A recent commenter proposed a long list of human fossil remains that are supposed to support the evolution of humans.  But providing a long list proves only that some data exists.  The question is, does it support the evolution of humans?  My reading of the evidence says "no."  They are either entirely homo sapiens or entirely simian, and any contention that they are otherwise is due to the need to fit them into an evolutionary schema, not based on the fossils themselves.

The links I provide below  show that there is considerable disagreement on these fossils among evolutionists, or that creationists have reason to doubt their evolutionary interpretations.  The fossils are, in and of themselves, not conclusive at all that these creatures were evolutionary ancestors of humans.

There may be interesting evolutionary responses to each bit I have exerpted, and I’m sure they have been discussed in much more detail at sites dedicated to this debate.  However, the point is, throwing a lot of data at people doesn’t mean you have a case.  In fact, when looked at individually, and then collectively, the human fossils hardly supports evolution at all.  To say that the evidence is obviously conclusive is to be deluded and trying to cow others into agreement. 

  • Sahelanthropus tchadensis – "Now a row over this Toumai skull has hit the pages of the prestigious journal Nature that reinforces this skepticism. Senut is joined by fellow evolutionary paleoanthropologists Martin Pickford, Milford Wolpoff and others in arguing strongly that the skull is not on the human line at all (see Wolpoff et al., Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?, Nature 419(6907):581–582, 10 October 2002).  They say it is from an early gorilla or chimp, or a similar now-extinct species. Its short face and small canine teeth, rather than being evidence of ‘humanness’, are likely to be because it is female, a phenomenon called ‘sexual dimorphism’. Amazingly, considering the strong claims made at the time of the initial ‘hype’, Wolpoff says, ‘I don’t see how you can tell what it is, but it is not human’. He points out that the muscle attachment ‘scarring’ on the skull shows ‘quite clearly’ that the creature did not walk upright as humans do—‘it is not human’ he says."
  • Ardipithecus ramidus – "As we reported, a later Nature article admitted it was ‘possible that Australopithecus ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees …"
  • Australopithecus anamensis – "The australopithecine fossil assemblage is equally messy. Tattersall and Schwartz suggest that the taxons Australopithecus africanus (including the Taung skull), Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) and Australopithecus anamensis (fossils recently found by Richard Leakey’s wife, Meave) may each consist of several species."
    Australopithecus afarensi (a.k.a "lucy") – "An evolutionist from the University of Chicago, Richard Tuttle, has said: ‘In discernible features, the Laetoli G prints are indistinguishable from those of habitually barefoot Homo sapiens.’5 However, to conclude that humans made them would be ‘ruled out of order’ by the dating! Dr Tuttle compared them to the footbones of the ‘Hadar hominid’, classed as A. afarensis, and claimed that this would rule out afarensis as the makers of the tracks (he postulated some other ‘derived hominid’).6  Evolutionists generally like to think that Lucy did walk upright, to lend support to the markedly weak case for ‘ape-men’…There has for some time been good evidence that Lucy did not walk upright."
  • Kenyanthropus platyops – "Daniel Lieberman (George Washington University, Washington, DC) in the same issue of Nature.4 writes: ‘The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved’. He goes on to say: ‘I suspect the chief role of K. platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler, highlighting the confusion that confronts research into evolutionary relationships among hominins.’"
  • Australopithecus africanus (the Taung Skull) – "Surveying 100 years of paleoanthropology, Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) observed: ‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes’. Today, many authorities dismiss the Taung Skull as simply that of a young ape, which shares interesting, but irrelevant, features with man."

More to come.  Needless to say, this list of fossils is interesting, but hardly conclusive regarding evolution.  I’d hate to have my world view resting on this kind of evidence.