are paleontologists going to stop digging up chimpanzee bones and
calling them your ancestors?
yet another fossil discovery, one of at least five in the past year,
that The Associated Press says "may redefine evolution."
It's "Flat-faced man," (Kenyananthropus platyops), found
in sandstone west of Lake Turkana in Kenya by Meave Leakey of the
Leakey Foundation [Nature Volume 410, page 440, 2001]. News
sources have headlined the announcement worldwide even though no
other scientists have had an opportunity to examine the 30 fossilized
bone fragments from just one skull to confirm Leakey's claim that
it's a new genus and species of pre-humans (hominids), and even
though the dating of the fossil is questionable.
you read the news reports carefully you see how eager scientists
and reporters are to turn speculation into scientific fact. The
Boston Globe headline reads: "New fossil adds an early
branch to the human family tree." But in the Associated Press
story, Meave Leakey, who discovered Flat-faced man, is quoted as
saying the chances are 50-50 this species could have been an early
ancestor of human beings. "I don't have any scientific grounds
to say that this is directly anecestral. It certainly is a branch
of the human family tree," says Leakey in the Los Angeles
Times. That means, in her mind, it is assumed to be a pre-human,
and under the assumption that humans evolved from apes, it could
be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, or, like one of the many new rival
hominids, it may have lived millions of years ago but became extinct
and died out without an ancestral link to modern humans.
have to scan news reports for the assumptions and qualifiers. A
commentary in Nature Magazine by Daniel Lieberman of the
Department of Paleontology, the George Washington University, says
the new fossil is "presumed to have evolved…" [Nature,
March 22, 2001] The Washington Post report says: "If
it turns out that the newly discovered species did eventually evolve
into modern humans…." That's a big "if" that will
likely take years to determine.
Los Angeles Times admits: "Only about 30 fragments of
skull and jaw were found, but no long bones or ribs. So much about
the creature is still guesswork." The Boston Globe says:
"It is difficult to establish that flat-faced man was even
a new species, because there are simply too few fossils available
for comparison." A commentary in Nature Magazine admitted
that of the 30 fossil fragments found, only 2 have been actually
assigned to flat-faced man. So what are readers to believe? According
to the data, Flat-faced man is/isn't an ancestor of modern man?
dating of Flat-face man is also in question
E. Lieberman, Department of Anthropology, George Washington University,
says "These fossils were all found in deposits reliably dated
to between 3.5 million and 3.2 million years ago." [Nature,
March 22, 2001] Paleontologists continue to date fossils by the
layer of earth they are found in, and the layer of the earth by
the fossils typically found there, which is circular reasoning.
Scientists maintain sedimentary layers were laid down at a constant
rate that can be measured and that fossils found at the bottom of
the heap are the oldest and most primitive and are millions of years
old, and precede man (called uniformitarianism). Again, this is
dating techniques are now being employed rather than just relying
on the rock strata. Recently two geologists, from the University
of California at Berkeley, studied Java man (Homo erectus). The
original Java Man was dug up in 1893 by Eugene Dubois, a Dutchman.
The UC Berkeley researchers, using the newer dating techniques,
estimated Java Man was no more than 50,000 years old, not the 1.8
million years previously claimed! [New York Times, January
totally confound modern science, miners have unearthed a man-made
metal sphere from the Ottosdal Mines in South Africa, whose rock
strata is estimated to be 2.8 billion years old. David Childress,
author of Technology
of the Gods [Adventures Unlimited Press, 2000], says: "Given
the distinct possibility that uniformitarian geology and dating
are completey erroneous, objects that would initially appear to
have a startingly ancient date, say hundreds of thousands or millions
of years, might actually be of much more recent manufacture. While
it seems most of them are authentic, they are probably closer to
tens of thousands of years old, rather than millions of years old."
have repeatedly documented tools and human fossils in the geological
record, even into the Pre-Cambrian age, long before scientists indicate
man appeared. [Forbidden
Archaeology, The Hidden History of the Human Race, Torchlight
Don't Question Science
who appear to be seeking headlines, undergo little or no scrutiny
from science journalists throughout the world, who themselves appear
eager for a story. For example, paleontologists continue to employ
archaic fossil dating methods. When French researchers recently
reported they had found human remains of 5 individuals that date
back 6 million years, the widely heralded "Millennium man"
(Orrorin tugenensis), they admitted they had not performed any dating
on the fossils, but indicated the fossils had been obtained from
"rock strata …..previously proven to show an age of 6 million
years." [Reuters, December 4, 2000] More assumptions and circular
reasoning that go unchallenged by reporters.
is only one species of humans today, but there were two or more
throughout prehistory until Neanderthals became extinct about 35,000
years ago," says Guy Gugliotta, science reporter for the Washington
Post. But of course, Gugliotta forgot to tell readers these
are still unproven theories. Gugliotta says Lucy (Australopithecus
afarensis), previously thought to be the oldest pre-human ancestor,
was "a bipedal forager about 3 feet tall, lived between 3.5
million and 2.8 million years ago and had anantomical characteristics
about halfway between those of apes and humans." This is conjecture.
Lucy was made up from just a small pile of bone fragments. Recently
the National Geographic commissioned 4 artists to sketch
what they believed 2-million year old Homo habilis looked like from
castings of seven bone fragments they were given to examine. Each
artist produced radically different renditions of Homo habilis,
all without body hair. [National Geographic, March 2000]
Yet there is no way of knowing if Homo habilis was hairy or not.
Drawings of Neanderthal man, who supposedly existed only hundreds
of thousands of years ago, are shown in biology books with body
hair. So were man's ancestors hairy like apes or not?
frauds and blunders
at the blunders and outright fraud that have been reported in the
just the past year in fossil studies.
7, 2000: The National Geographic Society admitted that a fossil
hailed as evidence that birds descended from dinosaurs was a composite
of two different animals.
21, 2000: A computer scan of a dinosaur fossil, which researchers
had previosuly claimed had a heart and therefore was warm-blooded,
revealed the heart to be nothing more than a clump of minerals that
misled researchers. [Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2000]
9, 2000: Tohoku Paleolithic Institute in Japan fired archaeologist
Shinichi Fujimura after he was caught planting stone artifacts,
a practice that had been going on for two decades.
26, 2000: Canadian scientists indicate that an earlier report claiming
a reptile fossil had wings was erroneous. The "feathers"
were found to be scales.
8, 2000: 200-million year old fossil on display at the National
Museum in Wales was found to be a forgery.
doesn't have a very good track record to build upon. Recall the
following blunders and frauds that were published in biology textbooks
man: a combination of a modern human skull and orang-utan jaw, revealed
as a fraud in 1953, 40 years after its discovery. Nebraska man:
based upon one tooth found in 1921, which actually belonged to a
pig-like animal. Drawings of a hairy animal were erroneously published.
Java man: Admittedly its teeth were probably from a orang-utan and
its long-leg bone was more recent than its skull. Lucy: French researchers
no longer consider this specimen, found in 1974, to be a direct
human ancestor. [Associated Press, February 7, 2001 Neanderthal
man: once shown in biology textbooks as the missing link and estimated
to have lived 100,000-200,000 years ago, it was thought to be an
extinct species that was not a descendant of modern man. But the
discovery of a fossil with combined features of Homo sapiens and
Neanderthal, coupled with discoveries of bone flutes, spears and
other tools, appears to indicate Neanderthals were human contemporaries
of modern man. [Scientific American, November 8, 1999]
scientists have, for some time now, believed that man came from
a common ancestor. Using DNA mutation rates to date fossils, researchers
believe that the first humans (not hominids), "Adam and Eve,"
lived 100,000-200,000 years ago. But recently researchers recognized
they had miscalculated the rate of mitochondrial DNA mutation in
fossils of early humans. Instead of having existed over 100,000
years ago, the new data indicates "Eve" may have lived
only 6000 years ago, a scenario that amazingly correlates with the
Biblical dating of creation. [Science, Volume 279, page 28,
though researchers use the veil of science for their beliefs, they
often are nothing more than that. So the scientists have their "belief
systems," and those who don't buy into Darwin's evolutionary
scheme have theirs.
Sardi writes from Diamond Bar, California.