Books
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford
Lesson Five
Facts and Fallacies of Supposed Knuckle-Walking Ancestors of Modern Man Knuckle-Walking Ancestors of Modern Men?
The first stage of supposed human evolution takes place in Africa. According to evolutionists, there is an abundant fossil record on this continent which portrays various stages of very early human transformation before ancient man stood upright. The oldest of these supposed “ancient ancestors of man” was thought to be Proconsul. His fossil remains have been found only in Africa. Paleontologists suggest that this little “ancestor” appeared on the evolutionary scale approximately 20 million years ago.35
Why cannot one simply accept the initial view of the paleontologists that Proconsul was a predecessor to man or modern ape? In the first place, the last chapter established the flaws in arriving at such an extreme date for any fossil. Based upon the inaccuracy of dating methods employed to date Proconsul, one can safely assume that this little ape is not the extreme age that evolutionists suggest.
In the second place, Proconsul is anatomically an ape. To suggest more than this is assuming more than the evidence permits. Paleoanthropologists, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth, in their book Making Silent Stones Speak, describe Proconsul as “very apelike.”36 The reason Proconsul can be described as “ape- like” is that the evidence suggests he was an ape! Eventually, the paleoanthropologists reluctantly admitted that Proconsul could not have evolved into Homo sapiens (Man). Because of his non-human skeletal structure, Proconsul now has to be considered by evolutionists to be the ancestor of the modern African apes instead of an earlier human link. In other words, Proconsul is nothing more than an ape.
Proconsul’s descendant was supposedly a larger ape which strongly resembles a chimpanzee. This fellow is known as Dryopithicus. He was discovered in southern Europe. He is described as a creature who “walked on all fours and lived in the trees.”37 One does not have to be a trained paleoanthropologist to recognize that if a fossilized creature looks like a chimpanzee, walks on all fours, and lives in trees, it would be logical to assume that it was a chimpanzee and nothing more. It is not an early form of an ape. It is simply an ape!
The anxiety of paleoanthropologists over the lack of evidence for an extremely primitive knuckle-walking form of man led them to once more jump to conclusions over the discovery of another fossilized ape — Ramapithecus. In 1932, G. Edward Lewis, discovered the fossil remains of Ramapithecus in India. In fact, one should actually refer to the fossil record of this little primate as “a” remain for all that was left of this creature is a portion of his jaw. This fossil was declared to be between 15 million and 30 million years old. The unusual features of Ramapithecus were his small, thickly enameled canine teeth. Because human beings also often have small, thickly enameled canine teeth, the evolutionists initially believed this connection was enough to declare Ramapithecus the oldest known human ancestor.38 Paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam was the first to hastily reach this conclusion. Unfortunately, when one has a tendency to continually jump to conclusions, he will often be made out to be a fool.
Did the evolutionists make a leap of faith based on the canines of Ramapithecus? The answer to that question is “yes.” Aside from the now obvious problems with declaring Ramapithecus to be 15 to 30 million years old, a fundamental mistake was made in using comparative anatomy. In the first place, it is extremely important that one understand that anatomical similarities between human beings and ancient apes do not necessarily indicate that one evolved from the other. This is a mistake that paleoanthropologists continue to make. In fact, it is the basis for their entire theory. However, even they know that anatomical similarities do not indicate evolution. When molecular biologists proved that Ramapithecus was not a human relative, paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey remarked that “What led him [David Pilbeam] astray over Ramapithecus, was similarity of anatomy.” Pilbeam admits, “We saw a few anatomical features that seemed to imply relationship, and accepted them uncritically.”39
One of the most honest remarks you will ever hear from an evolutionist came from the writings of Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. They wrote “David [Pilbeam] ...was ensnared in a trap that lurks for all in our profession: similar anatomy does not always imply close evolutionary relationship.”40 With this one statement these two evolutionists have undermined their entire theory and the “evidence” it is based upon. This is exactly what the creationists have been trying to get the evolutionist to recognize since the age of Darwin. Just because man is anatomically similar to ancient extinct apes, it does not imply that he evolved from those forms. Finally, there are at least two who have the honesty to make such an admission. This is an important point to consider as one ponders the rest of the fossil record used (or misused) to prop up evolutionary theory.
In the second place, evolutionists use similarities in dentation (tooth shape and size) and thickness of enamel in an attempt to prove that fossil remains, such as Ramapithecus, are early human evolutionary forms. In truth, dentation and enamel thickness are subject to change as one changes his diet. There is world-wide variation in dentation and enamel thickness among human beings in the twenty-first century.
Why is there this kind of variation among human beings of the present age? Because diet varies. If one always ate grain ground on a stone pestle, then inevitably he is going to eat tiny stone fragments that will wear down his teeth and make them smooth. There are many in the world today who still eat their grain this way. Their teeth will appear more primitive than someone who eats factory ground grains. Is evolution the cause for these differences? Not at all.
Enamel thickness not only varies with changes in one’s diet, but even because of actions intended to keep one’s teeth clean. Has your dentist ever warned you not to brush your teeth so hard because you are wearing down the protective enamel? There is even variation in dentation and enamel thickness among modern apes. The enamel of the orangutan generally more closely resembles human enamel than does the enamel of a gorilla. Is it the result of evolution? No! The variation is not necessarily an inherited trait. It is formed over the course of one’s lifetime by one’s diet.
As for Ramapithecus, he is now placed in the broader ape family known as Sivapithecus. Kenyapithecus, Graecopithecus and Rudapithecus are also fossils of this extinct ape type.41
Knuckle-Walkers or Bipeds?
Although Proconsul, Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus are now generally not accepted by evolutionists as early knuckle-walking ancestors of man, evolutionists are convinced that there is evidence for a semi knuckle-walking human ancestor. According to paleoanthropologists, the fossil record reveals a number of shadowy figures whose exact place in the evolutionary line of descent has not yet been determined. Supposedly the oldest of these creatures is Aripithecus ramidus. His remains were recently discovered in Aramis, Ethiopia. His fragmented fossils are supposedly 4.4 million years old.42 In fact, the evidence that remains of him is a portion of his jaw. In truth, the only thing that separates this creature from Australopithecus afarensis (who will be discussed in the next lesson) is his extreme age. There is not enough anatomical data to declare Ramidus anatomically different from Afarensis. If dating is the only basis for declaring him a separate species, then one can safely say that he is not. The dating methods of evolutionists have already been proven to be highly inaccurate. The same can also be said of two other specimens: Australopithecus anamensis and Australo-pithecus bahrelghazali.
Anamensis and Bahrelghazali are said to be slightly younger than Ramidus, but older than Afarensis. All that is left of Anamensis and Bahrelghazali are portions of their jaws. One cannot show that Afarensis and Anamensis and Bahrelghazali are anatomically different. There is simply not enough fossil evidence. Anamensis and Bahrelghazali are only thought to represent pre-afarensis stages of evolution because the use of unreliable methods determined that their fossils were older. It is more reasonable to assume that Aripithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, and Australopith-ecus afarensis are all one species. It will be proven in the next lesson that Afarensis is nothing more than an ape. Therefore, these other supposed links can also be placed in the same category.
Review Questions
1. According to paleoanthropologists, who was thought to be the oldest identifiable ancestor of man?
2. According to evolutionists, when did Proconsul live?
3. Why was Proconsul removed from the human evolutionary line?
4. What character traits does Dryopithecus share with the chimpanzee?
5. According to evolutionists, how old was Ramapithecus?
6. What did Ramapithecus have in common with modern humans?
7. Does similar anatomy imply an evolutionary relationship?
8. Why must tooth enamel thickness and dentation be dismissed as evidence for evolutionary relationship?
9. Ramapithecus is part of the broader ape family known as...?
10. What factors effect tooth enamel and thickness?
11. Why do evolutionists believe that Aridipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, and Australopithecus bahrelghazali represent pre-afarensis stages of human evolution?
12. What are the flaws in their assessment of the aforementioned apes?
|
