Evolution Cruncher Chapter 13

 Ancient Man 

rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)

Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything

This chapter is based on pp. 607-663 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 137 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

In the previous chapter (Fossils and Strata), we examined the supposed evidences for the past evolution of plants and animals. In this chapter, we will view the imagined ancestry of human beings.

Following an introduction, this chapter is divided into two main sections: Hominids and Early Man.

The section on Hominids will deal with what is called prehistoric man, or what we might call "the man of evolution." In some respects it is an addition to the chapter on fossils, although it reads more like a sideshow as it tells about fakeries such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Tuang Man, etc.

The concluding section, Early Man, will be about actual geologic or historical evidences of ancient peoples, and is about the "man of history." It is somewhat paralleled by information near the end of chapter 4, Age of the Earth.

The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times.

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.


HAVE SUCH BONES BEEN FOUND?—(*#1/28 Man’s Non-human Ancestry Unknown*) From grade school on up, children are taught about "cavemen," and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are also taught about the bones and skulls of our "ancestors."

As adults, we frequently hear reports of fossil remains of ape-like humans that have been found. Each discovery has been hailed as a landmark proof of the theory of evolution. Scientists have given a name to these supposed half-man/half-ape remains; they call them hominids..

Is it really true that such skeletal remains have been found? Are we really related to apes? In this chapter, you will examine the evidence and find solid answers.

APES—(*#2/28 From Ape to Man*) Evolutionists teach two variant theories regarding man’s direct ancestor: (1) man and ape came from a common ancestor about 5-20 million years ago; (2) man descended from an ape.

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago—and then he stopped evolving! It is claimed that, since that time, man has switched over from "physical evolution" to "cultural and social evolution." This is an attempt to explain the fact that, in historical records, evolution has never been known among humans.

There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."— *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

Did man descend from the apes? Our DNA is different from that of each of the apes, monkeys, and all the rest. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different from that in the apes. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great apes.

Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.

Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.

Cranial capacity is, by itself, an important test of whether a skull is from a man or an ape.

"Since there are variations in tissues and fluids, the cranial capacity is never exactly equal to brain size, but can give an approximation. A skull’s capacity is determined by pouring seeds or buckshot into the large hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum), then emptying the pellets into a measuring jar. The volume is usually given in cubic centimeters (cc.). Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950cc. to 1,800cc., with the average about 1,400cc."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 98.

COMPARING GORILLA AND MAN—*Charles Darwin said man was descended from an ape. Shown below is a typical ape, a gorilla. Carefully notice is bony structure. Notice the skulls and neck bones. Both were carefully designed by a highly-intelligent Creator, but both are very different.

Gorilla and Man

EC522.jpg (243595 bytes)

Evolution teaches that we descended from the great apes, and they, in turn, from the gibbons and other smaller apes.

Several differences between man and ape: (1) Birth weight as a percent of maternal weight is, in man, almost twice that of the great apes (5.5 vs. 2.4-4.1), but about the same or less than that found in monkeys (5-10) and in gibbons (7.5). (2) Order of eruption of teeth is the same in man and in the Old World monkeys, but it is different than that of the great apes. (3) Walking upright is quite different. Man and the gibbon walk habitually upright; the great apes do not. As with the other teachings of evolution, scientific facts are on the side of the creationists, and the evolutionists, and their incredulous theories are outside the domain of scientific fact, discovery, and law. (4) The neck hinge is at the back on man, but at the front on the ape. 

The shape and arrangement of the teeth, for example, is quite different for apes and man:, for example, is quite different for apes and man:

"Many male primates have large canine teeth, which are used in fighting and defense. Where the upper canines meet, or occlude, with the lower jaw, there are spaces, or gaps, between the opposing teeth. Canine diastemas [spaces opposite large canines] are characteristic of the jaws of baboons, gorillas and monkeys. They are used as a diagnostic feature in studying fossils because they are absent in hominids [men or near-men]. A primate jaw with canine diastemas is considered probably related to apes or monkeys, not close to the human family."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES—Early civilizations were advanced; but, from time to time, groups would migrate to new areas and for a time live in "stone age cultures," until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry (*Science Year: 1966, p. 256).

THE THEORETICAL ANCESTRY OF MAN—Shown below are side views of the skulls, bottom views of the upper teeth, and side views of the hands—of the supposed ancestral line of mankind (Galago to Guenon, to chimpanzee, to man).

A careful comparison reveals they are each quite different from the others.

The Theoretical Ancestry of Man

EC524.jpg (201584 bytes)

In some localities, the climate and environment have been difficult enough that groups have continued down to the present time in stone-age conditions. Such racial groups can be found in New Guinea and certain other areas.

Some of these peoples have lost a knowledge of agriculture and the making of weapons, tools, or houses. They only have a few crude stone and bamboo tools, and no weapons. They live under the trees in the open, and the men spend each day gathering worms, leaves, and fruit for the family to eat.

Many anthropologists believe that those primitive "stone age" peoples are not evidence of earlier human life-forms, but rather tribes which have slipped back from the rest of us.

"Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals."

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?"

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.

For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes.

Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old ("Living Neanderthal Man," in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).

A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal’s is 1600 ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man."—Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.

Two Neanderthal-like skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were just Indian skulls.

Neanderthals were just racial types similar to ourselves.

CRO-MAGNON MAN—(*#4/4 Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man*) In 1868 a cave was discovered at Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means "big hole." A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great "missing link" between man and ape.

The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man.


BASIC QUESTIONS—We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we view them, one by one, there are a few questions we should keep in mind:

(1) Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands of them? If these are our ancestors, there should be millions of specimens. There are so many people alive today, there should have been large numbers of half-ape people alive during that "million years" that men are said to have lived on this planet. Indeed, evolution teaches uniformitarianism, the concept that past climates and living conditions were essentially like those we have now in the world.

(2) Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never a complete skeleton? Is this not reading a lot into almost no evidence? Or is it possible that the less found, the easier it is to try to make unfounded claims for it? (Later in this chapter we learn that if only parts of bones are found, their positions can be moved about to imitate half-ape skulls and jaws.)

(3) Although bones decay in a few years in damper regions, and in a few centuries in drier regions,—why is it that these special bones did not decay even though they are supposed to be "a million years old"? The very possibility, that these "million-year-old bones" are not supposed to have decayed, makes it all the more certain that there ought to be millions of other bones lying around belonging to our ancestors! There are millions living today, if people have lived on earth for a million years,—the earth should be filled with the bones of our ancestors!

(4) How could "million-year-old bones" possibly be found in damp earth (not encased within solid rock) in Indonesia, China, and England? Yet the evolutionists claim that such bones have been found, as we shall learn below.

In an article about the grand opening of the International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory (TILLMIAP) in Nairobi, Kenya, *Lewin wrote this:

"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

ONLY BONE PIECES—One problem, as indicated above, is all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. But, working with pieces collected here and there, imagination can produce most wonderful "discoveries." In some instances, some of the pieces have been found at some distance from the rest of the fragments.

JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape. 

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as "Java Man," and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the "half-human half-ape" bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his "bone collection" nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

Java Man

EC532.jpg (184546 bytes)

ARRANGING JAVA MAN—This sketch is an excellent illustration of how evolutionists prefer PIECES of bones, for they can fit them together in different ways to achieve their purposes.

About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of "Java Man," which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.)

Piltdown Man

EC534.jpg (182547 bytes)

THE PIECES OF PILTDOWN MAN—It took several years to fabricate Piltdown Man. *Dawson and his associates carefully worked on the bones, in order to only provide certain pieces, so a half-ape, half-human appearance could be produced. The dark portions represent the pieces of bone; the white portions are plaster "reconstructions."

This illustration, like all in this book, are taken from the author’s three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.

"Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.

Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.

TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the "the missing link." Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.

"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called "Nebraska Man"! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to "an extinct pig"! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing "Nebraska Man" was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

*Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was "the herald of anthropoid apes in America," and that it "speaks volumes of truth" (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).  

At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape. (Science 55, May 5, 1927, p. 464).

PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis ("China man from Peking"), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China.

This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires.

These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus. 

There are races today with larger brow ridges, and some Philippine women have brow ridges,—which only men generally have. Patterns vary, but the species remains one.

"The heavy-boned [Peking] hominid skull featured prominent brow ridges and a somewhat smaller braincase (about 1,000 cc.) than modern humans (1,500 cc.)."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

A braincase of 1,000cc. is not sub-human; people today vary between 1,000 and 2,000cc., with an occasional low of 750cc., and an average of 1,500-1 ,600cc.

All the skulls disappeared during World War II, so we cannot now examine them with modern methods to check their genuineness.


EC538.jpg (191027 bytes)

"Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom.

"However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion."—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

"But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any postcranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramens magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains."—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus*; #9/17 Australopithecus*) "Australopithecus" ("southern ape") is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 4 to 1 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named "Lucy," and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the "Ramapithecines" ("Ramapithecus" is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis]."—W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of brain case, these finds prove nothing.

An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in "Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens," by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

"Overall, the revisionary calculations of australopithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91."—*Op. cit., p. 100.

"The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas."—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man’s Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of the Australopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

"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, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man’s First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuckerman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as ‘Lucy.’ "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys" (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape

So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species."—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy 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."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines, discussed above.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as "Skull 1470." If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

"In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey’s ‘Hominid Gang,’ found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the ‘1470’ skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

"The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey’s wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australopithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches

"Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply ‘too modern-looking’ to be as ancient as he at first claimed."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey’s original announcement in regard to this skull:

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an "ancestor" of mankind.

"Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the ‘magic’ number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

"The finding of ‘Skull 1470,’ which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey’s pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull."—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man’s origins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

"The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally ‘dated’ at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was ‘redated’ until a more ‘acceptable’ estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted."—John N. Moore, "Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human, a teenage human, or an ape..

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them. 

The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes), but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422 to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:

Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time. 

"Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns."—Marvin Lubenow, "Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny," in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(1 1):1-4 (1976).

"None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encephalization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans."—*Henry M. McHenry, "Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution," in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human’s, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an ape-like ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the "Emergence of Man Series," published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

"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!"—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself. There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present."—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

"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."—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.

Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters: 

"1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor, and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape, why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And, most important, why is our DNA distinctly different than apes, monkeys, and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancestors. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones.
And are not very old after all.

Even *Richard Leakey, the foremost hominid bone hunter of the past 20 years has begun to question what it is all about. When asked on television to name our ancestor, he walked over to a chalkboard and drew a large question mark.

"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineage were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.

Brain size points to the conclusion that most of the skulls are those of apes while a few are actually people...

"British anatomist Sir Arthur Keith refused to accept the African australopithecine fossils as human ancestors because their brains were too small. Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line). And, at 450cc., Australopithecus africanus didn’t qualify . .

"In Keith’s day, the Homo erectus skulls at 950cc. could comfortably be included as humans, since their range overlaps our own species (1,000-2,000cc.). But the Homo habilis skulls discovered later measured about 640cc., just on the other side of the rubicon. Skulls of Australopithecus adults are about 500cc., which is larger than chimps but smaller than Homo habilis."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

BABY APES AND GIANT MONKEYS—Yet another problem—and a highly significant one—concerns the fact that immature apes have skulls which are like those of human beings.

"Adult chimps and gorillas, for instance, have elongated faces, heavy brow ridges, powerful jaws, small braincase in relation to overall skull and other characteristic proportions. Baby apes have flat faces, rounded braincase, light brow ridges, proportionately smaller jaws, and many other bodily features strikingly like human beings."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 325.

The full implication of this point is of the highest significance, yet it has been acknowledged by few evolutionary anthropologists. Consider these three facts:

(1) It is well-known that many extinct animals were gigantic in size. (See chapters 12 and 14, Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood, for more on this.) (2) Young apes have skulls which are shaped similarly to those of humans. (3) Relics of what once was an amazingly large ape have been found (see quotation below).

Put together those facts, and what do you have? The possibility that anthropologists today could come across skulls which are shaped much like those of human beings, yet with small braincases (in the 400-900cc. range),—which are actually immature giant apes!

"[A giant ape lived] during the mid-Pleistocene, about 300,000 years ago. This massive primate probably stood nine feet tall and weighed about 600 pounds, if the rest of the creature was in scale with its teeth and jaws. It was named Gigantopithecus (gigantic ape) because its jawbone and teeth are five times larger than that of modern man.

"In 1935, remains of Gigantopthecus were accidentally discovered in a Hong Kong pharmacy by G.H.R. von Koenigswald, a Dutch paleontologist. Chinese apothecaries have always stocked unusual fossils, which they call ‘dragon’s teeth,’ for use in ground-up medicines. Von Koenigswald regularly searched these drugstores for curiosities and was amazed to find an enormous tooth with an ape-like (Y-5) dental pattern. When more teeth began to show up, a field search began, which has since yielded hundreds of Gigantopithecus teeth and jawbones from various sites in China and Pakistan; other parts of the skeleton, however, have not yet been found.

"There are tantalizing reports that bones of the two species [giant ape and human beings] are mingled at the site [in north Vietnam where research scientists are now finding Gigantopithecus bones]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 192.

The search for hominid skulls has usually occurred in areas well able to preserve skulls of both apes and men for thousands of years. But relatively few have been found, simply because time only goes back a few thousand years.

Yet some of those skulls could be immature giant apes. These would appear to be small-brained creatures that are quite similar to humans, yet bear a number of differences.

In addition, there is also another possibility: giant monkeys. Just as giant apes could be found, so giant monkeys could have once existed. The discovery of a skull of a giant monkey would also appear human-like, small-brained, yet with some variant features.

MASS SPECTROMETER BREAKTHROUGH—A newly-developed research tool, the mass spectrometer, provides more dating that is more accurate than the other dating methods.

The following statement by Brown is highly significant. It tells us this: (1) The very expensive mass spectrometer machine actually counts C-14 atoms, and gives more accurate totals. (2) Every organic specimen has some radiocarbon atoms, therefore none are more than a few thousand years old. (3) The earliest skeletal remains in the western hemisphere have been dated by this method, and found to be only about 5,000 years old.

"Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, the carbon-14 atoms in a specimen can now be actually counted. This gives more precise radiocarbon dates with even smaller specimens. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only attempts to count the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations. This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen—even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. The minimum amount of carbon-14 is so consistent that contamination can probably be ruled out. If the specimens were millions of years old, there would be virtually no carbon-14 remaining in them.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.

The problem is that when orthodox science discovers that a new procedure will topple major evolutionary foundations, a cover-up occurs. It is likely that the mass spectrometer technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or pre-archaeological materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would reveal their recent age. (For more on this, see the radiocarbon cover-up section in chapter 21, Archaeological Dating. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit this chapter, but it is on our website.])


ONLY ONE SPECIES—(*#13/4 Evolutionary Ancestor of Man*) It is of interest that, after more than a century spent in trying to figure out people, the experts continue to agree that all men everywhere on earth are only members of one species.

"Modern man, Homo sapiens, is the only hominid on Earth today; all living humans belong to this one species."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 215.

The name, Homo sapiens, is Latin for "the wise one."

CLOCKS AND CALENDARS—Evolutionists view all of time since the first life appeared on Planet Earth to be likened to a giant clock, with each "hour" representing 50 million years, and the entire length of "12 hours" totaling 600 million years. On this imaginary clock, invertebrates appeared at 3 o’clock, amphibians at 5, and reptiles at 6. Mammals originated at 9,—and mankind at a few minutes before 12.

Placed on a calendar of 365 days, with the origin of the earth on January 1, the oldest abundant fossils would be November 21,—and the emergence of man would be 11:50 p.m. on December 31.

This "December 31, 11:50 p.m." date is supposed to be equivalent to 3 million years ago, and man is supposed to have stopped evolving over 100,000 years ago.

But if evolution is random, tenacious, inherent, progressive, continual, and never-ending,—then why did it stop 100,000 years ago?

In addition, if man is supposed to have lived here for a million years, why do human historical dates only go back less than 5,000 years?

EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE—First, here are the actual facts which evolutionists ignore: (1) Using historical, archaeological, and astronomical data, dates for early mankind are found to only go back to about 2250 B.C. (The mass spectrometer takes humans back to 3000 B.C., but radiocarbon dating is unreliable for reasons explained in chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.)

Second, here is the data which the evolutionists use: (2) Using results of the notoriously inaccurate carbon 14, the earliest dates for mankind are extended back to about 15,000 years ago. (3) To this is added fossil evidence—and that evidence is dated according to the contrived date settings worked out in the 19th century. This carries dates back to 3 million years ago.

With that background, you should be better able to understand the following evolutionary timetable of your supposed ancestors:

Based on fossil strata dating, cave artifacts and cave paintings:

Eolithic Age (Dawn Stone Age)—"Animalistic culture, hand-to-mouth eating habits, etc., using natural stone." Date: 3 million years ago.

Paleolithic Age (Old Stone Age)—"Savagery culture, food-collecting habits, etc., using chipped stone." Date: 1 million years ago.

Based on carbon 14 dating of organic materials found near metal artifacts:

Mesolithic Age (Middle Stone Age)—"Barbarism, incipient agriculture, using wood-stone composite materials." Date: 15,000 years ago.

Neolithic Age (New Stone Age)—"Civilization, village economy, using polished stone." Date: 9,000 years ago.

Copper Age—"Urbanization, organized state, using polished stone." Date: 7,500 years ago.

Bronze Age—"Urbanization, organized state, using metal." Date: 7,000 years ago.

Iron Age—"Urbanization, organized state, using metal." Date: 5,000 years ago.

It is of interest that all of these living patterns can be found today. Many groups using "Dawn, Middle, or New Stone Age" methods and materials can be found in New Guinea, southern Philippines, and other primitive areas. 

We will now look at evidences of early man that conflict with evolutionary theory:

To begin with, let us examine two skeletal finds of REAL "ancient mankind"! Both are sensational, but neither will ever be mentioned in a textbook for reasons to be explained below. 

GUADELOUPE WOMAN—Well, you say, I’ve never heard of this one." No, because it is never discussed by the evolutionists.

It is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, complete in every respect except for the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches [15.54 dm] tall.

What makes it of great significance is that fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!

Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary theory, you will not find "Guadeloupe Woman" mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations.

When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and hidden there.

CALAVERAS SKULL—In 1876, 130 feet [39.6 dm] below ground, "Calaveras Skull" was found in the gold-bearing gravels of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. The skull was completely mineralized, was authenticated by a physician as equivalent to a modern man, and certified by an evolutionist (*J.D. Whitney, chief of the California Geological Survey), as having been found in Pliocene stratum. That would mean that this person lived "over 2 million years ago,"—thus disproving evolutionary theories regarding both rock strata and the dating of ancient man. Literally dozens of stone mortars, bowls, and other man-made artifacts were found near this skull.

*Dr. W.H. Holmes, who investigated the Calaveras skull, presented his results to the Smithsonian Institute in 1899:

"To suppose that man could have remained unchanged physically, mentally, socially, industrially and aesthetically for a million of years, roughly speaking (and all this is implied by the evidence furnished), seems in the present state of our knowledge hardly less than a miracle! It is equally difficult to believe that so many men should have been mistaken as to what they saw and found."—*W.H. Holmes, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 124-125.

THE CASTINEDOLO SKULL—For many years, the oldest skulls of man known to exist have been those found at Calaveras, in California, and the perfectly human skull in Castinedolo, Italythe perfectly human skull in Castinedolo, Italy. *Arthur Keith, one of the group that announced Piltdown Man to the world, said this:

"As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the Castinedolo finds, a feeling of incredulity is raised within him. He cannot reflect the discovery as false without doing injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without altering his accepted beliefs (i.e. his belief in the evolution of man). It is clear that we cannot pass Castinedolo by in silence: all the problems relating to the origin and antiquity of modern man focus themselves round it."—*Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man.

THE MOAB SKELETONS—Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock that supposedly dates back to 100 million years in the past.

Moab, Utah is located in eastern Utah on the Colorado River, close to the Colorado border. The Big Indian Copper Mine had been digging into this rock for several years, when the quality of ore became too poor to continue excavation. Work was stopped about 15 feet [45.7 dm] below the surface of the hill. Mr. Lin Ottinger, a friend of the mine superintendent, received permission to dig for artifacts and azurite specimens. Accompanied by friends from Ohio, he dug and found a tooth and bone fragments, all obviously from human beings. Tracing them to their source, he uncovered one complete skeleton. At this, he stopped and notified W. Lee Stokes, head of the geology department of the University of Utah, who sent the university anthropologist, J.P. Marwitt, to investigate.

Working with Ottinger, Marwitt found a second skeleton. The bones were in place where they had been buried, undisturbed, and still articulated (joined together naturally)—indicating no pronounced earth movement. They were also green from the malachite (copper carbonate) in the surrounding sandstone.

These two skeletons were definitely Homo sapiens, and definitely ancient. They were found in Cretaceious strata (supposedly 70-135 million years ago). The bodies were obviously buried at the time of the emplacement of the sandstone rock, which itself had been completely undisturbed prior to uncovering the skeletons.

"Black bits of chalococite, a primary type of copper ore, are still in place [on the skeletons when found]. Chemical alteration changes this to blue azurite or green malachite, both carbonated minerals formed in the near surface or oxidized areas of the earth’s crust. This diagenesis takes time."—Clifford L. Burdick, "Discovery of Human Skeletons in Cretaceous Formation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1973, p. 110.

The bones, clearly ancient, were then tested for age, and found to be only several thousands years old:

"University of Arizona personnel performed the Micro K Jell Dahl or nitrogen retention test on the bones, and found them comparatively recent in origin, that is well within Biblical time limits."—Ibid.

Additional details of this find will be found in the Burdick article, quoted above.

Let us now consider additional evidences in regard to early man:

HUMAN FOOTPRINTS—In the chapter on Fossils, we discussed fossil animal tracks; but human footprints have also been found.

Human footprints have been found in supposedly ancient rock strata. Evolution says that man did not evolve until the late Tertiary, and therefore cannot be more than one to three million years old. But human footprints have been found in rocks from as early as the Carboniferous Period, which is "250 million years old."

"On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints, from 5 to 10 inches long, have been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."—*Albert C. lngalls, "The Carboniferous Mystery," in Scientific America, January 1940, p. 14.

The evidence clearly shows that these footprints were made when the rocks were soft mud. Either modern man lived in the very earliest evolutionary eras of prehistory, or all rock dating must be shrunk down to a much shorter time frame—during all of which man lived.

"If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet."—*lbid.

These are human footprints, not ape prints. Apes and men have quite different footprints. The apes have essentially four hands with an opposable big toe that looks like a thumb. They also have a gait that is different and a tendency to drop on all fours and "knuckle walk."

THE LAETOLI TRACKS—Human tracks from Laetoli in East Africa are described in the April 1979 issue of National Geographic and the February 9, 1980, issue of Science News. The prints look just like yours and mine. Evolutionists admit that they look exactly like human footprints, and say they are in "3.5 million year old" rock,—but refuse to accept them as made by humans, because to do so would destroy all their strata dating theories. One desperate scientist rented a trained bear and had him dance around in wet mud, in the hope the print would look like the human prints found in solid shale. His conclusion was that the Laetoli prints were identical to those of regular people.

*Mary Leakey, the wife of the famous anthropologist *Louis Leakey and mother of *Richard Leakey, found these fully human footprints in rock which dates to nearly 4 million years ago.

"Mary Leakey has found at Laetoli in Africa, footprints which are considered to date from nearly 4 million years ago, and are identical with the footprints of modern humans except that they are somewhat smaller. [Mary O. Leakey, "Footprints Frozen in Time," National Geographic, 155 (4): 446-457(1979)]. They might, in fact, be identical with the footprints of a modern female, of an age in the teens. Moreover, Mary Leakey and Dr. Johanson have found teeth and jawbones which, except that they are again a little smaller, are of virtually identical appearance with those of modern humans. These remains, found at Laotoli and Hadar, date from about 3.75 million years ago. Johanson found also at Hadar the bones of a hand, ‘uncannily like our own’ dated to about 3.5 million years ago."—W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 24.

"[In 1982, Richard Leakey] was also convinced from the famous foot prints at Laetoli that the genus Homo existed 3.75 million years B.C. (700,000 years before Lucy)."—A.W. Mehlert, News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145 [emphasis his].

"At a site called Laetoli in Kenya, 30 miles [48.27 km] south of Olduvai Gorge, in 1976-1978, she [Mary Leakey] made what she considers the most exciting discovery of her career: preserved footprints of three hominid individuals who had left their tracks in soft volcanic ash more than three million years ago. It is a remarkable record of ‘fossilized’ behavior, establishing that very ancient man-like creatures walked exactly as we do."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 270.

The evolutionists are astounded at the find, but cannot believe the evidence before them: that humans were alive when such "ancient strata" was formed and saber-toothed tigers lived. On the same level with the footprints, were prints of extinct creatures, such as the saber-toothed cat. Here are additional comments in the National Geographic article:

" ‘They looked so human, so modern, to be found in tuffs so old,’ says footprint expert Dr. Louise Robbins of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. The best-preserved print shows the raised arch, rounded heel, pronounced ball, and forward-pointing big toe necessary for walking erect. Pressures exerted along the foot attest to a striding gait. Scuff marks appear in the toe area, and a fossilized furrow seams the foot-print." [page 452] "The footsteps come from the south, progress northward in a fairly straight line." [page 453] "The crispness of definition and sharp outlines convince me that they were left on a damp surface that retained the form of the foot." [page 453] "The form of his foot was exactly the same as ours." [page 453] "[On the same level with the footprints and close to them] Trackers identified gazelles and other creatures almost indistinguishable from present-day inhabitants, but the saber-toothed cat and the clawed chalicothere, both now extinct, roamed with them." [page 454] "Dr. Louise Robbins of the University of North Carolina, Geensboro, an anthropologist who specializes in the analysis of footprints, visited Laetoli and concluded: ‘Weight bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones’ [page 456]."—*Mary D. Leakey, "Footprints in the Ashes of Time," National Geographic, April 1979, pp. 452-456.

THE GEDIZ TRACK—The scientific journal, Nature (254(5501):553 [1975]) published a photograph of a footprint which was found in volcanic ash near Demirkopru, Turkey, in 1970. The print is now in the Stockholm Museum of National History. The print was of a man running toward the Gediz River, and scientists estimate its stratigraphic location as being 250,000 years ago. This print is not as clear as the Glen Rose tracks.

THE GLEN ROSE TRACKS—In a Cretaceous limestone formation (dated at 70-135 million years ago) near Glen Rose, Texas, are to be found some remarkable human footprints of giant men. You can go look at them for yourself. (But when you arrive, ask one of the old timers to tell you where to search. As soon as they are exposed, they gradually begin eroding away.)

Glen Rose is located in north central Texas, about 40 miles [64.36 km] southwest of the Fort Worth-Dallas metropolitan area. The area has little rainfall, and for several months each year the Paluxy River is completely dry. From time to time the river changes its course. This occurs at those times when the quiet river becomes a raging torrent. Because the river has such a steep slope (a drop of 17 feet [51.8 dm] per mile [1.609 km]), it is the second-swiftest river in Texas and quite dangerous in time of heavy rainfall.

It was after the terrible flood of 1908, when the river rose 27 feet [82.3 dm] that the prints first began to be noticed. The new riverbed brought to view a flat rock bottom with animal and human prints in what was once wet mud, which had turned to stone.

Clifford L. Burdick, a mining geologist, and *Roland T. Bird, a paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural History, carefully examined and reported on the footprints.

The present writer is over six feet [18.2 dm] tall and has a foot that is about 10½ inches [26.67 cm] in length (he wears a size 12 shoe). The Glen Rose tracks are 15 inches [38.1 cm] long, and were probably made by people 8.3 feet [25.38 dm] tall.

"Yes, they apparently are real enough. Real as the rock could be . . the strangest things of their kind I had ever seen. On the surface of each was splayed the near-likeness of a human foot, perfect in every detail. But each imprint was 15 inches long."—*Roland T. Bird, "Thunder in His Footsteps," in Natural History, May 1939, p. 255.

(As mentioned later in this study, some of the human tracks found at Glen Rose are 21½ inches [54.6 cm] long—and thus would have been made by humans about 11.8 feet [25.38 dm] tall.)

During his research at the Paluxy River Bed near Glen Rose, Dr. Bird found not only human footprints, but also, by them, trails of large three-toed carnivorous dinosaurs, and the tracks of a gigantic sauropod. Each print was 24 x 38 inches [60.9 x 96.5 cm] in size, 12 feet [36.57 dm] apart, and sunk deeply into the mud! Both man and dinosaur were apparently running.

In 1938, under Bird’s supervision, a trail of Brontosaurus tracks were taken from the bed and shipped to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. C.L. Burdick’s findings were published in the Spring 1957 issue of The Naturalist.

The so-called "Cretaceous Period" is the only time when the dinosaurs were supposed to have lived. It is said to have spanned 65 million years, dating from 135 million to 70 million years ago. Man is said to have appeared no earlier than 3 million years ago. The "Glen Rose formation," as it is known by geologists, is dated as "Early Cretaceous," or 120 million years ago...

This formation is described as limestone, alternating with clay, marl, and sand, and in various shades of brownish yellow and gray. Its thickness is 40 to 200 feet [121.9-602.6 dm]. Preservation of such tracks in limestone provides conclusive proof of rapid formation. As soon as the tracks were made, a layer of clay, sand, and gravel washed in and filled them so they would not dissolve away. Also, if the tracks were not quickly covered they would erode away. There is no room here for hundreds or millions of years. As soon as the tracks are exposed today, they quickly erode away.

The prints were made and covered and preserved fast! It may well be that the prints were being covered by rising, turbulent water, which, after covering them with sediments, washed out temporarily as the earth may have moved up or down. It was a time of geologic catastrophe on a massive scale.

Tracks are found in several of the layers of limestone, as they are exposed by river erosion. Man tracks have been found in layers BELOW that of the dinosaur prints!

Another striking evidence of the genuiness of these tracks is called "mud push-up." These footprints show "mud push-up" where the toes pushed up the mud in front and on the sides. This would not occur if these were "erosion markings," as some evolutionists claim. Lamination markings, indicating that the foot pressed through different colored clays beneath it, are also to be seen on many of the human and animal tracks.

Over a hundred human footprint trails have been studied in the Paluxy River area. Most of the footprints are unshod, but some appear to have some kind of covering on the foot. Some marks are of children’s feet, but always going somewhere with adults. Some are of giants. Each one will have length of strides to match the footprint size. Quite a few of the tracks are 16 inches [40.64 cm] in size, but several of the trails are of a man with a seven-foot [21.3 dm] stride and a footprint of 21½ inches [54.6 cm] in length.

We estimate the 16-inch [40.64 cm] tracks to have been made by 8.8-foot [27.06 dm] tall people, and the 21½ inch [54.6 cm] tracks were made by a person 11.94-foot [36.39 dm] in height.

"An anthropological rule of thumb holds that the length of the foot represents about 15 percent of an individual’s height."—*Mary D. Leakey, "Footprints in the Ashes of Time," National Geographic, April 1979, p. 453.

C.N. Dougherty, a local chiropractor in the Glen Rose area, in 1967 wrote a book, Valley of the Giants. He has located, described, and photographed many of the human prints.

THE PALUXY BRANCH—That might be the end of the matter, but in August 1978, accompanied by two friends, Fred Beierle decided to spend the afternoon searching for tracks. in August 1978, accompanied by two friends, Fred Beierle decided to spend the afternoon searching for tracks. Then he found something unusual in the Paluxy riverbed: a charred branch partly embedded in Cretaceous rock.

"I was looking for more tracks around what is commonly called the number two crossing, a section of the river, adjacent to the Robert Mack farm, where there are many dinosaur tracks. In the same formation as the dinosaur tracks, about 200 meters [218.6 yd] downstream from them, we found a charred branch from a tree embedded in the Cretaceous rock. The branch was about 2 inches [5.08 cm] in diameter and 7 feet [21.34 dm] long. It had apparently fallen into the soft, mud-like material which later became limestone, and while the branch was burning. It had quickly been buried, but had continued to smolder for some time, thus being converted into charcoal, and had remained when the mud hardened into limestone."—Fredrick P. Beierle, "A New Kind of Evidence from the Paluxy," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1979, p. 87.

The three men decided that the branch had fallen off a tree which had been hit by lightning. For centuries that branch had been completely encased in Cretaceous rock, said to be the part of the Mesozoic Era (135-170 million years ago) when dinosaurs were walking on the earth. The fact that the wood was charcoal and not ash indicates that it was burning when it fell, and then covered while still burning.

The wood clearly showed the cracks often seen in half-burned wood. It lay east-west, at nearly a right angle to the river. The branch was 2.26 m [2.47 ft] in length. Its eastern tip was concealed, and only the upper part was exposed; the rest was embedded in the rock. The thicker eastern section was about 5 cm (1.968 in] wide while most of the rest was about 2.5 cm (.98 in] in diameter.

Beierle sent a sample of the wood to *Reisner Berg of UCLA to have it radiodated. The carbon 14 test result which came back gave a date for the burned wood of approximately 12,800 years.

Corrected, this would agree with Flood chronology. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, for radiocarbon dating problems.) Therefore, the dinosaur tracks, found in the area in the same Cretaceous rock must be no older than 12,000 years.

"The test showed that the wood is about 12,000 years old. Now, the mud must have hardened into rock after the branch fell into it. But the tracks in the rock must have been made in the mud only a very short time before it hardened, or else they would never have remained. So the tracks in the rock must be no more than about 12,000 years old.

"Nobody, as far as I know, has disputed that the dinosaur tracks found at the river are genuine. Thus, there must have been dinosaurs living about 12,000 years ago. This conclusion, it will be noted, follows whether or not the human tracks, of which many have been found, are genuine. On the other hand, when the dinosaur tracks have been shown to be comparatively recent, there is no reason to doubt that human tracks might be found in the same place."—*Op. cit., pp. 88, 131.

THE ANTELOPE SPRINGS TRACKS—Trilobites are small marine creatures that are now extinct. Evolutionists tell us that trilobites are one of the most ancient creatures which have ever lived on Planet Earth, and they existed millions of years before there were human beings.

William J. Meister, Sr., a drafting supervisor by trade (and, by the way, a non-Christian), made a hobby of searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. On June 1, 1968, he found a human footprint, and there were trilobites in the same rock! The location was Antelope Springs, about 43 miles [69.19 km] northwest of Delta, Utah.

Breaking off a large, two-inch thick piece of rock, he hit it on edge with a hammer, and it fell open in his hands. To his great astonishment, he found on one side the footprint of a human being, with trilobites right in the footprint itself! The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of a footprint and fossils. Amazingly, the human was wearing a sandal!

The footprint measured 10¼ inches long by 3½ inches wide at the sole [26.035 x 8.89 cm], and 3 inches wide [7.62 cm] at the heel. The heel print was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch [1.676 cm] more than the sole. It was clearly the right foot, because the sandal was well-worn on the right side of the heel. Several easily visible trilobites were on the footprint. It had stepped on them, pressing them underfoot.

No chance of hand-made "carvings" here, as the evolutionists charge at Glen Rose. The footprint was located halfway up a 2,000-foot mountain face, and Meister had to stop to rest many times as he climbed. Where he found the print, he had to make footholds to stand on, in order to search for trilobites.

Meister mentions that he told Burdick and Carlisle about the site. This is what happened next:

"The first week in August. Dr. Clifford Burdick. well-traveled consulting geologist of Tucson, Arizona, visited the site of the discovery at Antelope Springs with Mr. Carlisle [a graduate geologist at the University of Colorado]. On this visit Dr. Burdick found a footprint of a barefoot child in the same location as my discovery. He showed me this footprint August 18.

"The day before, my family and I had met Dr. Burdick at Antelope Springs. While there we found another sandal print. Dr. Burdick continued, and on Monday, August 19, he informed me by letter that he had found a second child’s footprint.

"In addition to my discovery and that of Dr. Burdick, a friend of mine, George Silver, digging alone in this location, discovered more footprints of a human or human beings, also shod in sandals. His specimen, which he showed to me (I also showed this specimen to Dr. Melvin Clark), had two footprints, one about a half inch [2.54 cm] above and on top of the other.

"Finally Dean Bitter, teacher in the public schools of Salt Lake City, discovered other footprints of human beings wearing sandals much like those found by George Silver and me. Both Dr. Cook and I have seen his specimens found at Antelope Springs, some distance from the site of my discovery."—William J. Meister, Sr., "Discovery of Trilobite Fossils in Shod Footprint of Human in ‘Trilobite Beds’ - A Cambrian Formation - Antelope Springs, Utah," in Why Not Creation? (1970), p. 190.

As a result of finding the footprints, Meister became a Christian.

*Leland Davis, a consulting geologist, analyzed the strata and the footprints it had been found in—and found them to be "consisting almost entirely of Cambrian strata"! This is the oldest regular fossil-bearing stratum on the planet!

You can find a complete description of the Antelope Springs footprint discoveries in the book, Why Not Creation? pp. 185-193.

OTHER GIANT PEOPLE—Similar giant human footprints have been found in Arizona, near Mount Whitney in California, near White Sands, New Mexico, and other placesSimilar giant human footprints have been found in Arizona, near Mount Whitney in California, near White Sands, New Mexico, and other places.

But, in addition, several other giant human footprints—and even skeletal remains—have been found.

At White Sands, New Mexico, a prehistoric giant walked across a drying lakebed, leaving sandaled feet tracks, with each track approximately 22 inches [55.8 cm] in length.

"The remains of giants were found in Java, twice the size of gorillas, and later the petrified remains of a giant were found in South Africa and reported by the world-renowned anthropologist, Robert Broom. [Based on those finds] Dr. Franz Weidenreich (1946) propounded a new theory to the effect that man’s ancestors were actually giants. Dr. [Clifford] Burdick also tells about one of the unsolved mysteries of the Great White Sands National Monument near Alamogordo, New Mexico. Here is an area of about 175 acres consisting of alabaster, white as snow. It is believed that this gypsum was precipitated as arid winds dried up an inland sea. As this muddy sediment was beginning to harden, some prehistoric giant apparently walked across the drying lakebed, leaving a series of tracks made by sandaled feet. There are 13 human tracks, each track approximately 22 inches [55.8] long and from 8 to 10 inches [20.32-25.4 cm] wide. The stride is from four to five feet [121.9-152.4 cm]."—H.R. Siegler Evolution or Degeneration: Which? (1972), p. 83.

THE ARIZONA TRACKSAncient track marks are technically known as ‘ichnofossils." Recently two new clusters of them have been located in Arizona.

In the late 1960s, a private plane flown by Eryl Cummings made an emergency landing on a dirt road along the Moenkopi Wash, near the Little Colorado River of northern Arizona. While there, Cummings discovered in sandstone some fossil tracks which appeared to be that of a barefoot human child. Near it were some dinosaur tracks. Cummings recognized the strata as belonging to the Kayenta, which evolutionists date to about 190 million years in the past. He wanted to return to the location, but never had the time or funds for an expedition. Years passed.

In 1984, Lorraine Austin found similar tracks not far from Cumming’s site and told Paul Rosnau about them. That same year, Rosnau visited the area (later designated as site-1). Here he located many human tracks, dinosaur tracks, and a hand-print of a child that had slipped and put his hand down to catch himself.

Learning about Cumming’s discovery, Rosnau received directions to his site, which turned out to be about 3 km [1.86 mi] from site-1. In 1986 he searched for the Cummings site but was unable to locate the trackways, apparently because the dirt road had been widened and they had been eradicated. But about 100 mi [160.93 km] west of the road, he found dozens of man tracks. This location was named site-2.

Thirty full pages of information on this discovery will be found in a two-part article by Paul Rosnau, Jeremy Auldaney, George Howe, and William Waisgerber, in the September and December 1989 issues of Creation Research Society Quarterly. A number of photographs are included.

The Arizona tracks are located in the Glen Canyon Group, which is part of late Triassic to early Jurassic strata and supposedly date to 175 to 100 million years in the past.

At least 300 tridactyl dinosaur tracks have been found there, a cloven-footed hoof print of a mammal, bivalves (clams of the Unlo complanatus, a freshwater bivalve which still lives in American lakes), large amphibians, lungfish, and 3 ungulate-like tracks (domestic sheep or wild big horn sheep).

Over 60 human tracks were mapped and photographed. A number of the human tracks were in stride areas, some were standing still with left and right foot near each other, all the rest were walking and going somewhere. In some instances, a shoe or something similar seemed to be on the feet. Here are some interesting comments by the authors:

"[Describing one of the tracks:] The other was an almost perfect barefoot track, typical of tracks made in soft mud. It has a deep heel, an arch almost level with the surface, a deep ball, and toe angle."—Op. cit., part 2, p. 81.

"Similarly, a lone, indistinct, eroded dinosaur track would not be considered authentic, but in an area of distinct tracks it would be accepted as one of many genuine tracks. The trails of man-tracks we have located together with the details of the human toot—toes, ball of foot, arch, heel and taper of toes—rule out chance formations of nature in a great many of our discoveries."—Op. cit., p. 91.

"[Here are] two characteristics of authentic human footprints: (1) on hard surfaces they will assume an hourglass shape; (2) on wet surfaces the heel and ball of the foot will make prominent impressions while the arch will not be prominent. I submit that at site-2 at Tuba City there are tracks that meet both these qualifications."—Ibid.

"Among the impressions there are 30 that are better than the accepted human tracks displayed in the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands, California."—Ibid.

"There is a predominance of fossil bones and tracks of flesh-eating animals such as the phytosaurs, dinosaurs Dilophosurus, and Coelophysis. In normal ecological systems, there are always more plant -eaters. Does this indicate that these carnivorous animals had come down to the area to eat the dead killed in a cataclysm?"—Op. cit., p. 93.

A remarkable number of the tracks had sandals or something shoe-shaped on them.

"(1) There are trackways with repeated barefoot tracks while others have shoe prints which are always headed in the same direction and in reasonable stride with each other. (2) Some are almost identical, existing side by side with the right distance and angles to each other. (3) There are impressions with sharp, shoe-shaped outlines. (4) There is an unusually high percentage (22 percent) of foot and shoe-like impressions in groups . . (8) There are other print pairs with strikingly identical features, always near each other."—Op. cit., p. 92.

OTHER HUMAN PRINTS—Many other human tracks have been found in "ancient" strata—where they are not supposed to be located.

Footprints were found in sandstone near Carson City, Nevada. The prints were clear and well-defined, with a report being given in the *American Journal of Science (also see *Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam, 1956, pp. 519-520).

Footprints were found in sandstone near Berea, Kentucky, about 1930, and were carefully analyzed by a state geologist. Some of the prints were in a walking stride. Distinct right and left impressions were found, each with five toes and a distinct arch. The prints could not have been carved, since some of them were partly covered by a sandstone strata overlay.

Miners digging into a coal seam in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada, found a shoeprint. The imprint of the sole is so clear that traces of sewed thread are visible. The coal bed it was found in supposedly dates back to 15 million years, while man is not thought to have evolved into being until about 1 million years ago. (Andrew Tomas, We Are Not the First, 1971, p. 24.)

Footprints were found close to a lake near Managua, Nicaragua. They were located 16 to 24 feet [48.77-73.15 dm] below the surface, beneath 11 strata of solid rock. Evolutionists have been in a running controversy about those Nicaraguan prints for over a century. (It is a controversy they would rather run from.) Initially, the prints were dated at 200,000 years; but, since the feet were perfectly modern, the age was reduced to about 50,000 years. The only geologist to visit the location also found traces of domesticated dogs and horses with the prints. But when Europeans came to America in the 16th century, they found no dogs or horses. Polished stone artifacts and projectile points were also found nearby.

Carbon 14 testing has recently been applied to the prints—yielding a 3000 B.C. date. But this would mean that, in very recent times, a most terrible catastrophe caused those thick layers of 11 rock strata above the prints to form. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fossils and mastodon bones have been found in the strata above the human prints.

Harvard University has a sandal print that was found, next to human and animal tracks, near the city of San Raphael.

Other human tracks have been found in South America; New Harmony, Indiana; St. Louis, Missouri; Herculaneum, Missouri; and Kingston, New York (Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1971, p. 205).

HUMAN REMAINS IN COAL——The remains of people and their productions have been found in coal, although it is supposed to date back to very early prehistoric times—millions upon millions of years in the past (300 million years ago is the date generally given). Evolutionists are very quiet about these astonishing facts.

It is very understandable how this could happen, since the vast forests of the ancient world were turned into coal and petroleum at the time of the Flood, recorded in Genesis 6 to 9.

1 - The Freiberg Skull. A fossilized human skull was found in solid coal in Germany in 1842. When the coal was broken open, the skull was found inside.

"In the coal collection in the Mining Academy in Freiberg [Saxony], there is a puzzling human skull composed of brown coal and manganiferions and phosphatic limonite . . This skull was described by Karsten and Dechen in 1842."—*Otto Stutzer, Geology of Coal (1940), p. 271.

Presumably Tertiary in age, the coal would have far predated the appearance of man, according to evolutionary theory.

2 - Juvenile Jaw. The jawbone of a child of about six years of age was found in coal in Tuscany in 1958. It had been flattened like a piece of sheet iron. In this instance, it was found by an expert: Johannes Hurzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Basel, Switzerland (*Harroux, One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History, 1970, p. 29).

3 - Two giant human molars were found in the Eagle Coal Mine at Bear Creek, Montana, in November 1926. (*Frank Edwards, Stranger than Science, p. 77.)

4 - Human Leg. A coal miner in West Virginia found a perfectly formed human leg that had changed into coal (Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1968, p. 147).

MAN-MADE REMAINS IN COAL—A variety of man-made objects have also been found in coal. Here are four of them:

1 - Gold Chain. In 1891, a lady in Morrisville, Illinois, accidentally dropped a shovelful of coal onto the floor while carrying it to her stove. A large chunk of coal broke open, exposing an intricately structured gold chain "neatly coiled and embedded."  

Originally reported in the Morrisonville, Illinois Times, of June 11, 1891, the 10-inch [25.4 cm] chain was found to be composed of eight-carat gold. When the coal broke apart, part of the chain remained in each piece, holding them together. Thus there is no possibility that the chain had been dropped into the pile of coal.

2 - Steel Cube. In 1885 at lsidor Braun’s foundry in Vocklabruck, Austria, a block of coal was broken and a small steel cube fell out. It had a deep incision around it and the edges were rounded on two of its faces. The owner’s son took it to the Linz Museum in Austria, but later it was lost. A cast of the cube still remains at the museum (Andrew Tomas, We are not the First, 1971, p. 44).

3 - Iron Pot. In 1912, two employees of the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Oklahoma were working with some coal that had been mined near Wilburton, Oklahoma. One chunk was too large for the furnace, so it was hit with a sledge and it immediately broke open. An iron pot fell out, leaving an impression (mold) of its shape in the coal. An affidavit was filled out by the two witnesses and the pot was photographed. The pot has been seen by thousands of people. (Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1971, p. 201.)

4 - Child’s Spoon. While still a child, in 1937, Mrs. Myrna A. Burdick, together with her mother found a child’s spoon in soft Pennsylvania coal. A picture of it is to be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for June 1976 (page 74). Her address was listed as 1534 Kearney Street, Casper, Wyoming 82601.

5 - Wedge-shaped Object. A wedge-shaped metallic object was found inside a piece of coal (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 121). 

MAN-MADE OBJECTS IN ROCK—Objects made by people have also been found in non-coal materials. These formations are dated by paleontologists to millions of years in the past. Here are eight of these discoveries:

1- Iron Nail. David Brewster found an iron nail in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era. A report on the find was made by the British Association in 1845-1851, in which it was stated that a nail was found in a block of stone from Kingoodie Quarry, North Britain. The block containing the nail was eight inches [20.32 cm] thick and came from below the surface. The last inch of the nail, including the head, was imbedded in the stone, but the remainder, which was quite rusted, projected into some till (Sir David Brewster, Report of Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 14, *Charroux, One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History, 1970, p. 181).

2 - Gold Thread. In a rock quarry near Tweed, below Rutherford Mills, England, workmen were quarrying rock when they discovered a gold thread embedded at a depth of eight inches [20.32 cm] in stone. A piece of the object was sent to a nearby newspaper, the Kelso Chronicle (London Times, June 22, 1844, p. 8, col. 5).

3 - Iron Nail. Probably while searching for gold, Hiram Witt found a piece of auriferous quartz in California in 1851. When it was accidentally dropped, an iron nail with a perfect head was found inside the quartz. The London Times of 1851 carried a report on it.

(Before concluding this item, we will mention a parallel item: Quartz does not require millions of years to form. Quartz crystals were found in a Nevada mine which could have been formed only within the previous 15 years. In the same area, a mill had been torn down and sandstone had formed around it in that length of time. A piece of wood with a nail in it was found in the sandstone.)

4 - Silver Vessel. Workmen were blasting near Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1851; and, in a bed of solid rock, they found a bell-shaped metal vessel. The vessel had inlaid floral designs in silver, and showed a remarkably high degree of craftsmanship. A report on this find was later printed in the Scientific American (June 1851).

5 - Metal Screw. A mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (Springfield Republican; reprinted in London Times, December 24, 1851, p. 5, col. 6).

6 - Metal Bowl. An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was blasted out of solid puddingstone (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).

7 - Iron Nail. In the 16th century, Spanish conquistadors came across an iron nail about six inches [15.24 cm] long solidly incrusted in rock in a Peruvian mine. Iron was unknown to the Indians there. The Spanish Viceroy kept the mysterious nail in his study as a souvenir, and an account of this find is to be found in a letter in Madrid Archives [see archival year 1572] (*Andrew Tomas, We are Not the First, 1971, pp. 28-29).  

MAN-MADE OBJECTS FOUND IN THE GROUND—In locations in the earth far too deep to have been made by human beings (according to evolutionary theory) or in strata which is dated as being very ancient, man-made objects have been found:

1 - Doll. In 1889, workmen were boring an artesian well near Nampa, Idaho A small figurine of baked clay was extracted from a depth of 320 feet [81.28 dm]. Just above the statuette, the drill, inside a 6-inch [15.2 cm] tube, had cut through 15 feet [45.7 dm] of basalt lava. Called the "Nampa image," the object may have anciently been a doll or an idol (Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval,1955). (As mentioned in chapter 14, Effects of the Flood, parts of northwest America have thick layers of volcanic material, probably laid down just after the Flood).

2 - Bronze Coin. A bronze coin from a depth of 114 feet [347.47 dm] was found near Chillicothe, Illinois by well drillers in 1871. This remarkable discovery reveals that ancient peoples lived in America before the time of the Indians, that they had coins, and that immense upheavals and changes in the land took place as a result of a catastrophe (*Frank Edwards, Strangest of All, 1962, p. 101).

3 - Tiled Paving. In 1936 a resident of Plateau City, Colorado (close to Grand Junction) was digging a cellar. At a depth of 10 feet [30.48 dm] he found paved tile that was laid in some type of mortar. Nothing elsewhere in the valley was anything like it. The tiles were found in a Miocene formation, which would normally date them at 25 million years old (*Frank Edwards, Strangest of All, 1962, pp. 100-101).

4 - California Finds. During the gold rush in the middle of the last century, miners in California found a number of unusual objects. These were either found fairly deep in the ground or in "prehuman levels" of strata. It is of interest that these ancient peoples were themselves able to bore into mountains for gold and silver. One of their shafts was 210 feet [640 dm] deep into solid rock. An altar for worship was found in one of them.

Here are more items found in California:

"[In California was found] A mortar for grinding gold ore at a depth of 300 feet [914 dm] in a mining tunnel; a mortar and pestle weighing 30 pounds [13.6 kg], beads, perforated stones; a 40-pound [18 kg] oval granite dish. One human skull was found at a depth of 130 feet [396 dm] under five beds of lava and tufa separated by layers of gravel. Evidently man came before the lava flows, and deep canyons have been cut by rivers since the lava flows.

"An amazing number of stone relics have been found among the bones of the camel, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, horse, and other animals. The findings are almost always in gold-bearing rock or gravel."—Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

An elaborately carved rock and other worked stones weighing up to 800 pounds [362.8 kg] were found hundreds of feet below the surface, and reported in a California newspaper (* Frank Edwards, Strange World, 1964).  

MAN-MADE MARKINGS ON PETRIFIED WOOD—Scientists believe that petrified wood is millions of years old. The Petrified Forest in Arizona contains some of the largest examples of such materials. Man-made pre-mineralization markings have been found on specimens of petrified wood in various localities.

1 - Shaped Wood in India. Several years ago, small pieces of hand-worked petrified wood was found in India. The wood clearly was shaped prior to fossilization, and was later reported in a journal on anthropology (*Anthropos, 1963-64; 1969, 921-40).

2 - Cut Wood in Lombardy. Several petrified pieces of wood were found in Lombardy, Italy. Prior to mineralization, these pieces had been hacked by a cutting instrument. The wood was dated to the Pliocene Epoch, which is considered to be prior to the appearance of man (*Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 13:343).

MAN-MADE MARKINGS ON BONES—Bones of animals have been found with man-made markings animals have been found with man-made markings on them, and are thought by scientists to have predated mankind in the localities in which they were recovered,

1 - Cuttings on Rhinoceros Bone. The fossilized bone of a rhinoceros had man-made cutting marks on it. The bone was found at a site near Paris, and no rhinoceros has lived in Europe throughout recorded history. 

2 - Formed Rhinoceros Horn. A sharp tool was apparently used on a rhinoceros horn that was found in Ireland (*Robert F. Heizer, Man’s Discovery of His Past, 1962).

3 - Notched Dinosaur Bones. This discovery came as a distinct surprise to the paleontologists: Two saurian [dinosaur] bones were found, both with distinctly scored markings at regular intervals. The cuts appeared as if made by knives of some sort. Since the bones came from a Jurassic deposit, it was decided that the markings could not have been made by human beings (*Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, 23:211-3).

In summary of the above finds: (1) All historical dates only go back several thousand years and indicate a young age for mankind. (2) Because of the locations where they have been found, human fossil remains, tracks, and man-made objects, show that "prehistoric eras and epochs"

THE INTELLIGENCE OF MAN—(*#14/15 The Human Brain*) The mind of man is an unanswerable hurdle to the concept of evolution. The theory teaches that natural selection, plus help from random mutations, made cross-species changes in plants and animals—and produced life-forms adapted to survive in their environment. But the human brain does not fit into evolutionary theory. Man’s mind is far too advanced for his survival needs!

This was a crucial issue and basic to *Darwin’s theory: No creature could have much more ability than the other creatures around it or the "struggle for existence" and the "survival of the fittest" could not produce evolutionary change. In the case of man’s brain, *Darwin assumed that Europeans were highly intelligent because they had competed against third-world natives who, *Darwin thought, only had intelligence slightly above that of apes. But *Wallace had lived with natives in primitive tropical lands—and had discovered their minds to be as advanced as those of Europeans; their knowledge was different, but not their mental faculties. Therefore, all mankind had intelligence far in advance of any animal in the world, and Darwinian theory was hopelessly wrong.

"Wallace, Charles Darwin’s ‘junior partner’ in discovering natural selection, had a disturbing problem: He did not believe their theory could account for the evolution of the human brain.

"In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin had concluded that natural selection makes an animal only as perfect as it needs to be for survival in its environment. But it struck Wallace that the human brain seemed to be a much better piece of equipment than our ancestors really needed.

"After all, he reasoned, humans living as simple tribal hunter-gatherers would not need much more intelligence than gorillas. If all they had to do was gather plants and eggs and kill a few small creatures for a living, why develop a brain capable, not merely of speech, but also of composing symphonies and doing higher mathematics?

"Neverthess, Wallace’s problem remains unsolved; the emergence of the human mind is still a mystery."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 457.

In marked contrast with the remarkable intelligence of man, which is so far above any other living creature in our world, is the fact that the apes, which, according to Darwin man descended from, have such poor minds that they hardly know how to devise tool-using by themselves! After discussing tool-using birds and animals, *MacRoberts explains that the reason the apes are thought to be so intelligent is because people assume they are.

"If Leakey had seen the Galapagos finch prying and stabbing hidden grubs with cactus spines, or watched California woodpeckers chisel trees into collective ‘granaries’ for storing acorns, would he say we would have to change the definition of man—or birds?

"No, because primatologists are like doting parents. Anything ‘their’ monkeys or apes do is remarkably clever, because they expect them to be bright. And anything other animals do is ‘just instinct,’ because they’re supposed to be far removed from man."—*Michael MacRoberts, quoted in R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 438.

THE LANGUAGES OF MAN—(*#16/1 Where Languages Lead Us*) Just as the human eye is amazing, so human speech is utterly astounding. How could mankind gain the ability to speak, when all other creatures can only utter a few sounds? *Chomsky of MIT, the world’s foremost linguist, said this:

"Human langauge appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world."—*Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (1972), p. 67.

A leading evolutionist spokesman added this comment:

"Human language is absolutely distinct from any system of communication in other animals. That is made most clear by comparison with animal utterances, which most nearly resemble human speech and are most often called ‘speech.’ Non-human vocables are, in effect, interjections. They reflect the individual’s physical or, more frequently, emotional state. They do not, as true language does, name, discuss, abstract, or symbolize."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man," in Science, April 22, 1966, p. 476.

"Experiments with chimpanzees who ‘talk’ in sign language show that they can signal for things and get them, but ‘they don’t describe. They don’t argue . . They have no value system. They don’t make moral decisions . . They don’t know they’re going to die . . We must never judge animals as if they were just badly brought-up human beings."—*Sir John Eccles, "Photons, Philosophy, and Eccles," in Washington Post, March 15, 1981, p. F-1.

*Lancaster and others spent long periods studying the chattering of monkeys and trying to relate it to human language, but without success.

"The more that is known about it, the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human language."—*J.B. Lancaster, The Origin of Man (1965).

Human language buffaloes the scientists. There is no way it can fit into evolutionary theories. Language marks an unbridgeable gulf between man and all other life-forms on our planet.

"The use of language is very closely associated with the superior thinking ability of humans. In his ability to communicate man differs even more from other animals than he does in his learning or thinking . . We know absolutely nothing about the early stages in the development of language."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), pp. 8-9.

Human language is astounding. As far back as we go, it has always been totally developed! Yet all available data informs us that writing did not begin until after 2500 B.C.!

Earlier in his life, the author studied three ancient languages as well as several contemporary ones, and he was surprised to find that ancient ones were much more complicated than modern ones!

In ancient times, some races would alternately write backwards and forwards: one line from left to right, and the next line from right to left, etc. Boustrophon, the Greeks called it; "as the ox turns with the plow," all the while using no paragraphs, and not even spaces between word and sentences! The result was very complicated reading, to say the least.

Here is how the Greeks would write the above paragraph about 1700 years ago. They obviously had smarter brains back then:











Here is how they wrote about it in Boustrophon, about 2500 years ago, when they were even smarter!











In the above paragraph, the first line went from left to right, and the second from right to left.

The far more complicated pattern of ancient languages indicates that people back then had better mental capacities than we do today! Although having better minds, they lacked our written records. It was only the invention of paper and printing that placed us at an advantage.

"The so-called ‘primitive languages’ can throw no light on language origins since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized people."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 477.

The very earliest languages were more highly complex than any language we have today. If you question this, take a college course in Sanskrit, the ancient language of India. When words joined, one letter connecting them would be changed. ("It is like this," ancient Greek became: "ITISLIKETHIS." In earlier Sanskrit, it would be written, "ITQSNIKEYHIS." When those words were placed with other words, the connecting letters would become still different!

In our own day there are no "primitive languages" either...

"There are no primitive languages, declares Dr. Mason, who is a specialist on American languages. The idea that ‘savages’ speak in a series of grunts, and are unable to express many ‘civilized’ concepts, is very wrong. In fact, many of the languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European ones, Dr. Mason said . . Evolution in language, Dr. Mason has found, is just the opposite of biological evolution. Languages have evolved from the complex to the simple."—*Science News Letter, September 3, 1955, p. 148.

It is the studied belief of the present writer that we can estimate the mental powers of ancient peoples, compared to our own, by comparing our written languages with theirs.

"Many ‘primitive’ languages . . are often a great deal more complex and more efficient than the languages of the so-called higher civilizations."—*Ashley Montague, Man: His First Million Years, p. 116.

"No group of human beings today, even those living in a stone-age culture, speak what could be conceived of as a primitive language. Furthermore, no known language in all of history was in any sense primitive. Elgin remarks, ‘The most ancient languages for which we have written texts—Sanskrit, for example—are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.’ "—Les Bruce, Jr., "On the Origin of Language," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 264. [Bruce was completing his doctorate in linguistics when he wrote this article.]

There is a world of significance in the fact that ancient languages were always more complicated than those now spoken by mankind. This clearly points us to the fact that ancient men were more intelligent than those living on earth today.

"Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed . . Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers . . The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Biological Nature of Man," Science, April 1966, p. 477.

*Simpson, former professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at Harvard, has been one of the leading evolutionary spokesmen of the mid-20th century. Acknowledging the vast gulf that separates animal communication from human languages, he admits that the most ancient human languages were the most complex.

"Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex."—*George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (1969), p. 116.

"The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification."—*Albert C. Baugh, History of the English Language, 2nd Edition (1957), p. 10.

In spite of what the evolutionists claim, there is no evidence anywhere of evolution! It is not to be found in plants, in fish, in birds, in animals, in man, in fossils, nor in the languages of mankind. 

Languages not only reveal that the most ancient of our ancestors were more intelligent than we are today, but they also clarify where the first people lived after the Flood. In great waves, the families of man moved outward from Anatolia (eastern Turkey) and northern Babylonia (northern Iraq) into all the world. And linguists today can trace the path.

MONKEY TALK—(*#18/3 Primate behavior studies*) (*#18/3 Primate behavior studies*) A lot of work has been expended by evolutionists studying apes in Africa and in cages in Europe and America. They had hoped to find instances of great intelligence by them, showing that they are almost like us. But all such efforts have been doomed to failure.

*MacRoberts, an evolutionary researcher, deplores the fact that the great apes are so stupid:

" ‘Given their hands and huge brains, it’s amazing apes and monkeys don’t do a lot more tool-using. They’re incredibly stupid.’ "—*Michael MacRoberts, quoted in R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 438.

Since we have been discussing human language, let us digress for a moment to ape language. It has been widely reported that apes can use symbolic language, and therefore have a very high level of intelligence. This is supposed to be another "proof" that they are our ancestors.

Without taking time to detail the matter, it has been found that what really happens is that the apes do what they think their trainers want them to do, so they will receive treats! It is said that the humans are unconsciously communicating "symbolically," and that the animal gives the desired response which will bring the food reward.

*B.F. Skinner found that even tiny-brained pigeons can use "symbolic communication" just as well as apes! (For much more on this, see Duane Gish, "Can Apes Learn Language?" in Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record, 1985, pp. 209-212; John W. Klotz, "Animal Speech," in Studies in Creation, 1985, pp. 154-157.)

*Herbert S. Terrace, a psychologist at Columbia University, spent five years teaching a chimp named "Nim" to talk. But Terrace later wrote that he had decided that Nim was only doing that which pleased his keepers, and that much of it was just chance arrangements which had been misinterpreted as "verbal" intelligence.

"[By the end of the five years, in 1978] it was thought that Nim understood 300 signs, could produce 125 of them and had put thousands of ‘sentences’ together . . In 1979, Terrace wrote a book, Nim, in which he disavowed his previous results."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 328.

*Noam Chomsky, professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been considered to be one of the world’s leading linguists. He worked for years with apes, trying to teach them language.

"There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [between human language and animal sounds] are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking."—*Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (1972), p. 68.

"Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world."—*Op. cit., p. 67.

The thinking, reasoning power of the mind is located in the "gray matter," which is the cerebral cortex—the surface area of the frontal lobes. There is a certain small area in the frontal lobe called ‘Broca’s convolution,’ which appears to be the speech center in man. Monkeys and apes do not have this area at all.

"The most remarkable change in brain form, passing up the scale from monkey to man, is the comparative enlargement of the frontal and anterior lobes, and there can be little doubt that this enlargement is associated with man’s supremacy in the intellectual sphere."—*1955 Annual Report, Smithsonian Institute, p. 436.

*George Gaylord Simpson is a well-known defender of evolutionism, but he says this:

"Human language is absolutely distinct from any system of communication in other animals. It is still possible, but it is unlikely, that we will ever know just when and how our ancestors began to speak."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man," in Science, April 22, 1966, pp. 476-477.

(Two of the next sections in this chapter, Ancient Cultures and As Far Back as We Go, parallel material in the section, Evidence from Civilization, to be found near the end of chapter 4 of this book, Age of the Earth. We refer you to that material for additional information.)

ANCIENT CULTURES—Scientists frequently note that the races and languages of man indicate that mankind appears to have migrated from a central point, located somewhere in the Near East or Asia Minor. the races and languages of man indicate that mankind appears to have migrated from a central point, located somewhere in the Near East or Asia Minor. This would agree with the conditions following the Flood, and the fact that the ark came to rest in eastern Turkey (see Genesis 8-9).

As the races moved outward, there would first be a brief interval, which scientists call "the stone age," and then would begin pottery, agriculture, animal husbandry, metallurgy, towns, writing, etc. (But, in later centuries, some isolated cultures retrograded backward.)

The earliest pottery is found in the Near East, the earliest domestication of plants and animals is found there also. The earliest working in metals, the earliest towns and cities, and the earliest writing are also found there.

For additional information on this, see the following: Pottery: *Cyril Smith, "Materials and the Development of Civilization and Science," in Science, May 14, 1965, p. 908. Plants: *Hans Helbaek, "Domestication of Food Plants in the World," in Science, August 14, 1959, p. 365. Animal husbandry: *H. Cambel and *R.J. Braidwood, "An Early Farming Village in Turkey," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 52. Metallurgy: *Cyril Smith op. cit., p. 910. Cities: *R.M. Adams, "The Origin of Cities," in Scientific American, September 1960, p. 154; Writing: *Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture, p. 110.

The earliest date in China goes back only to 2250 B.C., and in the Pacific Islands to around the turn of B.C. to A.D. (Much more information on the oldest dates of mankind will be found in chapter 4, Age of the Earth.)

Evolutionists tell us that 500,000 to 150,000 years ago, man developed a "modern brain." Then why did he wait until 5,000 years ago to begin using it?

Evolutionists tell us that man first originated in central Africa (because of ape bones they have found there, as discussed earlier in this chapter). Then why did all the earliest human cultural activities begin in the Near East—instead of central Africa?

Although attempts have been made to use recovered stone tools and other stone technology as a means of determining dates, it is now known that dates cannot be obtained from them.

"In archeology it is now realized, despite long resistance, that dating and classification by means of technical typology, for example stone tools, is no longer possible in many cases."—*D.A. Bowen, Quarterly Geology (1978), p. 193.

THE EARLIEST DOMESTIC CROPS AND ANIMALS—Evidence of the earliest crops and domesticated animals is always in the Near East, generally in the plains below eastern Turkey where the Ararat Mountains are locatedEvidence of the earliest crops and domesticated animals is always in the Near East, generally in the plains below eastern Turkey where the Ararat Mountains are located.

Using carbon 14 dating (which tends to date too high), the earliest wheat cultivation originated in Palestine or Turkey about 7000 B.C. Very soon afterward, maize and other plants (including beans and lima beans) were cultivated in Central America and Peru. The earliest barley was in the Near East about 7000 B.C. The oldest corn dates back to 5200 B.C. in Mexico.

The first-known dogs and sheep from about the same time are found in the Near East. Sheep were domesticated very early, and are found in Iran dating back to 6700 B.C. At about the same date in Jericho, goats appeared. The first domesticated dogs appear in the Near East at about 6000 B.C. By the way, no evidence of evolution of dogs or any other animal in this listing has been found. The earliest pigs were kept in Iran by 7000 B.C. The first cats were kept, as now, primarily to protect against rodents, and date back to 3000 B.C., in Egypt, and 2000 B.C. in India.

The earliest remains of cattle come from Greece and date to about 6500 B.C. The earliest in Mesopotamia are dated to 4500 B.C. The humped cattle of India first appeared in Mesopotamia about 3000 B.C. Domesticated cattle were in Egypt by 3700 B.C. Indian water buffaloes were in Ur before 2500 B.C. and shortly after in northwest India.

The donkey was in Egypt by 3000 B.C. The horse is thought to have been first domesticated in Mesopotamia about 3000 B.C. The onager (type of donkey) drew chariots at Ur in 2500 B.C. The common donkey was used as a beast of burden in Egypt about 3000 B.C. The earliest camels appear to go back to 2000 B.C. for the one humped dromedary, and 1500 B.C. for the two humped Bactrian camel.

One expert (a confirmed evolutionist) says the earliest mention of the donkey as a domesticated animal is found in Genesis 24 (F.E. Zeuner, A History of Domestic Animals, 1963). The earliest use of the elephant as a beast of transport comes from India about 2500 B.C.

The pigeon and goose were domesticated by 7000 B.C., and the duck about the same time; all these first appeared in the Mesopotamia area. By 2000 B.C., they were in India. Pelicans were kept for their eggs in Egypt by 1400 B.C. Egyptians also had cormorants for fishing, and quails were first known in Egypt also.

The earliest domesticated animals in the Americas were late in coming. The alpaca and llama, date back to 2550 B.C. in Peru.

"The dates, like 7000 B.C. given by Harlan and others for this near-eastern outburst of agriculture, probably collapse down to something like 3400 B.C. when the vagaries of the C-14 dating method are taken into account."—George Howe and Walter Lammerts, "Biogeography from a Creationist Perspective: II. The Origin and Distribution of Cultivated Plants," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, p. 8. [The Harland reference is as follows: J.R. Harland, "The Plants and Animals that Nourish Man," in Scientific American, 235(3):89-97; especially note pp. 94-95.]

What is the total picture from all the above: (1) With hardly any exception, the first domesticated plants and animals—and all types of them, whether domesticated or not domesticated, first appear in the Near East. (2) The earliest dates for those plants and animals by which mankind survives only go back to 7000 B.C. When those carbon 14 dates are corrected, they become 3000 B.C. dates. (For more information on carbon 14 and radiodating, see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.)

What about the million years earlier, when man was supposed to have lived on planet earth? No mention, no history, nothing.

EVIDENCE FROM ANCIENT BRITAIN—An engineering professor at Oxford University wrote an unusual book in 1967, in which he described the advanced intelligence, learning, and skills of ancient peoples in what are now England and Scotland. described the advanced intelligence, learning, and skills of ancient peoples in what are now England and Scotland. Because of the large stone structures they built, he called them "megalithic peoples."

Over a period of 40 years, Some 600 megalithic sites were surveyed, which he dated to 2000-1600 B.C.; so he decided that Megalithic Man was an expert engineer, metrologist [expert in measuring], astronomer, geometrician, and boat-builder.

"It is remarkable that 1000 years before the earliest mathematicians of classical Greece, people in these [British] islands not only had a practical knowledge of geometry and were capable of setting out elaborate geometrical designs, but could also set out ellipses based on Pythagorean triangles.

"We need not be surprised to find that their calendar was a highly developed arrangement involving an exact knowledge of the length of the year, or that they had set up many stations for observing the eighteen-year cycle of the revolution of the lunar nodes."—*A. Thom, Megalithic Sites in Britain (1967), p. 3.

"A civilization which could carry a unit of length from one end of Britain to the other . . with an accuracy of 0.1 percent, and could call for the erection of 5,000 to 10,000 megaliths, must have made demands of its engineers . . [and] methods of obtaining time from the stars must have been well understood. To obtain time from the stars the date must be known, and this came from the sun at the calendar sites."—*Op. cit., p. 2.

"Megalithic man was a competent engineer. Witness how he could set out large projects to an accuracy approaching 1 in 100, and how he could transport and erect blocks of stone weighing up to 50 tons (45 mt]. He used the 3, 4, 5 right-angle extensively. He also knew the 5, 12, 13 right-angle triangle, the 8, 15, 17, and the 12, 35, 37 . . ese triangles were used in a peculiar geometry, in which he constructed rings, set out in stone, of various shapes: circular, egg-shaped, elliptical, etc."—*Op. cit., p. 9.

These ancient peoples of Britain understood levers, fulcrums, foundations, sheerlegs, slings, and ropes. They knew how to make and use highly accurate measuring rods. Just as modern surveyors do, on sloping ground they only made horizontal measurements. They could "range in" a straight line between mutually invisible points. 

They built and sailed excellent boats. They understood currents, tides, and movements of the moon. They were able to predict which full or new moon would precede an eclipse of the moon or sun.

It is becoming clear that similar technical knowledge was widespread in the ancient world, and found among the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Incas, and Aztecs. Very likely, this was knowledge received, through Noah, from the peoples who lived before the Flood.

Keep in mind that these Britons were already using this high-tech knowledge by 2000 B.C. The date of the Flood was only about 350 years before that time.

AS FAR BACK AS WE CAN GO—(*#15/9*) As far back as we can go, mankind has been just as intelligent—or more so—than men are todayAs far back as we can go, mankind has been just as intelligent—or more so—than men are today.

"Contrary to popular belief, man has long since ceased to evolve. Present day man, the human being that we are, does not differ essentially from the human being who lived 100,000 years ago . .

"If, by some miracle, it were possible to fetch a new-born child of that past age into our own time, and to bring him up as one of ours, he would become a man exactly like us."—*Science World, February 1, 1961, p. 5.

"Most of what is popularly regarded as evolution of man is social, not biological, evolution. Almost none of the human social evolution has been biological evolution."—*Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 edition, Vol. 10, pp. 613.

"Schoolboys of the little Sumerian county seat of Shadippur about 2000 B.C. had a ‘textbook’ with the solution of Euclid’s classic triangle problem seventeen centuries before Euclid . .

"Clay ‘textbooks’ of the schoolboys of Shadippur contain an encyclopedic outline of the scientific knowledge of their time, which will necessitate a sharp revision of the history of the development of science and, accordingly of the story of the development of the human mind . .

"It suggests that mathematics reached a stage of development about 2000 years B.C. that archaeologists and historians of science had never imagined possible."—*New York Times, January 8, 1950, pp. 1, 28.

Man’s brain capacity and his IQ have not increased down through the centuries. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and dwellers in the Mesopotamian and Indus Valleys of 5,000 years ago, were as intelligent as our generation. Indeed, certain facts which we have mentioned earlier indicate that they were decidedly more intelligent! Remember that they worked at a severe handicap, not having our paper and presses.

"There is evidence that Homo sapiens has not altered markedly for hundreds of thousands of years."—*Scientific American, November 1950.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of the human mind.

EGYPTIAN DATING—Egyptian dating is considered by archaeologists to be the key to dating the historical remains of mankind in ancient times.

This topic is of such major importance that it deserves special attention. In spite of its significance, most of us have never heard much about it, much less the erroneous assumptions on which it is based.

(We had planned, in Chapter 21, Archaeological Dating, to briefly discuss this. But, due to a lack of space, we had to omit nearly all of the chapter. However, all the data is our website.)

The next few paragraphs will reveal the importance of that chapter:

Here are three interesting facts: (1) Evolutionists declare that men have been alive on our planet for over a million years. (2) The earliest historical events date back only a few thousand years. These come from actual historical records. (3) The most ancient historical dates known to mankind come from ancient Egypt.

There appears to have been a studied effort to push those Egyptian dates back as far as possible, in order to help lengthen out the historical timespan of mankind. Highly conjectural assumptions have been made as the basis of this Egyptian dating system.

Although the resulting earlier placement of the earliest Egyptian dates to a point further back in history only involves at the most a few centuries, yet it has the effect of negating a majority of the chronologies given in that most accurate of ancient books: the Bible.

Those displaced archeological dates have had the effect of nullifying the value of important archeological discoveries, as they relate to Biblical events.

A USELESS SEARCH—(*#17/2* How to Identify human Bones) At the Scopes Trial in 1925, the awesome-sounding Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was presented as evidence in favor of evolution. This was Java ManAt the Scopes Trial in 1925, the awesome-sounding Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was presented as evidence in favor of evolution. This was Java Man; and, as the world looked on with bated breath, the news of the finding of two or three of his bones was triumphantly proclaimed by Clarence Darrow in the small courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee, as a great proof of evolution. Earlier in this chapter, we learned that Java Man later turned out to be just another fake. (Much more information on this court trial, which so heavily influenced forthcoming legislative actions all across America, will be found on our website in chapter 30, The Scopes Trial.)

Another "ancient man" was discovered more recently. *Tim White exposed it as a hoax in 1983, and it was reported by an associate (*I. Anderson, "Homanid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib," in New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199).

A dolphin’s rib was called a "human collar-bone"! Afterward, laughing at the obvious foolishness of it all, someone said it should be named "Flipperpithecus"!

White accused a fellow anthropologist of a fraud equal to that of Java Man and Piltdown Man. His conclusive evidence: the bone in question was not properly curved and the nutrient foramen, a tiny opening, opened the wrong way. White, a University of California anthropologist, said this: "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a homanid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone" (*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199). Allan Walker, quoted in the same article, said that skilled anthropologists have erroneously described the femur of an alligator and the toe of a horse as clavicles (collarbones)!

As we have already noted, "hominid" is the name for the mythical half-man, half-ape that evolutionists have, for decades been searching for,—yet without success. It is a sad state of affairs when the only evidence that something exists is the theory it is found in.

ARTISTS TO THE AID OF EVOLUTION—(*#11/7 Artists to the Aid of Evolution*) Are not the paintings drawn by artists of half-men/half-ape creatures enough proof that we have an ape ancestry! Are not the paintings drawn by artists of half-men/half-ape creatures enough proof that we have an ape ancestry! Surely, they ought to know, for they ought to be able to tell from the bones:

Over the decades, a number of outstanding artists have offered their abilities to the service of proving evolutionary theory. Looking at some old bones, they have imagined what dinosaurs and many other extinct creatures might have looked like. The finished artwork has been presented to the public as though it were another "scientific fact." In regard to ancient man, these artists have excelled in painting portraits of imaginary half-apes/half-men who never really existed.

In reality, neither scientists nor artists are able to tell from an examination of a few scattered and partly missing bones what their owner once looked like. Even if all the bones were there, the experts would be unable to tell what the eyes, ears, nose, and lips looked like. Such things as skin color, hair color, general skin texture, the presence or absence of a beard—all of these things and more would not be identifiable.

But, just now, we will let the experts speak:

"Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."—*B. Rensberger, "Ancestors: A Family Album," Science Digest, 89:34-43 (1981).

*Hooton tells us that anthropologists should not be doing this:

"No anthropologist is justified in reconstructing the entire skeleton of an unfamiliar type of fossil man from parts of the skullcap, one or two teeth, and perhaps a few oddments of mandible [jaw bone] and long bones . . Inferences concerning the missing parts are very precarious, unless more complete skeletons of other individuals of the same type are available to support the reconstruction."— Earnest Albert Hooton, Apes, Men and Morons (1970), p. 115.

There is really not enough evidence on which to base artistic conclusions. The public ought to be warned of these efforts of evolutionary advocates to provide evidence—which is no evidence—in support of their theory:

"Put not your faith in reconstructions. Some anatomists model reconstructions of fossil skulls by building up the soft parts of the head and face upon a skull cast and thus produce a bust purporting to represent the appearance of the fossil man in life. When, however, we recall the fragmentary condition of most of the skulls, the faces usually being missing, we can readily see that even the reconstruction of the facial skeleton leaves room for a good deal of doubt as to details. To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can, with equal facility, model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public."—*Earnest Albert Hooton, Up from the Apes (1946), p. 329.

Imagination takes the place of actual characteristics.

"The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."—*James C. King, The Biology of Race (1971), pp. 135, 151.

Imagination takes the place of evidence.

"The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. They are paid to produce something halfway between an ape and a human being."—*"AnthroArt," Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

*Johanson, a leading expert at trying to locate ancient hominids in Africa, declares that no one really knows what they looked like.

"No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like."—*Donald C. Johanson and *Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981), p. 286.

It is all a land of fantasy.

"[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorizing out of the realms of fantasy."—*New Scientist, August 3, 1972, p. 259 [book review of Bjorn Kurten’s Not from the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution].

PILBEAM AND LEAKEY—*David Pilbeam of the Boston Museum was a lifetime expert in the field of paleoanthropology (the study of fossil man). In an article written for Human Nature magazine in June 1978, entitled, "Rearranging our Family Tree," he reported that discoveries since 1976 had radically changed his view of human origins and man’s early ancestors. Pilbeam ranked so high in the field, that he was the adviser to the government of Kenya in regard to the establishment of an international institute for the study of human origins. Kenya has for decades been the center of hominid research, because of the efforts of *Richard Leakey and his mother, *Dr. Mary Leakey to dig ancient half-man, half-ape bones out of the ground. The Leakeys have their headquarters in Nairobi.

In later articles, such as the one in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, *Pilbeam has amplified on his changed position. In the 1970s, while working in Kenya and personally examining the skimpy bone fragments of "ancient man," *Pilbeam was forced to the conclusion there was no real evidence of any kind—anywhere—of man’s supposed ape ancestors!

For years, *Richard Leakey has tried to prove that man’s half-ape ancestors were the Australopithecines of East Africa. But of these bones, *Pilbeam said, "There is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not."

Shortly afterward, *Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man’s evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it. That is an astounding admission, considering that it comes from the leading hominid hunter of the last half of the 20th century. At that time, *Leakey gave up looking for old bones, and began championing animal conservation in Kenya.

DATED BY POTASSIUM-ARGON—It should be mentioned that it has been the use of the notoriously unreliable potassium-argon dating technique that has enabled Leakey and others to come up with these immensely ancient dates for bones which are probably only a few hundred years old. it has been the use of the notoriously unreliable potassium-argon dating technique that has enabled Leakey and others to come up with these immensely ancient dates for bones which are probably only a few hundred years old. See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.

"It was the early use of the potassium-argon technique in 1961 to date the lowest level at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania that radically lengthened the known time span of hominid evolution and ignited the explosion of knowledge about early man."—*F. Weaver, "The Search for Our Ancestors" in National Geographic Magazine, November 1985, p. 589.

NO HOMINIDS AT ALL—There are no half-ape ancestors! None have been found. No fossils existThere are no half-ape ancestors! None have been found. No fossils exist. There are no old bones!

More recently, *William Fix, another expert in the field of early man, wrote a scathing book, The Bone Peddlers, in which he examined in detail the subject of paleoanthropology. He showed that, not only do the anthropologists themselves doubt the validity of the "bone" evidence, but research and new discoveries have eliminated each of man’s supposed apelike ancestors from his family tree.

"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 temerity to tell us that there is ‘no doubt’ how man originated. If only they had the evidence . .

"I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors."—* William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers (1984), pp. 150-153.

ORCE MAN—On May 14, 1984 the Daily Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, carried the story of the latest hoax: "ASS TAKEN FOR MAN," was the headline.

A skull found in Spain, and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey!

The bone had been found in the Andalusia region of Spain; and a three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone which had already been named, Orce Man, for the southern Spanish town near where it had been found. The French caused problems, however. Scientists from Paris showed that Orce Man was a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey. The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters, canceling the symposium.

THE SEARCH FOR GLORY—Fame and long-term financial support awaits the man who finds a few scraps of bones and declares that they belong to our half-ape ancestors. We have found in this chapter that this has happened over and over again. Yet in every instance, either the find is later falsified, or the finder later renounces his efforts as useless.

"In view of many paleoanthropologists, the story of human evolution has been fictionalized to suit needs other than scientific rigor."—*B. Rensberger, "Facing the Past," in Science, October 1981, Vol. 81, pp. 41, 49.

"Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology. Hypotheses and stories of human evolution frequently arise unprompted by data and contain a large measure of general preconceptions, and the data which do exist are often insufficient to falsify or even substantiate them. Many interpretations are possible. These books all provide new alternatives, some refining the subject with new information; all, in varying degrees, supplant the old myths with new ones."—*W. Hill, "Book Review," in American Scientist (1984), Vol. 72, pp. 188-189.

"The unscientific and doctrinaire character of the whole of this field of study is well epitomized. So much glamor still attaches to the theme of the missing link, and to man’s relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exorcise [remove] from the comparative study of Primates, living and fossil, the kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of a well of wishful thinking."—*S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (1970), p. 64.

THE STORY OF PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man [more complete than here]*) Whether some like it or not, the story of the Piltdown hoax will ever stand as a great epoch in the history of evolutionary presentations. Other evolutionary frauds have repeatedly been perpetrated and later uncovered. But the Piltdown hoax was the most shaking of the exposés—when it finally occurred, due to the fact that, for decades, Piltdown Man had been proclaimed as the grand proof that man evolved from apes.

Here is a story of masterful "skull duggery," the story of Piltdown Man:

*Charles Dawson, a Sussex lawyer, was walking along a farm road close to Piltdown Common, Retching (Sussex), England one day, when he "noticed that the road had been mended with some peculiar brown flints not usual in the district." Upon inquiry, he said he was "astonished" to learn that they had been dug from a gravel bed on a farm. He determined that he must go find where this "strange gravel" came from, although no one else in the community had ever considered the gravel strange.

Relating the incident later in December 1912, *Dawson said that that walk on the road took place "several years ago." This would put it in 1909 or 1910. It is believed that none other than *Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the imaginative inventor of the Sherlock Holmes detective mystery stories, was involved along with *Dawson, in initially developing the idea for this fraudulent placement and later "discovery" of bones.

"Shortly afterwards," Charles Dawson visited the gravel pit (located about halfway between Uckfield and Haywards Heath, interestly enough, only a few miles from the mansion where Charles Darwin lived most of his life) and found two men digging gravel. He asked them if they had found any "bones or other fossils," and they told him No. He said that he then urged them to watch for such things, for they might find some in the future.

Not long after, he "just happened" to walk by the gravel pit again one morning—and was met by an excited workman who said that he found part of a skull in the gravel just after arriving at work! Describing it afterward, Dawson said that "it was a small portion of unusually thick parietal bone that looked as if it might be human and 300,000 years old." That was a lot to figure out at a glance.

Mr. Dawson made immediate search, but could find nothing else in the gravel pit. It was not until "some years later," in the autumn of 1911, on another visit to the spot, that Dawson found another and larger piece of bone. This time it was part of the frontal region of a skull, and included a portion of the ridge extending over the left eyebrow. He just happened to walk over to the gravel pit that day—and there it was, lying there with part of it exposed to the surface!

A short time thereafter, he just happened to have *Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, head of the Department of Geology at the British Museum of Natural History, with him on the day he found the all-important jawbone at the gravel pit. As Woodward looked on,—Dawson dug down and there it was!

This "magnificent discovery" came at just the right time. Both *Charles Darwin and *Thomas Huxley had died; and, although "fossil human bones" had been dug up in various places in far countries, such as the Neanderthal, none of them were of much use to the cause. They were all clearly human.

What was needed was a half-million-year-old half-ape/half-human appearing skull and jawbone. And where better a place to find such old bones than in perpetually damp England, where even bones half a century old normally have already turned back to dust.

Woodward was an avid paleontologist, and had written many papers on fossil fish. Dawson and Woodward had many long talks together over those bones.

Then *Arthur Keith, an anatomist, was called in. Keith was one of the most highly respected scientists in England. Author of several classic works, he had all the credentials of respectability: a doctorate in medicine, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the Royal Anthropological Institute, plus membership in the Anatomical Society, and the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

There was more talk. Then *Grafton Elliot Smith, a renowned brain specialist, was brought into the circle. Thus was gathered together a team of scientists that was one of the most respected in the British Isles. —And the subject of their penetrating conversations: some bones that were not all there.

The lower jaw was too big for a human skull but, significantly, the upper jaw was entirely missing, and with it part of the lower jaw—and the important lower canine teeth. Also missing were the mating parts for the jaw hinge. That which was missing was exactly that which would have shown (1) whether or not the lower jaw, which was apelike, was from a human or an ape, and (2) whether the lower jaw fitted with the upper skull bones, which were obviously human.

The skull itself consisted only of several pieces. This meant that the size of the braincase could not be determined. The pieces might fit a larger braincase or a small one; there was no way of knowing. Keith, although an ardent evolutionist like the others, was more open to evidence, and theorized 1,500 cubic centimeters for the volume of the braincase; whereas Woodward thought it was only 1,070 (midway between an ape [600 cc.] and a human (averaging 500 cc.). Keith’s estimate, which was slightly larger than some modern men, was made on the basis of the larger jaw. But his estimate angered the other men. Such an estimate would ruin a lot of planning and work. Then *Teilhard de Chardin, an ardent evolutionist, although a Jesuit priest at a nearby seminary, found an apelike canine tooth in that gravel pit. Keith relented at this, and the men agreed on a brain capacity of 1,200 cc.

With this miserly collection of a few bone fragments, the scientists "reconstructed" the entire head of what they proudly proclaimed to be "Piltdown Man." Here at last, they triumphantly declared, was the "long-awaited missing link."  

Since Latin names are always supposed to prove something, they named it Eoanthropus Dawsoni, which stands for "Dawson’s Dawn Man." That name made everything sound scientific.

On December 16, 1912, the discovery was officially announced at the Geological Society. The press went wild. Here was a sensation that would sell newspapers. Many people accepted it; many others did not.

On August 29, 1913, Teilhard stayed overnight with Dawson and then went with him the next day to the Piltdown pit. And there it was! Another of the two missing canine teeth! It was right there, not far under the gravel in the pit. Imagine that: just setting there, beautifully preserved for 300,000 years, washed by stream water and dampened by ages of British fog, preserved as nicely as though this were the Egyptian desert—waiting for Dawson and Teilhard to find it.

This was the crucial third piece of evidence and was duly reported at the 1913 meeting of the Geological Society.

Along with that tooth was found a Stegodon (elephant) tooth. That was helpful, for it provided evidence that the bones must indeed be very, very ancient.

More recently, scientists have analyzed that particular Stegodon tooth—and found it to contain a remarkably high level of radioactivity (from an ancient inflow of 0.1 percent uranium oxide into it). The radioactive level of the tooth was far too high for the British Isles, but equal to what one would find in Stegodon teeth being recovered at that time in the dry climate of lchkeul, Tunisia. It just so happened that, from 1906 to 1908, Teilhard, an avid fossil collector for many years, had lived in North Africa and was known to have stayed for a time at Ichkeul near Bizerta in North Tunisia, a site where Stegodon fossils are plentiful.

But not all were satisfied. Some scientists argued that the jaw and skull did not belong to the same individual. It was also observed that the few skull pieces could be arranged in a number of shapes and sizes to match any desired braincase and head shape that might be desired.

In reality, that is exactly what had been done. The parts had been carefully selected with consummate skill to provide only certain evidence while omitting certain other facts. The objective was to afterward reconstruct the head along ape lines; for the nearer the "reconstruction" could be pushed toward the brute beast, the more convincing it would appear as "scientific evidence" of evolution.

The objections offered were tossed aside and given little attention in scientific societies, and even less in the public press. Human bones do not sell as many papers as do human-ape bones.

The actual bones were placed in the British Museum, and plaster casts of the half-man/half-ape "reconstruction" were sent to museums all over the world.

By August 1913, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science discussed the Piltdown bones, another molar tooth and two nasal bones "had been found" in that same gravel pit. It was marvelous how many pieces of bone kept coming up close to the surface in that gravel pit!

Here we have bones well-preserved after 300,000 years in that damp gravel; whereas all the other millions of upon millions of bones of animals and men who had lived and died in that area during that supposed timespan were not to be found. Just that one set of skull pieces, jawbone, and teeth, and that was it. And they were carefully broken, with certain parts missing. 

And everything was so close to the surface. According to strata theory, they should have been far below the surface. 

But wait a minute! Where does gravel come from? It is washed in from stream beds. We thought the perpetual dryness of Egyptian sands was needed to preserve bones. But streambeds flowing in perpetually damp England did just as well in preserving 300,000-year-old bones! Well, back to the story.

In their final reconstruction of the bones, the men put their solitary canine tooth on the right side of the lower jaw at an angle suggestive of an ape. That helped the cause!

It does not take much to fool people, and the reconstructionists worked with care and forethought. With a human skull and an ape skull jaw before them as they worked, they shaped the plaster to produce an "apeman."

*Captain St. Barbe and *Major Marriott were two amateur paleontologists from Sussex, who later reported that, on separate occasions, they had surprised Dawson in his office staining bones. Because of this, they suspected that his Piltdown bone finds were nothing more than fakes. Paleontologists know that the way to make bones look ancient is to stain them a darker color. Yet few would listen to the two men.

In 1915, Dawson sent Woodward a postcard announcing that he had found more fossils in a different gravel pit somewhere in the Piltdown area. No one has ever been told the location of that pit, however. But these new cranial bones, although even more fragmentary than the first ones, were with all due ceremony published by Woodward as "Piltdown II" finds in 1916, shortly after the death of Dawson.

Then came four other revelations:

(1) *W.K. Gregory, in 1914, and *G.S. Miller, in 1915, announced in scientific journals that the "right lower" canine tooth—was in reality a left upper tooth!

Scientists were not able to properly identify the only canine tooth in their possession, yet they were very definite in solemnly announcing that the Piltdown gravel was "in the main composed of Pliocene drift, probably reconstructed in the Pleistocene epoch." They had less dexterity with teeth in hand than with their specific dates millions of years in the past.

(2) Another complaint came from *Alex Hardlicka who, in Smithsonian Report for 1913, declared that the jaw and the canine tooth belonged to a chimpanzee.

(3) A dental anatomist examined the teeth in 1916, and duly reported that they had been filed. The file marks were quite obvious to see. But Keith and Woodward chose to ignore the report. They had good reason to ignore it.

(4) ln 1921, *Sir Ray Lankester, maintained that the skull and jaw never belonged to the same creature. His conclusion was confirmed by David Waterston of the University of London, King’s College.

But NOT ONE of the above four revelations ever reached the public press in any appreciable amount. A whole generation grew up with "Piltdown Man" as their purported ancestor. Textbooks, exhibits, displays, encyclopedias—all spread the good news that we came from apes after all.

Oil paintings of the discoverers were executed. The bones were named after Dawson, and the other men (Keith, Woodward and Grafton) were knighted by British royalty for their part in the great discovery.

As for the bones of Piltdown Man, too many people were finding fault with them, so they were carefully placed under lock and key in the British Museum. Even such authorities as *Louis Leakey were permitted to examine nothing better than plaster casts of the bones. Only the originals could reveal the fraud, not casts of them. 

As recently as 1946, the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 14, p. 763) stated authoritatively, "Amongst British authorities there is agreement that the skull and jaw are parts of the same individual."

Decades of deception passed, and then the whole thing blew apart.

In 1953, *Kenneth Oakley (a British Museum geologist), in collaboration with Joseph Weiner (an Oxford University anthropologist) and *Le Gros Clark (professor of anatomy at Oxford) somehow managed to get their hands on those original bones! (How they accomplished that was remarkable.)

A new method for determining the relative age of bones by their fluorine content had been recently developed. This fluorine test revealed the bones to be quite recent.

Additional examination revealed that the bones of Piltdown Man had been carefully stained with bichromate in order to make them appear aged.

Drillings into the bone produced shavings, but should have produced powder if the bones had been ancient, but powder was not produced. Then that canine tooth was brought out—and found to have been filed, stained brown with potassium bichromate, and then packed with grains of sand. No wonder it took so long before the discovery could be announced; a lot of work had to first be done on those bones and teeth.

*Sir Solly Zuckerman, an expert in the field, later commented that the person or persons who perpetrated this deliberate and unscrupulous hoax, knew more about ape bones than did the scientists at the British Museum.

The fluorine test is a method of determining whether several bones were buried at the same time or at different times. This is done by measuring the amount of fluorine they have absorbed from ground water. It cannot give ages in years, but is a high-tech method of establishing ages of bones relative to each other.

"His [Oakley’s] radioactive fluorine test proved the skull fragments were many thousands of years older than the jaw. They could not be from the same individual unless, as one scientist put it, ‘the man died but his jaw lingered on for a few thousand years.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 363.

In 1955, Weiner, chief detective in the case, later published a book about the hoax, The Piltdown Forgery. He considered Dawson to have been the one who initiated the fake.

"Every important piece proved a forgery. Piltdown Man was a fraud from start to finish!"—*Alden P. Armagnac, "The Piltdown Hoax," Reader’s Digest, October 1956, p. 182.

Another good source is *William L. Straus, Jr., "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Science, February 26, 1954. Also of interest is *Robert Silverberg, Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes (1965).

The House of Commons was so disturbed by the announcement of the fraud, that it came close to passing a measure declaring "that the House has no confidence in the Trustees of the British Museum . . because of the tardiness of their discovery that the skull of the Piltdown man is a partial fake."

"A member of the British Parliament proposed a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the scientific leadership of the British Museum. The motion failed to carry when another M.P. [member of Parliament] reminded his colleagues that politicians had ‘enough skeletons in their own closets.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 364.

Adding to the embarrassment of a government and nation, three years before the exposé the National Nature Conservancy had spent a sizable amount of taxpayers’ money in transforming the area in and around that pit into the Piltdown Gravel Pit National Monument.

So that is the story of another exercise in evolutionary futility, the story of Piltdown Man.

THE APE WOMEN—In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey, desperately searching half-human, half-ape bones, without really finding any, decided that he needed some "ape women,"—who would dedicate the rest of their lives to watching great apes in the jungle and making notes on their human-like behavior. This, *Leakey thought, would help prove that we descended from them! With this in mind, he recruited *Jane Goodall to live with chimpanzees near Lake Tanganyika in Africa; *Diane Fossey to watch mountain gorillas in Zaire; and *Birute Galdikas to sit next to orangutans in Indonesia.

During subsequent decades, the three women made thousands of notes, with none of them useful to the cause of evolution. It was discovered that the great apes have less sense than many birds and small mammals. The ape wrinkles its nose, scratches it's back, and picks a tick out of its fur and eats it. That is about it.

One of the "ape women," *Diane Fossey, went insane in the process. She gradually retrograded toward her beloved gorillas. She became withdrawn, irritable, and vicious. Gradually, she became more and more furious toward people around her, until on the evening of December 28, 1985, someone beat her to death.

"In her final years at Karisoke, her personality had deteriorated; she had isolated herself from researchers and students, spending weeks locked in her cabin. She had become resentful, suspicious of others and downright cruel to her staff.

"Those who were at Karisoke during her last years seem to agree that she was probably not killed by a village poacher, but by someone close to her, who had felt the full fury of her unjustifiable rages and merciless personal attacks. Though she remained on the mountain, she had descended into madness. She was buried in the gorilla cemetery in her camp, next to the remains of her beloved Digit [one of her favorite gorillas]."—*R. Milner, Enclyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 171


Swiftlets are small birds that live in southwestern Asia and Australia. They make their nests far back in dark caves. These birds have small eyes and the caves are pitch black. With fast wings, such as swallows have, the swiftlet flies at high speed into its cave. Rapidly it flies directly to one tiny nest among hundreds. As soon as the bird enters the cave, it begins making a series of high-pitched clicks. The little bird has the ability to vary the frequency of the sounds and, as it approaches the wall, it increases the number of clicks per second until they are emitted at about 20 per second. The time required for the clicks to bounce off the wall and return reveals the distance to the wall. 

Scientists have tried to figure out why the clicks vary in frequency as the bird gets closer to the wall. They eventually discovered that the tiny bird—with a brain an eighth as large as your little finger—does this in order to hear the return echo! The problem is that the click must be so short and so exactly spaced apart, that its echo is heard by the ear of the bird—before the next click is made. Otherwise the next click will drown the sound of the returning echo. By the way, how did the swiftlet identify its own nest by those clicks? There are hundreds of nests in the cave. Scientists try to solve such problems, but they are unable to do so. Somehow, evolutionary theory does not seem to be of any help.




1 - List several physical factors about man that are distinctly different than apes.

2 - Explain why, just because some earlier peoples lived under primitive conditions or in caves, they should be called "partly human."

3 - Give several reasons why Neanderthals were fully human.

4 - There are four odd facts about the finds of "hominid bones" which are suspicious. List them.

5 - Select one of the following and write a brief paragraph on it: (1) Cro-Magnon Man; (2) Rhodesian Man; (3) Taung African Man; (4) Nebraska Man.

6 - Select one of the following and write several paragraphs about it: (1) Java Man; (2) Piltdown Man; (3) Peking Man; (4) Australopithecines; (5) Lucy; (6) Nutcracker Man; (7) Skull 1470.

7 - Select one of the following and explain its significance in several paragraphs: (1) Guadeloupe Woman; (2) Calaveras Skull; (3) Moab Skeletons; (4) Leotoli tracks; (5) Glen Rose tracks; (6) Pulaxy branch; (7) Antelope Springs tracks; (8) other giant people; (9) Arizona tracks; (10) other human prints.

8 - Write on one of the following: (1) human remains in coal; (2) man-made remains in coal; (3) man-made objects in rock; (4) buried man-made objects; (5) man-made objects or markings on petrified wood or bones.

9 - How does each of the following show that ancient people were smarter than people today? (1) the mind of man; (2) the languages of man; (3) British megalithic people.

10 - How does each of the following disprove evolution? (1) ape communications; (2) ancient cultures; (3) location and dates of earliest domestic crops and animals.

11 - Briefly summarize 12 outstanding evidences indicating that evolutionary theory, in regard to the dating and origin of ancient man, is incorrect.