The Fossil Record and Early Man Study No. 207
he human fossil record of early man supports the special creation of man and the account given in the book of Genesis. This includes the fossils of Homo sapiens, archaic Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis or Neanderthal man, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus (extinct apes). Many people believe that the fossils that have been found support the evolution of man and his ascent from the primates. This is not correct. What the anthropologists have done is interpret the fossils so that they seem to show the correctness of evolution. But the fossils can be interpreted another way — a way that shows that the evolutionary theory of early man is bankrupt and that early men have all descended from Adam. The problem in the evolutionary fossil record is not the fossils themselves, but the incorrect interpretation that is placed on these fossils. A correct interpretation is harmonious with the Biblical record.
If human evolution was true, we could expect to see its workings in the fossil record of humans. The fossil record, if it supported evolution, would show the following:
· A gradual blending of all the fossils in the line that leads to modern humans — it would be difficult to tell when one species died out and when the other began.
· There would be many transitional human fossils.
· As species became better adapted, the old ancestral lines would die out — old fossils and young fossil would not coexist.
· Fossils of early man would not show long periods of stability.
For evolution to have occurred, the fossil record of early man would show great change and transition over time. In the beginning of the last 4.5 million years, the evolutionary record should show no modern humans in the fossil record. As evolutionary history progressed, a gradual blending of the fossil into a modern human morphology would occur. There would also be many and varied transitional fossils.
If H. sapiens, H. erectus, and Neanderthals were products of creation and descendants of Adam, the fossil record would have certain characteristics. These would include:
· No blending of fossils — fossils would be excavated that would be easily categorized with allowances made for variety.
· There would be no transitional fossils — since Adam was independently created there would be distinct breaks between the human line and the animal line (primates).
· The fossil men such as H. erectus, Neanderthal, and archaic H. sapiens would all coexist at the same time since they are merely variations of the created kind.
· Fossils of early humans would exist in very old strata.
· Fossils of early man would appear abruptly in the geologic record.
The fossils of early man, when looked at as an overall category, all support special creation. They appear fully formed and fully human in the fossil record. They appear in the earliest strata as would be expected if they were created. The various fossil men all were contemporaries of each other for long periods of time, sometimes the older fossil, from an evolutionary point of view, appears in the fossil record at a younger time period.
Human fossils (KP 271) that are indistinguishable (McHenry 1975 & Patterson 1967) from those of modern skeletons have been found in stratum that is more than 4.5 million years old (the author does not agree with these evolutionary dates). This shows that true humans have a lineage that extends at least that far back in the evolutionary timetable. There may be older fossils of H. sapiens that have not yet been discovered. In other words, fossils that are the identical to modern humans have been found that are older than the Australopithecines — which indicates that the Australopithecus line could not be the evolutionary ancestral line leading to modern man.
Homo erectus fossils have been excavated that range in age from a very recent 30,000 (Swisher 1996) years ago to more than 1.6 million years. The H. erectus line has remained virtually unchanged for almost 1.6 million years. H. erectus have not evolved into anything during this time period; they have remained unchanged. If evolution was true, then H. erectus should be in a state of evolutionary change — that it has remained unchanged supports the creation account.
Another concept that falsifies the evolutionary concept is that modern H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and H. erectus, have all lived together as contemporaries at one point in time or another. None of them have evolved from a more primitive type into a more modern type. In some cases H. erectus fossils are younger than H. sapiens and Neanderthal fossils. This cannot be correct if evolution is correct, because evolutionary theory states that H. erectus gave rise to H. sapiens and/or Neanderthal. Since the creation account is correct, they are simply variations and they would all coexist at the same time.
There are no fossils of the primitive primates at the correct time to give rise to the human ancestral line. These primitive primates would include A. afarensis, A. africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops (Leakey 2001) and others. The fossil record indicates that when these primates existed, humans were already on the scene. The Laetoli Footprints (Leakey 1979), made by a modern-shaped human foot, and the Kanapoi humerus (KP 271), all predate these fossils. Therefore these extinct primates could not have given rise to the human line since humans were already in existence. Interestingly there exist today primates that are very similar to the Australopithecus line. The pygmy chimp (Pan paniscus), called Bonobo by the locals is found in the jungles of Zaire, Africa. This is only a few hundred miles away from where many of the A. afarensis and A. africanus fossils are being unearthed today. It has the same body type and is the same size as the Australopithecines. It also can walk bipedally for short distances.
The overall fossil record reveals that even when we use the evolutionists’ dates (which are incorrect) and arrange the fossils according to these dates, that no human evolution has taken place. When humans appear in the fossil record more than four million years ago, according to the evolutionary dates, they appear fully formed, already human and they appear abruptly. This supports creation, and not evolution.
The science of human anthropology is full of circular reasoning, and philosophical bias. Anthropologists only focus on the fossils that seemingly support their contention that man has evolved from apelike ancestors. When evolutionists draw family trees of these relationships, they do not include all the pertinent data. A typical example is shown in figure 1. This example, and many others like it, supposedly shows A. afarensis giving rise to H. erectus, and then H. erectus giving rise to H. sapiens. The total fossil picture is not shown in these types of “family trees.” If the total fossil record is used, a drawing of a family tree is not possible because the fossils do not fit the evolutionary scenario.
In reality the evolutionists only use fossils that support their preconceived bias. There are many human fossils that do not fit in with these biases. If all the fossils are used in the interpretation of the early human record, then the answer is obvious, man was created — he did not evolve. This is fully supported by the correctly interpreted fossil record of early man. — by Arnold C. Mendez, Sr.
© Arnold C. Mendez, Sr. & Mendez Enterprises
Johanson, DC. Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind. Touchstone Pub. New York. 1990.
Leakey, MG. Spoor F. Brown FH. Gathogo P. Kiarie C. Leakey LN. McDougall. “New Hominin Genus from
Eastern Africa Shows Diverse Middle Pliocene Lineages,” Nature. 410:433-440, 2001.
Leakey, MD. “Footprints in the Ashes of Time,” National Geographic. April 1979.
McHenry, H. “Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution,” Science 190:425-431. 1975.
Patterson, B. Howells WW. “Hominid Humeral Fragment from Early Pleistocene of Northwestern Kenya,”
Science. 156:64-66. 1967.
Swisher, CC. “Homo Erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo Sapiens in Southeast Asia,”
Science. 274:1870-74. 1996.