Primates III (Talk.Origins)

Return to: Primates II

Between 14 and 4 million years ago according to evolutionary time dating methods. In this gap falls the time when, evolutionists claim, chimps and gorillas diverged from hominids. Evolutionists now claim to have found this ancestor; it is called Sahelanthropus tchadensis and nicknamed “Toumai.” It is dated by evolutionists as "early-Pliocene" using other fossils, so evolution is assumed in the dates given for it. There is also evidence that suggests that it is really a female gorilla. So much for the latest missing link.
 * Reference: Man or gorilla skull theory

The fragmentary nature of the Australopithecus ramidus finds and their distribution put its reality into question. Even if Australopithecus ramidus did exist as a species, the remains are too fragmented to really know what it looked like or what other species it may be related to.
 * Reference: ARA-VP-1/129 - Australopithecus ramidus:

"Lucy" is the most complete Australopithecus afarensis ever found and it is dated at 3.9 Million years. Since the teeth are so apelike why can't it have belonged to an ape?

Even though they go on to attribute the prints to Australopithecus afarensis, their description shows just how human the tracks are. These footprints seem to be human. Since no bones were found, the only reason for attributing these prints to Australopithecus afarensis is because they were found in strata evolutionarily dated at 3 million years.

The fossil called "Little Foot" ( Fossil Stw 573 ) had the first Australopithecus foot bones ever found. It had four articulating foot bones. The joints in the foot bones showed a flexibility that suggests the foot was capable of grasping tree-limbs, like a chimpanzee's foot and totally unlike a human foot. Simply put, Australopithecus could not have made the Laetoli Footprints, so these were probably made by a human. Finally, there is evidence that Australopithecus is still alive on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The most famous fossil is known as the "Taung Child."
 * Reference: First ever discovery of a well-preserved skull and associated skeleton of an Australopithecus - R.J. Clarke
 * Reference: Laetoli footprints
 * Reference: Australopithecus afarensis
 * Reference: Australopithecus afarensis
 * Reference: Is Lucy still alive?
 * Reference: Australopithecus africanus
 * Reference: Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecines are clearly all the same kind of animals, and they were simply a type of ape. They seem to have walked both upright and on their knuckles. It has also been suggested that they are ancestral to modern apes and that the apes we know are just degenerated Australopithecines.

There is some question concerning whether Homo habilis actually existed. It seems to be a mixture of different types. Even if did exist, it has been misclassified. If it did exist it probably should be classified as Australopithecus habilis. The alleged stone tools could be human artifacts, usually a tool's evolutionary date &mdash; not fossils &mdash; identifies it as belonging to homo habilis.
 * Reference: Homo habilis is an invalid taxon
 * Reference: Homo habilis
 * Reference: Human Ancestors Hall: The Homo Habilis Debate
 * Reference: Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
 * Reference: People were always people!
 * Reference: Nailing jello (jelly) to the wall
 * Reference: Axing evolutionary ideas—stone dead!

Evidently the physical differences between Homo erectus and modern man are so small as to show that they are the same kind as Homo sapiens. Their general body structure is human, and their brain size is within the range of modern man's. There is also evidence of some degree of culture among Homo erectus.

There is also evidence that Homo erectus are still alive. There are reports from Asia of wild men called Almas. The evidence shows that they seem to lack the ability to speak, but this could be a degenerative condition, or even a cultural taboo against speaking to outsiders. If the reports are true, they are human since one &mdash; called Zana by the villagers who captured her in the 1800's &mdash; had several children by some of the men of the village. The village Tkhina is located in the Ochamchire region of Georgia, a Caucasian country which is a former province of Russia. The evidence shows that Homo erectus is fully human and should be classified as Homo sapiens, erectus.
 * Reference: Human Ancestors Hall: Homo erectus
 * Reference: Skull wars: new Homo erectus skull in Ethiopia
 * Reference: Various stone and bone tools.
 * Reference: Use fire and buildings. (huts)
 * Reference: Use of ochre pigments for ceremonial purposes.
 * Reference: Anomalies Article: Zana

This is another name for Homo heidelbergensis. One fossil skull &mdash; known as the Broken Hill skull &mdash; was originally classified as a Neanderthal. This fossil is quite interesting, since it has a hole on its left side that has been identified as a bullet hole complete with exit wound on the underside of the skull. If the bullet hole was the result of an ancient skull's being shot while lying on the ground, such a shot would have shattered the dry skull. The wound had to have been made while the person was alive and was probably the cause of death.

This leaves two possibilities, both of which eliminate this skull and other heidelbergensis skulls as evidence for evolution.
 * 1) Ancient man had guns.
 * 2) This is the recent skull of a deformed individual.

Archaic Homo sapiens is essentially a category for fossils that do not fit the Neanderthal or the Homo erectus types. The reasons why they are classified as Archaic Homo sapiens are:
 * 1) Different skull morphology from the Neanderthals.
 * 2) Many are dated earlier than Neanderthal, but more than half are dated at the same time as Neanderthal.
 * 3) Cranial capacity that is too large to be classified as Homo erectus.
 * From: Bones of Contention : A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils

Unquestionably, Archaic Homo sapiens were members of the human race.
 * Reference: Human Ancestors Hall: Homo heidelbergensis
 * Reference: Several views of the Broken Hill skull.
 * Reference: Broken Hill skull from Zambia - a modern human not an ape-man

Neanderthal' appearance seems to be a result of extreme old age. 300-400 years old. Genesis 11

Neanderthal children are usually depicted as having large brow ridges, this is contrary to evidence. The skulls of Neanderthal kids do not have the thick brow ridges. That is because the brow ridges grew over many years. In fact the human skull grows in a manner during adulthood that would produce a Neanderthal-looking skull if we lived long enough. Neanderthals were not primitive humans; they were post-flood humans who lived to 400+ years. An interesting fact is that they had larger brains than we do. Sounds like we have lost something.

Here we are, if you want to see Homo sapiens sapiens look in the mirror. The simple fact is that Homo erectus, Neanderthals and modern man are all part of man kind with no real evidence of a relationship to Australopithecus and other apes.

Goto: Primates IV