What about Lucy, Neanderthals, etc.

Standard
lucy

Remains of Lucy (Australopithecus afarenis)

Who are the Neanderthals really and what about the mysterious woman named Lucy.  Scientists say that they have retrieved the fossils of ape-like humans who they claim to be the inbetween stages/links of the evolution of man from ape. Can we take them to be humans with some kind of genetic disorder such as acromegaly?  (Hannah’s third question)

When scientists chance upon a set of fossil bones, they have at their disposal, bones, scientific tools and methods, and their beliefs and presuppositions.

Lucy and the other fossils are all just bones that needed to be dated and interpreted by scientists and anthropologists. In this process, many assumptions needed to be made and were made depending on the beliefs of those who made them.

Neither the young-earth scientist nor the old-earth scientist is going to be able to prove beyond doubt, using scientific methods, that their interpretation is right. Young-earth scientists who believe in the Bible know that God created man as man. In fact man was the crown and glory of God’s creation. So these scientists interpret the fossils from the perspective of the Biblical account. Those who believe in evolution interpret fossils according to their faith. But because the latter are an overwhelming majority, when they speak together, the sheer loudness of their argument can be intimidating.  The best way to counter this is by equipping ourselves with information.

As believers, we know that human beings were created as human beings. So any fossil bone that scientists interpret as ‘links’ or ‘stages’ in human evolution cannot be what what they say it is. The fossil has to be either human or non-human.

For obvious reasons, it is in the interest of scientists, who believe in evolution, to interpret fossils as ‘links’ or ‘stages’. How do they manage to do this? We’ll look at the three ways of doing this with examples.

The three ways are:

  • Ape fossils made out to be more human than they are
  • Human fossils made out to be less human and more ape-like than they are
  • Delibrately mixed fossils of human and ape bones (actual fraud)

Lucy—An example of ape fossils interpreted to be human like
Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) was a kind of ape, with body proportions like a chimpanzee, who could knuckle walk, walk on twos with a stooped posture, and climb trees.  Textbooks often show her hands and feet as being similar to humans, but this is an error that is acknowledged. Sadly wrong representations of Lucy abound in museums too.

Neanderthal Man and Cro-magnon Man—Human fossils interpreted to be ape like
I understand that the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnon people were among the people groups who were scattered from the tower of Babel.

Evolution scientists regard Cro-Magnon people as early human beings who were quite intelligent. In comparison, they claimed that the Neanderthals lacked in creativity, language skills and other human traits.

  • At least in one case, it has been documented that the ‘Neanderthal’ individual had rickets, which may have contributed to the idea that the Neanderthals were inferior to the Cro-Magnon people.
  • Similarly, it was thought that the Neanderthals were incapable of speech until the discovery of a hyoid bone, caused scientists and anthropologists to concede that the Neanderthals could have spoken any human language.
  • It was also argued that Neaderthals were not human because they did not use symbols and rituals. This too was proved untrue.

Evolution scientists do not lack imagination and can weave a good story. The Nebraska man (and even a picture of him and Mrs. Nebraska Man in the Illustrated London Daily News) came from the 1922 discovery of a solitary tooth!

We must expect to find (and do find) all kinds of human fossils. The Bible speaks of giants. The Bible also tells us that in pre-flood times, people lived for a lot longer than we do today. Fossils of human beings who lived to the age of 800 probably look somewhat different.

Piltdown Man—A hoax using human skull plus ape jawbone
Piltdown Man comprised fragments of a skull and jawbone supposedly found in Piltdown, an English village, in 1912 by a man called Charles Dawson. For 40 long years, Piltdown man enjoyed the honour of being hailed as a great find in favour for the evolution of man.  In 1953, thanks to the separate efforts of three scientists, Piltdown man was found to be a hoax, a forged mix of a skull of a human and jawbone an orangutan.

Interesting links you could learn more from

In this post as in the posts answering Question 1 and Question 2, my intention is to demonstrate that:

  • the young-earth creationist’s interpretation is very logical and reasonable.
  • the interpretation of the majority (scientists who believe in evolution) has serious flaws and is not as foolproof as is made out to be.
Advertisements

8 responses »

  1. The biggest weakness I see in the Darwinian argument – particularly as it is applied to man – is that if it takes so long to evolve the bulk of the fossil evidence should point to transitional species as opposed to the occasional exception, since the bulk of the history of the species has been spent in transition. The fossil record should be overloaded with transitional species of all kinds.

    I should probably tell you that I hold to a view called old-earth creationism. My reasons for this are too lengthy to go into here (and I will not argue with young earth folks because I understand and respect that viewpoint, having held it myself for years), but suffice it to say that I believe that God created the earth and everything in it. But that the earth is as old as it seems to be – light from distant stars is as old as it seems to be, etc. And even so, I am not convinced of Darwinian evolution – and particularly as it applies to mankind. Mankind is unique among all creation and bears the marks of God’s particular handiwork. And with all the energy and effort that has been committed to disproving this, the scientific community has still only managed to come up with the most meager bits of evidence in support of their theories.

    • Hi, interesting that you should be an old-earth creationist. I moved from a young-earth creationist to an old-earth creationist, reading John Clayton and Hugh Ross, and back to a young-earth creationist.

    • She is my niece, the one whose wedding I went to India for. She’s recently had a baby, which is probably her excuse for asking me the questions. Does look like I’m doing her homework for her. By the way, you do a lot more for some people. ha ha.

  2. I can totally understand position shifting. I still receive young earth literature in the mail and shifting back again wouldn’t shake my faith one way or the other. I know one thing for certain: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” How it looked at the time, or what means God used no one can know right now with any certainty. I’ve not read either of those authors. I’ve read a couple of others – one good, one not so good. Neither adequately address all my concerns, but neither can any of the young-earth guys. So this is where I sit tentatively.

    • Would you be able to articulate those concerns? Maybe I could keep a watch out for answers in the young-earth side of the argument, as I am well and truly in this mold now. And I understand that your position does not clash with major faith issues (in your case). 🙂

  3. Articulate…hmmmm…well, off the top of my head and 11:25 at night I’d start with the light from the stars. Another is Romans 1:19-20 which leads me to believe that the creation is not made in such a way as to be misleading – but actually points directly to the eternal nature of God. Another is the fact that the objects by which we measure a 24 hour day (as well get meanings for the words “morning” and “evening” are not said to be created until the 4th day of creation. Another is the strange wording God used regarding the creation of animal life: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” which could be understood to be language of initiating a process. (As I’ve said before, however, I’m really not convinced of Darwin’s notion of evolution and reject it pretty much out of hand as it regards humans.) Another is the style of writing used to tell the story. The language is highly stylized, almost poetic, more suited to passing on an oral tradition than giving an exact narrative. Another is something as simple as the time it would have taken Adam to name all the animals and come to a place of realizing his aloneness to such an extent as to exclaim: ‘This at last….’ Those are the reasons that come straight to mind. There are others.

    Suffice it to say, my feelings wouldn’t be hurt to find out I’m wrong, but I don’t feel the days are meant to be taken as literal days, but phases and not necessarily phases of equal duration. So that’s where I’ll leave it for now.

    BTW, that Spurgeon book is still widely available. Let me know when you’d like to get started, and what you’ll need from me.

    Blessings to you, Sister.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s