Neanderthal and Company

This is our second lesson in a series on apologetics and this one is entitled Neanderthal and Company. We're going to talk about the theory of evolution and the supposed ascendancy of man.

The picture above is what we have been sold. I say sold because it's something we have bought into in a sense. I remember seeing this chart or a similar one back when I was in high school many, many years ago and it is presented here for all to see. It's been around in this form and in other forms for quite a while.

Here's another chart that you might have seen. We've been told that this is what we are. We are a primate. Sometimes you'll hear talk about a man from ape theory and then somebody will say, Oh, we're not saying man from apes, but really they are. That's what the charts show: something like a chimpanzee evolving into a man.

And then here is a graphic that clearly states we were once apes and we have ascended through a series of changes or evolutions to the point where we are today. It's dogmatically promoted everywhere.

Is there Evidence of Ape to Man Evolution?

You would think that with 6 million years of human evolution having taken place (which is what we're told) where are all of the fossils? Why are there seemingly few extant fossils as evidence purported to show man's ascendancy from apes? They are relatively rare and even the ones we have are often contrary. This is hardly a sound basis for believing in the factuality of man's mindless unguided evolution, but that's what we are constantly being told and that is being reinforced.

Neanderthal Man

These remains were named because they were found in the Neander Valley of Germany. Mr. Neanderthal had similar brain capacity to modern humans and his remains indicate that he walked erect. So we have to ask the question, why is he not considered to be one of us, a human being?

When you take a look at the representations from back in the day for Neanderthal, these pictures are what you see. Which picture is accurate? Both of them are decidedly different and these are not as different as others we can show. One of them looks like kind of a gorilla with a club, and the other one looks like a man with a very prominent jawline.

And then we've got other pictures like this fellow pictured on the left, and then the picture on the right is of another supposed Neanderthal. They look decidedly different to me. I don't know about you. I think I saw that guy on the right at a truck stop a couple of weeks ago! At any rate, this is what is being put forth as the appearance of Neanderthals.

But this isn't all. What about this fellow here? Kind of a pensive looking guy? He's supposed to be a Neanderthal, just like the previous four were. And what in the world is he thinking about? What is he considering? Maybe it's this Neanderthal babe beside him? There's a Neanderthal woman likeness, and she's in with the rest of them.

So what this tells us is that evolutionists really don't know what they look like. They have ideas, they have theories, they have imaginations. But that's really all this is. These are simply speculations about Neanderthal. But when you look at the facts about what has been determined or what's been discovered about Neanderthal then what we find out is that he walked erect, like we do. He used animal skins for clothing. He made and used tools. He practiced ceremonial burial, and he had a brain capacity well within that of modern-day humans.

So why in the world is he not considered a human? When you look at Neanderthal, that seems to be what we should conclude, that he was simply another human being.

Heidelberg Man

They found the Neanderthal man in the Neander Valley of Germany. Here is a jawbone that was found in Heidelberg, Germany, in 1907, which gave rise to the idea of the Heidelberg man.

While claims persist that he's a link in an evolutionary chain, the jawbone is now considered to be human. Take a look at some early drawings that perpetuated this idea of man coming from a monkey.

On the left is an artist's impression of what the Heidelberg man would have looked like. Beside it is another impression of Heidelberg man. That almost looks like a photograph of a guy, but that is simply a recreation in a museum. You can see a little bit of a difference between these two pictures. One simply looks like an ape or a chimpanzee, while the other one looks like a guy you might meet down at Bass Pro.

Then you also have the one on the far right with distinct facial features, particularly in the construction of the brow line and the jaw line. In conclusion, all of these guys look very different.

So maybe they don't know as much about the Heidelberg Man as they think they do, especially when you think it's all based on a single jawbone that is decided to be human.

Piltdown Man

So in Germany, we've got the Neanderthal man and the Heidelberg man, both of whom certainly appear to be human. What about in England? The English weren't about to be outdone by the Germans, were they? I'm not suggesting that there was a competition between the English and the Germans, but it just seems like you've got two found in Germany and now here's the Piltdown Man in England.

Oh, what are we looking at here? A skull that was discovered by Charles Dawson (not Darwin!) in a pit near Piltdown, England. This was in 1912 and it was determined to be a fraud, however, in 1953, 40 years later. It was intentionally made to look like something we would find if we were looking for human ancestors in the fossil record. It was not real, it was fraudulent. It was created and put forth to be actually a hoax, a joke. But the hoax wasn't revealed until 40 years later. You can read the story behind the Piltdown Man, and furthermore, it was definitely proven to be a fraud in 2016 using a more modern scientific method.

So what about the 40 years? While it was still believed to be real, the imaginary Piltdown Man had all kinds of images on display in magazines, newspapers and museums. The one fella on the left looks like he's intently on the hunt with a spear. And here's another one that looks like an educated chimpanzee. He's working with a tool, but he looks quite a bit different to me than the fellow on the left. Of course, both of these guys are imagined images from a skull that wasn't even real. But these aren't all the images of the Piltdown Man that have existed through the years. Just wanted to show you a couple of those there.

So we've got the Neanderthal Man who was human. We've got the Heidelberg Man who was human. We've got the Piltdown Man who never actually existed. So it's so far not look at all that great for this idea of evolution being reported reported in the fossil record.

Nebraska Man

Nebraska man is a little closer to home. We've been in Germany, we've been in England. Now we're coming to North America. I say closer to home for me, because I'm just south of Nebraska right now, in Oklahoma, in the United States of America.

And so we have our neighbor to the north, the Nebraska man, but he only lasted for a little while. Read on to find out why. Below is an image of the Nebraska Man as it came to us in scientific journals (we've added the censored bar for your sake). His existence was based on a lone tooth found in Nebraska in 1917. He was heralded as evidence of the first higher primate in North America. Did you catch that? Higher primate. That's what we're being called. In other words, we are nothing more than monkeys.

It was retracted, however, in 1927, and that was because the tooth was determined to be from a peccary or a pig. So we've got this Cornhusker who actually turned out to be a Razorback. Now, you might not get that joke unless you're a fan of American college football, but at any rate, people in the States might chuckle at that, but maybe not anybody else. So if you don't get that reference, my apologies. But I just couldn't pass it up. It was too good.

At any rate, the Nebraska man, what about him? Well, he's a pig. So we've got Neanderthal Man who was human. We've got Heidelberg Man who was human? We've got the Piltdown Man who never existed and now we've got Nebraska Man who turns out to be a pig. All right. Where do we go from here?

Java Man

A tooth was discovered on the island of Java in 1891 and then a skullcap was uncovered. About a month later, femurs and another tooth were found. And a year later, about 15 meters (45 to 50 feet) away, they found teeth and femurs that appear to be human and a skull cap that resembles that of a large gibbon.

And remember, these remains were found scattered. So we've got this controversy then about the Java Man.

A couple of guys wrote a book about Java Man trying to convince us that he was one of the ancestors of man. However, when you look at the cover of an updated version of their book, you see it is little bit misleading. I think on the cover there is a picture of a skull as if they had a skull. They don't have a skull of Java Man, the remains are fragmentary. You saw those in the previous pictures that that's really all they've got right there and yet we see on the cover of this book that there was a skull. So they don't really have a skull. They have the remains and the Java man remains a big controversy. However, he still gets a museum.

It's dogmatically reported and represented that he is part of the evolutionary chain, but I believe he is a link that's missing. Like really all the other links that appear to be missing. So there we have the Java Man with his other missing links. He's in there with Neanderthal Man and the Heidelberg man who were human and the Piltdown Man that didn't even exist.

Peking Man

Then there's a claim for the Peking man in Peking, China. There were digs in the area of Zhoukoudian, China from 1921 to 1936. When remains were being dug up, they uncovered a few teeth and some skullcaps from these remains.

The legend of Peking Man arose, but the remains, however, have since been lost. That happened in probably about 1941. Replicas are all that are left. Replicas of what they believed the skull would have looked like. So we've got this problem with Peking man since the original remains are gone.

As Colin Patterson, the late paleontologist, admitted several years ago, try though they might, with over a century of fossil searching by evolutionists, "there is not one … [transitional—JM] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
(as quoted in Sunderland, 1984, p. 89)
- Jeff Miller
Peking Man: Another Missing Missing Link

Are all these discoveries really missing links or are they simply the remains of humans or some other creatures that have been put forth as missing links?

Neanderthal was human. Heidelberg Man was human. Piltdown Man didn't exist. Nebraska Man was a pig. Java man was probably a gibbon and then there's Peking man for whom the evidence is missing.

Considerations

So here's some considerations as we bring this presentation to a conclusion.

1. Evolutionists are biased in their beliefs. Just like the rest of us are biased in what we believe they are also biased in their beliefs.
2. Funding and advancement in paleontology is often based on success in the field. I'm not saying that these guys are telling us lies intentionally. I'm simply saying that there is a tendency towards the desire to find things that may not be. They are based on the fact that if you want funding for your project, you've got to be successful. If you want to advance in your field as a paleontologist or other researcher, you've got to have some degree of success. You have to have something to show for your work.
3. There really are very few fossils for the millions of years that we are told humans were advancing and evolving.
4. How many unknown species of apes have gone extinct? And are those the remains that we are finding not of human ancestors, but simply of apes that used to exist and that may not exist anymore or even apes that still exist?
5. Given the great variety of present humans, how many have also ceased to exist? How many different kinds of humans, if you will? We're talking about the Pygmy people and the seven foot tall tribesmen of Africa in another part of the world. That is a great degree of difference in humanity. If you take the shortest human being and you compare them to the current tallest NBA player, and then you wait 10,000 years and find their fossil remains, you might say that the taller one ascended from the lower one, when in fact, they both existed at the same time. There was no question about their presence as human beings and that they're very different physically in their appearance.
6. Fossil evidence for the evolution of mankind is hardly convincing.

I don't know about you. You can do your own research, but I just wanted to bring these commonly known chains linked together in the chain of human evolution that really are missing to your attention. May God bless.