensberger, “Human Fossil is Unearthed,” Washington Post (October 19, 1984), p. A-1 (“1.6 million year old” Homo skeleton found in Kenya by Richard Leakey and Alan Walker).]

    • HOMO ERECTUS, AUSTRALOPITHECUS, AND HOMO HABILIS said to have been found contemporary in Olduvai Gorge bed 2 by Louis Leakey and Bed 1 underneath said to have had the remains of a circular stone “habitation hut” [Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), pp. 243-246; John Reader, Missing Links (London: Collins, 1981), p. 173; Louis S.B. Leakey, “New Finds at Olduvai Gorge,” Nature, Vol. 189 (February 25, 1961), p. 649.]

    • KRAPINA REMAINS IN YUGOSLAVIA [Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), p. 155.]

    • “HUMAN” SKULL AND ARTIFACTS FOUND IN “135-MILLION YEAR OLD” STRATA near Gilman, Colorado 1867 (Cretaceous) [Saturday Herald (Iowa City: April 10, 1867); J.R. Jochmans, Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Forgotten Ages Research Society, 1979 also reprinted by Bible-Science Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota), p. 4.]

    • HUMAN REMAINS SUPPOSEDLY FOUND IN LOWER SILURIAN STRATA in Franklin County, Missouri, 1880 [J.R. Jochmans, Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth (Lincoln, Nebraska: Forgotten Ages Research Society, 1979 also reprinted by Bible-Science Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota].

    • CALAVERAS MAN SKULL (Pliocene) [J.D. Whitney, The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California (Cambridge: University Press, John Wilson & Son, 1880), 569 pp. (includes a 30 page section on “Human Remains and Works of Art in the Auriferous Gravel Series” / Whitney was the former California State Geologist); B.W.H., “Alleged Discovery of an Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, No. 42 (1866), p. 424; Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, Vol 2, 2nd edition (London: Williams and Norgate, 1925), pp. 471-473; Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), pp. 76-78.]

    • KANAPOI, AFRICA UPPER ARM BONE (lower Pleistocene) [Charles E. Oxnard, “Human Fossils: New View of Old Bones,” American Biology Teacher (May 1979); Marvin Lubenow, “Fossil Man,” 1983 National Creation Conference.]

243

  • Wilbert Henry Rusch, Sr.: Creationist / Biologist and paleontologist / L.L.D. (honorary) from Concordia Seminary (1975) / M.S. in biology from University of Michigan (1952) / Specialist in Science degree from Eastern Michigan University (1969) / Has also studied at Purdue University, University of Nebraska (geology), Illinois Institute of Technology / Professor emeritus of Biology and Geology and former head of the Science and Mathematics Division of Concordia College in Ann Arbor (Michigan) (1980) / Board member of the Nebraska Academy of Science (1960-63) / Membership Secretary of Creation Research Society.

244

  • Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. in Willem Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Fossil Record (PO Box 577, Frankfort KY 40602, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (Creationist motion picture). Also see:

    Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Fossils,” in Paul A. Zimmerman, editor, Rock Strata and the Bible Record (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), pp. 133-177, and “The Evolution of Man,” in Possess the Land, essays and technical papers (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible-Science Association, 1979), pp. 182-185 (article mentions Vertesszollos, Swanscombe Man, Steinheim, Mt. Carmel skulls, Neanderthal, Fontchevade skulls, Krapina remains, KNM-ER-1470).

Return to Main Text

Copyright © 1995, Films for Christ, All rights reserved.

Christian Answers Network HOME

To Films for Christ Home Page | To Christian Answers Network Home page