variety as in a species of australopithecus.. Australopithecus boisei is the name of the species that "zinjanthropus" was

an ape-like creature, the remains of which had been discovered 35 years earlier by R. A. Dart in South Africa. Dr. Leakey thus had become famous for "discovering" something that had been discovered many years earlier!

the species discovered by dart was Australopithecus africanus

other species in this group include Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus aethiopicus

the consensus of evolutionists was that the australopithecines had been habitually bipedal man-like apes

australopithecines were bipedal

in the direct line leading to man.

they were hominids

Richard Leakey does not hold a Ph.D. in anthropology. In fact, he has no degree of any kind. He has never been to college. Nevertheless, he spent many years working and studying with his father, and he has assembled a team that does include Ph.D. scientists. During the past few years, his research has lent powerful support to those who claimed that the australopithecines had nothing to do with the origin of man.

A. africanus and A. robustos are more humanlike than apelike, while A. afarensis is somewhere in the middle

the consensus of evolutionists has been that the australopithecines walked habitually upright, one of the characteristics predicted for a transitional form between man's supposed ape-like ancestor and man.

because that is what they did

Evidence produced by Richard Leakey in the past two or three years has now established strong support for the fact that the australopithecines did not walk upright, but were long-armed, short-legged knucklewalkers, similar to the extant African apes.

australopithecines did walk upright..they were not "short-legged knucklewalkers"

The heretofore generally accepted ideas on the evolution of man included a hypothetical common ancestor of man and apes, variously estimated to have existed up to 30 million years or so ago,

kenyapithecus..about 16 million years ago

plus little else (as far as any real fossils are concerned) until the australopithecine stage was reached, supposedly about two million years ago. Later on, it was believed, these ape-like ancestors of man were succeeded by a more man-like creature (or less apelike man!),

wow..transitional fossils that come later in the fossil record look more like. . . the species they eventually evolved into?

represented in Java by Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man), and in China by Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man). These have been dated by evolutionists (purely conjecturally) at about 500,000 years,

java man is dated to 700,000 years

and today most evolutionists place them in a single species, designated Homo erectus.

gish got something right

We have discussed in some detail why we believe that the only evolution that has occurred in these creatures was the evolution of the models and descriptions of the creatures by evolutionists since they were first described!

i will attempt to get to that at some point

The early descriptions of these creatures were very ape-like, but they became more man-like in succeeding reports, culminating in the models of Franz Weidenreich, which were quite man-like.

so the model was improved after time..what the heck is the point?..thats what science is supposed to do..if it had the answers for everything, it wouldnt be science

Unfortunately, all of the bones disappeared during World War II, so there is no way now to confirm whether this creature was man or ape. We are convinced that, as with the australopithecines, they were simply apes.

australopithecines are not "simply apes"..a couple australopithecines are mostly humanlike, one is some of both, and another is more chimp-like

Thus we have the picture: common ancestor of man and ape (30 my.)

16 mya

Australopithecus (ape-like man, 2 my.)

which species of australopithecus?

Java Man, Peking Man (near-man, 0.5 my.) modern man (it is now recognized that Neanderthal Man was fully human, Homo Sapiens).

neandertal man - Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
modern man - Homo sapiens sapiens

Richard Leakey now claims that his team has discovered a skull (designated KNMR 1470) much more modern than even "Peking Man", essentially the same, in fact, as that of a modern human (except in size), and yet it has been dated at nearly three million years!

KNMR 1470 is now dated at around 1.9 million years

If Leakey's evaluation is supported, and, if the dates assigned to the australopithecines (2 million years), "Peking Man" (1/2 million years) and KNMR 1470 (3 million years) are accepted, it is obvious that neither the australopithecines nor "Peking Man" was in an ancestral line leading to man, for how could modern man, or essentially modern man, be older than his ancestors?

KNMR 1470 is now dated at around 1.9 million years

Who ever heard of parents being younger than their children?

those are two different things

Furthermore, a few miles away, but in the same strata, Dr. John Harris, a paleontologist attached to the National Museums of Kenya, discovered limb bones that reportedly are indistinguishable from those of modern man. They are presumably limb bones of creatures identical to 1470.

The small cranial capacity for this skull is difficult to reconcile with the fact that everything else about it is reportedly essentially indistinguishable from modern man (Dr. Alec Cave, an English anatomist, has described the skull as "typically human").

so it isnt identical as modern man..big deal!..what the heck is a transitional supposed to be?.."it is not an ancestor of modern humans because it is distinguishable from them in certain areas"..WHAT DO YOU WANT?!

it is 1.9 million years old..its brain capacity is actually larger than average for Homo habilis

What about the date assigned by Leakey to his 1470, as well as the dates assigned to "Zinjanthropus" (1-3/4 million years) and "Peking Man"?

the age of 1470 is 1.9 million years old

Is it legitimate for a creationist who believes in a young earth, and therefore who believes that the dating methods used to arrive at these dates are invalid, to use these same dates to invalidate evolutionary theories?

i thought evolution was unfalsifiable..what happened?

"evolution is unfalsifiable..here is our evidence to prove it wrong: blah blah blah"

On the other hand, if the age of the earth is in the nature of thousands of years rather than billions of years, then the whole concept of evolution becomes inconceivable.

let us assume for a moment that these dates were wrong, and dating methods were wrong..how then would it be possible to show the earth is a few thousand years old?

Perhaps this is why, in our many discussions and debates with evolutionists during this past year or so, we have encountered no one who wanted to talk about human evolution!

the reason evolutionists dont like debates in the traditional format (ie, creationist gets 45 minutes, evolutionists gets 45 minutes, each gets 30 to rebut each other, then 15 minutes for conclusions. . . or something similar) is because evolution is a much more difficult subject to understand than creation..and, creationists have a problem with lying or making claims they simply cannot support..(also, keep in mind that these arguments come in front of mostly scientificly illiterate people)..if the evolutionist doesnt show the flaws in the creationists argument, the people will think "well, evolution cannot answer that"..if he does, he cannot explain evolution..(it would probably take more time than is given to make the arguments debunking the creationists claims)

"NCSE does not provide speakers (for evolution-creation debates), or encourage such debates. The debate format isn’t appropriate for detailed presentation of scientific evidence." ---National Center for Science Education

Even more recently, Dr. Francis Ivanhoe has claimed that the teeth of Neanderthal Man show specific evidence of rickets (caused by a Vitamin D deficiency) and that x-rays of the bones of Neanderthal Man show the characteristic rickets ring pattern.

if i am not mistaken, you can gain vitamin D from sunlight, correct?..well, if that is true, why would you expect neandertals to have a better chance to get rickets than somebody living in an urban city?

He further reports that every Neanderthal child skull studied so far has signs associated with severe rickets: a large head with a high, bulbous forehead, late closure of bone junctions and patches of defective bone, and poor teeth.

some neandertals did have diseases..but that does not mean all of them had diseases

No wonder Neanderthal Man was some sort of a slouch!

neandertals did have diseases..but that does not mean all of them had diseases

His brow ridges, bulbous forehead, sloping shoulders, bowed-legs

neandertal legs are bent backwards, not sideways

"primitive" features were due to softening of his bones and other pathological conditions caused by his severe Vitamin D deficiency.

what evidence is there to prove any sort of vitamin D deficiency?..that is a ridicioulous argument..you do expect some neandertal children to get rickets, right?

But now this picture of Neanderthal Man has been abandoned, and today he is no longer classified Homo neanderthalensis, but he is classified Homo Sapiens, just like you and I.

correction, neandertal man is classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a sub-species of Homo sapiens

Thus, one by one-"Nebraska Man" (constructed on the basis of a pig's tooth!), "Piltdown Man" (built around a modern ape's jaw!),

oh, goodie..attack those two "evidences" for evolution which have long been abandoned..but, just before that, they were using the out-dated "neandertals had the rickets" argument

complete version of impact #11

email me