Homo erectus Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?
... de Atapuerca) has yielded a number of Neanderthal finds. He ... All fossil specimens of Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens (including Neanderthals), …
Homo erectus Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?



 \| Answers in Genesis


Internet Explorer is no longer supported. Try downloading another browser like [Chrome](https://www.google.com/chrome/) or [Firefox](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/).

## [Answers in Genesis Home](/en/ "Answers in Genesis Home")

- [Cart](/store/cart/)
- [Account](/account/login/)
- ![United States](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/flags/us.svg)United States / English

If you already have an account, [Sign in.](/account/login/)

[View Cart](/store/cart/)

![United States](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/flags/us.svg)United States / English

- [Answers](/answers/ "")
- [Store](/store/ "Store")
- [Events](/outreach/ "")
- [Media](/media/ "")
- [Kids](/kids/ "")
- [Education](/education/ "")
- [Donate](/donate/ "")

![Homo erectus to Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/cms/content/contentnode/header_image/ape-man.jpg)

- [_Answers in Genesis_](/)
- [Answers](/answers/)
- [Evolution](/evolution/)
- [Human Evolution](/human-evolution/)
- [Ape-Man](/human-evolution/ape-man/)
- [_Homo erectus_ to Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?](/human-evolution/ape-man/homo-erectus-to-modern-man-evolution-or-human-variability/)

# _Homo erectus_ to Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability?

by
[Bill Mehlert](/bios/bill-mehlert/)

Share

Originally published in Journal of Creation 8, no 1 (April 1994): 105-116.

## Abstract

An interesting change is taking place in creationist circles
in respect of the status of the taxon Homo erectus and its relationship
to Homo sapiens sapiens. This development is paralleled by a
similar change of direction in evolutionary thinking, and in both cases it
seems likely that the impetus is being largely propelled by the discovery
of the erectus specimen KNM - WT 15000 in Africa in 1984. This attitudinal
shift has connotations for the whole topic of alleged evolution of human beings.
In this brief paper it is proposed to track these amended attitudes and the
implications for the creation-evolution controversy.

## Introduction

With the discovery of Java and Peking Homo erectus fossils (the former was
previously called _Pithecanthropus erectus_, and Peking Man was originally
named _Sinanthropus pekinensis_), in 1891-1893 and 1927-1937 respectively,
evolutionary theory received a considerable and much-needed boost. Until Dubois”
Java discoveries, the only alleged link between man and the apes had been
a few Neanderthal specimens. The Piltdown hoax of 1912- 1914 was not uncovered
until 1953, by which time it had played a considerable part in the early skepticism
by most authorities toward the Taung-child australopithecine discovery in
South Africa in 1924.

With the appearance of the Javan and Peking fossils it seemed that evolutionary
theory had been vindicated to a sizeable degree, and _Pithecanthropus_
(ape-man) became a common term in public as well as in palaeoanthropological
circles.

> The australopithecines came into favour as a transitional form linking an ape-like common-ancestor to human beings.

After the Piltdown fraud was exposed, the australopithecines came into favour
as a transitional form linking an ape-like common-ancestor to human beings,
and this link was further strengthened by later finds of both erectus and
australopithecine fossils, mainly in East and South. Africa. By the early
1970s, more finds including australopithecus-like material classified as _Homo_
_habilis_, made it appear that there was now a fairly substantial chain
of progressive evolution from a bipedal chimp-like ancestor right through
to modern man - _A. afarensis, H. habilis, H. erectus_, archaic _H._
_sapiens_, Neanderthal man and finally Cro-Magnon or modern man. With the
rise of the post-World War II creationist movement, largely sparked by the
epic work of Whitcomb and Morris in 1961,1 one of the most urgent
tasks involved was how to respond to this apparent chain of evolutionary progression.
In the intervening years since then, [creation](/creation/)-oriented scientists have made
a number of attacks on the validity of most of these forms, some of them being
of high technical quality, others a little less well-informed.

The central feature of this paper mostly involves the so-called _erectus_
section of the chain, where a quite noticeable change of direction is well
underway, both in the creationist and the evolutionist camps. Far from dismissing
_erectus_ forms as being only large extinct apes or frauds, the pendulum
is now swinging to the view that most, if not all _erectus_ specimens
are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana
“Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position
that _Homo erectus_ was only a large-brained pongid.

In evolutionary circles it is becoming increasingly common to argue that
although _H. erectus_ forms are still on the “road” from ape to human,
the morphological distinctions between all human-type forms are insufficient
to justify a separate species classification for _erectus_ \- that is,
that _all_ post-habiline forms ( _erectus_, archaic and modern _sapiens_
plus the Neanderthals), could be subsumed into a single species - _H. sapiens_,
with a subspecific distinction at most.

(The times and ages mentioned here are those commonly used in evolutionary
scientific literature and are used for ease of identification only. I do not
accept an earth history of millions of years.

## Australopithecines and Habilines

In a recent paper I argued at length that neither of these forms are human
ancestors but are simply extinct varieties of extremely chimp-like pongids,2
and much the same view is taken by Gish,3 by Lubenow,4
and by Beasley,5 although Lubenow regards _Homo habilis_ as
an invalid taxon, being represented by a mixture of _Homo sapien_ fossils
and ape-like fossils.6 A strong creationist case exists in respect
of the australopithecines and the so-called habilines, and the weight of evidence
now seems to point away from any connection with humans and towards the strong
likelihood that they were nothing more than extinct apes. Indeed evolution
authorities Cherfas and Gribbin believe that a strong case can be made that
the gracile forms are little more than varieties of extinct pygmy chimpanzees,
while the robust forms are varieties of gorillas.7

![Skull profile of Peking man](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure01.GIF)

**Figure 1**. Skull profile
of Peking man. Note the brow ridges, sloping forehead, and prognathus
face. These features are also in evidence in Neanderthal, archaic Homo
sapiens and in some modern skulls such as Kow Swamp. (See also Figure
5.)

## _Homo Erectus_ -Man, Ape, or Ape-man?

The Javan and Peking forms of _erectus_ in particular came under considerable
attack by creationists in the 1970s and 1980s.8-10 The thrust of
these critiques was that all _erectus_ forms were extremely ape-like
and even possibly fraudulent. A great deal was made of the fact that almost
every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing
to work on but casts (see Figure 1).11 Java Man was also regarded
as suspect, on account of its discoverer Dubois having allegedly hidden two
fully human Javan skulls for many years in order to strengthen his claims
for the “ _Pithecanthropus_” or _erectus_ specimen known as Java
Man (see Figure 2).12 These so-called Wadjak skulls are variously
reported as from nearby river gravels or from cave deposits many kilometres
away. In any case, evolutionist Loring Brace claims that Dubois _did_
make some preliminary reports about these skulls.13 Further doubt
was raised because the fully modern femur of Dubois” Java Man was found in
the following year 15 metres away from where the skull cap was located.14
Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that “ _Curiously, Dubois waited until the_
_1920s to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area_
_where his_ Pithecanthropus _material had been discovered_.” (Emphasis
added.)15

(Actually the Wadjak skulls were discovered in river gravels nearby, but
their age has always been a matter of some dispute.)

![Skull-cap profile of Java Man](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure02.GIF)

**Figure 2**. Skull-cap
profile of Java Man found by DuBois in 1891 - 1893. Note the general similarity
to Peking Man of Figure 1.

**The Turkana ‘Boy’, KHM-WT 15000**

However, with the Leakey/Walker 1984 find of the above specimen, it became
clear that there was more to _Homo erectus_ than Java and Peking Man.
WT 15000 consists of almost a complete skeleton (see Figure 3).16
Only the hands and feet are missing.

![Skeleton of Turkana Boy](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure03.GIF)

**Figure 3**. Skeleton of the Turkana “Boy” - WT 15000,
a _Homo erectus_ specimen dating from 1.6 mya. This skeleton is fully
human with only very minor differences from some modern humans.

The resemblances between WT 15000 and the two controversial Asian _erectus_
forms are clear and decisive. The Turkana Boy possessed the same heavy supraorbital
ridges, the same type of receding forehead, and other cranial features as
Java and Peking. With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and
a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly
a human being - even in the post-cranial features. Radiodated at about 1.6
mya (million years ago), this lad stood and walked as fully erect as do humans
today.17,18 Although the brain capacity is rather small, it is
still larger than some juvenile and adult humans of today.

As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely
that the adult ECV of WT 15000 would be no more than about 1000-1050cc, which
is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc.19
On the same page Jue points out that a brain capacity of 1400cc applies to
the Vertesszöllos _erectus_ specimen which is dated at around 350kya
(kiloyears ago = thousands of years ). Beasley cites Broderick who reported
a measurement as low as 830cc for a modern Wedda pygmy in Sri Lanka.20

At a height of five feet four inches or 1.6 metres, it is likely that WT
15000 was getting close to full adult height at the time of his death - this
could have been anywhere between five feet five inches to maybe six feet;
there is no possible way to establish final height with certainty, although
a figure closer to six feet is more probable. In my high school days, I had
a friend of age 15 who was short - around five feet two inches, yet by age
19 he had mushroomed to six feet. At the same age, another of my school friends
was about five feet five inches yet in adulthood he had gained only another
two inches. One cannot always successfully extrapolate in these matters. In
all vital respects WT 15000 was as human as you or I.

Another interesting _erectus_ specimen is skull KNM- ER 3733 dating
from about 1.7 mya. It also possesses, along with other “ancient” _erectus_
forms, much the same type of cranial morphology as did Java, Peking and WT
15000, and has an ECV of approximately 850 - 900cc.21,22 (See Figure
4.)23 ER 3733’s cranium is dolichocephalic, a feature also found
in many Neanderthals, and it is thick, as are most _erectus_ and Neanderthal
specimens. The four _erectus_ specimens so far mentioned are the main
subject of this paper. According to Lubenow, the entire ECV range of known
_erectus_ forms runs from 700cc for a Javan infant to 1200cc - the largest
Peking skull.24 However, the capacity of the previously-mentioned
Vertesszöllos fragment from Hungary and dated at about 350,000ya, is
estimated at about 1400cc, which is high for an _erectus_ specimen.25

![Skull profile of erectus](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure04.GIF)

**Figure 4**. Skull profile of _erectus_ specimen KNM-ER
3733\. This fossil human is of similar geological age to WT 15000.

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce
the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all
four (where skeletal and cranial material is available), render untenable
any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally
large apes. Further, their affinities with both archaic sapiens and Neanderthal
sapiens are so strong that it can hardly be denied that all are closely related
human beings.

The question of course is - are _erectus_ forms proof of an evolutionary
progression from the apes, or are they simply temporal, regional, climatic,
dietary or pathological variants of human beings?

## Discussion

Naturally, one of the most important questions is that of time. If the standard
geological time-scale is correct, then the very slight changes in erectus
morphology over a period of 1.3 million years of existence may carry a little
more weight. Yet we must also remember that this type had displayed a remarkable
degree of structural stasis over the whole period from c.1.7mya to about 350kya.
The morphology of the earliest specimens such as WT 15000 differs insignificantly
from the much later specimens such as the Peking and Javan examples, the only
significant difference being restricted to the endocranial volume. At full
adulthood, the Turkana Boy would have possessed a capacity of about 1000-1050cc,
compared to later Chinese examples which were as high as 1200cc.26

According to Molnar, the modern human range runs from about 700cc to 2200cc,27
and this puts _every adult erectus specimen_ comfortably into
the range of modern humans, and this range also covers every adult example
of archaic _sapiens_, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man.

Writing in 1985, Pellegrino conceded that the differences between H. erectus
and modern man are merely superficial.28 On the same page he even
discusses the probability that _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ are
_one and the same species_.

Now obviously if the distinctions between _erectus_ and modern humans
are merely superficial as Pellegrino admitted, then the differences between
the earliest and the latest _erectus_ specimens, and between _erectus_
and archaic and Neanderthal sapiens are _even more superficial_; that
is, there is a great probability that all _erectus_, Neanderthal and
_H. sapiens_ are closely related, with genetic, dietary, climatic, and
other environmental diversity in evidence.

As Beasley29 and Lubenow30 have recently published
excellent papers on the question of the archaic _H. sapiens_, it is not
my intention to go into that question in any great detail.

There are literally thousands of hominid fossils in existence and of these,
over 300 are classified as either Neanderthal or _erectus_.31
We have a large enough sample to be certain about the accuracy of the diagnostic
features of all groups. Admittedly taxonomic names count for less than the
actual morphological structures of the various human races, past and present;
but from an evolutionary viewpoint the small degree of change in _erectus_
populations over an alleged period of one and a quarter million years must
be disappointing, especially if the cranial capacities of the earliest and
latest examples all lie within the modern range of humans. Pellegrino wrote
in 1985- “ _(Between the first and the last_ erectus _specimens), there_
_are no major morphological excursions; merely a thicker brow ridge_
_here, a subtle variation of tooth structure there, and not much else. It looks_
_as if a substantial stretch of human evolution was characterized not by change,_
_but by stasis._” (Emphasis added.)32

In actual fact, there are some examples of erectus which display quite a
large ECV, such as Vertesszöllos.33 To make matters even more
interesting, there are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit
clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and
New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal
remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all
possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic
faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.

These skulls are dated from less than 15,000 years to around 35,000 years
BP.34 Attwood and Edwards found it - “ _… a conundrum_”
that the Kow Swamp people with their more- _erectus_ features lived later
than the Lake Mungo people of New South Wales which were more “modern” in
appearance, and which date from around 35,000 BP.35 (See Figure
5.)36

![Outline of Kow Swamp skull](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure05.GIF)

**Figure 5**. Outline of a Kow Swamp skull dating from very
recent time - less than 15,000 years ago. The affinities with very early
_erectus_ specimens are obvious - only in brain capacity is there
any significant distinction.

Evolutionists Groves and Thorne have had a heated argument about the Kow
Swamp puzzle,37 but neither seems to come up with a real answer
as to how an _erectus_ form persisted so late in time, and according
to Chris Stringer, the presence of erectus forms in Australia - _“…_
_is especially perplexing, because it seems to contradict the global trend_
_toward a more gracile skull_“.38 This therefore contradicts
the standard paradigm because very “modern” human fossils are well known back
to and beyond c.100,000 BP.39 The Australian Cossack skull, mandible
and limb fragments which are dated at only 13,000 years or less, is another
example of a _sapiens/erectus_ of modern day. The widely distributed
Australian fossils include an extremely robust individual, Willandra Lakes
hominid 50, which is so “primitive” that Thorne says, “ _… this skull_
_is so robust it makes the Kow Swamp ones look gracile!_“40 On
the same page Flood acknowledges that all of these robust or “primitive” people
are definitely _Homo sapiens_, despite their possession of so many archaic
features. (See also Lubenow.41)

How do evolutionist authorities reconcile the presence in Australia of both
modern sapiens types and _erectus_ types all within the last 35,000 years?
One explanation given is that the _erectus_ fossils are only late-surviving
relicts of _H. erectus_, but this seems very doubtful seeing that _erectus_
elsewhere in the world is supposed to have died out around 300kya. That is
a long time in which no change was evident except for the larger brain size
of Kow Swamp and Cossack. Rhys-Jones believes that this “ _… extraordinary_
_situation_” is due to Kow Swamp people being a - _“… relict group_
_of the original occupants of Australia …_“41 Thorne believes
the two distinct Australian groups (’modern” Mungo and “primitive” Kow Swamp)
had separate ancestries -one from Java and the other from ancient China.43

Whatever explanation is offered, the stubborn fact remains that these _erectus_
traits have persisted so long, which seems to conflict with the alleged global
tendency to more gracile forms. In addition, Lubenow points out that there
are 106 fossil individuals with _erectus_ morphology which are dated
by authorities _more recently_ than 300kya, and of these at least 62
date as recent as 12,000 BP, including Cossack, Kow Swamp and Solo Man from
Java.44

Because of the alleged time factor, all these _erectus_ \- like individuals
are obviously classified as _Homo sapiens_. Lubenow lists 16 _erectus_
characteristics, and almost all, including brain size, are found in the above
individuals. As he says, ' _… (_ erectus _) is truly a man for_
_all seasons._“45 If these fossils dated from say 300kya, they
would undoubtedly be assigned to the taxon _Homo erectus_.

On the other hand, if creationists are right in believing that earth has
only a short history (measured in millennia, rather than millions of years),
then there would be no argument - all forms of _Homo_ (except the phantom-like
_H. habilis_), would form just a single contemporary species.

The growing creationist (and evolutionist) view is gathering strength - that
_H. erectus_ and _all_ _H. sapiens_ forms should be considered
not as separate species but as a single human species encompassing a range
of genetic and phenotypic diversity. In the creationist view there was no
evolution from the apes,46-48 nor was there any phylogenetic, “ascent”
from an inferior type of human to a more advanced type.

There are a number of possible, even probable, non-evolutionary explanations
for this diversity in the human species, and these are succinctly outlined
in the works of Lubenow and Beasley.49,50

Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called “primitive” _erectus_
and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the
jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead
and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the “primitive”
facial and skull features have nothing to do with [evolution](/evolution/), but are due to
the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood,
thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive
in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead,
making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch,
thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins
of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This
effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly
pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening
substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become
“set in concrete” as adult characters.

Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten,
Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such
a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and
Neanderthal features. Custance’s works should be compulsory reading for all
anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist.

## Origins

Over the years it has been generally assumed that _A. afarensis_ gave
rise to _A. africanus_ and/or _Homo habilis_, which in turn evolved
into _H. erectus_. About 300-400kya it is then believed that archaic
_sapiens_ forms arose from an _erectus_ population (see Figure 6).53

![Evolution of human phylogeny](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure06.GIF)

**Figure 6**. The evolution
of human phylogeny since 1955. The 1980 model is far from being unanimously
approved by various authorities. The Black Skull and OH 62 discoveries
in the mid-1980s have further confused the alleged human line - see text

All “archaic” forms display varying degrees of facial prognathism, brow ridges
and brain capacity. The three best-known examples are Swanscombe (England),
Steinheim (Germany) and Broken Hill (Rhodesian Man, Africa). All three also
possessed flattish foreheads and ECV’s in the 1200-1300cc range. This raises
questions about the origin of Neanderthals and modern man which evolutionist
authorities have so far been unable to satisfactorily solve. The matter of
the origin of the archaic _sapiens_ themselves is also unresolved. The
modern Omo specimens were found close together and have identical ages; yet
Omo II has noticeable erectus features, while Omo I is as modern as people
of today. Wood says that if the two were found in separate locations they
would have been put in different groups. This demonstrates the large range
of variability in a contemporary human population.54

The fact that these forms arose well before the first Neanderthals, although
many of them were allegedly more “progressive” than these, is a widely-debated
problem, as is the fact that the more “progressive” Neanderthals with a steeper
forehead appear in the evolutionary fossil record before the classic or more
“primitive” European Neanderthal forms, thus indicating that the former did
not evolve from the latter as the morphology might otherwise suggest.

The patterns differ according to continent. The earliest archaic _sapiens_
appear in Europe (Germany and Greece) around 600-700kya (Petralona and Mauer,
Heidelberg), around 350kya in France (Arago 21) and Germany (Steinheim). The
earliest African archaic forms are Ndutu, Tanzania (at 450 kya) and Saldanha,
South Africa (at about 300kya). The Swanscombe female archaic skull from England
dates from about 300 kya. All of these bear _erectus_-type as well as
more modern-type cranial features.

There are no unambiguous archaic sapiens in Asia but two recently-discovered
skulls from China seem to have the flattened _erectus_-type foreheads,
yet their ECV’s are apparently close to the modern human average and their
faces are flatter than the usual erectus specimens. The dating is a little
uncertain but the generally agreed date is around 250-300kya. This date and
the dolichocephalic configuration (narrow and oblong viewed from the top)
of the skulls has led researchers to classify them both as H. erectus.55-57

Bunney reported in 1986 that a human skeleton dating from c.280kya in China
antedates an _erectus_ skull from Zhoukoudian (the Peking Man site) near
Beijing by 50,000 years. The earlier skull is typical erectus in its morphology,
yet has a rounded occiput and a brain case of about 1390cc. Authorities are
thus in a fix -the date says _H. erectus_, but the brain size is modern
_Homo sapiens_.58 The Vertesszöllos _erectus_ from
Hungary is a very similar case.

Lubenow gives a pen-picture of the main archaic sapiens diagnostics:-

1. Low, sloping forehead,
2. Cranial capacity from 1100-1300c,
3. Heavy supraorbital ridges,
4. Facial prognathism, and
5. Modem post-cranial skeleton.59

He considers that by “making up” this category called “archaic _sapiens_“,
evolutionists wish to portray them as transitionals between erectus and Neanderthals
and modern man. It is not my belief that they intend to deceive at all; this
taxon could be said to represent a convenient classification for the purposes
of discussion and reference, even though the overall differences are so slight.
These specimens do certainly pose problems for evolutionary theory but the
mix of modern and erectus characters is real enough. The main conundrum appears
to be how and why so many advanced or derived characters are present so long
before either Neanderthals or modern humans appear in the fossil record, and
Lubenow is correct in attacking the picture by referring to the dates.60
Also, why should Neanderthal forms of less than 100,000 years ago display
so many “primitive” features if it was merely a matter of straight- forward
progression from _erectus_ to archaics and Neanderthal?

Until recently there has been little sign of Neanderthals much before about
120kya in evolutionary time, yet during the alleged period from 90,000-35,000
years BP, they undoubtedly were contemporaneous with modern men and women.
The two sub-species are both found in Würm glacial deposits of the Upper
Pleistocene coexisting in caves in Palestine (Skhül, Qafzeh, Tabun, Kebara),
for up to 40,000 years of geological time.61 Late reports have
been published which alter the picture. Richards reports from Madrid that
a cave in Spain (Sierra de Atapuerca) has yielded a number of Neanderthal
finds. He notes that despite these skulls being much older than any previous
finds, they are indisputably Neanderthals. The finds date from well beyond
300,000 years ago- a time when Neanderthals were simply not thought to have
existed - and the degree of variability in this single group of fossils, is
a surprise to palaeontologists. The presence of modern features in this cave
group so early, and so long before the classic type appeared only adds to
the puzzle.62

Another report is by Dorozynski in _Science_, where it is stated that
some of the skeletal features at Altamura in Italy vary enough to argue they
must have belonged to at least two species, one of which led to Neanderthals,
while, the other led to _Homo sapiens sapiens_. Yet because they all
belong to one group, others claim that these variations are relatively insignificant,
and the hominids all belong to one lineage.63

A skull from Tabun is classic Neanderthal, yet in nearby Skhül a number
of skulls are intermediate between classic Neanderthals and modern humans.
According to Waechter, the Skhül population may be the hybrids of Neanderthals
and true modern _sapiens_ who were already in existence.64
A gracile Qafzeh skull is quite modern with a high forehead and short braincase,
whereas a Tabun skull nearby is classic Neanderthal with occipital bun; yet
both had the brain capacity of fully modern humans.65 (See Figure
7.)66 While these questions pose problems for strict evolutionary
progression, much of the difficulty lies in the assumption of evolution in
the first place.

![Human specimens](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure07.GIF)

**Figure 7**. Human specimens
from Qafza (left) and Tabun. These examples lived contemporaneously less
than 100kya, yet the robust Tabun skull (right) features typical Neanderthal
characters such as the occipital “bun’. Both had brains as large as those
of people alive today.

Lubenow’s book is the best general creationist expose of human evolution
so far published, although I disagree strongly with his willingness to accept
the KNM-ER 1470 skull (classified as _Homo habilis_) as probably human.
This skull has far too many australopithecine features to be anything else
than a large-brained _africanus_. In addition, a new reconstruction has
recently been made, and an examination of the meatus angle (the pitch of the
face onto the cranium) for example, shows the following: common chimpanzee
49°, _A. africanus_ 47-53°, _P. boisei_ 53°, and _H._
_habilis_ (including KNM-ER 1470) 52-53°. The erectus skull ER 3733
shows a marked jump up to 66°, indicating that all the previous ancestors
had ape-faces and no progression is seen through the australopithecines and
“ _habilis_.” The angle of two habiline specimens is exactly the same
as that of _africanus_ and _boisei_. The craniofacial index (facial
area versus cranial area) of all “habilines’, including 1470 falls within
the australopithecine range and outside the human range including erectus.67,68

As for our putative ape-man “ancestor” _A. afarensis_, Peter Schmid
of Zurich’s Anthropological Institute recently revealed his surprise when
he first examined Lucy’s skeleton (as cited by Leakey and Lewin in _Origins_
_Reconsidered_). In addition to all her other ape features, it now turns
out that even her rib-cage is pure ape. Schmid then turned his attention to
Lucy’s entire upper body -” _The shoulders were high, and, combined with_
_the funnel- shaped chest would have made arm swinging improbable in the human_
_sense… The abdomen was potbellied, and there was no waist… . In other_
_words, Lucy and other australopithecines were bipedal, but they weren’t humans,_
_at least in their ability to run_.”69 On pages 194-196 of _Origins_
_Reconsidered_ we find that Aiello in London also found discrepancies -” _No_
_doubt about it_“, she states. “ _Australopithecines are like apes, and_
_the Homo group are like humans. Something_ _major occurred when_ Homo
_evolved …_” On page 195 a diagram shows clearly some of the major
differences between australopithecines and humans. The reference to bipedality
can be taken with a grain of salt because some previous studies have shown
that it is highly likely that if Lucy did walk upright on occasions it was
in the same manner as modern-day chimpanzees.70 Incidentally, computerized
tomography carried out by Conroy and Vannier of the University of Washington
confirms that the teeth of the Taung child ( _A. africanus_) were developing
in a distinctly ape-like manner.71

Bromage points out that the first reconstruction of ER 1470 was erroneous
by giving it a flat face, but - “ _… recent studies of anatomical relationships_
_show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an_
_ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus_“.72
This finding is one of a number which suggest that the species _Homo habilis_
never existed. In reality all “habiline” forms display unmistakable australopithecine
traits.

Lubenow’s discussion of the australopithecine, habiline, _erectus_ and
Neanderthal specimens is an excellent exposition of the creationist view that
the first are extinct chimp- or gorilla-like forms, and the “habilines” are
nothing more than variants of australopithecines, while _erectus_/Neanderthal/modern
man are simply varieties of a single human species.

## Neanderthals - So-called

The scientific treatment of Neanderthals over most of the past century has
been nothing short of scandalous. Marcellin Boule, the prominent French palaeontologist
of the early 20th century, produced a very faulty reconstruction and description
of a Neanderthal- an error which was to persist until after World War II.73

Lubenow cites a number of authorities who finally have acknowledged the full
humanity of Neanderthal people,74 and he also claims that a Neanderthal
skull has been recovered in Israel (Amud 1), which appears to date at only
about 6,000 years old, although this date is controversial, as a fission-tracks
test has produced an age of 28kya.75 On pages 75-77, Lubenow cites
evolutionists Klein, Geist, Angel and Wright who have all produced non-evolutionary
theories which explain Neanderthal features and which are very similar to
Custance’s hypothesis mentioned earlier.76 (It appears that what
evolutionists see as “primitive” or ape-like features are nothing more than
climatic, dietary or other pathological effects on individuals of a population,
allowing also for some degree of racial or genetic variation. These explanations
can account for all four groups - _erectus_, archaic, Neanderthal and
the “modern” erectus forms such as Kow Swamp.)

The question of the archaic _sapiens_ from a creationist viewpoint has
been dealt with superbly by Beasley,77 who offers a cogent, reasonable
and well-researched case that the archaic sapiens are our post-Flood ancestors
with variable morphological features due to such influences as prolongation
of skeletal maturation and greater longevity potential; environmental; and
dietary/pathological pressures within a post-Deluge framework. Beasley’s paper
is a land- mark in creationist research on this subject, and every [Christian](/christian/)
should possess a copy with which to question materialist-minded educators.

### Trends In Secular Literature

The elevation of Neanderthal man to his rightful and proper place as a full
human being was recently endorsed whole-heartedly by Rensberger. In a detailed
summary, this well-known evolutionist has come to the only conclusion possible
 -that far from being a mixture of brute and human, Neanderthals were as human
as you and I, and he is very critical of the earlier misguided and inexcusable
approach which denigrated them as sub-human. Rensberger’s work should be a
salutary lesson for those who are inclined to accept scientific pronouncements
uncritically as being gospel truth.78

With respect to _Homo erectus_, movement in evolutionary circles to
upgrade his status is also gathering momentum. Peter Andrews discusses the
Middle Pleistocene specimens from Java and China, and earlier Pleistocene
forms ER 3733 and 3883 from Africa, and the later European and African forms
such as Arago, Heidelberg and Broken Hill (Rhodesian Man).79 He
claims the African specimens may represent different species or a separate
lineage from Asian forms giving rise to separate populations of _H. sapiens_
in the later Pleistocene -that is, Solo Man from Java may be directly ancestral
to the controversial Kow Swamp and Cossack _erectus/sapiens_ populations
in Australia about 6,000-13,000 years ago. In Europe he speculates that the
Neanderthal forms may be ancestral to modern man, and finally in Africa, a
line from Ternifine through Broken Hill and Omo. (Omo I is virtually identical
to modern man and dates from c.115- 130kya).80

If so, then _H. sapiens_ is either polyphyletic (three independent lineages),
or evolved gradually on a broad geographical front between 400-200kya. The
implication is clear- “ _… that_ H. sapiens _and_ H. erectus _are one and the same species which is changing gradually through time_.”
(Emphasis added.)81 I agree that they are one and the same species -exhibiting
variability in the early centuries after the Flood.

On page 25 Andrews also discusses the possibility that _Homo sapiens_
evolved only once in Africa and spread into Europe twice, once giving rise
to the Neanderthals, and later via Skühl and Qafzeh populations, to _Homo_
_sapiens_ in Europe. Yet on the same page he says- ‘ _… it has_
_been demonstrated that the European hominid sequence could be viewed as a_
_single lineage… culminating in the classic Neanderthals of the_
_last ice age._” (Emphasis added).

To the informed creationist, most of this is meaningless and irrelevant.
The morphological differences within _all_ _erectus_ specimens and
between _erectus_, Neanderthal, and _all_ _Homo sapiens_ are
so small that there is not the slightest reason to doubt that every form should
be classified in a single human species, as we have already seen advocated.

It is not generally known to the lay-person that there are a number of modern
humans who display the same _erectus_/Neanderthal features in addition
to the Kow Swamp and Cossack examples. Taylor has published a photo of an
Indian woman who clearly exhibits very large supraorbital tori.82
On the next page he gives another example of a living human who was closely
examined in the Philippines in 1908. The man had massive brow ridges, a poorly
defined chin, and a large lower jaw. I personally have seen and conversed
with two East European immigrants where very large brow ridges and a flattened
forehead were clearly visible, yet both, who incidentally were squat and heavily
built, were normal individuals.

The human skull is very plastic in early childhood and I believe Custance’s
theory of dietary/climatic effects may account for some _erectus_/Neanderthal
features very well, while racial/genetic variability is also to be considered.
Evolution from animal ancestors is not involved.

It used to be popular years ago to stress the distinctions between Neanderthal
Mousterian tools and those of early modern man, but Wood83 admits
that recent evidence indicates that these differences are not at all clear
cut. Mousterian tools are found with modem skulls at Jebel Irhoud and it is
therefore misleading to associate Mousterian tools solely with Neanderthal
Man.84 It is also clear that not all _erectus_/Neanderthal
specimens possessed all of these so-called primitive features, such as the
Teshik- Tash 10-year-old and the Krapina “A” juvenile. These were both youngsters
but the 18 year-old youth Ehringsdorf “F” fossil possessed both a steep forehead
and a fairly high cranial vault, a moderate torus and thinner bones.85
Two Neanderthal mandibles, Ehringsdorf “F” and “G’, an adult and a juvenile,
had well -developed chins.86 In view of these by-no-means-rare
cases, any evolutionary “progression” simply does not fit the bill.

As Beasley points out,87 a lack of dietary vitamin D alone can
account for some, but not necessarily all of the so-called “primitive” features
of _Homo erectus_ and Neanderthal Man. Beasley also notes that some primitive
features are still to be found in various extant racial groups.88

Wolpoff and his colleagues of the University of Michigan, because they believe
the five main human races - Negroid, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aborigines
and southern African bushmen -began their evolutionary divergence well before
becoming anatomically modern _Homo sapiens_, totally reject the “out
of Africa” hypothesis, whereby all modern people owe their ancestry to Africa
only -the Noah’s Ark theory.89

Wolpoff is supported by Alan Thorne of the Australian National University.90
According to Shipman, Wolpoff and others are now - “ _… proposing nothing_
_less than the complete abolition of_ Homo erectus _on the grounds_
_that the species is insufficiently distinct from_ Homo sapiens _._
_All fossil specimens of_ Homo erectus _and archaic_ Homo sapiens _(including Neanderthals), … should be reclassified into a single species,_ Homo sapiens _, that is, subdivided only into races._” (Emphasis added
throughout.)91

Under the Wolpoff/Thorne scheme the new definition of _Homo sapiens_
would include all human ancestors with brain sizes from 850 - 2000+cc. Of
course this would totally exclude the australopithecines and the phantom “habilis”
\- a position which creationists would thoroughly endorse. Wolpoff and Thorne
argue (correctly) that _H. habilis_ is too morphologically distinct from
both _erectus_ and _sapiens_ and therefore should be excluded from
the genus _Homo_.92 John Reader has also outlined many of
the problems facing “ _habilis_“, and concludes - “ _… more than_
_twenty years of accumulating evidence and discussion have left_ Homo habilis _more insecure than it ever was_.”93 Creationists again would
agree because it seems obvious that “ _habilis_” is only an australopithecine
ape. Wolpoff and Thorne cannot find any consistent anatomical markers which
separate _erectus_ from _sapiens_. They point to the mix of _sapiens_
and _erectus_ features in the two recently discovered Chinese fossil
skulls which virtually proves that _erectus_ and _sapiens_ are members
of the same species and the taxon _Homo erectus_ should be laid to rest.94

Other authorities such as Rightmire disagree, claiming that the minor distinctions
which Wolpoff _et al_. consider as merely racial variations, are sufficient
to keep separate species classifications.95 On these same pages,
Shipman points out the difficulties in identifying meaningful points for measuring
skull vault thickness for example. The variation, individual to individual,
is considerable and this is exactly one of the points which I am attempting
to make- “evolution” has nothing to do with it. The differences between the
various forms of archaic _Homo sapiens_ relates, at least in part, to
a combination of climatic, dietary, maturational and longevity-driven factors.
In a short article in 1990, Maslen cites Dr Thorne as saying -

“ _… the fossil record reveals that the features possessed by the early_
_hominids who lived in Europe, Asia and Africa, have exactly the same sort_
_of range as those we see in modern people_.”96

I have made no attempt to enter the molecular debate and the Noah’s Ark controversy.
This subject has been covered by creationist authorities.97,98
Michael Denton, a non-creationist, has already indicated the non-reliability
of the molecular clock.99

Dr Carl Wieland has drawn attention to articles published in Germany, and
sent to Australia in November 1992. According to these reports a well preserved
_erectus_-type skull has been uncovered in a gravel pit near Reilingen.
Although originally discovered in 1978 its significance was only realized
several years later. If the dating is correct, this erectus specimen must
have coexisted with modern (quasi-archaic) _sapiens_; the age corresponds
with that of Steinheim and Swanscombe. Another article from _Die Welt_
of September 27, 1986 refers to this “ _Homo erectus reilingensis_” and
another erectus fossil from Bilzingsleben allegedly dating from about 300kya,
and there is evidence of stone tools and implements made out of elephant bone
and antlers. The details of the Reilingen skull portions indicate a mix of
_erectus_ and more modern features, thus confirming the hypothesis set
forth in this paper.100

## Summary

In a previous article101 I demonstrated the lack of suitable primitive
ancestors for the australopithecines, for “ _habilis_” and for _Homo_
_erectus_. In this paper I hope to have shown that the _erectus_-archaic-Neanderthal-modern
man “chain” is _non-evolutionary_; that is, that all these forms are
simply varieties of human beings (see Figure 8).102 The question
of time is irrelevant - it makes no difference whether the time involved is
millions of years or only a few thousand. The morphological distinctions are
very much insufficient to warrant placing these forms in separate categories
which only serves the purpose of evolution \- a theory to which so many scientists
are committed as dogma. Once evolution is accepted as dogma, all evidence
is interpreted in a subjective, rather than objective, manner. Creationists
will continue to expose the weaknesses in the theory and to encourage further
research and study into the origins of man. It is not simply a matter of blind
adherence to religion; the evidence is available to all who honestly wish
to study and evaluate it.

![Skull outline of 'progressive' Neanderthal](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/tj/v8/i1/Figure08.GIF)

**Figure 8**. Skull outline of a “progressive” Neanderthal.
Authorities find it paradoxical that the more “primitive” or classic forms
appear in the fossil record before the more modern, “progressive” types
such as above.

The actual facts of the fossil record, that is the fossil materials themselves
as against evolutionary _interpretations_ of these materials, show indisputably
that contrary to expectation the “earliest” _erectus_ skeleton (WT 15000
or the Turkana “Boy’) proves by its very existence that this human being was
large like modern humans, and not small and ape-like. On the other hand fossil
OH 62 proves that “ _habilis_“, far from being _Homo_-like, was small
and ape-like - these cases were the very opposite of what evolution theory
predicted and expected.103 Even though the brain size of WT 15000
was smaller than most modern humans, it was still larger than quite a few
people living today.

As for time and geology, all known facts are subject to somebody’s interpretation.
Some are reasonable, others are not. It is reasonable for example to interpret
an inferior rock layer as having been deposited earlier in time than the layer
above, but when it comes to the question of how much earlier all estimates
must necessarily be based on a number of assumptions, and this also applies
to all radiometric and geological dating methods. The estimates made may be
correct, partially correct, or totally wrong, and therefore almost all of
geology, time and fossils are exposed to subjectivity, no matter how carefully
the experts tackle their tasks. Once evolution is accepted as dogma all evidence
is interpreted in that light.

Nobody can be totally certain by scientific methods alone, as to the reason
why fossils are often found in certain patterns - was it by natural causes
of slow deposition over long time periods as life-forms evolved, or by equally
natural causes over a short time-frame such as by a global flood (and/or subsequent
residual catastrophes) depositing the life-forms which were biogeographically
zoned? No scientist was there to observe what happened, but others (Noah and
his family) were eye-witnesses and have given us an account of the Flood.104,105

Lay-persons reading popular science books, magazines or newspaper articles
will assume that the picture of human evolution presented therein is a depiction
of established fact. This view is totally erroneous - the scientists have
a scanty, but in places reasonable, selection of past life-forms - 50 or 60
pages of a book of _unknown_ length, and if (as usual) they are _already_
believers in evolution, these representatives of past life will inevitably
_always_ be interpreted in the light of the theory.

Other alternatives such as presented here and in various creationist works
are equally valid, but it is emphasized that neither creation nor evolution
can be scientifically proven.

After careful study of hundreds of scientific descriptions, and photographs
of scores of fossil humans, it is clear to me that all shades of intergrading
exist between “ancient” _erectus_ and modern humans, but the chronological
patterns of appearance, even using the evolutionists” own dating methods,
do not match the predictions of the theory. In view of the clear-cut and unmistakeable
morphological gap between apes and humans, I believe that human fossil study
provides strong circumstantial evidence in favour of the theistic view of
origins as outlined in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, as against
the current view that random or chance genetic accidents were responsible.

## Acknowledgment

The drawings on which the figures are based were prepared by my son Gary
Mehlert.

## References

001. Whitcomb, J. and Morris, H., 1961. _The Genesis Flood_, Baker Book
      House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

002. Mehlert, A W., 1992. A review of the present status of some alleged early
      hominids. _CEN Tech. J._, **6**(1):10-41.

003. Gish, D. T., 1985. _Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record_,
      Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, California, pp. 140-180.

004. Lubenow, M.,1992. _Bones of Contention_, Baker Book House, Grand
      Rapids, Michigan, pp. 50-57, 157-168, 172-179.

005. Beasley, G. J., 1990. Pre-Flood giantism: a key to the interpretation
      of fossil hominids and hominoids. _EN Tech. J._, **4**:5-55.

006. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 127.

007. Cberfas, J. and Gribbin, J., 1981. Descent of man or ascent of ape? _New_
     _Scientist,_ **91**(1269):594-595.

008. Gish, Ref. 3, pp. 180-203.

009. Bowden, M., 1977. _Ape-Man: Fact or Fallacy?_ Sovereign Publications,
      Bromley, Kent, pp. 78-148.

010. Johnson, W., 1982. _The Crumbling Theory of Evolution_, Queensland
      Binding Service, Brisbane, pp 40-45.

011. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 135.

012. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 91.

013. Fezer, K. D., 1993. Creation’s incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
      _Creation/Evolution,_ **33**:5-21 (p. 12).

014. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 86.

015. Brace, C. L. and Montagu, A., 1977. _Human Evolution_, Second Edition,
      Chicago University Press, pp. 204-205.

016. Leakey, R. and Walker, A., 1985. Homo erectus unearthed. _National Geographic_,
      **168**(5):624-629.

017. Leakey, R. and Lewin, R., 1992. _Origins Reconsidered_, Abacus Books,
      London, pp. 58-64.

018. Leakey and Walker, Ref. 16, pp. 624-629.

019. Jue, D. S., 1990. Cranial capacity and endocranial casts. _EN Tech._
     _J._, **4**:56-65.

020. Broderick, A H.,1971. _Man and His Ancestors_, Hutchinson and Co.,
      London, p. 84.

021. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 123, 128.

022. Beasley, G. J., 1992. Pre-Flood giantism: a key to the interpretation
      of fossil hominids and hominoids. Unpublished manuscript (original Version),
      p. 71.

023. Beasley, Ref. 22, p. 71.

024. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 138.

025. Jue, Ref. 19, p. 57.

026. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 138.

027. Molnar, S., 1975. _Races, Types and Ethnic Groups_, Prentice-Hall,
      Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 57.

028. Pellegrino, C. R., 1985. _Time-Gate, Hurtling Backward Through Time_,
      TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania, p. 120.

029. Beasley, G. I., 1992. A possible creationist explanation of archaic fossil
      human remains. _CEN Tech. J._, **6**(2):138-167.

030. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 78-85.

031. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 29-30.

032. Pellegrino, Ref. 28, p. 124.

033. Campbell, B. G., 1988. _Humankind Emerging_, Fifth Edition, Time-Life
      Books, Harper ColIim, New York. pp. 287-288.

034. Attwood, A., and Edwards, K., 1987. Footprints of early man. _Time Australia,_
     _2_(13):28-41 (supplementary map).

035. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, p. 37.

036. Wolpoff, M. and Thorne, A., 1991. The Case against Eve. _New Scientist_,
      **130**(1774):35.

037. Groves, C. and Thorne, A., 1991. Brawl about Eve. _The Australian Magazine_,
      February 16-17, p. 28.

038. Stringer, C., 1990. The emergence of modern humans. _Scientific American_,
      **263**(6):74.

039. Wood, B., 1976. _The Evolution of Early Man_, Cassell Australia,
      Sydney, pp. 98-100.

040. Flood, J., 1990. _The Riches of Ancient Australia_, University of
      Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 20.

041. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 133.

042. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, pp. 37-39.

043. Attwood and Edwards, Ref. 34, pp. 37-39.

044. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 131-132.

045. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 132-133.

046. Mehlert, Ref. 2, pp. 33-38.

047. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 134-143.

048. Beasley, Ref. 5, pp. 31-55.

049. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 149-156.

050. Beasley, Ref. 5, pp. 5-55.

051. Custance A., 1975. Genesis and early man. _The Doorway Papers, Volume_
     _II_. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 183-184, 208- 211.

052. Custance, Ref. 51, p. 184.

053. Campbell, Ref. 33, pp. 200-201.

054. Wood, Ref. 39, p.99.

055. Gibbons, A., 1992. An about-face for modem human origim. _Science_, **256**:1521\.

056. Shipman, P., 1993. On the origin of races. _New Scientist_, **137**(1856):36.

057. Tianyuan, L., and Etler, D.A., 1992. New Middle Pleistocene hominid crania
      from Yunxian in China. _Nature,357_:404-407.

058. Bunney, S., 1986. Chinese fossil could alter the course of evolution in
      China. _New Scientist_, **111**(1520):25.

059. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 80.

060. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 78-85.

061. Waechter, J., 1976. _Man Before History_, Elsevier International
      Publishing Co., Oxford, p. 64.

062. Richards, M., 1993. Caveman shows his face. _The Courier Mail_, Brisbane,
      November 8, p. 9.

063. Dorozynski, A., 1993. Possible neandertal ancestor found. _Science_,
      **262**:991\.

064. Waechter, Ref. 61, p. 63.

065. Bar-Yosef, O. and Vandermeersch, B., 1992. Modem humans in the Levant.
      _Scientific American_, **268**(4):68.

066. Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, Ref. 65, p. 68.

067. Bromage, T., 1992. Faces from the past. _New Scientist_, **133**(1803):32-
      35\.

068. Hummer, C. C., 1977. A plea for caution about skull1470. _Creation Research_
     _Society Quarterly_, **14**(3):171.

069. Leakey and Lewin, Ref. 17, pp. 193-194.

070. Cherfas, J.,1983. Trees have made man upright. New Scientist, 97:172-
      178\.

071. Bromage, Ref. 67, p.33.

072. Bromage, Ref. 67, p. 35.

073. Campbell, Ref. 33, pp. 378-379.

074. Lubenow, Ref. 4, pp. 61-64, 76-77.

075. Lubenow, Ref. 4, p. 73-74.

076. Custance, Ref. 51, pp. 183-184, 208-211.

077. Beasley, Ref. 29, pp. 138-167.

078. Rensberger, B., 1981. Facing the past. _Science “81_, **2**(9):41-50.

079. Andrews, P., 1984. The descent of man. _New Scientist_, **102**:24-25.

080. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 99.

081. Andrews, Ref. 79, pp. 24-25.

082. Taylor, I.,1987. _In the Minds of Men_, IFE Publishing Co., Toronto,
      p.214.

083. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 108.

084. 84\. Wood, Ref. 39, p. 108.

085. Beasley, Ref. 29, pp. 144-145.

086. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 145.

087. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 143.

088. Beasley, Ref. 29, p. 163.

089. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 34.

090. Wolpoff and Thome, Ref. 36, pp. 33-37.

091. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 34.

092. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 36.

093. Reader, J., 1990. _Missing Links_, Penguin Books, London, p. 189.

094. Shipman, Ref. 56, p. 36.

095. Shipman, Ref. 56, pp. 36-37.

096. Maslen, G., 1990. Man or ape? _The Sunday Mail, Brisbane_, May 20,
      p.11.

097. Wieland, C., 1992. No bones about Eve. _Creation Ex Nihilo_, **13**(4):20-23.

098. Beasley, G. J., 1992. Is the African “Eve” misconceived? _CEN-Tech._
     _J._, **6**(1):42-48.

099. Denton, M., 1985. _Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_, Adler and Adler,
      Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 233-307.

100. Wieland, C., 1993. Personal communication.

101. Mehlert, Ref. 2, pp. 10-41.

102. Campbell, Ref. 33, p. 388.

103. Reader, Ref. 93, pp. 188-189.

104. Woodmorappe, J.,1983. A diluviological treatise on the stratigraphic separation
      of fossils. _Creation Research Society Quarterly_, **20**(3):133-185.

105. Whitcomb and Morris, Ref. 1.


## Recommended Resources

- [![The New Answers DVDs 1–3](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/prod/primary/smt/40-1-330.png)](/store/product/new-answers-dvds-bundle/?sku=40-1-330 "The New Answers DVDs 1–3")[The New Answers DVDs 1–3$34.99Sale](/store/product/new-answers-dvds-bundle/?sku=40-1-330 "The New Answers DVDs 1–3")

- [![Three Ways to Make an Ape Man](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/prod/primary/smt/30-9-470.png)](/store/product/three-ways-make-ape-man/?sku=30-9-470 "Three Ways to Make an Ape Man")[Three Ways to Make an Ape Man$12.99](/store/product/three-ways-make-ape-man/?sku=30-9-470 "Three Ways to Make an Ape Man")

- [![Evolution: Not a Chance](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/prod/primary/smt/30-9-482.png)](/store/product/evolution-not-chance/?sku=30-9-482 "Evolution: Not a Chance")[Evolution: Not a Chance$12.99](/store/product/evolution-not-chance/?sku=30-9-482 "Evolution: Not a Chance")


- [Evolution](/evolution/ "")
- [Big Bang](/big-bang/ "")
- [Charles Darwin](/charles-darwin/ "")
- [Evidence Against Evolution](/evidence-against-evolution/ "")
- [Human Evolution](/human-evolution/ "")
- [Missing Links](/missing-links/ "")
- [Natural Selection](/natural-selection/ "")
- [Origin of Life](/origin-of-life/ "")
- [Scopes Trial](/scopes-trial/ "")
- [Theistic Evolution](/theistic-evolution/ "")
- [Theory of Evolution](/theory-of-evolution/ "")
- [Young-Earth Evolution](/young-earth-evolution/ "")

### Newsletter

Get the latest answers emailed to you.

I agree to the current [Privacy Policy](/privacy/).




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google
[Privacy Policy](https://policies.google.com/privacy) and
[Terms of Service](https://policies.google.com/terms) apply.

Subscribe

### Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

You can also sign up for our free [print newsletter](/newsletters/print/) (US only).

### Finish your subscription

You're almost done! Please follow the instructions we emailed you in order to finish subscribing.

You can also sign up for our free [print newsletter](/newsletters/print/) (US only).

### Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Support the creation/gospel message by [donating](/donate/) or [getting involved](/about/get-involved/)!


![Answers in Genesis logo](https://assets.answersingenesis.org/lib/svg/AiG11Logo.svg)

**Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry**, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the [good news of Jesus Christ](/good-news/).

Learn more

- Customer Service 800.778.3390
- © 2024 Answers in Genesis