https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4195
Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer?
The media has already deemed the find an “evolutionary game changer.”
In a South African cave in 2008, two sets of fossils were discovered by
paleontologists that they allege may be from a transitional creature—a
“missing link” between modern man and the ancient ancestor he allegedly
shares with modern apes. According to
ABC News, and several
other news outlets, scientists have proclaimed the fossilized creature
an evolutionary “‘game changer’ in understanding human evolution,”
potentially being the “best candidate yet for the immediate ancestor of
our genus,
Homo” (Potter, 2011). Scientists have deemed the fossil species containing the fossil find,
Australopithecus sediba.
The fossils of special interest in the find includes a “foot, hand, and
parts of the pelvis and skull” (Potter). The cave wherein the fossils
were found was dated, using uranium-lead dating combined with
paleomagnetic and stratigraphic analysis (evolutionary dating
techniques), to be 1,977,000 years old, which caused scientists to give
the same age to the fossils. According to evolutionists, this age
predates “the earliest uncontested evidence for
Homo in Africa” (Pickering, et al., 2011, 333[6048]:1421).
 |
Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa holding the cranium of Australopithecus sediba
|
The
truth is, as we have documented time and time
again (e.g., Harrub and Thompson, 2003; Thompson, et al., 2002), the
fossil evidence that is desperately needed to prove the theory of
evolution is simply
not there. As
ABC News
writer, Ned Potter, admitted in the article splashing the fossil find,
researchers know that “[t]here is a gap in the fossil record, so far
unexplained” (2011). This admission ultimately results in the media and
many scientists jumping to quick conclusions when a hopeful find is
made, as is the case in this instance. One would think that scientists
and media personnel would be more cautious, remembering the many
blunders that have been made by paleontologists over the years in their
quick claims to have found missing links, including Java Man, Piltdown
Man, Nebraska Man, Flipper Man, and Orce Man (cf. Thompson and Harrub,
2002). Potter conceded that “researchers in the past have made many
finds that turned out to be dead ends” (2011). That is certainly an
understatement. Some scientists appear to be getting the picture.
Science writer and biologist, Michael Balter, admitted that “few
scientists are ready to believe” that these fossils represent the
immediate ancestor of the genus,
Homo (2010, 328[5975]:154).
After all, caution must be taken when all of the hype and alleged “game
changer” status of the species is based entirely on only a foot, hand,
and small
parts of a pelvis and skull.
It is important to watch for small—but significant—disclaimers that
appear throughout evolutionary literature and the media’s coverage of
fossil finds, like the present specimen. While some evolutionists use
decisive terminology when discussing macroevolution, as if it has been
proven to be true (e.g., Potter quotes Darryl De Ruiter of Texas A&M
University as saying, “It’s
strong confirmation
of evolutionary theory,” 2011, emp. added), the truth is, it is an
unproven theory, and those “in the know” in the evolutionary community
realize this problem. In fact, it is a theory that will
never
be proven, (1) since there is no evidence in the fossil record that
transitional evolution between kinds of living organisms ever occurred,
(2) since the scientific evidence indicates that life cannot come from
non-life, much less could the laws governing that life write themselves
into existence, and (3) since no one was around to witness the origin of
life, even if atheistic evolution were true, which means the question
of origins is ultimately immune to the test of empirical science. Some,
at least, like Potter, have learned to use more cautious terminology
when discussing evolution and the fossil record. Phrases such as “may
be,” “might,” and “could be” are important, because they highlight the
fact that the speaker or writer, in this case, is stating an assertion
or conjecture—not a
proven fact. Such words highlight
the fact that even the evolutionists themselves know they have not
proven their case and that their belief in evolutionary theory is a
blind belief—not based on the facts.
Disclaimers are often skipped over by Americans when reading about
science, because the climate in America—as promoted in large part by
many in our school system—lends itself to believing scientists no matter
what. A person is pressured to believe scientists, whose theories can
pretty much be taken as “gospel,” regardless of the evidence. They are
demi-gods. Their “maybes” are equivalent to the
common
man’s certainty. This unquestioning, blind belief should never have been
granted to the scientific community, and especially not in the last 50
years. As morality and ethical integrity in America erodes, less and
less confidence should be placed in the “elite” minds of our society,
who are often biased against the truth because of the desire for
prestige, money, and because of the desire to eliminate that which gives
them accountability in their personal lives.
If macroevolution ever occurred, there should be
millions
of transitional fossils, if not billions, documenting the evolution of
the various species, including man. Darwin, himself, believed that “the
number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be
truly enormous” (1956, p. 292). After well over a century of fossil
digging and analyzing the geologic strata, such proof has simply not
come forth, and frankly, that truth puts to rest the General Theory
ofEvolution. Finding only sporadic, questionable fossils, that even the
evolutionary community itself cannot agree upon, only further proves the
fact that evolutionary theory is inadequate in explaining what is seen
in the fossil record. The evolutionary community is in constant chaos
and disagreement over fossils and the fossil record. If the evolutionary
community cannot agree with itself, how can the student, listener, or
reader be expected to believe what they allege?
 |
One of the two sets of allegedly two-million-year-old bones from
Australopithecus sediba found in South Africa |
Years ago, many in the evolutionary community began to reject
all australopithecines, which would include
sediba, as being ancestral to man at all. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist
who studied australopithecines for over 15 years,
concluded that if man did descend from an ape-like ancestor, he did so
“without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation”
(1970, p. 64). The late evolutionist, Ashley Montagu, said, “[T]he skull
form of
all australopithecines shows too many
specialized and ape-like characters to be either the direct ancestor of
man or of the line that led to man” (1957, emp. added). Based largely on
the nature of
Orrorin tugenensis teeth, Martin Pickford,
evolutionary geologist from the College de France in Paris, and Brigitte
Senut, French evolutionary paleontologist of France’s National Museum
of Natural History, believe that
all australopithecines should be placed in a side branch of the “evolutionary tree” leading to
Orrorin tugenensis and dying out 1.5 million years ago, rather than in the evolutionary line leading to
Homo sapiens (cf. Senut, et al., 2001; Balter, 2001; Schuster, 2001). If it be the case that the australopithecines do not lead to man—
and it is—then
Australopithecus sediba is totally irrelevant in a discussion of human evolution altogether, regardless of the media hype.
Time will tell whether the majority of evolutionists themselves deem
this new find to be of importance to them, but regardless, the truth
will still stand firm: if evolution is true, it should not be so hard to
verify it. If atheistic explanations for the origin of the Universe
were true, we should be witnessing the spontaneous generation of life
and matter all over the place, or at least
once somewhere,
as well as witnessing transitions between kinds of living organisms.
But true science simply does not support such things. [NOTE: See
Butt, 2010 for more on
Australopithecus sediba]
REFERENCES
Balter, Michael (2001), “Early Hominid Sows Division,”
ScienceNOW, February 22, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/02/22-03.html.
Balter, Michael (2010), “Candidate Human Ancestor from South Africa Sparks Praise and Debate,”
Science, 328[5975]:154-155, April.
Butt, Kyle (2010), “
Australopithecus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2872.
Darwin, Charles (1956 edition),
The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003),
The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Montagu, Ashley (1957),
Man: His First Two Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers).
Pickering, Robyn, Paul H.G.M. Dirks, Zubair Jinnah, Darryl J. de
Ruiter, Steven E. Churchill, Andy I.R. Herries, Jon D. Woodhead, John C.
Hellstrom, and Lee R. Berger (2011), “
Australopithecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for the Origins of the Genus
Homo,”
Science, 333[6048]:1421-1423, September 9.
Potter, Ned (2011), “Evolutionary ‘Game Changer’: Fossil May Be Human Ancestor,”
ABC News,
September 8,
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fossils-south-africa-called-evolutionary-game-changer/story?id=14474976#.TmouXw8wezs.email.
Schuster, Angela M.H. (2001), “Special Report: Ancient Ancestors?”
Archaeology, 54[4]:24-25, July/August.
Senut, Brigitte, Martin Pickford, Dominique Gommery, Pierre Mein,
Kiptalam Cheboi, Yves Coppens (2001), “First Hominid From the Miocene,”
Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Science, Series IIA-Earth and Planetary Science, 332[2]:137-144, January 30.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “No Missing Links Here…,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1353.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Eric Lyons (2002), “Human Evolution and the ‘Record of the Rocks,’” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153.
Zuckerman, Solly (1970),
Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger).
Almost
fifty times in the Old Testament, we can read about a people known as
the Hittites. They were major players in Jewish history, and were listed
as one of the nations that the children of Israel needed to conquer
when entering the Promised Land (Joshua 11:3-4). Also, King David had
among his army a valiant Hittite named Uriah, who was murdered by David
because the king had committed adultery with his wife, Bathsheba.
Without a doubt, the Old Testament frequently mentions the Hittites as a
very real group of people. But for many years in secular history and in
archaeology, the Hittites were as invisible as men from Mars. No solid
archaeological evidence could be found that verified the existence of
the Hittites. For this reason, many people scorned the biblical record
and insisted that the absence of information concerning the Hittites
proved that the Bible was filled with incorrect material.
More
proof of the existence of the Master Designer comes from research
conducted by Z. Jane Wang, professor of theoretical and applied
mechanics at Cornell University (Gold, 2006). Centering on flying
systems and fluid dynamics, Dr. Wang notes that the best way to learn
about flight is by first looking at what happens naturally. Interesting. In order for the complex human mind to comprehend the principles of flight, that mind must focus on the natural order—the Creation. So mind must learn from that which, according to evolutionists, came into being and developed without any mind. Intelligence is dependent on non-intelligence. Who can believe it?