We've all seen the evolutionary line-up of profiles that show an ape on all fours, then an ape upright, then an ape more upright, and so on through a bunch of deformed-looking humans until you reach the climax at the far right, "Modern Man" (who, of course, is always a white European.)  The people who make these charts always claim to have fossil evidence to prove each of these intermediate "hominids," and most of us don't have the knowledge on hand to dispute them.  But if we did a little archaeological research, how well would the Evolution of Man chart hold together?

Remember that in biological evolution, man must evolve from apes.  If he doesn't, that means man was created.  And that would destroy cosmic evolution.  So not only do evolutionists want to believe in ape-to-man evolution--they have to.  Many have built their lives on the theory.

So let's have a little sympathy for the evolutionist archaeologist trawling around in the dirt, sweating with the anticipation that the tooth he has just discovered belongs to a prehistoric, upright-walking ape, okay?  They are only human too.

Ramapithecus was the name given to the species which was said to be an ancestor of man until the 1980's.  Nowadays, it is categorized in the sivapithicus branch, next to orangutans, and is considered a cousin, but not an ancestor of, humans. Good call because the whole species is based on two fragments of jawbone (including teeth) found in India and Africa.  You have no choice but to make some pretty large assumptions in order to conclude that Ramapithicus was a upright monkey, much less a prototype for humans. (See the jawbones here)

The genus Australopithecus ("southern ape") is said to contain the oldest hominids (2-3 million years old).  It is in this genus that the famed "Lucy" skeleton is placed.  Lucy was found in Ethiopia in 1974.  Hopefully one day soon I'll write a whole article about Lucy and her kind--for now just suffice it to say that the archaeologists who found her determined she walked upright largely because of a knee joint they found.  Problem is, the knee joint was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton.  Ah, but they must have been closely related. . .

Peking Man was unearthed in China.  He started out as three molar teeth, but in a few years grew to a dozen skull fragments and jawbones, 7 thigh fragments, a couple arms, a wrist, and about 150 teeth.  Of course, he had a few of his cousins with him.  But he also had some friends.  Elephants, deer, modern humans, and stone tools were found mixed with the Peking Man fossils.  Besides that, a huge ash heap was found nearby.  It appears that Peking Man and his cousins may have been no more than monkeys who became supper for a hunting group.

Piltdown Man is not really worth talking about, but it demonstrates how easily people can be deceived if they want to believe something.  In 1912 a skull cap and jaw were found--the skull human-like, the jaw ape-like.  Evolutionists were convinced they had finally found the missing link between man and ape, and for 40 years they trumpeted the find and saturated the public with "the truth".
But 1953 chemical testing demonstrated that the bones had been stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down to fit them in the jaw.  Evolutionists had been took.
A similar case happened with Nebraska Man, who was completely created out of single fossilized tooth found in Nebraska.  Later it was found to be the tooth of a pig.

Neanderthal Man also deserves a more lengthy exposition.  Except for those who are itching to find an ancient ancestor, Neanderthal Man is nothing more than a modern human who suffered from rickets and arthritis.  There is simply no reason to believe he roamed around naked and killed buffalo by chasing them and pounding their heads with rocks.  Or that he lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Yet despite the sketchy evidence and controversial theories, these and other "transitional forms" are continually drawn out as fact in school textbooks, science articles and television specials.  The reason is because evolutionists have to have them.  Unless they find them, theorize about them, publish them, or even create them, they have no explanation for the origin of man.  Which cannot have been God.

[I am indebted to Dennis R. Petersen and his work in "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation" (Master Books), which made this blog entry possible]