|Feature Article - December 2017|
|by Do-While Jones|
It was a bad year for the myth about human evolution.
Every January, the science tabloids print a list of what they think were the most important science stories from the previous year. Technically, myths don’t really belong on a list of important science stories, but some evolutionary fables get on the list anyway. In 2017, all the cited evolution stories had to do with the discrepancies in their previous beliefs about human evolution.
The analysis of bones found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, was the second most important science story according to Discover magazine, and was number 4 on the Science News list. The title and subtitle of the Science News article were,
The story of humans’ origins got a revision in 2017
Discover more sensationally proclaimed,
Human Evolution Timeline Topples
The Discover story ends with this sentence:
“The most important thing for a reader to take away from this, and also for young scientists in general, is that we don’t have all the answers,” Holen says. “That’s why we do science." 3
We don’t need to say any more—but we will.
Discover began their article this way:
For decades, schoolchildren across the globe were taught our origin story went something like this: An archaic form of Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago in Africa. By about 100,000 years ago, the population had become anatomically modern humans who, around 50,000 years ago, headed across Eurasia and met up with our distant cousins the Neanderthals (and the closely related Denisovans, not known to science until 2010).
Like a game of Jenga, however, researchers have recently been removing bricks and destabilizing that towering timeline. In 2017, a few more bricks came out, and the conventional chronology of our origins finally toppled. 4
A particularly ironic quote from that article is,
During a June news conference, shortly before the study was published in Nature, Hublin noted it’s unlikely the Jebel Irhoud individuals, the oldest known Homo sapiens fossils by about 100,000 years, are our direct ancestors.
“We are not claiming that Morocco became the cradle of modern humankind,” Hublin says, “We think early forms of humans were present all over Africa.” 5
This makes no sense. We are Homo sapiens. How can the oldest Homo sapiens not be our direct ancestors? We are the same species!
Of course, there is a reason why Hublin says the evidence shows that these individuals were the earliest Homo sapiens, but are not the direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens. The reason is that he wants to keep his job.
He says the evidence shows that the earliest humans were in North Africa, but he thinks there were earlier forms of humans all over Africa. That’s not quite as contradictory as it sounds. He presumably thinks that ape-men, like Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and others, evolved first in other parts of Africa because that’s what evolutionists currently believe. So, splitting hairs, he is saying the first Homo sapiens evolved in Morocco, but other, earlier humans evolved elsewhere in Africa. There is no new evidence to support that theory, and the Jebel Irhoud bones suggests that humans evolved first in Morocco, but it would be professional suicide to say so.
If the Jebel Irhoud bones really are 100,000 years older than any other Homo sapiens bones (which we doubt), the only logical conclusion that an evolutionist should reach is that Morocco is where Homo sapiens evolved. Hublin is unwilling to come to the logical conclusion because it is too different from conventional wisdom. Therefore, he has to spin the new discovery to make it politically acceptable.
|Reconstruction of an early Homo sapiens skull from the Jebel Irhoud site. Sarah Freidline/Max planck institute EVA Leipzig|
Both magazines used this picture of the skull that “toppled” what evolutionists believe about human evolution. Please look carefully at the picture. There are two things you should notice.
First, only the tan bone fragments are real. The blue part of the picture came out of the blue. The blue part is just what they think the rest of it must have looked like. Most of it is blue.
Second, even the tan parts are suspect. Look closely. The bones are suspiciously symmetrical. Even the little pits in the bones match perfectly. The left side is a mirror image of the right side. It looks like they only found half as many bones as are shown, and used image processing software to make mirror images and then put them together to create the picture.
In many cases, evolutionists use reconstructions such as this one to make the data appear to be much more compelling than it is.
The fact that this little evidence causes evolutionists to revise their theories should tell you how little evidence their theories are based upon.
Unrelated to the Jebel Irhoud fossils, but mentioned in the same Discover story, are some genetic studies which also “topple the human evolution timeline.”
And in the journal Science in late September, a separate team offered additional evidence of an earlier start date for our species: By sequencing the ancient DNA of seven individuals from southern Africa, the researchers determined modern Homo sapiens emerged up to 350,000 years ago.
For years, paleogenetic studies have been turning up hints that our species interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago. A Nature Communications study published in July, however, found evidence the hook-ups began much earlier: roughly 220,000 to 470,000 years ago.
Researchers extracted maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from a 100,000-year-old Neanderthal bone found in a German cave in the 1930s. The mtDNA is from a Homo sapiens female who evolved in Africa — our homeland — and mated with a European-evolved Neanderthal at least 220,000 years ago. 6
Evolutionists compared DNA from individuals living in various places in the world with other living individuals, and compared DNA from fossil bones of speculative age with modern DNA, and constructed a scenario in which the differences can be explained by genetic isolation and/or interbreeding. From this they guessed an evolutionary timeline.
Do they really believe that DNA from a bone that they believe is 100,000 years old, and has been sitting on a shelf in a museum since the 1930’s, hasn’t been contaminated in any way? Is a sample size of 7 really significant? They are just fooling themselves.
Discover goes on to mention other discrepancies in the human evolution fable.
A pair of partial hominin skulls excavated in Xuchang, China, are unlike any others. Dated to more than 100,000 years old, the crania have a unique blend of features: the internal ear structure and back-of-skull depression seen only in Neanderthals, which have never been found east of Siberia; a low and broad shape consistent with earlier East Asian hominins; and an enlarged braincase similar to other late archaic and modern humans.
Trinkaus and colleagues, describing the partial skulls in March in Science, won’t speculate on whether they belonged to Homo sapiens transitioning from archaic to modern, the elusive Denisovans or an as-yet-unidentified hominin species. 7
The conventional timeline placed our species in Australia at no earlier than about 47,000 years ago, despite some archaeological and genomic research hinting at a much earlier arrival date. In July, however, a team reported in Nature that thousands of artifacts from a Northern Australia site were about 65,000 years old.
And in August, also in Nature, a separate team reported that they believe teeth found in an Indonesian cave belonged to anatomically modern humans who had occupied the site 63,000 to 73,000 years ago.
That puts modern humans far from home tens of millennia before the now-outdated human evolution and migration timeline had us even leaving Africa. 8
A Nature study published in April made a startling claim: Rounded stones found beside fractured mastodon bones near San Diego were evidence of someone [emphasis theirs] processing the animal’s remains 130,000 years ago.
The current timeline for humans arriving in the Americas, however, is a mere 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, via Siberia and the now-submerged land bridge Beringia. Many in the field are highly skeptical of the Nature paper. 9
So, teeth and stone tools discredit “the now-outdated human evolution and migration timeline.”
Science News reveals other puzzling facts about the human evolution fable.
For example, the Jebel Irhoud crowd lived during a period when possibly several African Homo species acquired unexpected mixes of skeletal characteristics reminiscent of even earlier Homo species and of people today. Witness the patchwork quilt anatomy of Homo naledi. This unusual-looking hominid, known from fossils from South African caves, lived between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago, researchers announced in June (SN: 6/10/17, p. 6). That estimate came as a surprise: H. naledi’s orange-sized brain and curved fingers resemble those of Homo species from around 2 million years ago. But many other features of H. naledi — possibly including a brain organized for social emotions and advanced communication (SN Online: 4/25/17) — could pass for those of Neandertals and humans. 10
We didn’t mention these discoveries when they were reported because they weren’t worth discussing at the time. The only thing that makes them significant now is that they illustrate how contradictory all the various human evolution theories are.
It is hard for us to refute these various claims because the evolutionists themselves refute the claims faster than we can. (That is supposed to make you feel sorry for us. )
The other human evolution story that was eighth on Discover’s 2017 list of top ten science stories dealt with some controversial footprints.
Hominin Trackways in Greece? The Game Is Afoot
These footprints are newsworthy because,
And in an analysis published in August, researchers concluded — controversially — that these footprints at Trachilos, Crete, appear to belong to a hominin, walking where none was thought to set foot until millions of years later. 12
Are they human? Maybe they are bear tracks.
For example, Harcourt-Smith notes that bears, whose hind legs do not typically make claw impressions, were present in this region at the time, but the team compared the prints with only a bear’s forelimb. The lack of claws is one of the traits cited by the authors as evidence a hominin made the prints.
“Bears do rear up and move bipedally on occasion,” Harcourt-Smith says. “I’m not saying that’s what this is, but it was a major omission not to include hind leg bear prints for comparison. 13
If they are human footprints, and not bear tracks, it should imply (to evolutionists) that humans evolved in Greece, which is politically unacceptable. So, it is necessary for them to make this disclaimer:
“Some people have suggested that we are driven by a Eurocentrism claim. We are making no claim whatsoever,” says Ahlberg. “It’s clear modern humans evolved in Africa.”
Instead, he says, the Trachilos prints show at least one branch of early hominins was present in Europe, and that members of our family tree were walking efficiently on two legs more than a million years earlier than we thought. 14
If those really are human footprints, and if they really are as old as they claim, evolutionists should believe that modern humans originated in Europe—but that’s just too racist to be permitted.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Bruce Bower, Science News, December 13, 2017, “The story of humans’ origins got a revision in 2017”, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/human-evolution-top-science-stories-2017-yir?mode=pick&context=2774&tgt=nr
2 Gemma Tarlach, Discover, December 29, 2017, “Human Evolution Timeline Topples”, http://discovermagazine.com/2018/janfeb/2-human-evolution-timeline-topples
10 Bruce Bower, Science News, December 13, 2017, “The story of humans’ origins got a revision in 2017”, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/human-evolution-top-science-stories-2017-yir?mode=pick&context=2774&tgt=nr
11 Gemma Tarlach, Discover, December 29, 2017, “Human Evolution Timeline Topples”, http://discovermagazine.com/2018/janfeb/2-human-evolution-timeline-topples