Menu Close

Fossil evidence sends human evolution theory into tailspin5 min read

Listen to this article

homoerectus_mleakeyCreationists have long contended that not only did humans NOT evolve from apes or chimps, but that fossils exist which severely challenge the evolutionary timeline.  For example, if a modern human bone was found to be old enough to have appeared near the beginning of the proposed evolutionary timeline, this would mean that modern humans have always existed, and evolution is false.

Today in the news (Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory), we see a recent human fossil find that challenges the evolutionary timeline.  But will evolutionists recant of their faith?  Not so easily.

Meave Leakey, of the infamous Leakey family of paleontologists who discovered the controversial human remains of “Lucy” (now thought to be entirely simian and not human at all), is publishing his “surprising” findings in Nature.

This is not really NEW news, since this information was first unearthed in 2000, but the recent publication of the information in Nature means that scientists are now ready to admit that they have been wrong. Hopefully, such regular surprises by reality will shake them out of their mass delusion that evolution is the answer to the question of origins.

Notice how scientists are missing the bigger question, still trying to modify their broken model:

Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

So what is this surprising evidence?

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man’s early evolution – that one of those species evolved from the other.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey’s find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday’s
journal Nature.


It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother
were sisters rather than mother-daughter,
said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

“The more we know, the more complex the story gets,” he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Of course, evolutionists know that creationists will jump on this, and are already preparing their meager arguments about how “this is how science works,” still unable to discard their broken model.

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory. “This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continous self-testing process.”

But the real problem is that evolutionary scientists have tried so hard to support their pet theory that they have been making mistakes all along, yet refuse to admit that it is their presupposition of evolution which is causing them to perform poor science, such as the bogus claims of vestigial organs and junk DNA.  See how unaware they are of this:

Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Hadn’t looked carefully enough really means “were blinded by their evolutionary assumptions.”

We can expect that the more data we get, the more “surprises” evolutionists will find, because their lousy model is piss-poor at predicting much of anything, and the more “complex” (read “convoluted”) their theory will have to become in order to make it accommodate reality.  At some point, perhaps they will realize their theory is hopeless complex, entirely non-useful, and most probably not accurate at all.

But people don’t give up their faith so easily.  It will be a long hard road of disillusionment before their self-deception gives way to the clarity of this truth – that God created life from nothing, as the scriptures say.