{"id":3825,"date":"2017-10-18T23:03:08","date_gmt":"2017-10-18T23:03:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/?p=3825"},"modified":"2017-10-18T23:03:08","modified_gmt":"2017-10-18T23:03:08","slug":"fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fossil Record and the Fall of Darwin\u2019s Last Icon"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article is taken from the proceedings of the symposium 'The Two Shall Become One' held in Rome in September 2015, jointly sponsored by Human Life International and the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Fossil Record and the Fall of Darwin\u2019s Last Icon<\/strong><\/p>\n

by John M. Wynne<\/em><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Depictions of human evolution may be the most recognized of all Darwinian \u201cicons,\u201d as most people have been exposed to images such as those in Figure 1 since their youth.\u00a0 As recent fossil finds have transformed this icon into a complex timeline, as in Figure 2, paleoanthropologists continue to insist that the strength of the fossil evidence mandates viewing human evolution as a scientific fact.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Even as other Darwinian claims have been increasingly abandoned, the staunch defense of this last icon has continued and intensified.<\/p>\n

This paper explains that Darwin\u2019s last icon has now fallen.\u00a0 In other words, a critical review of the fossil record using the information in the scientific literature leads to the conclusion that there is no viable evolutionary sequence leading from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee to modern humans.<\/p>\n

\"FossilRecord_001\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 1. \u00a0A Commonly Seen Icon of Human Evolution<\/strong><\/p>\n

The scientific literature refers to peer reviewed periodicals (e.g., Nature, Science<\/em>, the Journal of Human Evolution<\/em>, etc.) where fossil finds are first reported and evaluated.\u00a0 While these periodicals are religiously committed to the \u201cfact\u201d of human evolution, the validity of each claimed transitional form is openly debated therein, often with information that is screened from high school and college biology textbooks. \u00a0Since there are so many claimed transitional forms, arguments among evolutionists that any particular<\/em> transitional form is not an ancestor of Homo sapiens<\/em> does no harm to their underlying faith in human evolution.<\/p>\n

This paper repeatedly references the scientific literature to show that evolutionists now question the legitimacy of every<\/em> claimed transitional form and that, using any reasonable standard, most of these claimed intermediates have been completely discredited.\u00a0 This, in turn, leads to a logical conclusion that evolutionists cannot make for philosophical and professional reasons\u2014that there is also a collective failure<\/em> of all claimed evolutionary sequences leading to Homo sapiens<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It is relatively easy to see that Darwin\u2019s last pillar of support has now crumbled, provided the reader objectively considers the evidence and reflects on problematic presuppositions that may have been held (perhaps unconsciously) since childhood.\u00a0 These presuppositions can include the view that: 1) empirical science is the exclusive source of truth; that 2) scientists are always objective and aren\u2019t influenced by their worldview (scientists don\u2019t lie); and that 3) truth claims about human origins must be grounded exclusively in the domain of natural science and\u2014no matter how poor the evidence for evolution\u2014cannot involve historical theology (i.e., Special Creation cannot be true).\u00a0 These presuppositions result in the mistaken view that the evolutionist\u2019s a priori<\/em> decision to construct a wall of naturalism around origins constitutes \u201cgood science\u201d rather than a flawed philosophical approach that forbids two very logical conclusions.\u00a0 These conclusions are that: 1) the claims of human evolution are not supported by the fossil record; and 2) to the degree that sound inferences can be drawn, the fossil evidence is most easily reconciled with Special Creation.<\/p>\n

\"FossilRecord_2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 2. Sample Timeline of Human Evolution Including Recent Finds<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given the historical consequences of Darwinism\u2014namely, its foundational role in the ideologies leading to World WarI, World War II, the spread of communism, the humanist takeover of public education and the judiciary, the legalization of abortion and the on-going culture of death, as well as much confused theology and various attacks on the family\u2014continued belief in human evolution constitutes a tragedy of immeasurable proportions and is arguably the most harmful deception in the history of the world since the Fall of Adam and Eve.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This tragedy continues, in part, because of the permissive silence of Catholics toward a deception that could have been recognized and systematically opposed had we been obedient to the mandates of the encyclical Humani Generis<\/em> (1950): 1) not to treat evolution as \u201ccompletely certain and proved by the facts\u201d (par. 36); 2) to study the \u201creasons for both opinions\u2026those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution\u201d (par. 36); and 3) to be aware of those who \u201cdesirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings\u201d are \u201cin danger of gradually departing from revealed truth\u201d (par. 10).<\/p>\n

Due to the on-going consequences of Darwinism, the importance of\u2014at last\u2014observing the mandates of Humani Generis<\/em> should be readily apparent to all who seek the truth and care about the future of mankind.\u00a0 The importance of understanding the truth about origins is strongly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em> that states:<\/p>\n

Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: \u201cWhere do we come from?\u201d \u201cWhere are we going?\u201d \u201cWhat is our origin?\u201d \u201cWhat is our end?\u201d \u201cWhere does everything that exists come from and where is it going?\u201d The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable.\u00a0 They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.\u201d[3]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This paper critically evaluates the claimed transitional forms in Figure 2 called \u201chominins,\u201d generally defined as humans and their close extinct relatives (sometimes the term \u201chominids\u201d is used in the same sense).\u00a0 The ancient dates assigned by evolutionists to the various species shown in Figure 2 are problematic, and other evidence presented in these proceedings by Dr. John Sanford and Dr. Robert Carter demonstrates that the time-line of human history is much shorter than the evolutionary time-scale.[4]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Thus, the use of the conventional dating should not be construed as an endorsement of the now-totally-discredited evolutionary time-line for human history.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Nevertheless, the evolutionists\u2019 dates are used herein to illustrate that, even if<\/em> the dates were valid, there would still not be a viable evolutionary sequence leading to modern man, Homo sapiens<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The analysis begins with the more recent supposed transitional forms and the amount of discussion for each candidate coincides with the importance of the classification. Note that going forward, Homo<\/em> is designated as \u201cH.<\/em>\u201d, Australopithecus<\/em> as \u201cA.<\/em>\u201d, and Ardipithicus<\/em> as \u201cAr.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

H. neanderthalensis<\/em>, the Current View<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first Neanderthal fossils were found in Germany\u2019s Neanderthal Valley in 1856.\u00a0 Although initially viewed as fully human, the Neanderthals had a relatively large cranial capacity, and their post-cranial bone size and shape (morphology) was also relatively large and differed somewhat from H. sapiens<\/em>.\u00a0 An evolutionary view of the Neanderthals (sometimes Neandertals) was widely adopted after the 1911-1913 reconstructions of paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who concluded:<\/p>\n

\u2026the backward position of the foramen magnum<\/em> [the opening in the skull base through which the spinal cord enters]\u2026must have caused the body to incline forward\u2026and the distinctly simian arrangement of the\u2026vertebrae\u2026[testifies] to this fact\u2026the total extension of the knee could not have been normal.[6]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This view went unchallenged until 1957, when it was soundly rejected through a reassessment that concluded:<\/p>\n

There is thus no valid reason for the assumption that the posture of Neanderthal man\u2026differed significantly from that of present-day men\u2026there is nothing\u2026to justify the common assumption that Neanderthal man was other than a fully erect biped\u2026if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway\u2014provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing\u2014it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other [citizens].[7]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

The view that the Neanderthals were fully human remains valid, in part, because the Neanderthals lived from approximately 130,000 to 30,000 years ago (ya), well within the span of H. sapiens<\/em>, who evolutionists date to approximately 200,000 ya.[8]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 The Neanderthals also lived in the same regions of Europe and Asia as H. sapiens<\/em>, and the average cranial capacity of 1,550 cubic centimeters (cc) is well within the upper range of H. sapiens<\/em> (2,200 cc).\u00a0 Further, it is now accepted that Neanderthals \u201cmay have been as handy with their tools as modern humans are.\u201d[9]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 This conclusion has been reinforced by the discovery of Neanderthal stone tools, weapons, and decorated grave sites.<\/p>\n

There is good fossil evidence that Neanderthals could interbreed with H. sapiens<\/em>.\u00a0 The so-called Hybrid Child from Portugal (25,000 ya) contains features described as a \u201cmosaic of Neanderthal and early modern human features\u201d that indicate the two \u201care members of the same species who interbred freely.\u201d[10]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, a 30,000 year old fossilized skull from Romania places \u201ckey Neanderthal life history variables within those known for modern humans.\u201d[11]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Further, \u201cspecialists\u2026are hard put to identify any features on the external surface of the brain (as revealed in casts of the interior of the braincase) that\u2026suggest any major functional difference between Neanderthal and modern sapiens<\/em> brains.\u201d[12]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, the fossil evidence suggests that Neanderthals were closely related to H. sapiens<\/em> and, indeed, were H. sapiens. <\/em>As paleoanthropologist Fred Smith concludes, \u201cNeandertals as organisms no longer exist.\u201d[13]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This fossil evidence has been greatly bolstered by recent genetic analyses of recovered Neanderthal DNA.\u00a0 These studies conclude that between 1 and 4 percent of present day Eurasian genomes are derived from Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA was at least 99.7 percent similar to modern humans.[14]<\/span><\/span><\/a>,[15]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Since a widely used definition of a species is that it consists of individuals who can produce fertile offspring, Neanderthals are properly considered to be part of H. sapiens<\/em> and this view now dominates the scientific literature.<\/p>\n

H. floresiensis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A recent find that has generated much attention is H. floresiensis<\/em>, which dates to only 12,000 ya. Dubbed \u201cthe hobbit,\u201d these Indonesian fossils are puzzling due to the small estimated weight or body mass (16-41 kg) and small cranial capacity (417-426 cc).[16]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 Among the theories tabled, some speculate that the species descended from an ape-like primate, some believe it to be a type of early Homo<\/em>, while others believe that H. floresiensis<\/em> was H. sapiens<\/em> but suffered from a condition such as insular dwarfism related to the \u2018island rule\u2019 in which certain species may \u201cexperience a reduction in body size on islands perhaps due to energetic constraints or changes in predation rates.\u201d[17]<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 While this intense debate will no doubt continue, given the very recent dates for H. floresiensis<\/em>, the outcome is not crucial for the discussion of possible transitional forms leading to H. sapiens<\/em>.<\/p>\n

H. erectus<\/em>, A Reassessment<\/strong><\/p>\n

H. erectus<\/em> has long been considered H. sapiens\u2019<\/em> immediate predecessor. H. erectus<\/em> fossils have been found in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe. The species duration is generally described as from nearly 2 million years ago (mya) to less than 100,000 ya.<\/p>\n

H. erectus<\/em> is linked to the discovery of a primitive looking skull cap and modern looking femur by Eug\u00e8ne Dubois in 1891-1892 on the island of Java. When viewing the primitive- and modern-looking fossils together, Dubois believed he had discovered man\u2019s ancestor. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus<\/em> (meaning \u201cerect ape\u201d), but the name H.<\/em> erectus<\/em> was later adopted.\u00a0 However, as explained below, there are many reasons to conclude that H. erectus<\/em> was not a transitional species and that the fossils should be absorbed into or \u201csunk\u201d into the H. Sapiens<\/em> classification.<\/p>\n

To begin, it is increasingly clear that H. erectus<\/em> had a morphology that generally falls within the normal range of variation seen in H. sapiens<\/em>, and multiple studies indicate his anatomy would have functioned similar to that of H. sapiens<\/em>.\u00a0 This means that\u2014unless fossils are to be classified according to preconceived evolutionary sequences\u2014most H. erectus<\/em> fossils can easily be classified as H. sapiens<\/em>.\u00a0 A sampling of recent findings from the scientific literature about the function of H. erectus<\/em>\u2019 anatomy and his modern appearance follow:<\/p>\n