The Human Fossils Still Speak

7/29/2019 The Human Fossils Still Speak

1/3

The human fossils still speak!

by Marvin Lubenow

The human fossil record is completely compatible with special creation. In contrast, thehuman fossil evidence is so contrary to evolution that it effectively falsifies the idea that

humans evolved. Future fossil discoveries will not substantially change the picture

because future discoveries cannot nullify the objective evidence already unearthed. Thismessage is not what we hear from a hundred different voices coming at us from a dozen

different directions. But the human fossils themselves tell the real story. I can best

illustrate the situation by describing a project I have conducted a number of times in mycollege apologetics classes. Each student is to do research on several assigned fossils.

Only fossils that are fully accepted as legitimate by the scientific community are

included.

The rules are as follows:

1. The student is to spend a minimum of eight hours of research on each fossil.2. He must use only evolutionist sources.

3. He is to determine the date the evolutionist has assigned to the fossil.

4. He is to determine the category (australopithecine, Homo erectus, Neandertal,etc.) assigned to the fossil by evolutionists.

5. He is to write a one-page paper outlining his findings and make copies for

distribution to the class.6. The paper must contain at least five documented sources.

The results have become quite predictable. After the first week, a number of studentscome to me complaining that they cannot find any agreement among evolutionists

regarding the date or the category of their fossil. I could easily have told them about thissituation in a class lecture, but it wouldn't have had the impact upon them that their own

research provided. Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy

among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both. The two matters are

sometimes related. For evolutionists, the category to which they assign a fossil issometimes used to arbitrarily determine its date, or the date of a fossil is sometimes used

to arbitrarily determine the category to which it is assigned. This is not an unbiased

approach in interpreting human fossils. I suggest to the students that they go with the twoor three evolutionists out of the five they have consulted who may agree on the fossil in

question.

When I made the fossil assignments, I did not make them randomly. I purposely gave the

more obscure fossils to students who I knew were good at research. However, after abouttwo weeks, members of this group began coming to me. They complained that they were

not able to find anything on a particular fossil. Besides using our own college library,

they often checked several of the large state university libraries in our area. More thanone student suggested that there was no such fossil as the one I had assigned. Laughingly,


2/3

I was accused of sending them on a wild-goose chase. Their experience was what I had

anticipated. I wanted them to discover first-hand that there are many legitimate fossil

discoveries about which it is very difficult to obtain information. When I was satisfiedthat the student had spent at least eight hours in searching for information on a particular

fossil, I would give him copies of the materials in my own file on that fossil so that he

could write his report. He could not possibly duplicate my 25 years of research on thehuman fossils in the time allotted. I do not wish to imply that the difficulty in finding

material on many of the human fossils represents some kind of evolutionist plot. What

happens is that only the most sensational fossil discoveries receive much publicity. Mostdiscoveries are reported in some scientific journal and then forgotten by all but a very

few experts. The fossils mentioned in most popular presentations of human evolution

represent just a small portion of the total fossil material that has been uncovered. As the

students prepared to write their reports, a third group comes to me. Because of theconflict they see between the shape (morphology) of their fossil and the assignment given

it by evolutionists, they have questions.

Question: Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapienswhen they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus

material?

Answer: Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull,

the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands ofyears old. Homo erectus wasnt supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist

must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.

Question: Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the

skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis

when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allowassignment to some form of Homo sapiens?

Answer: Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot

allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frameno matter what thefossils look like.

Question: Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964,

called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists

declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?

Answer: Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that truehumans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can

follow the facts when they lead in that direction.

The Fossils Falsify Evolution

Because there is an obvious conflict between the shape of some fossils and their category

assignment by evolutionists, I encourage the students to go by the shape of their fossils,


3/3

as documented by evolutionists themselves, in making their assessments. That is the way

paleoanthropologists are supposed to do it. Then comes F DayFossil Day! The

students bring their reports to class and place their fossils on the master chart accordingto the evolutionist dating. As the process takes shape, it becomes very apparent that the

human fossils do not show evolution over time. In fact, it is obvious that the fossils

themselves falsify the concept of human evolution. Regarding this exercise, some peopleask me, Arent you taking quite a chance? What if the exercise doesnt always work out

that way? In spite of the ambiguities in many of the fossils, because of the very large

number of fossils involved, the over-all testimony of the human fossils is very clear. Italways works out that way! In this exercise, the stark reality of the human fossil record

hits the student with greater force than anything I could have said. The key in this

exercise is to study all of the relevant fossil material and to place it all on a time chart.

Besides more than 300 Neandertal fossil individuals, this material includes more than 49fossil individuals in the archaic Homo sapiens category, more than 220 fossil individuals

that can properly be classified as Homo erectus, and more than 63 fossil individuals that

are indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens and are dated by evolutionists from

30,000 years all the way back to 4.4 million years in the past. It is no accident thatevolutionist books seldom include charts listing all of this material. For example, one of

the more recent texts (1989) on the human fossils is by University of Chicago professorRichard G. Klein.2 In his 524-page work, Klein has 20 different charts dealing with

various aspects of the human (hominid) fossil record. Yet, there is no way a student could

get the over-all picture. The student would simply have to accept by faith Kleins thesisthat the fossils demonstrate human evolution. The one chart that would most interest

studentsa chart showing all of the relevant fossil material mentioned aboveis not to

be found anywhere. By this type of omission, the true nature of the human fossil record

continues to be the best-kept secret in modern paleoanthropology.

References1. William W. Howells, Homo erectus in human descent: ideas and problems,

Homo erectus: Papers in Honour of Davidson

Black, Becky A. Sigmon and Jerome S. Cybulski, eds., University of TorontoPress, Toronto. 1981, pp.79-80.

2. Richard G. Klein. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989.

MARVIN L. LUBENOW, M.S., Th.M., Professor of Bible/Apologetics at ChristianHeritage College in San Diego California. He has degree in both science and theology,

and is author of the new book on human fossils,Bones of Contention: A CreationistAssessment of Human Fossils.

Documents

The Human Fossils Still Speak