The supposed human evolutionary chain starts with the fossil apes. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists in accordance with their evolutionary assumptions begin with the presupposition that man has, in fact, evolved from apes. The only question paramount in their thinking is “From which apes did man evolve?” They are looking for any anatomical feature that looks ‘intermediate’ between that of apes and that of man in the fossil record. Fossil apes having such features are declared to be ancestral to man and are called hominids. Any similarity between what is found in the ground as a fossilized extinct ape and the bones of living men, are then proclaimed as “proof” of our ape ancestry.
But what is the evidence? Is there an unbroken and identifiable progression of development in the fossil record from the australopithecines like “Lucy” through Homo habilis through Homo erectus through early Homo sapiens (and/or Neanderthals) to anatomically modern Homo sapiens? Evolutionists like to think so, but what are we really looking at?
In the case of “Lucy”, we’re looking at an extinct ape, most likely an extinct chimpanzee. There is nothing in Lucy’s bones that indicate she is a transition between apes and humans. She has an obvious ape skull, obvious ape pelvis, and obvious ape hands and feet. Her long arms are common to knuckle-walkers with locking wrists. Her feet, like her hands, are long, curved, and heavily muscled, much like those of living tree-dwelling primates.
If humans evolved from a chimp-like animal such as “Lucy”, it is obvious that we had to pass through a number of stages on this long evolutionary journey. We are classified as Homo sapiens. Lucy is classified as Australopithecus afarensis. Not only are we said to come from some form that was not our species, but we are said to come from some form that was not even our genus. Theoretically, the progression (from Australopithecus afarensis or Australopithecus africanus through to modern Homo sapiens) looks tidy, but it is anything but.
Lucy is dated by evolutionists at 3 million years. Homo habilis at 2 to 1.5 million years. Homo erectus at 1.6 to 0.4 million years, with early Homo sapiens and anatomically modern Homo sapiens in the last hundred thousand years or so. This sequencing implies genus to species and species to species development that could take up to 1 million years between the classifications. Since the evolution of one genus to species, or one species to another would require many favorable genetic mutations (the existence of a ‘favorable’ mutation has yet to be conclusively demonstrated), it becomes obvious that evolution requires vast periods of time even on the species level and even “if” several advantageous genes were being dispersed throughout the population at the same time.
If evolution were true, we have the right to expect that the hominid fossil record would faithfully follow the time and morphology sequence set forth by evolutionists, don’t we? We are supposed to have evolved from something very similar to Lucy, something very dissimilar to what we are today, so we have the right to expect that very modern-looking fossils would not embarrass the evolutionist by showing up in ancient times and that primitive or archaic fossils would not embarrass the evolutionist by showing up in modern times. We also have the right to expect that if a significant number of fossils are so rude to show up at the wrong time, the evolutionist would be honest enough to admit that his theory of human evolution has been falsified, correct? In actuality, many fossils have been that rude, and evolutionists have been less than intellectually honest.
Vaya con Dios mis hijas,
Dear ol’ Dad