Replies

Then why do they accept evolution which is based on a theory that has been disproven time and time again?

The human and hominid fossil record alone prove evolution is false, yet those documents get peer reviewed!

11.) Let's turn to the origin of man, and specifically, the fossil record of `Man'. Many people believe we have `proof' of evolution through the fossil record, yet is this true? What is the facts surrounding fossils that are presumed to portray man?

Ramapithicus, often pictured as walking erect, has been degrade to the status of extinct ape. It's teeth and dental characteristics are similar to the gelada gibbon.(Richard Leaky/Roger Lewin Origins P.68). It has also been declared to be part of orangutan lineage.(Science News Vol 121 #5 Jan 30, 1982 P.84)

12.) Australopithecine: Not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. "The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

13.) Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz:( Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, "Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

14.) Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, "Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

15.) Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Evidence included skulls and a few limb bones, but were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 30 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241

16.) Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap and a femur that was dug up a year later and 50 feet away. The finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, "On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578)

17.) Nebraska Man was a local fossil, the entire evidence consisting of a single tooth. Nebraska Man was pictured on the front page of Life magazine in a hunter-gatherer mode. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Nebraska Man was labeled a genuine missing link. The tooth turned out to be a tooth of a pig. (Henry Fairfield Osborne, Hesperopithicus Haroldcookii, the first anthropoid primate found in North America, Science Vol 60 #1427 May 3, 1922 P.463)(William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus apparently not ape or man" Science Vol 66 #17209 Dec 16, 1927)

18.) Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax some blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had people fooled for years and even had its picture on Life Magazine.(Joseph Wiener "The Piltdown Forgery" London Oxford U. Press)

19.) Other hoaxes have occurred in the evolutionary tree, consider this one: Science News , Week of Jan. 15, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 3 All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs By R. Monastersky. Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The "feathered dinosaur"specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say. "It's the craziest thing I've ever been involved with in my career," says paleontologist Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller,Alberta.

20.) The fossil, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, comes from the northeastern province of Liaoning, where local farmers have been unearthing many new dinosaur species, some showing evidence of downlike coats and feathers. Currie, Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing announced the discovery of Archaeoraptor at a press conference in Washington, D.C., at the National Geographic Society last October (SN: 11/20/99, p. 328). At the time, they called it a missing link between birds and dinosaurs because it manifested the long bony tail of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs and the specialized shoulders and chest of birds. The scientists couldn't be sure of the fossil's history because they had not excavated it. Spirited out of China, the specimen attracted Czerkas' attention when he saw it for sale in Utah. His museum arranged its purchase by a benefactor. Recently, while examining a dromaeosaurid dinosaur in a private collection in China, Xu decided that the Archaeoraptor fossil is a chimera [A chimera is a mix of parts from different critters - Mar.]. The tail of that dinosaur is identical to the Archaeoraptor tail, he told Science News. The two tails are mirror images of each other, derived from the same individual, says Xu. When rocks containing fossils are split, they often break into two fossils.

Currie suspects that someone sought to enhance the value of Archaeoraptor by pasting one part of the dinosaur's tail to a bird fossil. Czerkas is reserving judgement until he can view both fossils together. "I've got all this other evidence suggesting the tail does belong with the [Archaeoraptor] fossil," he says. The paleontologists already had concerns about the tail because the bones connecting it to the body are missing and the slab shows signs of reworking. They had convinced themselves, however, that the two parts belonged together. Other scientists criticize the team and the National Geographic Society for unveiling the fossil before any detailed article had appeared in a scientific journal. "There probably has never been a fossil with a sadder history than this one," says Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

21.) While on the subject of birds, here is another 'finding', questioning the normal, accepted theory that Birds came from dinosaurs: June 14, 1999 - No. 386 By DAVID WILLIAMSON UNC-CH News Services ****** CHAPEL HILL - Working together on fossilized remains, Chinese and U.S. researchers have discovered a previously unknown species of primitive bird, a finding that offers new evidence that early bird evolution was considerably more complex than previously believed. In the process, the scientists have identified on its nearly complete skeleton, the world1s oldest surviving horny beak, part of a fossil dating back some 130 million years. They also say they1ve added more weight to the argument that birds descended not from dinosaurs, but rather from unknown earlier reptile ancestors. "One of the really interesting things about these discoveries is that they unexpectedly and vividly show that birds had already diversified by the late Jurassic-early Cretaceous period," said Dr. Alan Feduccia, chair of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.... (from out of nowhere, apparently!!) A report on the discovery appears in the June 17 issue of Nature, a British science journal. Besides Feduccia, authors are Drs. Lianhai Hou and Fucheng Zhang of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and Larry D. Martin and Zhonghe Zhou of the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

The researchers have named the new species Confuciusornis dui in honor of Wenya Du, the man who collected the specimen near the edge of a lake in northeast China1s Liaoning Province and donated it to the Beijing institute. It is a smaller but close relative of Confuciusornis sanctus, another crow-like bird of the same age the researchers found and reported in Nature in 1995. Because hundreds of specimens of C. sanctus now have been found in the same area, volcanic eruptions likely killed them along the lakeshore instantaneously and froze them in time, Feduccia said. The new species was an unexpected but pleasant surprise. "This bird was more advanced than Archaeopteryx in that it had a beak but was less advanced in that it had two small openings in the rear of its skull very similar to the reptile progenitors of birds," he said. "This is a mosaic pattern we see very much in vertebrate evolution - in other words, various lineages showing both primitive and advanced features at the same time. What this really shows is that early bird evolution was not linear, as many people have depicted it, but rather a far more complicated Obush1 with many extinct lines."... (More advanced! Less advanced! Forward and reverse, all in the same bird! Chinese firedrill on evolutionary chronology, everybody!)

Neither of the two cousin species likely were ancestors of modern birds, Feduccia said. Instead, they were side "twigs" that disappeared from their family tree -- or bush -- millions of years ago. Males of both species bore two long tail plumes indicating the sexes differed significantly from each other. Like its cousin, the new bird C. dui also grew asymmetric wing feathers characteristic of all modern flying birds. Ostriches and other birds that can1t fly well sprout nearly symmetric feathers incapable of creating an airfoil and hence lift. "These birds also have highly curved foot claws and reversed big toes showing they were clearly tree-dwelling creatures," the scientist said. "Together, these and other characteristics -- and the fact that the birds lived in complex social colonies - show that they were pretty well developed. "It seems to us that this was a tree-dwelling bird, not an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur as people advocating a dinosaur origin of birds have said."

In 1979, Feduccia made international news by publishing a paper proving that the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, could fly because its wing feathers were asymmetric. Barbs on one side of its wing feather quills clearly grew longer than barbs on the other side. "Some other scientists had speculated that Confusciusornis was a ground-living predator whose beak may have been hooked like a hawk, and this restoration was recently featured as a cover of Scientific American," Martin said. "The new fossil shows something very different. The beak is pointed and turned up at the tip very much like the cartoon bird Woody Woodpecker." Combining modern and ancient features in the same skull was surprising, he said.... (Not if you reject the evolutionary chronology.) Dui, the new specimen, also shows that the half-moon shaped bone in the wrist that1s been used to support a dinosaurian ancestry for birds is the same in Confusciusornis and Archaeopteryx as in modern birds, but is a different bone in dinosaurs, Martin said. "It no longer can be one of the main supports for a dinosaurian origin of birds," he said.

Bird-dinosaur claims have many setbacks. Consider this critique of the fossils found:
A Closer look at Dino-BirdsBy G.S. Paul (excerpted from DinoData website)DINO-BIRDS Sinosauropteryx Scipionyx Protachaeopteryx Caudipteryx and Confuciusornis- by G.S. PAUL - Direct examination confirms that the "croc-septum" described by Ruben et al. 1997 consists entirely of breakage and glue. Where all three arrows in their paper point, there is major damage. The ventral flakage is especially hard to see in photos, the dorsal breakage is patently obvious. The central crack was filled with cement colored to match the sediment. The breakage occurred when the slab was broken into numerous pieces during its initial removal by a local farmer, as a result the damage is symmetrical on the two slabs. The repair work was also done by the collector. So Ruben et al. mistook incompetent collection and repair work by an amateur for soft tissue anatomy. What is the dark material? In Scipionyx the probable liver sits well forward in the chest (as in birds), directly above the juncture of the anterior gastralia and what must have been the posterior end of the cartilage portion of the sternum. The authors of the Nature paper have confirmed to me that the liver does not extend dorsally in Scipionyx, contrary to certain claims made at Dinofest. In Dinosauropteryx the anterior end of the gastralia is well forward of the dark material.

Ergo, the liver very probably was not preserved. The dark material is in the same location - the posterior half of the body cavity from dorsal vertebra 8 or 9 back - as the well preserved intestines of Scipionyx, so it too probably represents the contents of the gut. There is no soft tissue evidence for the presence of a croc-like liver, septum, or fore- and-aft partitioning of the body cavity in any theropod. It was suggested at Dinofest that the "body outline" (visible in the photo in July Natl Geo) of the largest Sinosauropteryx lies outside and contains the "internal fibers".

The "outline" is actually the preservative applied after the completion of prep work. In some places on the sediment the sealant is thick enough to glisten (in most areas the coat was so thin that it absorbed into the sediment with a flat sheen), there are some thick circular drip bead marks, the brush work can be seen in some places, in some places there was a shallow shelf of sediment where the brush did not carry the sealant into the base of the shelf, etc. The sealant was applied to preserve the loose feathers on the slab as well (as you can see in the Natl Geo photograph). In the Natl Geo photo, there appears to be an small array of feathers at the tip of the tail of the large Sinosauropteryx. However, the slab was - as true of all of these specimens - badly shattered, and the feathers lie on a separate slab. At first glance there seems to be a couple of distal vertebrae on the feathered slab. However, examination under magnification with a flashlight revealed that no bone is present, the vertebrae are illusions created by breakage of the sediment.

The last few tail vertebrae are missing because they were lost along with the slab that really belongs there. Nor do the feathers have any connection with the vertebrae (unlike the tail feathers of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx). They are just some loose feathers on a slab that the farmer decided looked good at the end of the tail. The "tail flipper" that some seem to think surrounds the supposed tail feathers is of course just more brushed on sealant. From what I gathered some who examined the specimens still belive that the sealant is a body outline and that the tail flipper is real. Mistaking damage and prep work is not, of course science, and one can only hope these nonsensical notions will not see the light of publication.

22.) Back to the mistakes of 'Ape-Men"...

Neanderthal Man was found in Neanderthal Valley in West Germany. Long accepted as a missing link, Neanderthal man has been proven to be human, very similar to Europeans today, yet with proven diseases such as rickets, syphilis, and arthritis.(Carl Hodge "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic Vol 99 #186 P. B-5)

23.) There is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature. In fact, many fossils of man have been found, dated to coincide with the ages of these extinct apes:

24.) Petralona Man, found in a stalagmite 700 thousand years old.(Current Anthropology Vol 22 #3 June 1981 P.287)

25.) Human Jawbone found in China in Yangtze River dated 2 million years old.(Java Man is only 500 thousand)(Mesa Tribune Mesa Arizona Nov 20 1988)

Also, there are some findings that contradict all known science:

26.) Human skeleton found 1. 6 million years old, by Richard Leaky( Wash. Post Oct 19, 1984)

27.) Human footprints, dated 3.75 million years old at Latolil (Nature Vol28 #5702 Mar 22.1979, P.317-323)

28.) THE OLDEST MAN: "[African footprints]... they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to man-apes (like Australopithecus, who was once thought to be the forerunner of Man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end)... they were 3.35 to 3.75 million years old... they would, in Mary Leakey's words, be people 'not unlike ourselves'" TIME, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93

29.) TOO HUMAN TOO OLD: Russell H Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern Humans... If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus... in any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." NATURAL HISTORY, March 1990, p. 64

Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:

30.) RUINED FAMILY TREE: "either we toss out this [skull 11470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged to an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p.819

31.) HUMAN BRAIN: "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [skull 11470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo Erectus." SCIENCE NEWS, April 3, 1972, p. 324

32.) "OLD" MODERN MAN: Louis Leakey, "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo Kanamens 1s, and I said categorically that this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was probably around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put upon a shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a "suspense account". Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

33.) MODERN AND TALL: Richard Leakey, "... the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age... he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo Erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia," NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, Nov. 1985, p. 629

34.) MAN EVEN BEFORE "LUCY": Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years..." AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 1979, p.274

35.) HENRY M. MCHENRY, U of C, DAVIS, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..." SCIENCE, Vol. 190, p.28

36.) WILLIAM HOWELLS, HARVARD, "With a date of about 4.4 million years, [KP 2711] could not be distinguished from Homo Sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson or myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at the time, time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, pp. 79-80