Books

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution

By Brett A. Rutherford

Lesson Eight

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record of "Homo Erectus"

According to paleoanthropologists, the descendant of "Homo habilis" is a chap dubiously named "Homo erectus." It has already been brought to the reader's attention that "homo" means "man." The Latin word "erectus" is a reference to upright posture. Therefore, the evolutionists who dubbed these finds "Homo erectus" are essentially calling these remains an upright walking man. A bold statement indeed in light of the facts presented in this chapter!

One significant difference between this "stage of human development" and "prior stages" is the incredible size of this creature. Some specimens of "Homo erectus" would have stood well over six feet tall. This gigantic creature brings to mind images of Bigfoot and the Yetti. The considerable size difference between "Homo erectus" and "Homo habilis" is just one of many obstacles with which evolutionists have to contend.

Who initially discovered "Homo erectus"? How did this big ape come to be placed by the paleoanthropologists into humanity's evolutionary line of descent? What do evolutionists use as justification for calling "erectus" a human ancestor? Are there flaws in their analysis of the fossil remains of this gigantic ape? Each one of these questions will be discussed in this chapter.

Who discovered "Homo erectus"?

The two men who formulated the modern notion of human evolution, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, differed in many areas of their respective theories. One disagreement centered on the location of man's origin. Darwin had proposed in The Origin of Species that man first developed in Africa. On the other hand, Wallace suggested in an 1855 paper that Southeast Asia was the place of the "earliest appearance of the great man-like ape."⁷³ It was Wallace's argument that convinced a young Dutch doctor, Eugene Dubois, to give up his practice, join the military, and request a post in Sumatra in the Dutch East Indies. However, Dubois' dream of finding an "ape man" fossil in Sumatra was not realized. He was discouraged by his lack of success, and for a time gave up any hope of uncovering a "missing link." However, his passion for fossil hunting was renewed in 1890 when he received a transfer to Java. Here, along the Solo River, he resumed his search for "early man." Dubois randomly chose a spot along the river and dug a trench into the bank. His first attempt uncovered a primate molar. Further attempts revealed the top of an ape-like cranium (head) and a femur (thigh bone). Dubois named his find "Pithecanthropus erectus" (ape-man).⁷⁴ This find is commonly known today as "Java Man."

Sadly, when one who has a tender conscience weaves a web of deceit, eventually it comes back to haunt him. This was the case with Eugene Dubois. Dubois was a doctor and a knowledgeable anatomist. He knew that what he had uncovered along the Solo River was no more human than a gorilla or an orangutan. Eventually, he admitted that he had not found a missing link. The Solo River remains, he said, were nothing more than a giant gibbon.⁷⁵ He was so embarrassed by his hoax that he went back to his home in Harlaam and buried the bones of "Pithecanthropus erectus" under the floor boards of his dining room. For years he refused to allow anyone to view the remains until he succumbed to the pressure of a very persuasive German anatomist, G.H.R. von Koenigswald.

Eugene Dubois' public confession that his discovery was nothing more than a giant gibbon undermined the work and conclusions of von Koenigswald. Von Koenigswald had also uncovered "Homo erectus" remains near Sangiran, Java.⁷⁶ However, he was claiming that the Java fossils were an important link in human evolution. How could he silence the claims of Dubois that were so detrimental to his conclusions and his reputation? The only way to counteract Dubois' claims would be for von Koenigswald to convince Dubois to allow the Solo River fossils to be reevaluated. Of course, von Koenigswald would conduct the reevaluation himself. Foolishly, Dubois gave in to the persistent German. Von Koenigswald examined Dubois' fossils and, of course, proclaimed to the scientific community that Dubois had been right in first assuming that "Java Man" was an important evolutionary link. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is not uncommon in the history of the development of evolutionary theory. Reputations are often more important to paleoanthropologists than the facts!

Since Dubois' discovery in 1891, "Homo erectus" sites have been discovered in many other parts of Asia, Africa and even Europe. According to the evolutionists, the most important discoveries were in Zhoukoudien, China, former Soviet Georgia, and Nariokotome, Kenya.

In the nineteen twenties and thirties, Davidson Black excavated an area not far from Beijing, China. The area was known to the locals as "Zhoukoudien" which means "dragon bone hill." Zhoukoudien received its name from the extensive fossilized bone deposits in the region. Most of the remains at this location belong to ancient pigs. However, among the pigs "Homo erectus" remains were unearthed. Black named his discovery "Peking Man." During the Second World War, these fossils went missing. Up to this day what became of them is still a mystery.

The paleoanthropologists claim that Zhoukoudien is no typical "Homo erectus" site. In a nearby cave, there are four dark layers of sediment which the evolutionists believe to be evidence of a "Homo erectus" hearth.⁷⁷ In other words, they believe that "Homo erectus" learned how to master fire. They say fire mastery indicates an intelligence beyond that of the average ape, and demands a more complex society.

The "Homo erectus" site in the former Soviet Georgia is important, say the paleoanthropologists, because alongside the mandible of an erectus, two saber tooth cat skulls were discovered. According to the evolutionist's warped view of natural history, the fossilized saber tooth skulls are associated with levels that date back 1.6 million years. Therefore, if the "Homo erectus" mandible was found with these extinct cats, it is also possibly as old as 1.6 million years. If these assumptions are accurate, than this site is the oldest known "Erectus" site to date.⁷⁸ Of course, the dating methods of paleoanthropologists are completely unreliable.

A word about the aforementioned "Homo erectus" sites will thrill any paleoanthropologist. But mention the fossils found at Nariokotome, Kenya and the paleoanthropologist will be beside himself with excitement. "Homo erectus" fossils were discovered there in 1984. Paleoanthropologists Richard Leakey and Alan Walker were leading their team in a search of fossils along the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya when they discovered a nearly complete skeleton of a "Homo erectus" boy.⁷⁹ Only the left arm, the right forearm, and most of both feet are missing. The specimen was unusually tall for a child who appeared in every way to be only about twelve when fossilized. He was well over five feet tall. This discovery surprised the evolutionists for they expected descendants of "Homo habilis" to be only slightly larger than their predecessor. However, this young "Homo erectus" dwarfed his supposed evolutionary forbearers.

Where are the transitional figures?

The last paragraph alluded to a problem that the evolutionists had to face upon the discovery of the Nariokotome fossils. The first difficulty relates to the enormous size of these and other "Homo erectus" fossils. Alan Walker summed up the shock of his colleagues at the height of the young creature when he said, "Arbitrarily, without any proof, it had been thought that the erectus were not tall."⁸⁰ In other words, the initial thrill of the find was marred by this evidence that seemed to undermine some of their previously held notions about human evolution. "Homo erectus" did not fit perfectly into the evolutionary model. He was simply too tall. There was an enormous gap in the fossil record that should have revealed gradual increases in height between the "Homo habilis" remains and the fossils of "Homo erectus." These transitional figures have not been found. This is a difficult reality for paleoanthropologists to face. Remember the words of Louis Leakey,

Instead of the popular conception of scientists being engaged in the search for ‘missing links' the truth is that whole lengths of the chain are still missing, and often when we do discover one of the many missing links we find it hard to decide just whereabouts in the chain it properly belongs.⁸¹

In a weak attempt to cover up the apparent lack of evidence in the fossil record for human morphology, some paleoanthropologists have been forced to support the theory of "punctuated equilibrium." One has probably already ascertained that the evolutionists use a number of fancy terms to explain different aspects of their theory. Long, unclear terms are mirrors and smoke screens used to cover up weaknesses in their arguments. The theory of "punctuated equilibrium" is no different.

Those who hold to the "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution state that sudden changes in the environment led to sudden changes in the physical makeup of "human ancestors."⁸² In other words, one "evolutionary link" transformed into the next "known link" within a matter of a few generations instead of the hundreds of thousands of years of gradual transformation that the traditional theory of evolution proposes. If "punctuated equilibrium" was true than there would be no transitional figures to be found in the fossil record because the mutation from one "link" to the next "link" would have occurred relatively overnight.

Of course, there are many aspects of this theory that are ridiculous. In the first place, if change occurred suddenly, how did one generation of creatures ("Homo habilis") with small birth canals give birth to the next so called link with larger brains ("Homo erectus" and Neanderthals)? Donald Johanson realized this difficulty in his book Ancestors when he wrote,

similarly, projecting backward, his [Homo erectus] brain at birth would have been too big to fit through his mother's narrow birth canal if the erectus species had followed the apelike pattern of brain growth shown among the australopthecines.⁸³

In the second place, "punctuated equilibrium" has never successfully been replicated in recorded history. It remains a fanciful myth. To be fair, the majority of paleoanthropologists no longer accept the "punctuated equilibrium" model as a viable option. However, they must still recognize that in order for evolution to be validated there must be found more transitional figures! Without that evidence, evolution remains a theory not a fact.

Was "Homo erectus" a mute?

Recently, Ann MacLarnon, an expert in primate spinal anatomy at the prestigious Roehampton Institute in London, examined the spine of the Nariokotome "Homo erectus." Her conclusions astounded and dumbfounded the evolutionists. She discovered that the spinal cord of "Homo erectus" only appeared to be human when it was observed by the naked eye. In fact, MacLarnon showed that the spine was only half the width of the spine of a modern human.⁸⁴ Donald Johanson admits "in this feature ‘Homo erectus' shows much more similarity to all other primates, ...than it does to Homo sapiens."⁸⁵

Ann MacLarnon's examination also revealed that the interior of the thoracic region of the spine has much less gray matter than that found in humans. What is the implication of this lack of gray matter? First of all, one must understand that the gray matter in the spinal cord holds the nerve cell bodies which receive messages from the brain and in turn transmit those messages to various parts of the body. In other words, the brain uses the nerve cells in the spine to control various bodily functions. If there are less nerve cells (gray matter) in the spine, then the body is capable of fewer functions.⁸⁶ Based on this overwhelming evidence, it can be determined that the "Homo erectus" lacked certain body functions that human beings enjoy. "Homo erectus" simply did not have the muscle control of a human being.

The next question that must be asked is "What essential human functions did the "Erectus" lack? MacLarnon decided to answer this question by finding out where nerves from the thoracic lead. She discovered that they led to a series of muscles between the ribs (the intercostals) and to some abdominal muscles. From these facts, she reasoned that human beings had more muscle control in their abdomen and ribs than did "Homo erectus." What does that imply? MacLarnon believes that it implies either one of two things (or both). In the first place, the extra nerve activity of humans make it possible for them to hold their trunks upright. In other words, "Erectus" was not quite so erect. In the second place, MacLarnon determined that the nerve cells that the "Homo erectus" lacked control breathing necessary for one to form words. From this evidence one has to conclude that "Homo erectus" did not have a spoken language.

So what! "Homo erectus" could not form words! Why is this fact so important? In the first place, it proves that evolutionists "jumped the gun" when they claimed that "Homo erectus'" predecessor, "Homo habilis" could speak. If "Homo habilis" had the physical ability to speak and "Homo erectus" did not, then evolution (if true) is regressive, not progressive. In other words, instead of evolution producing more and more complex and intelligent creatures through time, it is developing less and less capable primitive animals. That is certainly contrary to the commonly held notions about evolution. Quite obviously, the evolutionists and the creationists would agree that neither "Homo habilis" nor "Homo erectus" could have developed a spoken language. In the words of archaeologist Alan Walker, "Paleo-anthropologists who argue for an early origin for human language and speech are standing on ground that is steadily crumbling away."⁸⁸ Therefore, evolutionists once more have to admit they drew rash conclusions about "Homo habilis" and "Homo erectus" before all of the facts were known. As noted earlier, this need to reach unfounded conclusions is an all too common character trait among those in their profession. In the second place, the fact that "Homo erectus" could not have developed a spoken language is just another proof that he was not a relative of modern man, but simply an ape.

Did "Homo erectus" master the use of fire?

The belief among evolutionists that "Homo erectus" developed fire primarily comes from heat affected artifacts from three sites. The first "evidence" comes from Davidson Black's site at Zhoukoudien near Beijing, China. The second comes from an area known as Koobi Fora in Kenya. The third is another Kenyan site at Chesowanja.

As you recall, when Davidson Black excavated the cave floor at Zhoukoudien, he discovered several layers of dark soil which he believed represented an ancient "Homo erectus" hearth. But, as archaeologists Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth point out in their book Making Silent Stones Speak, that discoloration in soil is not necessarily the result of fire. They confess that if the discoloration in soil does represent fire, it may simply have been a naturally occurring blaze. In other words, the fire at the site could have easily been the result of a lightening strike or brush fire.⁸⁹ To propose that "Homo erectus" mastered fire at Zhou-koudien would be to assume more than the facts allow.

What about the Kenyan sites at Koobi Fora and Chesowanja? Is there solid evidence at those locations to support the notion that "Homo erectus" mastered fire? Reddened and baked patches of sediment along with heat-altered artifacts have led some to believe they have found irrefutable evidence of fire mastery among the "Homo erectus" at Koobi Fora. However, there is no proof to suggest these fires were anything but naturally occurring brush fires. At Chesowanja, the baked patches in this area are not even in the same archaeological context of "Homo erectus" remains. The fossils were unearthed quite some distance from the baked soil.⁹⁰ Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth admit: "We do not yet have conclusive evidence that early hominids were directly involved with either the production of fire or its use."⁹¹ Once again, one finds evolutionists are grasping at straws.

What about the "Homo erectus" tool kit?

According to paleoanthropologists, the appearance of a number of rather large, crude, stone "hand axes" at "Homo erectus" sites is undeniable proof that "Homo erectus" was more than an ape. However, evolutionists have overlooked the fundamental question, "Does tool technology necessarily equal humanity?"

In the first place, the last chapter introduced the reader to several modern apes who were capable of not only using stone tools, but also creating them. Other animals, such as the California sea otter, and a Galapagos finch, use tools in foraging for food. In fact, the California sea otter uses stone implements to crack open shell fish. If tool technology equals humanity, then logically, modern chimpanzees, orangutans, Galapagos finches and California sea otters are all human. Of course, that conclusion is utter nonsense because the premise of the argument is faulty. However, if the paleoanthropologists believe that "Homo erectus" was an archaic human because he used tools, then he would have to logically conclude that chimpanzees, orangutans, sea otters and finches are also human. Obviously, tool use does not equal humanity!

In the second place, with the possible exception of indistinguishable "choppers," the "Homo erectus" or Acheulian toolkit consisted of primarily one tool. That tool, the "hand axe," was never improved upon. In other words, the technology of the "Homo erectus" never developed. Anyone who has studied the history of mankind understands that human technology develops at a dizzying rate. The computer upon which this book is written is four years old. In the present day, hand-held calculators have more memory than this computer. The point is that the ability to improve technology is a uniquely human trait. According to the paleoanthropologists, the "Homo erectus" had one million years to figure out new ways to improve his stone tool and he never did. As evolutionist Donald Johanson wrote:

A million years is a very long time to go with no sign of technological innovation or cultural evolution. Needless to say, it is a pattern that contrasts starkly with the archaeological record for modern humans especially within the past 40,000 years.⁹²

Though Johanson's dates are a little confused, the point he makes is very clear. Human technology changes. "Homo erectus" technology never changed. What does that say about "Homo erectus"? He lacks a very important human cultural trait.

The "Homo erectus" "hand axe" is nothing more than a flaked teardrop shaped piece of stone about the size of the palm of the hand. It does not seem to have any real practical use that the archaeologists can determine.⁹³ Furthermore, paleoanthropologists do not have conclusive evidence to prove that Acheulian tools found near "Homo erectus" sites actually belonged to these creatures.

Was "Homo erectus" anatomically a human?

The earlier discussion in this chapter on the makeup of the spine of "Homo erectus" has already shown many distinct differences between the backbone of a human and that of a "Homo erectus." However, the differences between humans and "Homo erectus" do not stop with the spine. "Erectus" has a "long-necked" femur which sets it apart from the relatively "short-necked" femur in human beings. In fact, Donald Johanson states that the exceptionally "long-necked" femur of "Homo erectus" is, "a primitive feature also found in australopithecines."⁹⁴ Johanson goes on to say that the "long necked" femur of "Homo erectus" combined with his much narrower than human hips made "Erectus" a more efficient runner than a modern human being.⁹⁵ If it is true that modern man evolved from "Homo erectus," who was physically a better athlete, then one has to conclude that evolution is often regressive and not progressive. If Donald Johanson is right, then human beings are in many ways inferior to "Homo erectus." This is just one example among many which demonstrate the contradictory elements in evolutionary theory. The rib cage of the species also shows the conical shape that is often found in apes, but never in Homo sapiens.⁹⁶

Perhaps the greatest anatomical difference between the "Homo erectus" and a human being is the size of their heads. The average size of the head of an adult "Erectus" was about 900 cc. That is about the size of the brain of a four year old human. The average cranial capacity of an adult Homo sapiens is 1400 cc. As archaeologist Alan Walker points out, "‘Homo erectus' didn't have a lot of brain."⁹⁷ In fact, his head and brain mass more closely resemble a modern ape than a modern human. One would have to conclude that "Homo erectus" is anatomically an ape.

Conclusion

Is "Homo erectus" a human ancestor? Certainly the evidence is stacked against his being such. He was physically unable to develop a spoken language. His anatomy is apelike, and he did not share the human quality of a changing technology. Additionally, if "erectus" were the immediate predecessor to archaic Homo sapiens, he lacked some surprisingly essential qualities that this transitional stage should have obtained. There is an enormous gap between the physical makeup and the intellectual capabilities of "Homo erectus" and "archaic Homo sapiens." In order for the evolutionist's argument to be more convincing, a transitional figure must be found in the fossil record that more closely resembles Homo sapiens. Until that kind of evidence is produced, one must conclude, as Eugene Dubois did, that "Homo erectus" is nothing more than a "giant gibbon."

Because evolutionists recognize their theory is extremely weak without these transitional figures, they have recently made a desperate attempt to bridge the gap between "Homo erectus" and "archaic Homo sapiens" by employing the same deception used to squeeze five "distinct" "links" from Australopithecus remains. Many are now trying to make it appear as if the "Homo erectus" fossils do not represent one "link" in the chain, but a number of different stages of human morphology. Some evolutionists believe there are primarily three distinct evolutionary stages among the fossil group previously known as "Homo erectus." Some paleoanthropologists even dismiss "Homo erectus" as an evolutionary dead end. Instead, they claim that modern man evolved from fossil groups known as "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo antecessor."⁹⁸ However, this latter view is even controversial among paleoanthropologists. As the reader may have already noticed, evolutionists are consistent only in the one area when it comes to the so called "human evolutionary line of descent." They will always agree to disagree.

Review Questions

1. Who was it that suggested that Southeast Asia was the place of the "earliest appearance of the great man-like apes" ?

2. Who first discovered the remains of "Homo erectus"?

3. Where was the first discovery of "Homo erectus" made?

4. What name did Eugene Dubois give his discovery?

5. How would one translate "Pithecanthropus erectus"?

6. Eugene Dubois' "Pithecanthropus erectus" is more commonly known as...

7. Why did Dubois hide the remains of "Java Man" under the floorboards of his dining room?

8. According to evolutionists, why is the "Homo erectus" site at Zhoukoudien significant?

9. Is blackened soil always the result of fire?

10. If fire occurred near "Homo erectus" remains, does that necessarily indicate that the "Homo erectus" mastered the use of fire?

11. What problems are evolutionists presented with because of the enormous size of "Homo erectus"?

12. What theory states that sudden changes in the environment led to sudden changes in the physical makeup of supposed "human ancestors" ?

13. What are the problems with the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

14. What two things can be determined from the study of the spine of the Nariokotome "Homo erectus"?

15. Why are the tools of "Homo erectus" insufficient evidence to prove that he was more than an ape?

16. What aspects of "Homo erectus" anatomy prove that he was nothing more than an ape?