2) Evolution: Science or Religion?

Evolution has been aggressively championed as scientific truth in opposition to religious dogma since its inception in the 19th century. Its claim that there is no Creator of life has made significant inroads against religious belief in developed nations.

A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as “evolutionists” and 28% as “creationists,” with 31% indicating that they “simply don’t know what to believe,”according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011.

What has Evolution discovered that establishes its scientific credentials?

From the National Science Education Standards on Evolution:

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data…including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

In fact, Evolution is not a scientific theory. It has remained strictly in the realm of imagination.

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact…

Within the same breath this teacher states that “Scientists have inferred” and that evolution is a fact because it is “something that has been tested or observed so many times.” This is both a gross contradiction and a lie.

we’d like to clear up and emphasize the distinctions between scientific hypothesis, theory, and law,…

A scientific theory can be defined as a series of repeatedly tested and verified hypotheses and concepts. Scientific theories are based on hypotheses that are constructed and tested using the scientific method, and which may bring together a number of facts and hypotheses.

For a theory to be valid, it must be testable, hold true for general tendencies and not only to specific cases, and it must not contradict verified pre-existing theories and laws… 

a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon…Laws can be thought of as the starting place, the point from where questions like “why” and “how” are asked.

The scientific method is…a process that’s meant to ensure that the…conclusions are not biased by subjective views and can be repeated consistently by others…

In the information era, scientific concepts surround us, but even if access to knowledge is easier than ever nowadays, there are still a lot of misconceptions around. It’s always better to be on the safe side and getting your facts straight.

Nowhere is “getting your facts straight” more important than investigating the reality of hyper dimensionality vs Evolution’s pure materialism.

Evolution is not a theory, because there is no series of repeatedly tested hypotheses.

It is not even a hypothesis, because it is not based on observation of stages of evolution even in the fossil record or – and this is key – the ability to generate life in so much as in a one-celled organism.

While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question…the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case.

Trustworthy forensic and paleontology research should be as uncertain about their convictions as homicide investigators and juries if they want to reach a truthful conclusion.

“Cro-Magnon” is the name scientists once used to refer topeople who lived…40,000–10,000 years ago…In the 19th century, scientists…decided that the [fossil] findings were different enough from…us…to give them a different name…

A century and a half of research since then has led scholars to change their minds. The new belief is that the physical dimensions of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation…

As recently as 2005, the way scientists differentiated between modern humans and early modern humans was by looking for subtle differences in their physical characteristics…

However, those types of speciation differentiation have all but disappeared from the scientific literature. Considerable overlap in physical measurements of various human forms has made it difficult to draw distinctions. More important is the successful recovery of ancient DNA from modern humans, early modern humans, Neanderthals, and the new human species…Denisovans. This new method of differentiation—genetics—is far more definitive than using physical characteristics…

Ancient DNA recovered from fossils is a valuable tool to study evolution and anthropology. 

This is simply a lie. There is no DNA to be found in fossils. 

Fossils  are the preserved remains, or traces of remains, of ancient organisms. Fossils are not the remains of the organism itself! They are rocks. 

OK, so maybe that’s not so much a lie as ignorance on the part of the writer and publisher posing as experts on evolution. What about preserved actual organic remains, like a wooly mammoth in Siberia?

There is still absolutely no chance for using DNA evidence to prove evolution occurred over millions of years.

What’s the shelf life of DNA?

The decay rate of DNA depends on the conditions of its storage and packaging…If a body is left out in the sun and rain, its DNA will be useful for testing for only a few weeks. If it’s buried a few feet below the ground, the DNA will last about…10,000 years. If it’s frozen in Antarctic ice, it could last a few hundred thousand years. For best results, samples should be dried, vacuum-packed, and frozen at about -80 degrees Celsius. Even then, ambient radiation is likely to render DNA unrecognizable before it celebrates its millionth birthday.

However, devout evolutionists maintain their belief that “DNA supports evolution because all life on Earth carries DNA, and evolution happens only after DNA changes.

There is no logic in that circular reasoning, let alone use of the scientific method. Does anyone believe that computers evolved spontaneously from material substance that was hit by multiple bursts of lightning because they are powered by electricity and there is electricity in lightning?

Further attempts to link evolution to DNA should be immediately recognized as false.

These changes are called mutations and happen spontaneously from flawed – [FLAWED!] – DNA copying or from mutagens, such as X-rays or chemicals.

It is common knowledge that genetic mutations are detrimental, not beneficial.

And evolution can’t begin to explain all the complicated facts from DNA. You don’t hear evolutionists crowing about these findings.

University of Illinois animal geneticists…have created a side-by-side comparison of the human genome and the pig genome…”We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” said Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly…

So, if all of the genes match up, what is it that makes a pig a pig and a human a human? “That’s the million dollar question,” said Beever. “The genes match up when compared side-by-side, but understanding how they work together is the next step…”

Why do we need this much information about the pig? “It’s clear that the pig one of the closest large animal species to humans,”

Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.

How do evolutionists handle this?

Saying that we share 99.9 % of DNA is misleading…blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful.

Then how can evolutionists make the completely opposite claim?

humans and chimpanzees share around 99 percent of the same DNA…

In contrast to all this, the genetic difference between individual human beings averages out to be only around 0.1%.

Did you catch that? The genetic difference between individual human beings averages out to be the same as that between pigs and humanity in general, which is less that the percentage of difference between chimps and humans.

Furthermore, pig transplants into humans have succeeded while chimp transplants into humans have failed.

Three American surgeons used organs from chimpanzees...

kidneys were transplanted…All but one [of six] patient died within a few weeks of the operation—that one patient survived only nine months before he died.

In 1964, James Hardy, MD, attempted to transplant the heart of a chimpanzee into a human—the first and only time this experiment was attempted on American soil. The news of the experiment was poorly received even by the medical community…

Invited to speak at a surgeon’s conference in New York City several days later…the moderator introduced him to the large audience by saying: “In Mississippi they keep the chimpanzees in one cage and the Negroes in another cage, don’t they, Dr. Hardy?”…

Thomas Starzl, MD, performed three chimpanzee-to-human liver transplants in 1966, 1969 and 1973, all on children who died within days. Starzl abandoned future attempts.

No other chimpanzee-to-human organ transplants by U.S. surgeons have been attempted since [published 2021].

Internationally, two surgeons pursued using chimpanzees in human transplant experiments for a brief time in the 1960s.

In his history of this subject, Knife to the Heart: The Story of Transplant Surgery, author Tony Stark concludes…chimps were too close to humans for the comfort of the rest of society. Ethics, not genetics, won the argument. 

Whoa. Now that we have discovered that pigs are even closer to humans than chimps, is anyone in society rising up in condemnation of the massive pork industry?

About 118 million hogs are slaughtered in U.S. facilities each year. About 6 million hogs and pigs are kept for breeding on U.S. farms.

The following quotes are from scientific articles, not Bible apologists.

The Bone Wars, also known as the Great Dinosaur Rush, was a period of intense and ruthlessly competitive fossil hunting…marked by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope (of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) and Othniel Charles Marsh (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale). Each of the two paleontologists used underhanded methods to try to outdo the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and the destruction of bones. Each scientist also sought to ruin his rival’s reputation and cut off his funding, using attacks in scientific publications…

The paleontologists had a habit of making hasty telegrams eastward describing their finds…The problem was that many of these finds were not uniquely different from each other…

So they named a new dinosaur species last week…

Wonder how long this one will last?

News broke last week that paleontologists have determined that a set of bones found in Big Bend back in the 1980s is actually a hitherto unknown type of duck-billed dinosaur

This caught my attention for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that whenever I hear of a new species, I can’t help but wonder how scientists can be sure they’ve got it right this time, and how long that new species identification will last.

There’s a reason the dinosaur family tree keeps changing

there’s a reason that paleontologists like Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana devote at least part of their time to streamlining the dinosaur family tree.

Horner believes that at least some of the specimens declared in the past to be unique species are in fact juvenile versions of other, already defined dinosaurs. Not everyone agrees, but as even a rudimentary look at the history of paleontology can tell you, the dinosaur family tree is probably a royal mess.

The Bone Wars of the mid-1800s resulted in a lot of dubious species

the original fossil evidence for Trachodon was limited to seven teeth…Hardly confidence-inspiring.

Left: Black and white sketch of three teeth. Right: Painting of a duck-billed dinosaur standing by a pool of water. Brown and green tones.
Left: Sketch of the teeth that Leidy used to name Trachodon. (Sketch via DinoHunters.comRight: Artist interpretation of Trachodon. (Trachodon image via CoolDinoFacts.com/fandom.com)

The dinosaur family tree is littered with dubious species like these.

In fact, the older the species identification the more likely it is that the dinosaur has been stricken from the official fossil record. The glorious thing about the widespread human fascination with dinosaurs is that dinosaurs started appearing in pop culture almost from the moment they were first discovered…Each little bit of pop culture records which dinosaurs were popular when it was created, and to some degree, what people thought they knew about them at the time.

Let’s start by stating the work of a paleontologist is not an easy task. The paleontologist has to find fossils buried inside a rocky layer in the ground, with only fossilized hard body parts (mostly bones)…

The skull is considered to be an extremely rare fossil, since it is composed of many parts, which fall apart and separate a short time after the animal dies.

So, how is it possible to know what bone belongs to which dinosaur? It really isn’t that simple…

Currently it is estimated that around 2,100 “good skeletons” have been found, and the number of known species is several hundred (300-500)…researchers often rely on the bone structure of contemporary reptiles and birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs and therefore their distant relatives…

Please do not quote parts of this article, but only cite it at its entirety.

For the sake of brevity in my writing I did not quote the above article in its entirety, but I did provide a link so my reader can confirm that the writer of this article prevaricated and never answered any of the questions posed by Hagit.

What the writer of the above article does reveal is the circular reasoning used by Evolutionists to establish their belief system by substituting the bones of contemporary animals into incomplete fossil skeletons to “prove” that contemporary animals are descended from those extinct animals.

Of the 120 known varieties of sauropod, complete skulls have been found for only eight.

Paleontologists…recovered four skulls of the new species, two of them fully intact. All four skulls belonged to young dinosaurs…

Because they’re so rare, the skulls of the new species, called Abydosaurus mcintoshi, are revealing new information about sauropods in general, including how they ate.

“They didn’t chew their food,” Britt said. “They just grabbed it and swallowed it. The skulls are only one two-hundredths of total body volume and don’t have an elaborate chewing system…”

The new species is named in part after paleontologist Jack McIntosh, who debunked the Brontosaurus in 1975. He exposed the erroneous species as a skeleton with an Apatosaurus body and a Camarasaurus skull.

Idownload-1t doesn’t take a doctoral degree to debunk the assertion that the skulls of young dinos accurately represent the skulls of adult dinos. How many animal infant skulls, like human skulls, are very different, along with chewing behavior?

Understanding fossils and casts

Fossils form over tens of thousands—up to hundreds of millions—of years. But fossils are rare since the conditions have to be right for them to form. First, sediment like mud or sand covers an animal’s body, [isn’t that describing flooding?] and the soft tissues rot away leaving behind the hard tissue—teeth and bones. Over time, the sediment hardens into rock encasing the bones, often distorting them. Minerals from the surrounding groundwater and sediment very gradually replace some of the bones’ original minerals…

scientists…very rarely unearth an entirely intact dinosaur skeleton…

SUE is the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton discovered to date, with 250 of the approximately 380 total bones in a T. rex.

Scientists have identified a new species of dinosaur that is thought to have lived [emphasis added, see major inconsistency with chart below] 115 million years ago.

Four bones were found on the Isle of Wight in 2019 and researchers from the University of Southampton believe they all belong to a dinosaur which comes from the same family as the Tyrannosaurus rex.

The bones discovered were from the reptile’s neck, back and tail and it’s thought it would have been approximately four metres long.

‘when it comes to complete dinosaur skeletons, there’s just one. Yes, oneit’s been over a century and a half since it was first uncovered…”

The fossil record is clearly incomplete, and it is clearly biased by many factors

So, is the fossil record more like 1 or 50 percent of reality? Benton doesn’t know. And his new paper suggests no else does either.

And yet, Evolution is taught as fact and accepted without question.

Evolution’s failure to follow scientific methodology is most clearly shown by the fact that, despite two hundred years discovering billions of fossils the world over, absolutely no fossils of the theorized transitional states between any species have ever been found.

A lack of discovery removes a suspect from legal consideration.


This lack of discovery should have eliminated evolution as a scientific consideration.

This doesn’t stop Evolutionists from clinging to the concept.

Missing link term is frequently used now, mostly by journalists and in popular literature. Specialists understand perfectly that formation of Homo sapience species is a long process, and as evolution is continuous, it is obvious that there were MANY SPECIES between a modern human and our ancestral ape living about 10 mya. These species were slowly, one by one, discovered by anthropologists for the last 100 years. As a result we see not just a link, but a chain of intermediate species.

First, this insults the reader’s intelligence. “A specialist would understand perfectly…” A child can understand how the lack of connecting pieces between the parts renders the entirety nonfunctional.

Second, this is cultic, requiring the reader to accept the word of the “authority” without question.

Third, this is Newspeak, avoiding the very real issue of the failure of anthropology to discover the stages of change between species by replacing that fundamental claim of Evolution with an unquestionable but irrelevant scientific knowledge of the existence of similar species.

Fourth, there is no evidence that these extinct species represent a chain of development from one to another any more than the multitude of primates currently in existence.


And to stop beating a dead horse, I will end by pointing out the gross fallacy of “we see not just a link, but a chain” stated with the same flourish of a magician’s misdirection.


Findings are so numerous, that their amount now becomes a problem for anthropologists, as dealing with such a number of material is increasingly more difficult.

Meanwhile, new species of fossil hominids are found quite often.

When we fact check those statements we discover they are not newspeak. They are straight up bald faced lies.

From Wikipedia’s List of human evolution fossils:

there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare, [emphases added]…

I encourage you to watch Unsolved Mysteries if the significance of this statement is a mystery to you. Forensic investigators and anthropologists both require a complete skull to reconstruct the appearance and functionality of the head, and a complete set of skeletal bones to reconstruct the appearance and functionality of the body. As we proceed with this investigation we can determine which of the above reconstructions are based on fossil evidence and which are pure propaganda for Evolution.

The Oldest Hominins…a little-known species of dubious taxonomy there’s very little fossil evidence to go by here. We only have a jaw bone and a tooth, and the researchers were only able to identify one physical feature, focussing on the roots of the teeth.

The early fossils shown are not considered ancestors to Homo sapiens

So half of the eight ancestors shown in the “chain of development” don’t belong there!

Bait and switch for the uninformed and gullible.

To be certain that all fossil evidence only for speculated human precursor species is included, I’ve cross-referenced the fossil list with Wikipedia’s Timeline of human evolution which organizes evolution by taxonomy.

Family: Hominidae: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans’ ancestors 20–15 million years ago

No fossils. Of course not. Not even stone could survive intact for 20-15 million years through the grinding and shifting of earth tectonics and smashing by cosmic missiles. So right here Evolutionists are required to suspend scientific methodology for an unsubstantiated biased belief in a concept.

Subfamily: Homininae: Ancestors of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (the African apes) evolve 14–12 million years ago

Still no fossils.

Tribe: Hominini: Gorillas split off leaving humans and chimpanzees 10–8 million years ago

Still no fossils.

Subtribe: Hominina: Genii Homo (homo) and Pan (chimpanzees) diverge 8–4 million years ago

Finally, a lower jaw bone fossil found in 1944 in Greece, matched up with a  fossilised premolar found in Bulgaria in 2012. These are the only fossils for a “little known species of dubious taxonomy” which anthropologists themselves caution against making human evolutionary claims.

“The list of [human evolution] fossils begins with Graecopithecus, which MAY OR MAY NOT still be ancestral to both the human and the chimpanzee lineage.”

Graecopithecus, is only a candidate for the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor / CHLCA .

That uncertainty is appreciated, given the limited evidence – a jawbone and a tooth- on which the possibility is even considered. Sergio Almécija…at George Washington University, says it is important to bear in mind that “Single characters are not reliable to make big evolutionary [claims].”

(Genus) Australopithecus 3 million years ago.

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals!

In 1974, the world was stunned by the discovery of “Lucy,” the partial skeleton of a human ancestor that walked upright—and still spent time in the trees—3.2 million years ago...

The (in)conclusions drawn from Lucy’s extremely limited sample of bones are obviously unfounded.

Lucy’s incomplete skeleton does not justify the reconstruction drawings of the skull, shoulder blades, breastbone, spine, determination of height…Put the pieces together for yourself. And “the exceedingly well-preserved skeleton AL 288-1 (“Lucy“)” is called “the most significantof all the specimens.



Compare just the V-shape of the fossil bone and the squaring of her lower jaw in the fictional imaging.  Her facial features and expression are totally imaginary and propagandist of a link between chimps and humans.


But there’s more, establishing that there’s much more of a link between Lucy and her namesake Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / LSD hallucinations than ancestry of modern functional brains.

Anthropologists have made much of the fact that adult members of Lucy’s species—Australopithecus afarensis—had skulls 20% larger than a chimpanzee’s. Researchers have long debated what this meant for their brain power…

This is because skull size is not indicative of brain power, brain size is, and that is not dependent on skull size but skull shape. While gorillas have larger skulls than humans, humans have a lot more room in their skulls to fit their brains. On average, humans have about 1325 cubic centimeters of space for the brain inside the skull. Gorillas, on the other hand, only have about 500 cc’s. The reduced space is due to the differences in the shape of the skull.

an international team of paleoanthropologists used a synchrotron…to take super–high-resolution images of…the inside of the skull, where the brain leaves an imprint…

“the brain imprint of A. afarensis is completely apelike,” says paleoanthropologist Philipp Gunz of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Gunz spent 7 years doing the 3D reconstruction of the skull of Dikika and six other adult and juvenile members of the species…

…evolutionary neuroscientist Chet Sherwood of George Washington University cautions that because the study is based on skulls of only two juveniles and five adults, “one needs to be cautious.”

Let me see if I have this right. When fragments of a single skeleton is found it is hailed as proof of early evolving humans. When seven full skulls of the same species prove that this is just one of about 20 extinct ape species, evolutionists caution against jumping to a conclusion.

And there’s more.

“[T]he classification of Australopithecus species is in disarray. It is unclear how ANY Australopithecus species relate to each other. 

When Australopithecus afarensis was described, i.e. officially designated a unique species, there was by no means universal acceptance in the anthropological community. Considerable debate of the validity of this species followed and continues.

  1. In 1979, A. afarensis was proposed as the last common ancestor between Homo / humans and Paranthropus / chimpanzees by Johanson and White, supplanting A. africanus in this role. 
  2. In 1980, the Laetoli and Hadar specimens of A. aferensi were proposed reclassified to be different, respectively A. africanus afarensis and A. afr. aethiopicus, by South African palaeoanthropologist Phillip V. Tobias
  3. In 1996, a 3.6 million year old jaw from Koro Toro, Chad, originally classified as A. afarensis was split off into a new species as A. bahrelghazali.
  4. The skull KNM-ER 1470 (now H. rudolfensis) was at first dated to 2.9 million years ago. When this cast doubt on the ancestral position of both A. afarensis or A. africanus, it was re-dated to about 2 million years ago.
  5. A. afarensis split into “H. antiquus” and a subspecies of A. africanus is proposed by palaeoartist Walter Ferguson.
  6. In 2003 reinstating the genus “Praeanthropus” over the species A. afarensis,  Sahelanthropus, A. anamensis, A. bahrelghazali, and A. garhi was proposed by Spanish writer Camilo José Cela Conde and evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala  Its validity is debated.
  7. In 2004 “Homo hadar” was proposed to be split off from its original classification, when a newly discovered foot was apparently more humanlike than that of Lucy . However, the 3.2 million year old partial skull AL 333–45 would remain as the holotype, according to Danish biologist Bjarne Westergaard and geologist Niels Bonde.
  8. In 2011, Lucy was split into a new species in a new genus as “Afaranthropus antiquus” per agreement between Bonde and Ferguson.
  9. The 2013 discovery of Homo specimen LD 350-1, dated 2.8 million years old, older than almost all other Australopithecus species from the Afar Region, threw several Australopithecus species out of the running as the ancestor to Homo, potentially affirming A. afarensis ancestral position.
  10. .A. afarensis is argued to have been too specialised to have been a human ancestor due to resemblance in jaw anatomy to the robust australopithecines,
  11. In 2015, some 3.5–3.3 million year old jaw specimens from the Afar Region were classified as a new species as A. deyiremeda. Since this is the same time and place where A. afarensis fossils are located, this calls into question the accuracy of the designation of those fossils.
  12. In 2016 Wood and Boyle stated there was “low confidence” that A. afarensis, A. bahrelghazali and A. deyiremeda are distinct species, with Kenyanthropus platyops perhaps being indistinct from the latter two.

From a scientific point of view, there is simply not enough evidence in the fossil record with far too much disagreement among the anthropologists for a layperson to place their trust in A. afarensis fossils as proof of human evolution. Nor is there justification for automatically imposing sequencing over simultaneous existence of extinct species.

Moving on to the next set of fossils.

sedibasribcaAustralopithecus garhi fossils consist of the holotype specimen of a partial skull and skull fragments, a complete mandible, a humerus, an adult ulna, a partial skeleton consisting of a mostly complete left femur, right humerus, radius, and ulna, and a partial fibula, foot, and knm-er_992._replica._mcnjawbone. However, only the complete mandible can be conclusively attributed to A. garhi. 

A. garhi was originally considered a direct ancestor to the human line, but is now thought to have been an offshoot of the ape line.

Strike that one off the list.

If you’re struggling to hold on to the wealth of fossil detail for the origins of the human species let me summarize it for you.

There aren’t any fossils for the origins of the human species.

“The early fossils shown are not considered ancestors to Homo sapiens.

The genus Australopithecus is considered to be a grade taxon, whose members are united by their similar physiology rather than close genetic relations with each other. While it is considered the ancestor of Homo, Kenyanthropus, and Paranthropus, it is NOT consisting of a common ancestor to all of its descendants.

I’ve been reading and re-reading the above paragraph and it still doesn’t make sense to me. But I’m used to people talking in circles so can get to the heart of the matter – obfuscating to cover up an uncomfortable truth.

Fossil evidence for the human species begins with the human species.knm_er_1470_28h._rudolfensis29

  1. Homo habilis was proposed to have been a human ancestor, directly evolving into Homo erectus which directly led to modern humans, but since the oldest H. habilis specimen has less ancestral traits than the younger specimens it appears this species assignment is a specious assemblage of different Australopithecus and Homo fossils.
    1. Strike off list of trustworthy evidence.
  2. Homo rudolfensis consisting of one skull and other partial skull aspects with no bodily remains, both its generic classification and validity are debated, with some recommending the species to actually belong to the [non-human] genus Australopithecus.
    1. Strike off.
  3. Homo ergaster should be subsumed into H. erectus according to an ongoing dispute within palaeoanthropology.
    1. Strike off
  4. Homo erectusthe_most_ancient_skeletal_remains_of_man_1
    1. Java Man. Following the eruption of interest in the new idea of Evolution, in the late 19th century a search for themissing linkwas undertaken in Java by a Mssr. Dubois. This was based on the occultic Madam Blavatsky’s revelation of Southeast Asia as the birthplace of humanity and civilization on a continent she called “Lemuria,” since sunken under water. A skullcap, a femur and a tooth unearthed in fairly close proximity were assumed to belong together and, based on the depth of the excavation, to have lain in place there for millions of years ago. This collection was named “Pithecanthropus erectus” (“upright apeman”), AKA “Java Man.”  The majority of the European scientific community rejected the claim that this was an upright-walking ape-man, although not, as one might expect, on the basis of examination of the limited fossils or method of their dating, which simply assumed an unbelievable accumulation of a uniform, undisturbed layer of dust buildup over millennia allowing dating of fossils on the basis of their location in the strata. And beyond these assumptions is the fact that there is no provenance for these fossils – authentication via indisputable record of possession, or chain of custody, like evidence in a homicide trial. Mssr. Dubois paid locals to bring him bones. As with the Gold Rush, competitors kept secret the locations of their finds, and focused on maximizing their payoff rather than scientific accuracy. In any case, rejection of Java man was based on majority adherence to classical Darwinism, which held that humans must have evolved in Africa since chimpanzees and gorillas, humans’ closest relatives, exist only in Africa. Adherents to the Lemuria origin believed that humans were more closely related to the gibbons who lived in Southeast Asia. Somebody please explain to me how any data regarding Java Man is scientific, or at the least, acceptable for a peer-reviewed journal of anthropology today? And yet, “Estimated to be between 700,000 and 1,000,000 years old…it remains the type specimen for Homo erectus.
      1. Strike off list of trustworthy evidence.
    1. Sinanthropus pekinensis” (Peking Man): The first fossil, a tooth, was discovered in 1926, and the Zhoukoudian has since become the most productive H. erectus site in the world. The fossils were classified as a direct human ancestor, Peking Man also played a vital role in the restructuring of the Chinese identity following the Chinese Communist Revolution, and was intensively communicated to introduce Marxism and science (overturning deeply-rooted superstitions and creation myths). Similarities between Java Man and Peking Man led to renaming both as Homo erectus in 1950. Throughout much of the 20th century, anthropologists continued to debate the role of Java and Peking Men / H. erectus in human evolution since those fossils were found in Asia and Evolution was believed to occur in Africa. Then n 1949, the species was reported in South Africa…but their species designation has been a tumultuous discussion.
      1. Strike off.
    2. Archaic human fossils unearthed across Europe used to be assigned to H. erectus, but have since been separated as H. heidelbergensis – The first fossil was discovered in 1907 and made the type specimen of a new species primarily because of the mandible’s enormous size — and it was the then-oldest human jaw in the European fossil record at 640,000 years old. However, the use of an isolated jawbone as the type specimen for the species has been problematic as it does not present many diagnostic features. Regardless, by convention – i.e. general agreement in the absence of proof for alternative options – H. heidelbergensis is placed as the most recent common ancestor between modern humans (H. sapiens or H. s. sapiens) and Neanderthals. This is also problematic as the emergence of genetic analysis provided indications that modern human/Neanderthal LCA had existed long before many European specimens typically assigned to H. heidelbergensis did. Accordingly in 2021, Canadian anthropologist Mirjana Roksandic and colleagues classified all European H. heidelbergensis as H. neanderthalensis.
      1. Strike off.
    3. h4hjyxsbeobhkjaxpabrrghalgHomo ergaster lived from 2 million years ago till about 100,000 years ago, possibly even 50,000 years ago. Modern Homo sapiens have only been around for the last 200,000 years. When we do the math we realize that both named species are acknowledged by anthropologists to have lived together for at least 50,000 -100,000 years. I find it hard to believe that H. erectus managed to survive that long against Homo sapiens. Shown is reconstruction of a nearly complete skeleton discovered in Kenya near Lake Turkana. This specimen, called the Turkana Boy, is the most complete early hominin skeleton ever found with 108 out of a full count of 206 bones. 

rhodesian_manH. bodoensis is now supposed to represent the immediate ancestor of modern humans, first described and introduced into the literature in October 2021. It was not based on newly discovered fossils; the aim of the authors of this first description [taxonomic classification] was rather to rearrange known finds. With the help of this reorganization and renaming, according to the authors, all hominin fossils that are interpreted as the early, immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) are to be grouped under the name Homo bodoensis. but does not include the last common ancestor / LCA of modern humans and Neanderthals. 


Homo neanderthalensis (or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) are an extinct species of their own or a subspecies of archaic homo sapiens who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. It is unclear when the line of Neanderthals split from that of modern humans. Neanderthals are known from numerous fossils, especially from after 130,000 years ago. Researchers depicted Neanderthals as primitive, unintelligent, and brutish for much of the early-20th century, but knowledge and perception of them has markedly changed since then in the scientific community.

    1. Strike off the list.
    2. Neanderthals proliferated harmful gene variants. This does not support the concept of evolution, rather the extinction of this species due to genetic variation refutes it.
    3. There is evidence of regional cultures.
    4. Neanderthals had high trauma rates, and about 80% died before the age of 40. This demonstrates the inherently conflict-ridden societies among animals and humans today, also refuting Evolution’s proposition that various related species were able to survive in proximity with each other for millions of years in order for evolutionary changes to transform into new species.
    5. The 2010 Neanderthal genome project‘s draft report presented evidence for interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. About 20% of distinctly Neanderthal gene variants survive today. Many more may have been interbred into humans but being detrimental died out with the diseased offspring. Also, a large portion of inherited Neanderthal genes appears to be non-coding DNA for which the function is as yet unknown.
    6. Neanderthals also appear to have interbred with Denisovans, a different group of archaic humans, in Siberia.

The Denisovans are an extinctspecies or subspecies of archaic human that ranged across Asia during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. Denisovans are known from few remains, and, consequently, most of what is known about them comes from DNA evidence. No formal species name has been erected pending more complete fossil material. The first identification of a Denisovan individual occurred in 2010, based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) extracted from a juvenile female finger bone from the Siberian Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains. Nuclear DNA indicates close affinities with Neanderthals. The cave was also periodically inhabited by Neanderthals, but it is unclear whether Neanderthals and Denisovans ever cohabited in the cave.

    1. Strike off the list.
    2. DNA evidence suggests they had dark skin, eyes, and hair, and had a Neanderthal-like build and facial features.
    3. Denisovans apparently interbred with modern humans, with the highest percentages (roughly 5%) occurring in Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and Filipino Negritos.
    4. There is also evidence of interbreeding with the Altai Neanderthal population, with about 17% of the Denisovan genome from Denisova Cave deriving from them.
    5. A first-generation hybrid nicknamed “Denny” was discovered with a Denisovan father and a Neanderthal mother.
    6. Additionally, 4% of the Denisovan genome comes from an unknown archaic human species which diverged from modern humans over one million years ago.

Revisiting the above claim that “Findings are so numerous, that their amount now becomes a problem for anthropologists, as dealing with such a number of material is increasingly more difficult.” Yes, more difficult for maintaining credibility in the concept of human evolution from apes.

(Species) Homo sapienss.s. Anatomically modern humans 0.8–0.3 million years ago

After 11,500 years ago all fossils shown are…anatomically modern humans, illustrating recent divergence in the formation of modern human sub-populations.”

Then why did it take so long – assumedly – for previous populations to diverge?


300,000 BC

“Modern humans evolved from proto-humans, but behaviors continued to be those of their protohuman ancestors – surviving by hunting and gathering for the next 210,000 years without any advances in basic technology or quality of life.”

  1. How can 300,000 year old behaviors be unearthed?
  2. If modern humans are primarily distinguished by intelligence how do hundreds of thousands of years of unchanged primitive behaviors demonstrate modern intelligence??
  3. If modern humans are physically less protected from their environment due to lack of body hair and lack of ability to find safety in trees, but there were no signs of intellectual adaptation of their environment, how on earth did they survive as a species for hundreds of thousands of years against their predators??

164,000 BC

After 136,000 years of hunting and gathering modern humans make one giant leap for mankind by collecting and cooking shellfish in addition to the other hunter-gatherer foodstuffs.

I can’t make this up. This is from the Smithsonian Institution’s website “What Does It Mean To Be Human.”

120,000 BC

After living exclusively in East Africa for 180,000 years modern humans begin to venture into other territories.

“The difficulty was always this incredible time lag between that occurrence and any more complex aspect of the culture other than just basic survival,”

Glad to see they acknowledge that much. I would point out that a bigger difficulty is this incredible time lag between that occurrence and the size of the population calculated by even the lowest growth rate considerations. Oh, wait, no. As noted above, the difficulty is the incredibility of unprotected humans in the wild surviving at all when all their cousins were going extinct despite being better adapted to the wild.



90,000 BC

It takes 210,000 years for modern humans to invent fishing tools. Gee, you’d think they would have noticed what their cousins were doing.” Primates are well known for using tools for hunting or gathering food and water, cover for rain, and self-defence.”

From The Smithsonian Institute:

From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils…

While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other…we now know this is not the case…

I’m confused. Isn’t the whole concept of evolution based on species evolving into new species? And what does the Smithsonian mean about “early” human fossils if not ancestors of modern humans? And why is Evolution still being presented – and accepted – as a known single line of species evolving into modern humans?


Wow.  That’s quite an unscientific assertion for someone who claims to be scientific.

  • To be ignorant is to be unaware of the facts. Where are the facts of evolution?
  • Calling someone stupid is just insulting.
  • Mr. Dawkins is not qualified to diagnose mental illness, and in any case, no professional calls a mentally ill person “insane”.
  • And how can anyone be “wicked” if there is no God defining good and evil? Ahhh, apparently Richard Dawkins is god.
  • And there’s that rakish grin. Apparently that’s what people are putting their money on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s