Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Reductionist (Gradualist) Evolution of Man:  This theory asserts that the human species gradually evolved through a series of primate species, like the evolution of a Corvette car over time.  Each model is different in some ways, but clearly linked to the previous generation.  Creationist author, Ian Taylor, after researching the evidence surrounding so-called “missing-links,” refutes the claims of Java Man (Pithecanthropus Erectus), Nutcracker Man (Zinjanthropus); The ‘1470’ Man (Australopithecine); Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and others in his book In his book In The Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. His evidence against “Hominids” is persuasive and he is not alone.  G. Ledyard Stebbins, professor emeritus, University of California, writes in his book Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity that with respect to human origins, the discoveries made during the past fifteen years present a complex picture.  The facts do not support the hypothesis of a simple progression Ramapithecus – Australopithecus – Homo habilis – H. erectus – H. sapiens.  Instead, they are best interpreted as reflecting a series of radiations.  Most of the radiant lines became extinct; only a few led to more advanced forms.  The nature of the transitions between H. erectus, Neanderthals, and modern humans (as exemplified by Cro-Magnon man) is still a matter of debate.

 
2 - Asoanthropus Dawsoni (Piltdown/Dawson’s Dawn man - 1908).  Coincidental with an ebbing tide of support for Darwinism, the Piltdown remains were discovered during the period from 1908 to 1912 and only a few miles from Darwin’s old home.  Parts of a human skull, together with most of the jaw of an ape, had been discovered in the Piltdown gravels in the country just outside London, which was known to interest an amateur fossil hunter, Charles Dawson.  These remains were brought to the attention of Authur Smith Woodward, keeper of the department of geology at British Natural History Museum and a personal friend of the fossil hunter.[iv]  Writes Taylor: “Arthur Keith, the anatomist, was called into the investigation.  Soon the team was joined by Grafton Elliot Smith, a renowned brain specialist.  The team consisted of some of the very best men of science; their collective credentials were not only impressive but impeccable…When Piltdown man was formally announced at the Geographical Society in 1912, it was warmly welcomed by the press as a sensational missing link…Needless to say, objections to man’s ape ancestry made in the pulpit were effectively silenced.  A whole generation grew up with Piltdown man in their textbooks and home encyclopedias; who in their right mind would question the veracity of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?”[v]Dawson, who died in 1916, had received his glory when formal scientific recognition was given to his discovery – classified asoanthropus dawsoni (Dawson’s Dawn man).  Keith, Woodward and Grafton Elliot were later knighted.  Unfortunately for Darwinists, in 1953, Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley conducted a recently developed fluorine test on the original Piltdown material and discovered that the bones were in fact relatively recent.  The suspected hoax was finally revealed.  Piltdown man was a fraud.  The jaw of an ape was stained to make it appear as though it matched a human skull; the Piltdown fossils along with accompanying bones were not only stained but reshaped.[vi]  Marvin Lubenow describes the fraud: “The file marks on the orangutan teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible.  The molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles…The canine tooth had been filed down so far that the pulp cavity had been exposed and then plugged.[vii]

3- Sinanthropus pekinensis – Peking Man (1927).  According to Taylor, the science behind Peking Man is no more credible than asoanthropus dawsoni.  Two characters emerged to lead the search for man’s early origins in China.  The first was a Canadian physician, Davidson Black.  Enthusiastic over the prospects of finding the elusive missing link, Black went to England in 1914, to study under Grafton Elliot Smith [Knighted after Piltdown man]. The second character was the Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin, who was banished by his superiors to China, for his radical views on evolution and Christianity. American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. Stephen J. Gould concluded that Teilhard was the culprit in the Piltdown scandal.[viii]  Teilhard, had since studied under Marcellin Boule, who was responsible for the false impressions of Neanderthal man.   In 1927, just as finances were running out, a tooth was discovered at Chou K’ou Tien, and Davidson considered that it had characteristics intermediate between ape and man.  He announced the discovery of Sinanthropus pekinensis.  In 1950 the British Museum commissioned Maurice Wilson to paint a cave scene showing Peking man.  The resulting picture shows a naked individual chipping away at some stones and squatted before a small fire consisting of three or four sticks.  This is not representative of the facts.  In 1931, Professor Henri Breuil of the College of France and L’Institut de Palaeontologie Humaine, a world-renowned expert on the Stone Age, spent nineteen days at Chou K’ou Tien site, at the request of Teilhard.  Breuil found abundant evidence there of a large-scale human operation.  A great number of antler bones had been worked, stone tools imported to the site from more than a mile away.  Chippings eighteen inches deep in places indicated some kind of stone ‘industry.’  There was also evidence of a furnace operation of some kind.  Breuil described this as an ash heap seven meters (twenty-three feet) deep that had been kept going continuously for some time because the minerals in the surrounding soil had fused together with the heat.[ix]  Breuil also collected a number of bone and stone items that bore the evident signs of human workmanship and left them on display at the local museum.  These have subsequently disappeared, however.[x]  Were it not for Breuil’s 1932 report, which has survived, it is certain that the only evidence available would be that which supports the view that Peking man was a hominid.  As it was, more damaging counterevidence came to light in 1934 by the discovery of the parts of six truly human skeletons, including three complete skulls that were found in what was described as the ‘upper cave.’…Evidently, the human remains caused difficulties for the imagined scenario especially as evidence for links between the two sites began to appear.  It took Weidenreich[xi]  five years to finally break the news of the discovery of the true humans, and that it was confined to the relative obscurity of the Peking Natural History Bulletin.  Even so, the popular books and most textbooks today never mention the appearance of true human beings at the site of Peking man.[xii] When Marcellin Boule, actually saw Sinanthropus pekinensis, he was angry at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull.  He pointed out that all the evidence indicated that the skulls found were those of monkeys.  It was further suggested at the time that the skulls were the result of the monkey brains having been eaten by the human workers.  Boule concluded with the comment:”We may therefore ask ourselves whether or not it is over-bold to consider sinanthropus [now called homo erectus pekinensis] the monarch of Chou K’ou Tien when he appears in its deposit only in the guise of a mere hunter’s prey, on a par with the animals by which he is accompanied.”[xiii]