[ 0 → 8] Hello, and welcome to Episode 7 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins. [ 8 → 12] I'm your host, Keith Jones. [ 12 → 17] Part 1 and Part 2 of this episode reveal that there are no viable evolutionary sequences [ 17 → 21] leading from an ape-like ancestor to modern man. [ 21 → 27] In fact, all claimed evolutionary sequences are strongly refuted by the scientific literature. [ 27 → 32] What emerges from this realization is the harmony between the real scientific evidence [ 32 → 36] and the genesis account of special creation. [ 36 → 42] How tragic it is, then, that millions of Catholic youth are fed the lie, even in Catholic schools [ 42 → 45] and seminaries, that they evolved from an ape-like ancestor. [ 87 → 96] During our discussion of fossil evidence, it is important to note that we will adopt [ 96 → 102] evolutionists' published dates for various fossil finds, even though Episode 9 explains [ 102 → 107] that such dates are problematic and based on uniformitarian presuppositions. [ 107 → 112] By taking this approach, we will demonstrate that, even if one accepted the dates tabled [ 112 → 119] for mankind's supposed ancestors, the fossils themselves refute claims of human evolution. [ 119 → 124] The story of human evolution is often told through illustrations showing the rise of [ 124 → 129] increasingly human-like species from an ape-like creature. [ 129 → 135] Illustrations such as this are probably the most recognized of all Darwinian icons since [ 135 → 141] most people were exposed to such images since their youth, even as other Darwinian claims [ 141 → 151] have been increasingly abandoned, the defense of this icon has continued and intensified. [ 151 → 156] In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, it is no longer possible to sustain [ 156 → 162] scientifically the view that the human species was not produced by the same evolutionary [ 162 → 166] mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world. [ 166 → 170] Likewise, leading evolutionist Kenneth Miller states, [ 170 → 175] For all the fuss and concern that surround the idea of human evolution, the detailed [ 175 → 180] fossil evidence of our ancestry is remarkably powerful. [ 180 → 186] Unfortunately, all that is required for millions of adults and students, including those in [ 186 → 192] Catholic schools and seminaries, to be led astray by such claims is for them to wrongly [ 192 → 198] assume that evolutionists are forthright about the evidence and free from philosophical bias. [ 198 → 203] But now, let's examine the detailed fossil evidence for human evolution contained in [ 203 → 209] the scientific literature to see if the evidence is really remarkable powerful as Miller and [ 209 → 211] the NAS claims. [ 211 → 218] As we begin, it is important to introduce a few definitions. [ 218 → 224] Our topic falls within the general area of study called paleoanthropology, which refers [ 224 → 228] to the study of humans and human evolution. [ 228 → 233] Note that in this episode, we will generally refer to scientists who were involved in such [ 233 → 239] studies as paleoanthropologists, even though their specific degree may be in paleontology [ 239 → 241] or anthropology. [ 241 → 248] The scientific name of modern humans is Homo sapiens, wherein sapiens is the species name [ 248 → 254] and Homo is the genus, which is defined as a group of closely related species. [ 254 → 259] We will also discuss other genera, such as Australopithecus and Ardipithecus, which are [ 259 → 264] often claimed to be on the evolutionary pathway leading to Homo. [ 264 → 269] Note that to make the discussion easier to follow, we will sometimes state only the species [ 269 → 276] name and we will often abbreviate the genus in our displays, such as H. sapiens instead [ 276 → 283] of Homo sapiens or A. ophorensis instead of Australopithecus ophorensis. [ 283 → 288] The so-called transitional forms that are most closely related to modern man than other [ 288 → 293] existing species are generally referred to as hominins, although the term hominids was [ 293 → 297] previously used in the same manner. [ 297 → 305] Cranial capacity is stated in cubic centimeters or cc and is a proxy for the size of the brain. [ 305 → 311] The average cranial capacity of humans is approximately 1350 cc. [ 311 → 316] Finally, when referring to the dates assigned to hominin fossils, we will use the acronyms [ 316 → 323] MYA and YA that stand for millions of years ago and years ago, respectively. [ 335 → 344] Looking now at claimed evolutionary sequences in more detail, we advance to a rather busy [ 344 → 350] timeline that reflects the approximate duration of various claimed hominins, although there [ 350 → 356] is some variation in claimed durations found among estimates in the scientific literature. [ 356 → 363] These species are claimed to have lived as long as 2.3 or even 2.5 million years ago, [ 363 → 366] as indicated in the timescale at the middle of the graph. [ 366 → 372] We will initially focus on the key transitional forms Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo [ 372 → 374] rudolfensis. [ 374 → 379] Going back further, the claim is that fossils dating to approximately 6 million years ago [ 379 → 384] document the evolution of hominins from a small ape-like creature that walked on all [ 384 → 391] fours to an upright, bipedal species that habitually walked on two feet and became increasingly [ 391 → 395] human-like in size and bone shape or morphology. [ 395 → 400] We will initially focus on the highlighted species that are commonly nicknamed the Tong [ 400 → 408] Child or Australopithecus africanus, Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, and Artie or [ 408 → 410] Ardipithecus ramidus. [ 410 → 417] We begin by discussing Homo erectus, who is portrayed as the immediate predecessor of [ 417 → 418] modern man. [ 418 → 424] In many timelines, he is shown to have existed from around 1.8 million years ago to around [ 424 → 431] 200,000 years ago or slightly more recently, although finds in 2017 dating Homo sapiens [ 431 → 439] at 300,000 years ago suggests timeline revisions may be appropriate. [ 439 → 446] The history of Homo erectus dates to the 1891 find of the so-called Java Man by Eugene Dubois [ 446 → 451] on the island of Java, where he found a tooth, a primitive-looking skull cap, and a modern-looking [ 451 → 454] left femur or thigh bone. [ 454 → 459] Since he considered the skull to be ape-like and the femur to be modern-looking, he named [ 459 → 465] the combined fossils Pythocanthropus erectus, meaning erect ape, but the name was later [ 465 → 467] changed to Homo erectus. [ 467 → 473] National Geographic stated in May of 1997 that his work was one of the greatest success [ 473 → 476] stories in the history of science. [ 476 → 482] Subsequent erectus fossils were discovered in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe. [ 482 → 487] The species had a smaller average cranial capacity than Homo sapiens, and evolutionists [ 487 → 495] who, making free use of artist renderings, claim that erectus had a primitive morphology. [ 495 → 499] But when these claims are critically evaluated against the detailed fossil evidence in the [ 499 → 505] scientific literature, the entire story of Homo erectus is called into question. [ 505 → 511] First, it is becoming increasingly clear that Homo erectus had a morphology that largely [ 511 → 516] falls within the normal range of variation seen in Homo sapiens, and multiple studies [ 516 → 521] indicate his anatomy would have functioned the same as ours. [ 521 → 526] This means that unless the fossils are to be classified according to preconceived evolutionary [ 526 → 534] expectations, most Homo erectus fossils can easily be classified as Homo sapiens. [ 534 → 538] To summarize recent findings in the scientific literature… [ 538 → 544] Regarding the shoulder or clavicle, a 2015 article in the Journal of Human Evolution [ 544 → 545] concluded, [ 545 → 552] "...all Homo erectus fossil clavicles fall within the normal range of modern human variation. [ 552 → 557] Studies support reconstructing the Homo erectus shoulder as modern human-like, and suggest [ 557 → 563] that the capacity for high-speed throwing dates back nearly 2 million years." [ 563 → 569] Regarding the foot morphology and locomotion, a 2009 article in Science concluded, [ 569 → 576] "...by 1.5 million years ago, hominins had evolved an essentially modern human foot function [ 576 → 577] and bipedal locomotion." [ 578 → 584] Moreover, a 2011 article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded, [ 584 → 588] "...endurance running may have been possible from a thermoregulatory viewpoint for Homo [ 588 → 589] erectus." [ 589 → 596] Also, from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, specialists concluded, [ 596 → 602] "...changes in locomotor anatomy from Homo erectus to modern man were relatively minor, [ 602 → 606] and by earliest Homo erectus times, body size was essentially modern." [ 606 → 614] Regarding the cranium base, a 2003 article in Science announced the first ever Homo erectus [ 614 → 620] fossil that allowed analysis of this feature, and concluded that the erectus cranium base [ 620 → 623] was unexpectedly modern in anatomy. [ 623 → 629] This find erased the previous view of erectus as having a stooped over posture due, in part, [ 629 → 633] to the incorrect assumption that the spinal column of erectus entered the base of the [ 633 → 638] skull further back than was actually the case. [ 638 → 643] Further, Homo erectus was comparable in height and weight to Homo sapiens. [ 643 → 649] A 2015 study in Journal of Human Evolution of a near-complete Homo erectus specimen, [ 649 → 655] nicknamed Nariokotome Boy, estimated this individual would have grown to approximately [ 655 → 662] 5'10'' and weighed about 180 pounds had he lived to maturity. [ 662 → 669] Regarding the average cranial capacity of 1,016 cc for Homo erectus, it is true that [ 669 → 675] this average is below the average for Homo sapiens, 1,355 cc, but it is well within the [ 675 → 682] range of 800 cc or lower to 2,200 cc commonly cited for Homo sapiens. [ 682 → 687] We will have more to say about whether the difference in average cranial capacity between [ 687 → 693] erectus and Homo sapiens justifies a separate species classification. [ 693 → 699] These descriptions begin to build a case for classifying Homo erectus fossils as Homo [ 699 → 705] sapiens, and in fact, there is a minority but accomplished group of evolutionists who [ 705 → 713] propose eliminating or sinking the Homo erectus classification into Homo sapiens. [ 713 → 718] This group includes prominent anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, author of the leading college [ 718 → 722] textbook on human evolution, Paleoanthropology. [ 722 → 724] He explains, [ 724 → 730] We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic [ 730 → 735] due to the difficulty in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and [ 735 → 737] Homo sapiens. [ 737 → 743] We should either admit that the boundary is arbitrary or Homo erectus should be sunk. [ 743 → 748] Sinking Homo erectus would carry the advantages of explicitly recognizing the arbitrariness [ 748 → 750] of the boundary. [ 750 → 755] More importantly, it would eliminate the necessity of relying on dates to determine which species [ 755 → 758] a number of specimens belong to. [ 758 → 763] The proposed sinking of Homo erectus has been a topic of discussion in the scientific literature [ 763 → 765] for more than 50 years. [ 765 → 772] In 1963, an article by anthropologist William Laughlin appeared in Science Magazine and [ 772 → 777] discussed the variation among the Homo sapiens' Aleutian populations during the last 5,000 [ 777 → 778] years. [ 778 → 783] He documented dramatic changes in skull morphology over this short period. [ 783 → 789] He also compared the Homo sapiens' Aleutian skulls with that of Peking Man and noted that [ 789 → 795] some traits that led to Peking Man's classification as Homo erectus are found in modern Aleutian [ 795 → 797] and Eskimo skulls. [ 797 → 802] Due to this similarity and the variation observed among the Aleutian skulls during the past [ 802 → 806] 5,000 years, Laughlin concluded, [ 806 → 810] When we find that significant differences have developed over a short time span between [ 810 → 816] closely related and contiguous peoples as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider [ 816 → 821] the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are [ 821 → 826] known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude [ 826 → 835] that Peking Man, now Homo erectus, belongs within this same diverse species. [ 835 → 841] The case for syncing Homo erectus grew stronger in the early 1970s when it was acknowledged [ 841 → 846] in Nature that Homo sapiens' morphology can resemble the classic erectus shape as [ 846 → 850] the result of many non-evolutionary factors, including [ 850 → 851] 1. [ 851 → 854] Inbred communities 2. [ 854 → 856] Nutritional problems 3. [ 856 → 859] Low-grade anemia 4. [ 859 → 861] Genetic factors 5. [ 861 → 863] Endocrinal factors 6. [ 863 → 867] Pathological conditions 7. [ 867 → 872] Natural variation in bone thickness that provides a better chance of being preserved, leading [ 872 → 878] to the false conclusion that the whole population was thick-boned and of a different species. [ 878 → 885] Somehow, this information has never made its way into the biology textbooks. [ 885 → 890] Additional arguments for eliminating Homo erectus as a valid classification involve [ 890 → 892] some curious dating issues. [ 892 → 898] First, despite the timeline drawings aimed at the uninitiated, fossils having Homo erectus [ 898 → 901] morphology date to very recent times. [ 901 → 906] This has been known since the 1972 announcement in Nature. [ 906 → 912] Human remains from Cow Swamp suggest the survival of Homo erectus in Australia until as recently [ 912 → 914] as 10,000 years ago. [ 914 → 921] Similarly, a more recent redating of a number of Javan fossils announced in Science concluded [ 921 → 929] Homo erectus was still alive in Java, Indonesia as recently as 27,000 to 53,000 years ago. [ 929 → 935] If so, Homo erectus, a species that first appeared about 2 million years ago, would [ 935 → 940] have been alive when modern humans and Neanderthals roamed the Earth. [ 940 → 947] This is problematic because it raises questions of how Homo erectus survived so recently if [ 947 → 953] it was locked in a prolonged struggle for survival with a superior species, Homo sapiens. [ 953 → 958] Very likely, the two classifications are not necessary and Homo erectus fossils can be [ 958 → 960] placed into Homo sapiens. [ 960 → 966] A much more problematic dating issue is introduced by returning to a discussion of Javaman and [ 966 → 971] to the widely held evolutionary claim that Homo sapiens arose from Homo erectus only [ 971 → 975] 300,000 years ago or even more recently. [ 975 → 979] It turns out that from the start, there was doubt that the Javaman femur and skull were [ 979 → 986] both from man's evolutionary ancestor because the femur was immediately recognized as indistinguishable [ 986 → 988] from Homo sapiens. [ 988 → 995] Anatomist and anthropologist Emil Haus examined the fossils and he challenged Dubois' classification [ 995 → 1001] of the femur as anything but Homo sapiens simply because of the estimated age. [1001 → 1002] He explained, [1002 → 1007] I refuse to let myself be influenced by considerations concerning the sediment or age. [1007 → 1013] A bone which shows all the characteristics of a human bone must be considered as such, [1013 → 1018] and after determining this, it is said that the bone could have belonged to an intermediate [1018 → 1019] species. [1019 → 1025] One is abandoning the domain of facts without any plausible reason. [1025 → 1030] More recent analyses confirm that the femur is completely modern and should be classified [1030 → 1032] as Homo sapiens. [1032 → 1034] One study concluded, [1034 → 1039] No feature or combination of features justify Dubois' assertion of its distinctiveness [1039 → 1042] from modern man. [1042 → 1047] Note that if the femur is properly classified as Homo sapiens and dates to approximately [1047 → 1054] 1.5 million years ago, the fossil creates what is called a contemporary status problem. [1054 → 1060] How could Homo erectus have gradually evolved into Homo sapiens some 300,000 years ago if [1060 → 1066] Homo sapiens lived alongside Homo erectus more than 1 million years ago? [1066 → 1072] The most logical solution would be to recognize that Homo sapiens dates well before 300,000 [1072 → 1079] years ago and varies widely enough to include fossils currently classified as Homo erectus. [1079 → 1084] The contemporary status problem has been known but not acknowledged to the general public [1084 → 1086] ever since the late 1800s. [1086 → 1092] In fact, when Dubois returned to Europe from Java, he also had in his possession two nearly [1092 → 1098] complete skulls that he dated to the same period as his prized Java man fossils. [1098 → 1102] These fossils are the Wajak 1 and 2 skulls. [1102 → 1107] But rather than introduce these skulls to the scientists of the day, Dubois hid them [1107 → 1111] under the floorboards of his home for the next 26 years. [1111 → 1112] Why? [1112 → 1117] Because these two skulls, which he considered to be the same age as Java man and which were [1117 → 1125] modern in morphology and size at 1550 cc and 1650 cc, would have raised the obvious question [1125 → 1131] of how Java man evolved into Homo sapiens over the ensuing 1 million years if the evidence [1131 → 1136] showed that Homo sapiens lived alongside Java man. [1136 → 1139] Sir Arthur Keith expressed the problem this way. [1139 → 1146] There can be no doubt that if on his return in 1894 he had placed before the anthropologists [1146 → 1153] of the time the ape-like skull from Java side by side with the great brain skulls from Wajak, [1153 → 1158] both fossilized, both from the same region of Java, he would have given them a meal beyond [1158 → 1162] the powers of their mental digestion. [1162 → 1168] The case for sinking Homo erectus into Homo sapiens grows when one realizes that fossils [1168 → 1175] described as indistinguishable from Homo sapiens and artifacts best assigned to Homo sapiens [1175 → 1181] are not only contemporary with Homo erectus, they actually predate Homo erectus by a very [1181 → 1182] long time. [1182 → 1185] Two examples follow. [1185 → 1192] In 1965, Harvard's Brian Patterson discovered a partial humerus upper arm bone fossil, now [1192 → 1198] designated KP-271, which dates to 4.4 million years ago. [1198 → 1203] He described it as a well-preserved distal end of a left humerus. [1203 → 1208] Following comparative tests between human and chimpanzee humeri, Patterson concluded, [1208 → 1215] In these diagnostic measurements, KP-271 is strikingly close to the means of the human [1215 → 1216] sample. [1216 → 1221] William Howells studied the fossil with Patterson and reported, [1221 → 1226] The humeral fragment, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from [1226 → 1233] Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 or [1233 → 1237] by much more analysis by others since then. [1237 → 1243] We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed [1243 → 1248] preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element. [1248 → 1252] Likewise, anthropologist Henry McHenry concluded, [1252 → 1259] The canapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern [1259 → 1260] Homo sapiens. [1260 → 1265] Anonymous Charles Oxnard found that KP-271, [1265 → 1270] A fragment of arm bone perhaps 4 or more million years old has already been shown to be very [1270 → 1278] similar to that of modern man and some of our demonstrations clearly support that contention. [1278 → 1284] Why then was KP-271 not classified as Homo and even Homo sapiens? [1284 → 1292] Because the fossil did not fit expected evolutionary sequences and so it was classified as Australopithecine [1292 → 1300] and studies arguing for this classification were soon forthcoming. [1300 → 1308] In 1995, KP-271 was claimed by the team announcing Australopithecus anamensis to be part of their [1308 → 1316] new species and KP-271 was used to argue that anamensis was an upright walker. [1316 → 1322] Just how far-fetched this assignment was became evident in 2019 when a near-complete skull [1322 → 1328] of Australopithecus anamensis was announced in Nature as having a small cranial capacity [1328 → 1336] of approximately 365 cc and a morphology so ape-like that it was compared to the robust [1336 → 1345] Australopithecines that even evolutionists admit are not on the pathway to Homo sapiens. [1345 → 1350] Another evidence for the ancient presence of Homo sapiens involves the Laetoli footprints. [1350 → 1358] In 1979, Mary Leakey reported on three footprint trails found in Tanzania that date to 3.6 [1358 → 1360] million years ago. [1360 → 1360] She stated, [1361 → 1366] We have found hominid footprints that are remarkably similar to those of modern man. [1366 → 1370] The form of his foot was exactly the same as ours. [1370 → 1372] Further description stated, [1372 → 1378] The longitudinal arch of the foot is well-developed and resembles that of modern man, and the [1378 → 1381] great toe is parallel to the other toes. [1381 → 1386] It is immediately evident that the Pliocene hominids at Laetoli had achieved a fully upright [1386 → 1391] bipedal and free-striding gait. [1391 → 1394] Others on the team explained, [1394 → 1398] Make no mistake, they are like modern human footprints. [1398 → 1400] The external morphology is the same. [1400 → 1405] There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in [1405 → 1406] front of it. [1406 → 1408] The big toe is straight in line. [1408 → 1413] It doesn't stick out to the side like an ape toe or like the big toe in so many drawings [1413 → 1418] you see of australopithecines in books. [1418 → 1424] At Leakey's request, specialist Russell Tuttle conducted a detailed comparison of the footprints [1424 → 1429] with those of Peruvian Machiginga Indians who live barefoot. [1429 → 1430] He reported, [1430 → 1435] In discernible features, the Laetoli g-prints are indistinguishable from those of habitually [1435 → 1438] barefoot Homo sapiens. [1438 → 1444] Scientists dismissed such findings because they could not accept that Homo was so ancient. [1444 → 1449] Instead, they attributed the trails to Lucy, or Australopithecus afarensis, who will be [1449 → 1452] discussed in more detail later. [1452 → 1455] Objecting to this assignment, Tuttle responded, [1455 → 1461] The trails were portrayed as remarkably human, yet they were presumed to have been created [1461 → 1464] by Australopithecus afarensis. [1464 → 1469] My problem in accepting this was that the Hadar beasts had ape-like features, notably [1469 → 1471] down-curved toes. [1471 → 1476] The proportions of Laetoli g-1 and g-3 prints are well within the range found among the [1476 → 1478] Machiginga Indians. [1478 → 1483] Both exhibit strong heel, ball, and first toe impressions and a well-developed medial [1483 → 1487] longitudinal arch, which is the hallmark of human feet. [1487 → 1494] The 3.5 million-year-old footprint trails resemble those of habitually unshod modern [1494 → 1495] humans. [1495 → 1500] None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we [1500 → 1501] are. [1501 → 1503] Elsewhere, he commented on the [1503 → 1509] remarkable humanness of Laetoli hominid feet in all detectable morphological features. [1509 → 1515] Per Contra, the toes of Australopithecus afarensis are intermediate in length between those of [1515 → 1522] humans and apes, and they are curved like those of apes. [1522 → 1528] Also, in one of the most detailed assessments of afarensis ever published, a 40-page report [1528 → 1534] in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology reported, after an evaluation of the afarensis [1534 → 1541] toes, that the animal had the ability to abduct the hallux, meaning that it could move its [1541 → 1546] big toe out of line with the others and use it as an opposable toe. [1546 → 1552] The study also concluded that afarensis also had ankles with non-human features that characterizes [1552 → 1558] primates with divergent halluses, referring again an opposable big toe that is suited [1558 → 1566] for movement in the trees but is not compatible with the shape of the Laetoli footprints. [1566 → 1571] In 2017, a report in the Journal of Human Evolution described additional footprints [1571 → 1579] found at Laetoli Site S and described the human-like bipedal biomechanics seen in the tracks. [1579 → 1584] The report also commented on the original Site G prints and agreed with Tuttle's overall [1584 → 1586] assessment by noting, [1586 → 1592] The Site G prints at Laetoli exhibit proportional toe depths more similar to extended limb walking [1593 → 1599] in humans, and the Site T prints were generated by a biped walking with extended human-like [1599 → 1602] mechanics. [1602 → 1607] It should also be noted that the larger footprints of the recently discovered tracks at Laetoli [1607 → 1615] were more than 10 inches in length and would have required a size 10.5 men's shoe. [1615 → 1622] In sum, Australopithecus afarensis is a very questionable candidate for the Laetoli footprints. [1622 → 1628] The most logical assignment of the footprints is to Homo sapiens unless classifications [1628 → 1633] are to be made based on preconceived evolutionary sequences, which happens repeatedly. [1633 → 1640] But again, if artifacts dated to 3.6 million years ago or even 4.4 million years ago are [1640 → 1646] best assigned to Homo sapiens, how could the Australopithecines or another Homo species [1646 → 1649] have been our predecessor? [1649 → 1655] Further, even though Homo erectus is dated only to approximately 2 million years ago, [1655 → 1661] there is increasing evidence that an adept toolmaker was present as far back as 3.3 million [1661 → 1662] years ago. [1662 → 1668] For example, the Gona site in Ethiopia, which dates to at least 2.5 million years ago, has [1668 → 1672] produced some 3,000 sophisticated artifacts made by [1672 → 1675] a species that was technologically adept. [1675 → 1680] Most scientists doubt that Australopithecus had the mental acuity or manual dexterity [1680 → 1683] to create tools for cutting and chopping. [1683 → 1691] More recently, a 2015 article in Nature reported on flints, hammers, and anvils in Kenya dating [1691 → 1693] to 3.3 million years ago. [1693 → 1699] Homo sapiens is a viable candidate to have made these tools since fossils and artifacts [1699 → 1707] indistinguishable from or best attributable to Homo sapiens predate this time period. [1707 → 1712] The third dating puzzle that causes one to look differently at Homo erectus involves [1712 → 1718] the recent determination that Homo erectus dates as early as 1.85 million years ago and [1718 → 1724] reveals that Eurasia was probably occupied before Homo erectus appears in the East African [1724 → 1726] fossil record. [1726 → 1731] This is a further challenge to the common view that a primitive Homo erectus was evolving [1731 → 1737] from an ape-like ancestor for millions of years before venturing out of Africa. [1737 → 1742] Given these three dating issues, it is apparent why some prominent evolutionists are calling [1742 → 1748] for the sinking of Homo erectus and why leading evolutionist Curtis Stringer explained regarding [1748 → 1749] Homo erectus. [1749 → 1755] Everything now is in flux, it's all a mess and we don't have a clue as to what migrated [1755 → 1762] from Africa, when it emerged, or even where Homo erectus itself originated. [1762 → 1767] The mess begins to clear with the elimination of Homo erectus. [1767 → 1772] When the sinking of Homo erectus occurs, it immediately raises the question of how more [1772 → 1779] recent fossils including Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo heidelbergensis can be [1779 → 1781] the ancestor of Homo sapiens. [1781 → 1783] They cannot. [1783 → 1789] Many evolutionists reject Homo ergaster and simply classify these African fossils as Homo [1789 → 1790] erectus. [1790 → 1795] For example, a 1995 article in Nature states, [1795 → 1801] We do not consider that the African Pleistocene fossils sometimes termed Homo ergaster represent [1801 → 1806] a distinct biological species given the known ranges of variation. [1806 → 1812] Similarly, Alan Walker notes that when establishing the species, the originators did not attempt [1812 → 1819] to make a differential diagnosis between this specimen and those attributed to Homo erectus. [1819 → 1823] Such views have become widely held due to the announcement of the Daka fossils, which [1823 → 1829] are Homo erectus fossils that share characteristics with Asian and African fossils. [1829 → 1834] Tim White, who co-authored the Daka announcement, explained, [1834 → 1839] This African fossil is so similar to its Asian contemporaries that it's clear Homo erectus [1839 → 1844] was a truly successful widespread species, and concluded that recognition of a lineage [1844 → 1853] with the separate species name Homo ergaster is therefore doubtfully necessary or useful. [1853 → 1858] Homo heidelbergensis is also called archaic Homo sapiens and is thought by some to be [1858 → 1861] the predecessor of the Neanderthals. [1861 → 1866] As its name suggests, the species displays many Homo sapiens traits and can easily be [1866 → 1873] so classified based on morphology and a cranial capacity of approximately 1230 cc, which is [1873 → 1875] close to that of Homo sapiens. [1875 → 1877] As stated in Science, the species is [1877 → 1885] something of a wastebasket taxa that includes widely varying African and European fossils. [1885 → 1892] Homo antecessor, which is linked to the Grandolina site in Spain, is also a questionable classification. [1892 → 1895] As one evolutionist associated with the find stated, [1895 → 1900] This hominid had the face of a sapiens, a mandible approaching heidelbergensis and premolars [1900 → 1901] like ergaster. [1901 → 1903] What to call such an hombre? [1903 → 1908] If you say it's not heidelbergensis, it has to be a new species. [1908 → 1911] And if you don't name it, someone else will. [1911 → 1915] Considering that the species is described as having a totally modern face and that the [1915 → 1921] classifications he resembles can be placed into Homo sapiens, Homo antecessor can also [1921 → 1923] be assigned. [1923 → 1929] This brings us to Neanderthal man, who was also eliminated as a transitional form due [1929 → 1935] to a number of fossils that display both Neanderthal and Homo sapiens morphology. [1935 → 1942] In recent years, the suggestion that the Neanderthals interbred with Homo sapiens has been strongly [1942 → 1950] supported by DNA studies indicating that the Neanderthals were at least 99.7% identical [1950 → 1953] to Homo sapiens. [1953 → 1957] The myth that Neanderthals were deserving of a separate classification dates to the [1957 → 1963] reconstruction of early Neanderthal fossils by paleontologist Marcelin Boulle, under whom [1963 → 1966] Teilhard de Chardin studied. [1966 → 1971] For 50 years, Boulle's reconstruction was never questioned, but when the Neanderthal [1971 → 1977] fossils were studied again, it became clear that Boulle's study was grossly misleading. [1977 → 1980] The article exposing Boulle's faulty work concluded, [1980 → 1986] There is thus no valid reason for the assumption that the posture of Neanderthal man differed [1986 → 1989] significantly from that of present-day men. [1989 → 1995] There is nothing to justify the common assumption that Neanderthal man was other than a fully [1995 → 1996] erect biped. [1996 → 2002] If he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway, provided that he were bathed, [2002 → 2007] shaved, and dressed in modern clothing, it is doubtful whether he would attract any more [2007 → 2012] attention than some of its other citizens. [2012 → 2020] Note that Neanderthal man had an average cranial capacity of more than 200 cc above Homo sapiens, [2020 → 2025] even though it is known that he had an essentially modern DNA and could interbreed with Homo [2025 → 2026] sapiens. [2026 → 2032] This tells us that the average cranial capacities should be viewed with caution before creating [2032 → 2038] a new species designation, and suggests that the size difference between Homo sapiens and [2038 → 2044] Homo erectus may not justify a separate species designation, especially when all other features [2044 → 2048] of erectus appear essentially human. [2048 → 2053] Moreover, recalling the earlier discussion from Nature that differences in morphology [2053 → 2059] can result from inbreeding and pathological conditions, a viable explanation emerges as [2059 → 2065] to why Neanderthals and Homo erectus may have differed from Homo sapiens morphology. [2065 → 2072] This possibility is strongly endorsed in Contested Bones by Ph.D. geneticist John Sanford and [2072 → 2076] Christopher Rupp, who explain. [2076 → 2081] Many paleoanthropologists acknowledge that populations such as Neanderthal and Erectus [2081 → 2087] would have existed in very small isolated populations where inbreeding and genetic drift [2087 → 2092] would result in genetic decline and genetic pathologies. [2092 → 2096] Depending on the extent of inbreeding, such a population may range from only slightly [2096 → 2103] compromised to being on the verge of extinction. [2103 → 2109] Another claimed Homo species is Homo floresiensis, which dates to only 12,000 years ago. [2109 → 2115] Dubbed the Hobbit, these Indonesian fossils are puzzling due to the small estimated weight [2115 → 2123] or body mass of 16-41 kg in small cranial capacity 417-426 cc. [2123 → 2128] Among the theories tabled, some evolutionists believe it to be a type of early Homo that [2128 → 2133] somehow survived very late, while others believe that the individuals were Homo sapiens but [2133 → 2138] suffered from insular dwarfism or another condition related to the island rule in which [2138 → 2144] certain species may experience a reduction in body size on islands perhaps due to energetic [2144 → 2149] constraints or changes in predation rates. [2149 → 2154] As we have mentioned with Erectus and Neanderthal, the small size of the Hobbit can also be directly [2154 → 2160] related to inbreeding and the genetic decline of small populations. [2160 → 2165] While this debate will no doubt continue, given the very recent date for Homo floresiensis, [2165 → 2170] the outcome is not crucial for the discussion of possible transitional forms leading to [2170 → 2171] modern man. [2171 → 2177] An assignment to Homo sapiens is in line with the conclusions of many scientists as well [2177 → 2181] as with the inbreeding of small populations explanation. [2181 → 2187] All of this means that the most widely publicized ancestors of Homo sapiens disappear back to [2187 → 2192] Homo habilis who was discovered in Tanzania by Louis and Mary Leakey. [2192 → 2198] Leakey described it as a distinct type of early hominid in nature in 1961. [2198 → 2204] Interestingly, Leakey announced a year earlier that a different species, nicknamed Zing or [2204 → 2210] Nutcracker Man, was the earliest man ever found and quite obviously human. [2210 → 2215] National Geographic even included an artist rendering showing Zing with a well-trimmed [2215 → 2220] beard and a contemplative look worthy of an Ivy League school graduate. [2220 → 2225] But Zing was suddenly sent back to the trees with Leakey's announcement of Homo habilis, [2225 → 2229] which dates to approximately 2 million years ago. [2229 → 2235] Today, Homo habilis remains the most widely cited transitional form in high school textbooks [2235 → 2240] and so one would think that the evidence for this transitional form must be strong. [2240 → 2247] In truth, Homo habilis fails badly as a viable transitional form and here is why. [2247 → 2252] It was immediately suggested in the scientific literature that Leakey mixed Homo erectus [2252 → 2259] fossils with australopithecine fossils found in 2 strata, designated as Bed 1 and Bed 2, [2259 → 2263] and then declared the resulting mix of fossils to be an intermediate form. [2263 → 2268] A study published in Nature in 1965 explained. [2268 → 2273] It must be remembered that two groups of specimens are involved, one from Bed 1 and the other [2273 → 2274] from Bed 2. [2274 → 2279] It is therefore by no means clear that the Bed 1 and Bed 2 groups of specimens necessarily [2279 → 2282] belong to the same species. [2282 → 2286] It would seem that there is more reason for associating the Bed 1 group of specimens with [2286 → 2292] australopithecus and the Bed 2 group with Homo erectus than there is for associating [2292 → 2296] the Bed 1 and 2 groups with each other. [2296 → 2301] A difficulty with Homo habilis was that postcranial fossils in clear association with the skull [2301 → 2304] would be lacking for another 20 years. [2304 → 2309] Meanwhile, evolutionists theorized that as an intermediate link between Australopithecus [2309 → 2315] afarensis and Homo erectus, Homo habilis would have been intermediate in height, weight, [2315 → 2316] and morphology. [2316 → 2323] Finally, in 1986, new finds revealed that Homo habilis not only resembled Australopithecus [2323 → 2329] afarensis in morphology, but it was just over 3 feet tall, even smaller than Lucy, its supposed [2329 → 2330] ancestor. [2330 → 2335] This constituted an enormous evolutionary U-turn, suggesting that the fossils were being [2335 → 2339] illegitimately forced into an evolutionary sequence. [2339 → 2344] In recent years, much additional criticism of the classification has appeared in the [2344 → 2346] scientific literature. [2346 → 2352] A 1999 article in Science called for eliminating Homo habilis and the reassignment of the smaller [2352 → 2356] fossils to the Australopithecines due to 1. [2356 → 2359] the small brain size, 2. [2359 → 2362] the resemblance to the Australopithecines, 3. [2362 → 2369] the estimated body mass of 34 kg, which is well below that of Homo erectus, and 4. [2369 → 2376] the hand bones and long arms suggesting that Homo habilis was capable of proficient climbing. [2376 → 2379] In 2003, an article in Science Magazine concluded, [2379 → 2384] The smaller-brained, small-toothed hominids that have been placed in Homo habilis may [2384 → 2389] be thought of as a form of Australopithecine. [2389 → 2394] Further evidence against the Homo habilis classification emerged in 2007, when it was [2394 → 2400] announced in Nature that due to a prolonged contemporary status or coexistence of Homo [2400 → 2405] erectus and Homo habilis at a single site for half a million years, this makes it less [2405 → 2409] likely that Homo erectus was a direct descendant of Homo habilis. [2409 → 2415] In other words, even leading evolutionists conceded that a prolonged contemporary status [2415 → 2420] has doomed the long-held evolutionary sequence involving Homo habilis. [2420 → 2424] More recently, a 2011 article in Science concluded, [2424 → 2428] In the past decade, the handyman status has been undermined. [2428 → 2434] Newer analytical methods suggested that Homo habilis matured and moved less like a human [2434 → 2436] and more like an Australopithecine. [2436 → 2442] Now a report in the Journal of Human Evolution finds that Homo habilis' dietary range was [2442 → 2445] also more like Lucy's than that of Homo erectus. [2445 → 2451] In a separate commentary this week in the PNAS, paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood writes [2451 → 2457] that today, if one considers all the evidence, there are grounds for excluding Homo habilis [2457 → 2459] from Homo. [2459 → 2465] In addition, the dates for Homo habilis are actually more recent than Homo erectus fossils [2465 → 2469] that, as has been said, can be placed in Homo sapiens. [2469 → 2475] Milford Wolpoff states in his college textbook that Homo sapiens appears at about 2 million [2475 → 2481] years ago and pre-sees the earliest appearance of Homo habilis. [2481 → 2485] So how can Homo habilis be the evolutionary ancestor of Homo sapiens? [2485 → 2491] He cannot, and his only claim to fame is that he is an invalid Texan who, even though [2491 → 2498] he never existed, continues to deceive millions of high school students and teachers in public [2498 → 2503] schools and also in Catholic schools and seminaries. [2503 → 2509] This takes us to the oldest claimed transitional form in the Homo genus, Homo rudolfensis, [2509 → 2516] who was discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya by Richard Leakey, the son of Louis Leakey. [2516 → 2524] The important early finds included the skulls designated KNMER 1470 and 1590, as well as [2524 → 2529] the KNMER 1481 and 1472 leg bones. [2529 → 2536] Since Homo rudolfensis dates to between 2.3 and 2.5 million years ago, someone looking [2536 → 2541] at the standard evolutionary timelines would expect the fossils to be more ape-like than [2541 → 2545] Homo habilis and much more primitive than Homo sapiens. [2545 → 2550] Yet, in comparative descriptions, the Homo rudolfensis fossils are commonly compared [2550 → 2555] to Homo sapiens in terms of their morphology and size. [2555 → 2561] For example, the 1470 skull had a very flat face and was described by Richard Leakey as [2562 → 2567] remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and [2567 → 2571] thick bone characteristics of Homo erectus. [2571 → 2577] Another study of the interior of the cranium concluded that the external morphology appeared [2577 → 2582] normal and that the human in question had probably been capable of speech. [2582 → 2590] The KNMER 1470 skull was estimated to be between 752 and 775 cc. [2590 → 2597] The KNMER 1590 was similar in size even though the individual likely died at approximately [2597 → 2598] age 8. [2598 → 2605] In 2012, new Homo rudolfensis fossils were described by Meave Leakey and confirmed that [2605 → 2610] the species had a flat face, as was seen in the early finds, which differs markedly from [2610 → 2614] the facial morphology of Australopithecus. [2614 → 2621] Regarding the KNMER 1481 and 1472 leg bones, an article in Nature concluded, [2621 → 2627] When the femur is compared with modern African bones, there are marked similarities in features [2627 → 2631] that are widely considered characteristic of modern Homo sapiens. [2631 → 2636] The fragments of tibia and fibula resemble Homo sapiens. [2636 → 2641] Also from Nature magazine, the leg fossils have a later Homo-like morphology. [2641 → 2647] The estimated stature-body-weight relationships are in line with modern human and archaic [2647 → 2650] Homo sapiens relationships. [2650 → 2654] Similar descriptions for other rudolfensis fossils suggest that they can be classified [2654 → 2657] as Homo sapiens. [2657 → 2661] This is a logical placement and is based on the reasoning of Emile House when the Java [2661 → 2664] man fossils were first examined. [2664 → 2666] Recall his words, [2666 → 2672] I refuse to let myself be influenced by considerations concerning the sediment or age. [2672 → 2677] A bone which shows all the characteristics of a human bone must be considered as such. [2677 → 2681] When after determining this, it is said that the bone could have belonged to an intermediate [2681 → 2688] species one is abandoning the domain of facts without any plausible reason. [2688 → 2694] If this common sense rule is not followed, the study of man's history loses all credibility [2694 → 2696] And this is what has happened. [2696 → 2701] But it is clear that the rudolfensis fossils are not intermediary between Lucy and Homo [2701 → 2702] habilis. [2702 → 2706] They are not intermediary at all. [2706 → 2712] The discussion of Homo ends with a recent find called Homo naledi, which generated much [2712 → 2717] fanfare when announced in 2015 by a Lee Berger team. [2717 → 2722] The find occurred in a South African cave that had an opening so narrow that Berger [2722 → 2727] had to recruit thin female scientists to perform the excavations. [2727 → 2732] The announcement of naledi raised eyebrows as Berger claimed that the naledi specimens [2732 → 2735] underwent ritual burial. [2735 → 2740] This was surprising due to the small entrance opening and because the bones could have simply [2740 → 2742] been swept into the cave by floodwaters. [2742 → 2748] Certainly, random flood disposition seemed consistent with the accumulation in one square [2748 → 2755] meter of more than 1,500 fragments that were assigned to 15 specimens, yet only four skulls [2755 → 2757] were part of the initial finds. [2757 → 2764] Nevertheless, in 2017, the Berger team announced a second chamber containing naledi fossils [2764 → 2770] and argued that this gave added credence to their ritual burial hypothesis. [2770 → 2775] The morphology of the naledi fossils is curious and raises the possibility that different [2775 → 2779] species could have been mistakenly combined. [2779 → 2784] One team member stated you could almost draw a line through the hips, primitive above, [2784 → 2785] modern below. [2785 → 2790] If you'd found the foot by itself, you'd think some bushman had died. [2790 → 2795] This contrasts with the very small cranial capacity of naledi that is estimated to range [2795 → 2799] from 465cc to 610cc. [2799 → 2804] While the small cranial capacity suggested, at first glance, that the fossils may have [2804 → 2810] been a mixture of australopithecine and homo fossils, the emerging view that the morphology [2810 → 2816] of the hands, feet, and other regions have a morphology resembling homo sapiens suggests [2816 → 2823] that the small cranial capacity and stature is the result of pathological conditions related [2823 → 2828] to genetic inbreeding, as was the case for other so-called transitional species. [2828 → 2832] Sanford and Rupp explain in Contested Bones. [2832 → 2839] Why did naledi, erectus, and hobbit all have abnormally small brain cases and other genetic [2839 → 2840] anomalies? [2840 → 2845] All hunter-gathering people live in small tribes, typically of fewer than 100 people. [2845 → 2851] If such tribes are isolated and do not interbreed with other tribes, over time they must always [2851 → 2854] undergo genetic inbreeding. [2854 → 2860] In such cases, genetic drift will cause many bad mutations to arise. [2860 → 2866] The inbreeding hypothesis can explain why, in early human history, tribes were diverse, [2866 → 2870] often very strange, and often genetically deformed. [2870 → 2875] Another unusual aspect about the find was that no fossil dates were initially provided, [2875 → 2880] even though there was much speculation that the finds were at least 2 million years old. [2880 → 2889] However, in 2017, dating results indicated that the fossils were only 226,000 to 335,000 [2889 → 2890] years old. [2890 → 2897] The dating results strongly support the view that the small size of naledi, as with floresiensis [2897 → 2905] and erectus, was the result of inbreeding that occurred in small Homo sapiens communities. [2905 → 2909] Considering all available evidence, and while acknowledging that more studies are needed [2909 → 2914] to resolve many questions surrounding Homo naledi, it is clear that the naledi fossils [2914 → 2919] are too recent to be a direct human ancestor. [2919 → 2924] Summarizing our analysis thus far, it is clear that some pruning of our family tree may be [2924 → 2925] in order. [2925 → 2930] Namely, Homo erectus and Homo rudolfensis can be assigned to Homo sapiens. [2930 → 2936] The Homo habilis fossils can be divided into Homo sapiens or Australopithecus. [2936 → 2941] The Homo classifications intermediate between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens can also be [2941 → 2943] sunk. [2943 → 2948] This is so because they can be considered to have characteristics that can arise as [2948 → 2953] the result of small community inbreeding. [2953 → 2958] When these assignments are made, the fossil record starts to look as expected. [2958 → 2961] The genesis account of creation is true. [2961 → 2966] Now, viewers may expect that no evolutionist would approve of this sort of pruning, but [2966 → 2973] it is important to be aware of conclusions forced by recent finds in the country of Georgia. [2973 → 2979] Between 2000 and 2013, 5 skulls at the same site were recovered and dated to 1.85 million [2979 → 2981] years ago. [2981 → 2986] All 5 have been attributed to Homo erectus by the discovery team, yet the fossils show [2986 → 2990] enormous variability and depending on the skull can be described as resembling Homo [2990 → 2995] habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo erectus. [2995 → 2999] Considering the variation among the skulls, the discovery team made several logical conclusions [2999 → 3004] in the October 18, 2013 issue of Science Magazine. [3004 → 3006] The team acknowledged that there is [3006 → 3011] growing evidence that variation in fossil hominids tends to be misinterpreted as species [3011 → 3017] diversity especially when single fossil specimens from different localities are compared. [3017 → 3020] Extending this conclusion to African fossils, the article stated [3020 → 3026] Morphological diversity in the African fossil Homo record around 1.8 million years ago probably [3026 → 3032] reflects variation between a single evolving lineage which is appropriately named Homo [3032 → 3038] erectus and concluded that most probably Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis belong to a single [3038 → 3041] evolving Homo lineage. [3041 → 3045] While the article names the single lineage to be Homo erectus, it has been explained [3045 → 3051] that there is ample reason for sinking Homo erectus into Homo sapiens and many evolutionists [3051 → 3054] support this move. [3054 → 3059] Others may be wondering, how could someone agreeing to such drastic trimming of man's [3059 → 3061] family tree still be an evolutionist? [3061 → 3067] It is largely due to the continued faith in the supposed transitional forms leading to [3067 → 3074] the Homo genus that include the two Australopithecus members Africanus and Afarensis as well as [3074 → 3077] the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus. [3077 → 3083] We will now examine these claimed ancestors. [3083 → 3089] In 1924, Raymond Dart discovered the Tong child in South Africa and he soon designated [3089 → 3094] a new genus name of Australopithecus meaning southern ape. [3094 → 3101] The species was named Africanus and it had a cranial capacity of 440 cubic centimeters. [3101 → 3107] Some have proposed that it gave rise to early Homo around 2 million years ago. [3107 → 3112] In most evolutionary timelines, Africanus is preceded by Afarensis which is nicknamed [3112 → 3114] Lucy. [3114 → 3120] The story of Lucy begins with her 1974 discovery in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson. [3120 → 3127] This species is claimed to have lived 3 to 3.6 million years ago, was approximately 3.5 [3127 → 3132] feet tall and had a cranial capacity of less than 400 cc. [3132 → 3138] Team member Owen Lovejoy claimed that based primarily on Lucy's reconstructed pelvis, [3138 → 3143] Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal and Lucy's hips and the muscular arrangement [3143 → 3149] of her pelvis would have made it as hard for her to climb trees as it is for modern humans. [3149 → 3154] Do these two Australopithecines fit into a human evolutionary sequence? [3154 → 3159] Starting with A. africanus which is dated to as recent as 2 million years ago, it is [3159 → 3165] clear that this species is not a viable human ancestor given its ape-like morphology at [3165 → 3172] 2 million years while Homo rudolfensis resembled Homo sapiens at 2.3 million years ago. [3172 → 3178] Also recall that Homo sapiens is dated to 2 million years ago by Wolpof and so if Africanus [3178 → 3183] evolved into something, Homo sapiens would have been there to see it happen. [3183 → 3189] We now know that Australopithecus africanus was a small chimp-like animal with a divergent [3189 → 3193] toe that likely spent most of its time in the trees. [3193 → 3198] As stated in Science Magazine, Africanus possessed an ape-like great toe that diverged from the [3198 → 3199] other toes. [3199 → 3205] Its foot has departed to only a small degree from that of a chimpanzee. [3205 → 3211] There is also a huge problem in viewing Africanus as a descendant from Lucy's kind, its supposed [3211 → 3216] ancestor, because it was even more ape-like than Afarensis. [3216 → 3218] For example, Science Magazine explains, [3218 → 3224] The body proportions of Africanus were actually more ape-like, and perhaps more suited to [3224 → 3230] a life in the trees than those of Afarensis, its presumed ancestor. [3230 → 3232] From the Journal of Human Evolution, [3232 → 3237] Africanus was extremely ape-like in its morphology and possibly arboreally adapted. [3237 → 3243] No single feature can be used to separate its tibia unequivocally from that of a chimpanzee. [3243 → 3249] It is difficult to reconcile with the interpretation that Australopithecus afarensis was ancestral [3249 → 3252] to Australopithecus africanus. [3252 → 3257] The bottom line is that Africanus has nothing to do with human evolution and it did not [3257 → 3258] descend from Lucy. [3258 → 3263] It is a primate that simply went extinct. [3263 → 3268] We now discuss Australopithecus afarensis to whom it is recalled the Lytole tracts were [3268 → 3273] falsely attributed to and caused Owen Lovejoy to conclude that it would have been as hard [3273 → 3278] for Lucy to climb a tree as for modern humans. [3278 → 3284] The truth is that, while Lucy is displayed in museums as an upright biped, this is an [3284 → 3289] extremely dubious conclusion that is largely based on the Lytole footprints, which are [3289 → 3291] best assigned to Homo. [3291 → 3296] In the scientific literature, many studies conclude that Lucy was an extinct primate [3296 → 3299] that spent much time in the trees. [3299 → 3302] She was not bipedal. [3302 → 3307] Conclusions from the literature state that Afarensis had long and curved toes that imply [3307 → 3311] a gait that is not identical to modern Homo sapiens. [3311 → 3315] That the knee of Australopithecus afarensis is compatible with a significant degree of [3315 → 3318] arboreal tree locomotion. [3318 → 3322] That the animal slept, ate, and lived primarily in the trees. [3322 → 3327] That if the creature walked on two legs, it must have looked like a modern human walking [3327 → 3330] at the beach while wearing a pair of flippers. [3330 → 3335] That Lucy's wrist exhibits characteristics seen today only in the African apes. [3335 → 3339] These features are thought to be associated with knuckle walking. [3339 → 3343] That its inner ear chambers, which house organs that help us maintain our balance while standing [3343 → 3349] or moving, indicate that Australopithecus afarensis still tended to clamber in trees [3349 → 3352] rather than amble across the savannah. [3352 → 3358] And that its scapular displays several traits characteristic of suspensory apes, suggesting [3358 → 3363] that their locomotor repertoire included a substantial amount of climbing, which is consistent [3363 → 3370] with evidence purporting that Australopithecus afarensis' dental development was also ape-like. [3370 → 3376] Also recall that Sussman and Stern's in-depth analysis concluded that Afarensis was able [3376 → 3382] to abduct the hallux, meaning it could move its big toe out of line with the other digits [3382 → 3384] and use it as an opposable big toe. [3384 → 3390] Also, its ankle bones had non-human features that characterizes primates with divergent [3390 → 3394] halluses, meaning opposable big toes. [3394 → 3399] And that considering the toe and ankle bones together, Australopithecus afarensis retained [3399 → 3403] some ability to abduct the hallux. [3403 → 3409] Further, a 2006 announcement in Nature of Australopithecus afarensis fossils dubbed [3409 → 3417] Lucy's Child or Ceylon that date to 3.3 million years ago revealed that Australopithecus afarensis [3417 → 3422] had a morphology that is archaic in the sense that its brain case, jaws, and limb bones [3422 → 3428] are much more ape-like than those of later taxa that are rightly included in Homo. [3428 → 3433] Further, the foot and scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions [3433 → 3439] about the importance of arboreal behavior in the Australopithecus afarensis locomotor [3439 → 3440] repertoire. [3440 → 3443] In truth, these were not new questions. [3443 → 3449] It was clear from the initial announcement of Lucy that Afarensis was ape-like and not [3449 → 3452] a viable transitional form to Homo. [3452 → 3459] In fact, the announcement of Lucy in the March 25, 1976 issue of Nature also included [3459 → 3465] discussion of Homo fossils dated to the same general age as Lucy, which is why the article [3465 → 3473] abstract stated, Homo and Australopithecus coexisted as early as 3 million years ago. [3473 → 3480] In 1979, however, Donald Johanson and Tim White claimed that all of the fossils at Hadar, [3480 → 3486] those initially described as Homo and Australopithecine, plus those found at Laetoli, including those [3486 → 3492] named by Mary Leakey as Homo, were actually part of the same diverse species. [3492 → 3498] This claim was repeated in 1980 by Tim White in Science. [3498 → 3504] Note also that Johanson initially saw Lucy's hip as chimp-like, which meant that Lucy couldn't [3504 → 3507] possibly have walked like a modern human. [3507 → 3513] Later, however, as Johanson explains in the Nova documentary, In Search of Human Origins, [3513 → 3518] team member Owen Lovejoy speculated that the pelvis had been deformed during fossilization [3518 → 3523] and so he reshaped a mold of Lucy's hip with a power drill so that, [3523 → 3527] After taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly. [3527 → 3536] As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp's, but a lot like ours. [3536 → 3538] The ape that stood up? [3538 → 3546] It was a revolutionary idea. [3546 → 3551] We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. [3551 → 3556] The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. [3556 → 3562] Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have [3562 → 3566] walked like a modern human. [3566 → 3572] But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized. [3572 → 3577] When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this caused the two bones, in [3577 → 3583] fact, to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position. [3583 → 3588] The perfect fit was an illusion that made Lucy's hip bones seem to flare out like a [3588 → 3589] chimp's. [3589 → 3599] But all was not lost. [3599 → 3607] Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. [3607 → 3613] He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. [3613 → 3618] He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy [3618 → 3621] died. [3621 → 3626] It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together [3626 → 3632] perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. [3632 → 3639] As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp's, but a lot like ours. [3639 → 3645] More generally now, all species of Australopithecines had a morphology inconsistent with being man's [3645 → 3648] evolutionary ancestor. [3648 → 3653] Physicist Charles Oxnard, described by Stephen Jay Gould as the leading expert on the quantitative [3653 → 3658] study of skeletons, writes in his textbook, The Order of Man. [3658 → 3662] Most of these Australopithecine fossil fragments are, in fact, uniquely different from both [3662 → 3668] man and man's nearest living genetic relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla. [3668 → 3674] To the extent that resemblances exist with living forms, they tend to be with the orangutan. [3674 → 3678] The Australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans. [3678 → 3683] The Australopithecines are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human [3683 → 3690] bipedalism and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. [3690 → 3696] Another important claimed transitional form is Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed Artie by [3696 → 3697] Tim White and his team. [3697 → 3703] The 2009 announcement of Artie took up nearly a full issue of Science Magazine, which named [3703 → 3706] Artie as the Breakthrough of the Year. [3706 → 3711] Artie was described as a biped able to walk upright but also able to maneuver well in [3711 → 3713] the trees. [3713 → 3718] This description was based on the hip, the presence of an opposable toe, hands and long [3718 → 3723] fingers that hung down past its knee, and a flexible hand likely used to support weight [3723 → 3726] and to aid in tree locomotion. [3726 → 3732] In 2015, the team described Artie as much better adapted to climbing trees than any [3732 → 3737] other hominid yet found, and its limb proportions not only differ from those of both humans [3737 → 3743] and chimpanzees, they are actually closest to those of most known Miocene apes. [3743 → 3748] Many questions have emerged about placing Artie on the line of human evolution. [3748 → 3753] First, the biped ability is being questioned, as stated in Science. [3753 → 3758] But not everyone agrees with the team's interpretations about how Ardipithecus ramidus [3758 → 3762] walked upright and what it reveals about our ancestors. [3762 → 3766] Researchers are focusing intently on the lower skeleton, where some of the anatomy [3766 → 3771] is so primitive that they are beginning to argue over just what it means to be bipedal. [3771 → 3778] The pelvis, for example, offers only circumstantial evidence for upright walking, says Walker. [3778 → 3783] Similarly, in a science-technical commentary that was very critical of the white team's [3783 → 3788] conclusions, Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation explained, [3788 → 3794] Attempts to link Ardipithecus ramidus to an exclusive human lineage by pointing to suspected [3794 → 3799] bipedal characteristics in the foot are not convincing, as all the characteristics cited [3799 → 3806] also serve the mechanical requisites of quadrupedality, and in the case of Ardipithecus ramidus, find [3806 → 3810] their closest functional analog to those of gorillas. [3810 → 3816] Also, the 2009 announcement relied heavily on tooth morphology to argue that Artie was [3816 → 3819] on man's evolutionary path. [3819 → 3824] However, Sarmiento explains in Science that the evidence put forth does not indicate that [3824 → 3830] Ardipithecus is a hominid or ancestral to Australopithecus any more than other species [3830 → 3837] that are unrelated to man but that also share a human-like premolar canine complex. [3837 → 3840] Ardie is also extremely interesting from another perspective. [3840 → 3845] Given the claimed dates for the Ardipithecus genus of 4.4 million years ago to 5.8 million [3845 → 3851] years ago, the question arises as to why the white team's description of Ardie's morphology [3851 → 3857] differs so significantly from chimpanzee morphology, when the evolutionary establishment has for [3857 → 3862] decades held that the last common ancestor with a chimpanzee lived no more than 5-7 million [3862 → 3871] years ago and was very similar to the chimpanzee in form and function. [3871 → 3876] Since Ardie did not fit the long-held expectations about the last common ancestor, the white [3876 → 3878] team had two options. [3878 → 3882] They could have concluded that Ardipithecus ramidus was not closely related to humans [3882 → 3887] and chimpanzees and not on the evolutionary timeline of Homo sapiens. [3887 → 3893] However, this would have meant that after years of work, Ardie would be of little importance. [3893 → 3898] The alternative was to claim that the long-held view of the last common ancestor being chimp-like [3899 → 3904] and the presumed date of 5-7 million years ago for the common ancestor were an error. [3904 → 3909] White's team took the second option, but in setting forth their arguments, they exposed [3909 → 3915] as false the 50-year-old claim that based on the fossils, a chimpanzee and human common [3915 → 3921] ancestor lived 5-7 million years ago and that this date was independently confirmed by so-called [3921 → 3925] molecular clock studies. [3925 → 3929] The basics of molecular clock studies are illustrated in this figure, where it is seen [3929 → 3935] conceptually that if we know the genomes of two existing species, A and B, we can determine [3935 → 3938] the genetic differences between the species. [3938 → 3943] Then, based on an assumed average mutation rate and the underlying assumption that evolution [3943 → 3948] is true, we could project back in time and estimate point C, when the genomes would have [3948 → 3949] been identical. [3949 → 3954] In other words, how long ago the common ancestor lived. [3954 → 3959] Since the 1970s, such studies have concluded that the human and chimpanzee common ancestor [3959 → 3962] lived 5-7 million years ago. [3962 → 3966] Since these dates were also proposed from the fossils, evolutionists felt that the case [3966 → 3969] for human evolution was very sound. [3969 → 3974] Well, Arty has shown that this is not the case, and here's why. [3974 → 3979] Since the morphology of Arty did not fit the 5-7 million year date for the common ancestor, [3979 → 3984] the White team first explained that molecular clock studies are based on unproven and flawed [3984 → 3989] assumptions such as the existence of an average mutation rate. [3989 → 3993] Here it should be noted that the fallacy of an average mutation rate is recognized in [3993 → 3998] the scientific literature, and in practice the claimed average mutation rate is usually [3998 → 4005] a plug number adopted so that the fossil and genetic evidence are in general agreement. [4005 → 4010] Having dismissed the molecular evidence, White further argued that only the fossil evidence, [4010 → 4014] and in fact, only the fossils of Arty, can be trusted to establish the date for the common [4014 → 4015] ancestor. [4015 → 4021] White's team claimed their fossils imply a date for the chimp-human common ancestor [4021 → 4026] of 7-10 million years ago, or up to twice as long as the dates proclaimed as a scientific [4026 → 4029] fact for nearly the past 50 years. [4029 → 4035] This set off a controversy in the field that still rages, but in truth, all the Arty team [4035 → 4040] accomplished was to illustrate that the fossils assembled over the previous 100 years have [4040 → 4045] little predictive value, and that molecular clock studies of the past 50 years do not [4045 → 4050] provide independent verification of human evolution. [4050 → 4056] And so if the world's leading paleoanthropologist concludes that the fossil evidence has little [4056 → 4062] predictive value and molecular clock studies are unsound, how can anyone adopting this [4062 → 4067] same position be called ignorant of modern science? [4067 → 4072] In truth, it is those who have never gone beyond their high school biology textbook, [4072 → 4077] and this would include a great many Catholic apologists, teachers, and theologians who [4077 → 4082] are unaware of the real story behind evolutionary claims. [4082 → 4087] The last three episodes of this series will reveal just how damaging this mistake has [4087 → 4096] been outside and inside the Catholic Church. [4096 → 4101] To close out the discussion of the supposed evolutionary timeline, when we look at fossils [4101 → 4106] dated in the 6 million years ago range, we find species that are so small and ape-like [4106 → 4111] that only a blind faith in evolution theory would suggest that they have anything to do [4111 → 4113] with man's ancestry. [4113 → 4118] These fossils also create significant issues for those who claim that the fossils are human [4118 → 4120] ancestors. [4120 → 4128] For example, Solhellanthropus chidensis had a small cranial capacity of 320-380 cc, but [4128 → 4132] a very modern face that does not fit evolutionary predictions. [4132 → 4134] As Bernard Wood explained in Nature, [4134 → 4140] A hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. [4140 → 4144] It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological [4144 → 4145] age. [4145 → 4150] Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, all creatures with more primitive faces, and [4150 → 4157] that is a very long list, would have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans. [4157 → 4164] Aurorantuginensis is rejected by many evolutionists as a human ancestor because it is so ape-like. [4164 → 4169] Owen Lovejoy believes that the femur resembles that of a chimpanzee, and that the animals [4169 → 4173] spent most of its time in trees. [4173 → 4179] Let us return to Darwin's last icon that portrays the steady evolution of mankind over [4179 → 4180] millions of years. [4180 → 4186] We can readily see that this is a deception by plotting the actual data for cranial capacity [4186 → 4188] and body mass. [4188 → 4193] As seen in the first graph, the change in cranial capacity is anything but a gradual [4193 → 4196] progression as evolutionists would have us believe. [4196 → 4202] A similar conclusion holds for the plot of body mass or weight. [4202 → 4207] To those who are open to the truth, it should be apparent that Darwin's last icon has [4207 → 4213] fallen and that there is no viable evolutionary sequence leading to modern man. [4213 → 4219] Interestingly, away from the biology textbooks that are used to deceive children and instructors, [4219 → 4225] the scientific literature now acknowledges that evolutionary models are collapsing. [4225 → 4229] An article in Science Magazine in 2002 commented, [4229 → 4234] "...into the trash, in fact, may go the very definition of what it means to be a hominid, [4234 → 4240] as there is now little agreement on what key traits identify an exclusively human ancestor. [4240 → 4245] Nor is there agreement on which species led to Homo, or even whether the fossils represent [4245 → 4251] different species or variation within a single species." [4251 → 4255] Another study by two leading evolutionists in the Proceedings of the National Academy [4255 → 4261] of Sciences that compared results from molecular clock studies and the fossil evidence concluded, [4261 → 4265] "...we found that evolutionary histories based on the fossil data were incompatible [4265 → 4269] with evolutionary histories based on molecular clock studies. [4269 → 4274] Little confidence can be placed in evolutionary histories generated solely from higher primate [4274 → 4276] fossil evidence. [4276 → 4281] The corollary of this is that the existing evolutionary hypotheses about human evolution [4281 → 4283] are unlikely to be reliable. [4283 → 4288] Accordingly, new approaches are required." [4288 → 4294] This is a staggering admission and suggests that, quite literally, the field of paleoanthropology [4294 → 4296] is in danger of becoming clueless. [4296 → 4301] At a minimum, it raises the question of whether or not the claims for human evolution that [4301 → 4307] have caused untold numbers to abandon the Christian faith remotely qualify as scientific, [4307 → 4313] and if the claims meet the standards set by Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley. [4313 → 4319] "...every hypothesis is bound to explain, or at any rate, not be inconsistent with, [4319 → 4323] the whole of the facts which it professes to account for, and if there is a single one [4323 → 4328] of these facts which can be shown to be inconsistent with the hypothesis, the hypothesis falls [4328 → 4329] to the ground. [4330 → 4332] It is worth nothing." [4335 → 4339] Applying this criterion to the evidence we have covered in this episode, and to the evidence [4339 → 4345] discussed in Part 2, we conclude that claims for human evolution are worth nothing, and [4345 → 4351] that the entire field was accurately summarized by Sir Solly Zuckerman, who wrote, [4351 → 4355] "...students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working [4355 → 4359] within the logical constraints of their subject. [4359 → 4364] The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found [4364 → 4366] in this field at all."