Evolutionist says all life can be traced to a common ancestor. Is that what really happened? What does the fossil record say on that? Are the fossils scientist showcase to us just what they appear to be, just extinct forms of apes?
Many scientist says the fossil record proofs that life emerged from a common origin. That fish became amphibians and that reptiles became mammals and so on. Evolutionary palaeontologist,David M.Raup,wrote:"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,what geologist of Darwin's time and geologist in our present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record. Species that appear in sequence very sudden,show little or no change during their existence in the record,then abruptly go out of the record."
Ape-Men?
Human Evolution in textbooks and encyclopaedias depicts pictures of a stooped,apelike creature followed by creatures that become progressively more upright in their posture with larger heads. Eventually this apelike creature stands as modern man. Sensational stuff is it not,made more interesting by media reports and tv programs claiming to have found the so-called missing links that give ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. What do the evidence say? Are Evolutionist correct in what they proclaim?
Evolutionist claims the fossil record that supports the theory of humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fill railroad boxcar. However most these fossils are single bones or teeth,not complete skeletons. Science journal,Nature,wrote:"Nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes."
Robert Derricourt of the University of New South Wales,Australia,wrote:"The only consensus on this is that there is no consensus." Gyula Gyenis from the Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary,wrote:"The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate...the fossil evidence gathered thus far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when,where or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.
Why does the media make such loud noises when fossils that they say are the new "missing link" and then when it's not, the removal of the same fossils from the "family tree" is hardly ever mentioned? Robert Derricourt answers that:"The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a 'discovery' in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources looking for a dramatic story through the media".
Models use to depict Ape-men...
Older monkey-like "ancestors" of humans are shown with specific facial features,skin colour and the amount of their hair. The older the "ancestor" is the more apelike he/she looks. The closer to humans it supposedly developed the humanlike the depiction of them becomes. Is it possible for scientist to reconstruct such features based on the fossils they discover? Simply put the answer is NO. And why? Forensic expert,Carl N.Stephan, at the university of Adelaide Department of Anatomical Sciences,Australia,wrote:"The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested. Attempts to do so based on modern apes are likely to be heavily biased,grossly inaccurate and invalid. Any facial reconstruction of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading."
What about brain size?
Evolutionist says brain size determines how closely or distantly a presumed ancestor of humans is supposed to be. Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence? Scientific American Mind wrote in 2008:"Scientist have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain,except perhaps the Broca's area,which governs speech in people." Why would evolutionist use brain size of fossils in the "ape-to-man" chain when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they trying to force the evidence so as to fit their shaky theory?
What about Neatherthals?
Evolutionist use these fossils as proof that a type of ape-men existed at one time or another. Scientific researchers on the subject are altering their viewpoint on what they really were. For example,Milford H Wolpoff,wrote in 2009 in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, that "Neatherthals may have been a true human race."
So what's wrong with the Evolution Picture?
It looks to be based largely on biases and assumptions by research groups and artist,not any facts. Partial skulls and isolated teeth dominates and rarely are complete skulls let alone complete skeletons ever found. Scientific researchers can't get consensus amongst themselves as to how fossils of various creatures should be classified. We have artist that can't reconstruct facial features,skin tone and hair reliably of any of these extinct creatures. Brain size is not a reliable indicator and yet each creature is placed in its position in the evolutionary chain of events leading to man because of the size of its brain case. Can you explain: If 95 frames of the fossil record shows that animals do not evolve from one type into another,then why do palaeontologist insist and arranged for the remaining 5 frames of the fossils to imply that they do?
References:
1.www.science20.com ›Palaeontology › Between Death and Data.
2.scienceagainstevolution.info
3.www.bevets.com/evolution objections.
4.www.wikipedia.org/Milford_H._Wolpoff.
5.Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(I-2), "New Findings -New Problems in Classification or Hominids." by Gyula Gyenis, 2002. pp. 57, 59.
6.Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2). p. 202
7.New Scientist, "A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She's Not," by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18,19. 8.Science and Justice. Vol. 43. No. 4. (2003) section. Forensic Anthropology. "Anthropological Facial 'Reconstruction'-Recognizing the Fallacies, 'Unembracing' the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits," by C. N. Stcphan, p. 195.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
