| previous page: Quotations 25-29 | Statements 67-85 | Quotations 30-35 |
| The Alleged "Missing Links" between Man and Ape | |||
| 67 | Piltdown Man - The "piltdown" skull first was "discovered" in England in 1912 by Charles Dawson. For Forty-one years it was the leading evidence for evolution until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery. It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age. It's interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed piltdown man in every human's family tree, then one day it was no longer "true". | It wasn't true, because
the specimen was a forgery, and revealed as such by scientific
investigation. When it was revealed as forgery it was removed from the
text books. Unlike creationists, scientist face up and admit to their
mistakes. What should have been done when Piltdown Man was revealed as a forgery? |
irrelevant |
| 68 | The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as forgeries as well. | None that I've heard of, but so what? | irrelevant |
| 69 | Java Man - When this was "discovered" in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines. | The other two skulls came
from over a site 65 miles away. They were not from the same formation. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html |
FALSE |
| 70 | Dubois formed Java man from a chimp-like skullcap, human thigh bone, and teeth, all found within 50 feet of each other and he simply put them together, assuming they were from the same man. | Which is why subsequent researchers have focussed on the skullcap, which is not 'chimp-like' | FALSE |
| 71 | Java man was later discredited by the finder himself, Dr. Eugene Dubios, as actually being a gibbon in 1938. | Dubois did not
'discredit' his find. He had his own rather idiosyncratic theory of
human development, and tried to fit Java man into that framework. Try reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay 'Men of the thirty-third division.' (In Eight little piggies. (pp. 124-37). New York: W.W.Norton.) There is also a good account of Java Man and Dubois in 'The Wisdom of Bones', by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman, (Alfred A Knopf 1996) a book which is well worth reading if you have any genuine interest in finding our more about recent research in human origins. See also Answers in Genesis web site (a creationist site) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp |
FALSE |
| 72 | Yet despite Dubois recanting, Java man was left in many textbooks | Because Java man is a perfectly valid specimen of Homo erectus, a species of early man well-know from many specimens. And please note: Dubois did NOT "recant". | FALSE |
| 73 | As we can see, many scientists who claim "scientific evidence" may simply be making guesses. | Not something you have demonstrated so far. | irrelevant |
| 74 | True science has no place for guessing. | What is 'true science'? Science works by making guesses (called hypotheses) and devising ways to test those guesses. If they fail the test, they get discarded. | FALSE |
| 75 | Nebraska Man - In 1922 a tooth was discovered in Nebraska by Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn | It was discovered by
Harold Cook see; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html |
FALSE |
| 76 | who examined the tooth and claimed it had characteristics of a man, chimp and Java Man. | The identification was very tentative | TRUE |
| 77 | Years later it was determined the tooth was actually from an extinct pig. | And it was never used as any evidence to support any theory of human evolution in any case. | irrelevant |
| Other Claims By Evolutionists | |||
| 78 | There are several other claims by evolutionists over the past 150 years that have been used as arguments in favor of the theory of evolution. Here are a few of them and evidence that they are false: | ||
| 79 | Vestigial Organs - Organs such as tonsils and appendix were originally thought to be useless vestiges of organs once used by man's ancestors. At one time there were over 100 vestigial organs listed. All have now been shown to have useful functions. | Untrue. Many have not been shown to have a function. | FALSE |
| 80 | In addition, if there were such a thing as vestigial organs, we would see emerging organs in process of development on extinct and existing life forms, since if evolution is a fact, all organs must have rudimentary beginnings. The complete absence of these emerging organs as passed over quietly by evolutionists. | There is no 'complete absence of these emerging organs'. The fish/tetrapod transition is now very well documented. See Jenny Clack's book, 'Gaining Ground'. | FALSE |
| 81 | Another interesting point to be made here is that evolution scientists claim that apes are our closest relatives and that man has vestigial organs that were used once, but are being phased out by evolution. If this is so, then scientists should be able to look at the ape (and other lesser animals) and determine how these vestigial organs were more fully functional. But you'll notice no scientist will touch this subject! | Just look at your feet. An ape can partly oppose its big toe. You can't. Your big toe is vestigial in this sense. | FALSE |
| 82 | Transitional Forms - Many claim that transitional forms have been found, but this is simply speculation and there is no proof of it. | Only if you define transitional forms in such a way that 'proof' is impossible. | FALSE |
| 83 | For example, at one time the Archaeopteryx, a fossilized bird-like creature, was used as an example of transition from reptile to bird. This has since been discredited by many since many other birds were since found in the same strata, | Simply not true. One specimen previously assigned to Archaeopteryx has been assigned to a new genus, Wellnhoferia. No other birds have been found in the Solnhofen Limestone. | FALSE |
| 84 | many birds from that time were found to have teeth, | All birds from that time had teeth, because they were all Archaeopteryx or Wellnhoferia! | TRUE (but for the wrong reasons) |
| 85 | and many known birds existed at that time that could not fly. This is just one example. | A complete fabrication! Please provide a source for this astounding piece of misinformation. | FALSE |
| Also see these quotes from others regarding transitional forms. | |||
| previous page: Quotations 25-29 | Statements 67-85 | Quotations 30-35 |