We have come all this way down the scientific trail in our effort to hunt and track down its explanation for the Origin of Man. Through this journey, so far, we have studied the dating methods used by this science, we have explored the methods by which it measures distance, we have talked about Artist’s Conceptions in the scientific world, and we have looked at the history of its answer for the origin of species, Evolution. But we have yet to pin down this Evolution as it accounts for Man in particular, and so that will be the point of this chapter. Undoubtedly, this section will be a long one, because there is much to discuss.
In the poster above, from the movie One Million B.C., you have in a nutshell the prevailing view of man’s Origins as understood by science. I could have used an ancient skull fragment, or a flint tool as an opening picture, but I think, all considered, the metaphor of the cinematic presentation does fairest justice to the prevailing scientific view. This view, let me propose at the outset, is very much like a film or movie. It has taken select footage in specific locations, it has edited and manipulated the snippets to tell a better story, and its sequels, based on the successful pilot, are numerous.
Astute moviegoers will remember that One Million BC is a work of fiction. It is not even meant to be a documentary. The descent of Man, from primates, as given by Evolution, like Planet of the Apes as well, is also, as we will see, fiction. The Origin of Man by Natural Selection, espoused by Evolution, taught as fact, and now speaking in language befitting madmen, has not even the makings of a good movie, a good legend or myth. Madmen like S. Jay Gould, who have offered the opinion that the various species come about through the ‘Hopeful Monster” Theory, a supplement to Evolution, stating that every once in a while, oh, a chicken will lay an egg, and a lizard will come out (see here for one argument against this, click here for one in support of it, and click here for what it is supposed to be). Apparently modern geneticists have refuted this theory, we spend time to notice the trendy, chameleon-like grasping-at-straws Evolution employs to keep itself alive.
Before we get into the actual proofs offered for the scientific view, the evidences by means of which we are told that Evolutionary Theory regarding Man is logically correct and undisputed fact, we need to tell the legend as contained in the Books of Science, and it goes something like this. Let us then jump right into the plot of this movie, and state clearly for the layman the current scientific explanation for the Origin of Man.
Somehow, without a deus ex machina, Life formed on this planet out of inanimate matter which came from an explosion of nothingness. Slowly, over time spanning billions, if not trillions of years, this matter, somehow, altered its propelled trajectory, coagulated and mingled and came to form the celestial bodies, some of which, by lightning strike or whatever stimulation, bore living creatures. A Primordial slime, protozoa, bacteria formed and so Life began.
Slowly, again, after millions if not billions of years, this Life, by a process of “Natural Selection,” began to change, we know not why nor in what direction, and eventually led to, by mutation of genetic material, the variety of animals, plants, and minerals we have on this planet Earth.
The Fossil Record: Toumai
Fast forwarding a few million years, the Evolutionary story continues, we arrive eventually at that time, oh let’s say 7 million years ago, when the first human-like creature appeared. This is a workable story, and would make a mediocre fairy tale beginning, but we are now supposedly doing science.
What distinguishes science from speculation is Truth, and Truth requires evidence. So what is the evidence that a “Man-like,” or hominid creature, even existed? Remember we have already discussed at some length the problems with the dating methods we know and continue to nevertheless use; we can know it if it is human, or human like, maybe, but we will always, as we have seen, have major difficulty in determining any age beyond the written records.
Beyond allusions found in ancient histories to times around, let us say, 10,000 BC (for now), every date remains a study in speculation. Our methods simply do not appear strong enough to determine with accuracy anything beyond that date, and our refusal to come to grips with this reality is costing us dearly. The longer we rely on the unreliable for facts, the more we increase our chances of adopting something that could threaten not just our worldview, but the very quality of our physical existence. We have to at least consider that we may have more to lose by scientists playing with genomes and bacteria, viruses and protobionts, than we have to gain…especially if we consider the quality of their existing theories regarding Man. A mistake in this molecular regards would cost us exponentially more than someone’s tenure.
Here, below, is the evidence for this earliest Simian, our oldest ancestor according to Evolution:
This is our ancestor from Chad, which scientists have named Toumai. By most accounts (or here, e.g.), he is representative of an ape which lived 7 million years ago. The picture above is an Artist’s Conception, the type with which we have become familiar. Were we to take away the human hand in making this skull appear so human, we would be left with hundreds of erratic pieces, little bits of bone. Once assembled in the form it is imagined to have, the clay comes in and science makes its theoretical dream the reality. Then, what at first glance looks like an ape baby which died at birth or shortly thereafter, is further postulated as much, much more. This is so dishonest, it makes me want to question everything theoretical about which science has a say.
Here below is another view of the same fragment, further insult to our intelligence, we could say:
Now all those cracks in this skull are not the way it was found. Michel Brunet found it in pieces, as we have said. Besides the glued-together gray parts, wherever you see tan, rather than gray, in this skull, you are looking at more man-made addenda; Brunet filled, as all our bone-scavengers fill, the missing pieces in. Brunet, perhaps only second to the “work” of the Leakeys, provides the majority of fossil “support” for the claim that apes and Man have a common ancestor. I’ll cite here verbatim a good synopsis regarding the tangible fossils extant, as well as the accompanying and usual speculation based on the “discoveries”:
“Six fossils have been assigned to Toumai to date: a cranium, two lower jaw fragments and three isolated teeth. Two mandibles and an upper premolar have now been described. These items from the head bones and teeth enable us to estimate a height in the range 105cm to 120cm, which is close to that of the common chimpanzee ancestor (Pan troglodytes). But Toumai resembles neither a chimpanzee nor a gorilla. Its teeth (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) differentiate it from two other more recent hominids known in the Upper Miocene: Orrorin tugenensis in Kenya and Ardipithecus kadabba in Ethiopia. In terms of cranial morphology (face, braincase and cranium floor) and the more primitive dentition (less derived canines and cheek teeth with thinner enamel) Toumai is also different from all examples of Australopithecus described up to the present time. Conversely, it shares derived characteristics with more recent bipedal hominids: facial similarities (weak prognathism), basicranium (shortening of the basioccipital leading to the beginning of the migration forward of the foramen magnum) and a nuchal plane sloping sharply toward the rear.” (source)
A cranium, 2 lower jaw fragments, and 3 teeth. Let us accept that these bones exist, and make the leap of faith that the reconstruction we have been looking at is an accurate one. By what line of reasoning do we, nevertheless, come to the following conclusions?
1. It is as tall as a “chimpanzee ancestor”: Absolutely no way but to guess this based on the size of the skull.
2. It has teeth different from other apes. Not only that, it goes on to say the evidence it will base on these teeth are drawn from “…incisors, canines, premolars and molars“. This, when a few lines prior, it states we have found three isolated teeth.
3. The head bones and teeth can determine the height. I would like to see proof of this, in apes supposedly millions of years of age. Millions of years of age, and still apes…
4. It shares characteristics with Australopithecus, but differs also. The point it is trying to make in the passage is that this creature began to walk upright, or resembles later ones which did. This, from the “evidence.”
I do not want to dwell long on this particular supposed ancient ancestor itself. What I would like to do is by the examples I present show clearly the tendencies for this Evolution to make all evidence try to fit the theory, and to stretch the scant fossil record beyond what it is, sometimes omitting or ignoring whole other, more logical possibilities for what is found. Some will say Evolution downright manufactures evidence in support of its claims regarding Man. We will have to see if this, too, is the case. So far, this little chimp seems indicative of the Truth about a manipulative and conniving science.
We should also mention here that not 30 years ago this line of Man did not exist, and that the categorizing of early Man continues to be a study in confusion, changes, and amendments, misinterpretations, and even frauds. As example of the latter Consider the hoax of Piltdown Man, never emphasized enough, and the imaginary Nebraska Man, whose evidence of teeth later turned out to belong to an extinct type of pig, or even the Tasaday, all of which fooled the majority of experts, and treated science like it was a schoolboy. It is then not out of line for us to even question how much of the actual evidence we have is still fabricated.
The scientists of especially macro-evolution, furthermore, throw around millions of years as if they are grains of sand, and assemble sometimes hundreds of pieces into one skull thereby granted dissimilarity to existing specimens. And from this “skull,” we get these reconstructions of what our oldest ancestor looked like:
Get used to these reconstructions, if you aren’t already. I could have posted at least a dozen more examples, all different, of what this earliest ancestor was supposed to have looked like. Not only does Evolution ask we believe their “evidence” as such, they also ask us to accept haphazard conclusions drawn from this scanty evidence as well.
On the Reconstruction of Things
I have read recently an interesting article about the reconstruction of creatures that we have dug up. How do we know how much fat they contained, how much cartilage, how much skin between bone and surface of the creature? How do we know whether or how to clothe the skeletal remains, should we imagine hairy, scaled, or smooth? Consider this picture showing the bone structure of whales, I understand it originally came from the very interesting read “Omniology Society“:
Regardless of where it comes from, this picture accurately represents 3 major types of whale, showing the relation of bone to actual structure. The blue, right, and sperm whales are shown as how they would be reconstructed by science based on knowledge of the skeleton alone, then again as to how they actually appear. It is no different with skeletons of simians or humans that we find. We can attempt to mold their appearance, but without an intact specimen, skin and all, the task should be looked at as all but impossible, any statement based on it, conjecture. Our point here is to call attention once again to the role the Artist’s Conceptions play in this mass hypnosis known as Evolution, and the extent to which theory is represented as fact.
Along these lines, I reproduce here a chart— or rather several charts, at least one of which I think would be acceptable to most Evolutionary theorists— as indicative of the current science regarding the Origin of Man, specifically, how he emerged from other species:
I should like to add that at the source of this chart (above, bottom left) can be found the claim that this particular ordering is “no longer open to dispute.” Well let’s just post a couple more that I can gather up on the spur of the moment, because I think that statement is a obviously mistaken, not to mention, decidedly unscientific:
Oh what the heck let’s do one more, for flavor:
Ardipithecus Ramidus, or Ramapithecus
Let us follow then this last, I believe originally a National Geographic source, because there are many problems with collating these recent graphs one to another, not only because of time differences, but more importantly differences arising from reclassification of existing material. Sometimes, as unscientific as it sounds, remotely related bones are considered as parts of the same specimen, in effort to more accurately reconstruct one individual. Plus, I like the graphic.
Let us accept this Holy Writ for the time being and move on to the next episode of this fairy tale drama, one that portrays serially a Man slowly rising from an ape-like animal walking on four feet with a tail, to one standing on two and tailless, with ingenuity.
Our next most distant ancestor is usually said to be Ramapithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus. Fossils claiming to be of this creature have been found in several places, ranging from India to Ethiopia. Kadabba, the earliest species, we are told, “could have” walked upright “…because of his toe structure,” and is also considered possibly related to humans because its teeth resemble those of Australopithecus. Here then, the evidence for Ramapithecus:
There is a blow-up photograph of some these bones located here.
Ardipithecus is often claimed to be the earliest hominid, despite the challenge of our recent acquaintance Tomai. The consensus is, on Rama, that there is no consensus. For some theorists this creature is considered an ancestor of only the chimpanzee. For others it is the first proto-human being. I quote from talk.origins.com, who have beat up many a creationist using “evidence” such as we are now discussing, to tell us what fossil record, for this entire species, exists. According to our first chart, above, 15 individuals have “contributed parts.” Do we ever ask why we find so few parts? Or if they are maybe not related at all?
“Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Berhane Asfaw and Gen Suwa […] at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consisted of fossils from 17 individuals.Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and partial arm bone from 2 individuals. ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual. ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features.” (ibid. my emphasis)
A “partial arm bone from 2 individuals”? Is this science? Let’s just assume the 2 individual discrepancy is a result of new digs. In the photo above we can see 18 pieces. The ARA-VP series indicate 17 pieces, and so the one extra must mean we have since found one new tooth, or they count the traveling arm as one. So, our photo is up to date, and yes, that IS the entire evidence of Rama-p. That’s it. It is tempting to claim here that this avowed “mixture of characteristics” is due to no more than scientists “mixing up” several different apes into one. Here, an updated photo of re-classified bones, upping the number, by my count, to 35 pieces if all considered genuine and exclusive to Ramapithecus:
Now what do we claim about this “ancestor” of ours, other than it walked upright, and probably lived on the savannah (ibid.)? Not much more, other than plenty of contestants in the “best fantasy adaptation” category, which make sure we can tell by these random bones what this creature looked like, such as this:
Or even this:
No this last photo isn’t supposed to be showing the aggressive nature of our grandfathers, our babas, it is merely showing two juvenile ramapithecoids playing around.
While we should admit that scientists are no longer in agreement over the status of these two creatures and their relation to human lineage—perhaps a small majority now even consider them as nothing more than early apes or monkeys—with our next jump up the Evolutionary ladder we enter into more uniform agreement. For most Evolutionists, still, Australopithecus, or one of its kind, is considered a true hominid, a positive link in the descent of Man.
Australopithecus and the Lucy
According to our chart, Australopithecus anamensis is next in line. I do not want to spend much time with this animal because Lucy, its close kin, is next, and important. Anyway, here is the fossil evidence for A. anamensis:
Again from talk.origins (which appears a bit dated), the content of the fossil record for this creature:
KP 271, “Kanapoi Hominid”, Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells 1967). This is a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old.
KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.1 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism.
As one can see, this species is the one science usually cites as really being biped. Really, we know this animal walked upright because of “…it’s tibia missing the middle portion of bone“? Well how big do you suppose the missing piece was? Why is this and an ape pelvis considered human-like at all, or their imagined arrangement, conducive to walking? Where are the toes?
The Australopithecines nevertheless gain then, for most scientists today, status as first of the hominid line, our remotest direct ancestor. Well, most of them, as some today even place these with the apes, a reflection of their continued categorization outside of the homo line. Still, despite more scanty evidence seemingly indicative only of the remains of apes, we create nevertheless assumptions about its behavior, and fabrications as to what these a. anamensis things looked like:
The discovery of this creature is by and large a Leakey Production, small puns intended. By the fossil evidence we conclude for this creature, as for the two prior, that the fossils are indicative of nothing more than, at best, an ancient ape of some kind. Nothing, despite the claims made about the scant bones available, as you can see, is indicative of standing upright, let alone a human ancestor.
Lucy, on the other hand, our next stop, has received much acclaim, and deserves a proper elucidation of the terms and conditions surrounding her and the other supposed examples of Australopethicus afarensis. We know that Lucy was discovered in Ethiopia, and here this has significance. The place where D. Johanson and T. White first discovered this creature, in 1978, Hadar, is very close to a place called Simien Mountain, in Ethiopia. Here is a photo of Simien Mountain:
This allows us to make explicit mention that just about everywhere we seem to be finding these ape-like, or simian fossils, monkeys, apes or chimps of some kind continue to exist. Is it any surprise that places where various apes mingle might produce, and might have in the past, occasionally unrecognizable half-breeds and mutations, deformed apes that we might dig up? Is it not possible that what we dig up is explainable by variations evidenced by even existing examples of, say, a chimp?
If we were to examine the skulls of one hundred chimps of various ages, we would find a standard deviation of some significance even there. Why would we not think that over the generations anomalies are bound to occur? It seems like we have elevated the freak and the imbecile to the status of founding fathers. That, or we have found extinct apes only, and not yet a human being.
According to our topmost chart, there are extant fossils available from 120 individuals of this afarensis line. I have been unable to find them all. Here are some I have been able to locate. First the 38% “complete” skeleton:
From talk.origins again:
“…Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal, although there is evidence that afarensis was also partly arboreal (tree-dwelling). She was about 107 cm (3’6″) tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight. The humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, is 84.6 for Lucy, compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for the two species of chimpanzee (all these figures have a standard deviation of between 2.0 and 3.0). In other words, humans have much shorter arms compared to their legs than chimpanzees do, and Lucy falls roughly in the middle.” (Korey 1990)
Obviously, for this skeleton at least, we cannot use any humerofemural ratio because we can only estimate the length of the missing part of the tibia (see photo)! No evidence yet of bipedalism either. Here some more photos of of the Lucy evidence, and reconstructions:
The “skull” on the right, in the composite photograph above, is the reconstructed skull of A. afarensis. What we have found are the silvery-looking parts; all the yellow is man-made, and could in fact force the other parts into any desired position. At the left, for strength of comparison, is a modern chimpanzee skull.
Above, this composite photo shows two views of an Australopethicus mandible. On the right, is a modern gorilla mandible.
This photo, above, shows a skull of the same type of animal. The brown stuff is what we supposedly found; the white, is man-made. This, like many such “specimens,” are actually reconstructions of several individuals.
Ab0ve, a nice collage, thanks to the folks at Omniology.com, of actual pictures and photos that have been offered for what Lucy looked like, and another look at the actual evidence. Let’s see again that “incomplete skeleton” (source here):
Yes those ribs are on wires and not as extended as they appear. The skull is just a mess. It is just too scanty to rely on this sort of thing to base a whole history of the human race. It is not even as if we are seeing progress, that we getting closer to the Truth. The more we look at the evidence the more we grimace at the science involved. Consider this Haeckelian-type drawing found here:
This picture is supposed to be showing the length of the femur of a chimpanzee, compared to that of afarensis and modern man. You can see the femur is the same in the afarensis and the chimp. But the pelvis is different, and that is because this animal was not a chimp, it was a different type of ape, and the pelvis of that chimp is way too big. Here some more photos:
Like Frankenstein, science coagulates parts of separate finds and forms them into one conglomerate they then call an ancestor of Man. For millions of dollars in research, testing, digging, and restorations, we have gleaned a whole headache of unsurety and speculation.
I realize this is getting long, so I will separate this section and stop here, before we get into the hominid line proper, the subject next time, after we delve into the last Australopithecus, Afrikanus (or A. africanus). I’ll end with two pictures, where the apes we have been discussing came from, and another of where many fossil finds come from. They may come in handy later.