From Piltdown to the Stone Age Ape Man Myth

[mark kennedy]

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What is often called evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor. At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution, the human brain is a prime example. Your brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes. Ok, so the Darwinian likes to retort, that was over a period of 5-7 million years, they accumulate slowly over time. So looking at the fossil record we have skulls from apes dated right around 2 million years ago and guess what, they are about 20% bigger then the modern chimpanzee. Lucy and the Taung Child are both just over 400cc, the average cranial capacity of the modern human is 1,300 and some change. Well that gives the Darwinian at least a million years until our mythical ancestors started their migration out of Africa, no problem right? Except Turkana Boy is the famous fossil found by Richard Leaky, the cranial capacity is nearly 1000 cc and Homo erectus follows very closely. The Homo erectus fossils are often so close to modern humans some creationists consider them to be human ancestors. What we now know from comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA is that the brain related genes would have had to undergo an impossible, massive overhaul including 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes.

Paranthropus aethiopicus skull replica.

But wait, it gets better, Paranthropus is an obvious transitional that has a mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, called the sagittal crest. A distinctive feature prominent in the gorilla skull. Representing a million years, from 3 mya to 2 mya it has been conclusively determined that this is definitely not one of our ancestors and they are the only fossils from that time period. Then for reasons that remain unexplained the Neanderthals appear in the fossil record, usually found in grave sites not just random fossil beds with a cranial capacity 20% larger then our own from Iraq to Spain. From years of reading the scientific literature and careful consideration I think I have the explanation. These fossils represent a migration pattern of humans and apes with no indication of a common ancestor.

The early humans and primates start from modern Turkey and start spanning outward, the primates taking a more southern route, some going into Asia becoming the orangutans while the common ancestor for chimpanzees and gorillas moves into equatorial Africa, Paranthropus being a transitional. The Neanderthals make their way across the Middle East, Turkey and Europe and since they buried their dead, in some places the conditions were right for them to be fossilized. This isn't really all that complicated when you finally get to the bottom of it, they are putting us on and I honestly believe they know it.

If you've ever heard of the Piltdown hoax it is an obvious fraud. Someone finds a human skull in a mass grave site from the time of the Black Plague and puts an orangutan jawbone with it. After a while people are figuring out that jawbone doesn't belong with that skull so it becomes necessary to find another transitional. Louis Leaky was the son of missionaries in Africa and studied at Cambridge. Dart was the guy who found the Taung Child which was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades, with the decline of the Piltdown fraud him and Dart came up with a much more believable contrivance. The Stone Age apeman, otherwise known as Homo habilis (handy man), but there was a problem called the Cerebral Rubicon, they had to be over 600cc to be considered human ancestors (hominids). Leaky writes a famous paper called, 'The Latest New from Oldovia Gorge', and uses every feature to argue around the cranial capacity and presto, the stone age ape man myth was born.

We can kind of dismiss if not abandon probability arguments for the genetic comparisons, they are simply off the charts. I don't believe there is any way of calculating the probability because as we have seen for decades with abiogenesis the likelyhood is vanishingly small. It's all over the scientific literature from the RNA world hypothesis to the genomic comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans, they simply have a presupposed common ancestry with no conceivable cause.

Natural Selection is an effect without a cause and this is readily discernible from their venerated peer reviewed scientific literature. In all pagan mythology, creation does not go back to pagan gods, it goes back to the primordial elementals, earth, air, fire or water and the first cause was thought to be one of those four. Or there is only one alternative, God created Adam and Eve in his image which Genesis 1 emphasizes in absolute terms. The Stone Age apeman myth is so prominent now in secular academics that it's not even questioned, even in our seminaries and it's all based on a thinly veiled fraud designed to appeal to a naturalistic worldview. It's nothing new, pagans did it in the ancient world and secular clerics do it now in formal education.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[archer75]

What is it that the pagans did? I couldn't follow the sense at the very end there.

 

[dysert]

Very interesting, Mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

What is it that the pagans did? I couldn't follow the sense at the very end there.

If you actually get into the pagan mythology the gods were created by pagan elementals, here is an example of how the myth is explained:

In the beginning there was only the goddess Nammu, the Primordial Sea who lived in total darkness until she gave birth to the universe, Anki, who was heaven and earth in one. Anki then made the air god Enlil who split the universe in two, making An, the god of the sky and Ki, who became the goddess of the earth.

Enlil and Ki would go on to have a child together named Enki, who was the god of water and the lord of the whole universe. He took some water from Nammu and created the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, making the soil fertile and rich so that he could introduce animals to the area. Many other gods and goddesses would soon be born and lived in great cities in the land between the two rivers. (Sumerian Creation Myth. World Myth)
​

Notice there are the elements, earth, air, fire and water, fire being absent apparently, that would be introduced through later mythology like the Hindu Shiva fire goddess. This is from the first lines of the Sumerian creation myth:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being. (Enuma Elish)
​

This is not describing gods, but elementals, notice in the last line of the quote the gods have not been called into being.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Very interesting, Mark.

Thank you, I tried to make it concise.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Interesting how the Sumerian creation account resembles the Biblical... using many deities instead of One.

 

[redleghunter]

This is not describing gods, but elementals, notice in the last line of the quote the gods have not been called into being.

Indeed. And what we usually see is the elements making the gods as guardians of the elements and or weilders of the elements.

 

[SilverBear]

There are so many things wrong here it is hard to tell where to start.

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What is often called evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor.

The work of Darwin is important as part of history but his theories have largely been replaced as new discoveries and innovation have come forward. Genetics for example.

At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution,

they are often explainable and rarely large. I recently watched a film about the divergence of a species of mouse lemur from Madagascar into two separate species. The change has taken place in less than 200 years and the changes are significant enough that the two new species of mouse lemur can't interbreed. the changes center mostly around changes in how the two species hear, those by the coast rely lesson hearing and they have lost most of their hearing sensitivity as compared to their "cousins" living inland. The two species can literally no long hear one another.

the human brain is a prime example. Your brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes.

No. Changes in human brain structure are ongoing. In the last 10,000 years human brains have shrunk more than 10%. A good portion of that has come about in the last 1,000 years. there have been no genetic changes but rather our brains have become faster and denser and it does this in response to education. The more we teach a child the tighter packed her neurons become, environmental change not genetic change

 

[mark kennedy]

There are so many things wrong here it is hard to tell where to start.

Doing the requisite background reading would be a good start.

The work of Darwin is important as part of history but his theories have largely been replaced as new discoveries and innovation have come forward. Genetics for example.

You ever heard of the modern synthesis, blending the two has been the goal of neo-darwinians for quite some time. Interesting that you should mention genetics, here is the difference, here is Darwinism:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
​

Here is Genetics:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2001)
​

Darwinism provided an assumption, genetics went on a long march to produce an actual science. Genetics is perfectly compatible with a young earth creation while Darwinism is mutually exclusive, equivocating the two is a gross distortion of what science is and means.

they are often explainable and rarely large. I recently watched a film about the divergence of a species of mouse lemur from Madagascar into two separate species. The change has taken place in less than 200 years and the changes are significant enough that the two new species of mouse lemur can't interbreed. the changes center mostly around changes in how the two species hear, those by the coast rely lesson hearing and they have lost most of their hearing sensitivity as compared to their "cousins" living inland. The two species can literally no long hear one another.

They are rarely explained and even more rarely assigned an actual cause. Here is a prime example:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

In over 300 million years this gene allows only 2 substitutions, then suddenly 2 mya it allows 18. No explanation.

No. Changes in human brain structure are ongoing. In the last 10,000 years human brains have shrunk more than 10%. A good portion of that has come about in the last 1,000 years. there have been no genetic changes but rather our brains have become faster and denser and it does this in response to education. The more we teach a child the tighter packed her neurons become, environmental change not genetic change

Oh baloney! That's simply not how things work on a genomic level and certainly our brains are not becoming increasingly dense. Human divergence is 1/10th of one percent while the divergence between us and other primates is no less the 4%, and that's just the chimpanzee. When it comes to protein products the difference is almost 20% and most of the genes have seen at least 1 single base substitution which is rare at best, impossible on that scale.

 

[mark kennedy]

Interesting how the Sumerian creation account resembles the Biblical... using many deities instead of One.

Those are not deities, those are pagan elementals. The gods had not yet been created.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed. And what we usually see is the elements making the gods as guardians of the elements and or weilders of the elements.

That was the pagan world, and is if the truth be known. There are only two possible first cause explanations, God himself or pagan elementals. I don't make the rules and this is an inescapable fact when you get into discussions of the first cause. It's really what the Origins debate comes down to when you think about it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SilverBear]

Darwinism provided an assumption, genetics went on a long march to produce an actual science. Genetics is perfectly compatible with a young earth creation

I'm sorry, I couldn't read any more past this point, I was laughing to hard.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sorry, I couldn't read any more past this point, I was laughing to hard.

Because you understand neither Darwinism nor Genetics I'll wager. You missed out on some very important information, my sympathies.

 

[SilverBear]

Because you understand neither Darwinism nor Genetics I'll wager. You missed out on some very important information, my sympathies.

. please, stop!

 

[mark kennedy]

. please, stop!

It never ceases to amaze me when the poster has a flurry of unanswered evidence, has done none of the background reading, and convinced of their own superiority. Darwinism must have some mystical way of wrapping around the ego, is the only explanation I can think of.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Those are not deities, those are pagan elementals. The gods had not yet been created.

Semantics... my point is that it was interesting.

 

[mark kennedy]

Semantics... my point is that it was interesting.

It's just something I think is an interesting difference between the pagan mythologies and the testimony of Scripture. Genesis 1 states that God created everything, in pagan mythology the gods were created by pagan elementals. Just pointing out what I think is an obvious distinction.