2 Evolution Icons of 11 01 06

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Slide1: 

Slides marked with JB are from Jason Browning’s Basics of Creation presentation. His web site: http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs Slides marked with a MR are from Mike Riddle, The Fossil Record presentation. Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org, Mike@Train2Equip.com Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells; http://www.iconsofevolution.com ; Some slides modified from Dr. Heinz Lycklama‘s Icons of Evolution presentation, heinz@osta.com, www.osta.com. In particular, the Fossil horses and a small portion of Darwin‘s Finches. Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton You are free to copy any KTT slides at will. Credits

Slide2: 

Also, many slides in this presentation are modifications of slides provided by: Reason To Believe: Origin of Humanity, Cavemen, Hominids,and the Fossil Record, A Survey of Modern Christian Perspectives Mike Riddle, Fossil Record presentation. Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org, Mike@Train2Equip.com Origins Research Association http://www.originsresource.org/sunsch.htm Credits

Know The Truth: 

Know The Truth Exploring the claims of evolution against the astonishing revelations of empirical science - God’s creation revealed! Physics Anthropology Astronomy Paleontology Psychology Biology Philosophy Geology Creation

10 ICONS OF EVOLUTION: 

10 ICONS OF EVOLUTION Miller-Urey Experiment Darwin's Tree of Life Homology Haekel's Embryos Archaeopteryx

10 ICONS OF EVOLUTION: 

10 ICONS OF EVOLUTION Peppered Moths Darwin's Finches Four-winged Fruit Flies Fossil horses Ape to Man

Slide6: 

Miller-Urey Experiment

Origin of life… : 

Origin of life… … There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution?. - Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology

1953 Miller-Urey Experiment: 

1953 Miller-Urey Experiment Experiment simulated hydrogen-rich atmosphere of: Methane, Ammonia Hydrogen Minimal Water Vapor.

Miller-Urey Experiment: 

Miller-Urey Experiment A laboratory flask containing a simulation of a hydrogen-rich, oxygen-poor atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells

Miller-Urey Experiment: 

Miller-Urey Experiment Miller hypothesized that there was no oxygen in the primeval earth. Tests run with no oxygen!

1970 Geo-Chemist Results: 

1970 Geo-Chemist Results Empirical results of experiments that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere consisted of Water vapor (primary) Carbon dioxide Nitrogen Hydrogen Ultraviolet rays turn water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen!

Textbook on Miller Urey: 

Textbook on Miller Urey 2000 Biology, Ken Miller and Joseph Levine: 'By re-creating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen, and methane)…Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.'

Science Magaziine on Miller Urey: 

Science Magaziine on Miller Urey 1995, Jon Cohen: ‘the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation'. So why teach it the way they do in textbooks?

Miller-Urey Experiment : 

Miller-Urey Experiment 'The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.' Robert Gange, Ph.D., Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77. '… Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited…' Freeman Dyson, Origins of Life, 1999, pp. 25-26. (Dyson is a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a member of NAS.)

MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT: 

MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT TOOL: B R E A T H E !

OXYGEN PROBLEM: 

OXYGEN PROBLEM Oxygen Exists: Oxygen destroys amino acids (through oxidation) – think RUST! Oxygen Doesn’t Exist: If there was no oxygen, then UVO light would destroy amino acids!

Rational Thought: 

Rational Thought Oxygen based life is irreducibly complex – Origin of life must be designed as an oxygen-based process whereby a biological unit processes oxygen, provides regenerative properties and is protected from UVO light by a layer of oxygen.

Slide18: 

DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE

CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION : 

CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION Morphology T I M E Darwinian Model Actual Data Sudden appearance of complex creatures Created after their kind Tree of life

Slide20: 

Darwin’s Tree of Life vs. Typology

Darwin’s Tree of Life: 

Darwin’s Tree of Life Darwin’s Tree of Life symbolizes Darwin’s special evolution theory that all life forms sprang from a common ancestor through one advantageous change and after another. For example, a single cell became a multiple cell creature which, in turn, acquired changes to become a jellyfish, which, it turn acquired changes to become a fish (with a backbone!)...you get the picture..No? Here...let me show you. 

Darwin’s Tree of Life: 

Darwin’s Tree of Life = Common Ancestor

Typology: 

Typology All species can be classed according to a set of features they share. Species share an underlying theme or design that does not change and provides the basic foundation of their being. For example, mammals, reptiles, and birds all have different designs upon which we classify them.

Typology: 

Typology = Common Ancestor Each class is separate and distinct from the other.

What does the evidence say?: 

What does the evidence say? FOSSIL RECORD What does it say? There is no fossil evidence connecting Cambrian animals to organisms preceding them. There is no long history of gradual divergence predicted by Darwin.'

Fossil Record Typology!: 

Fossil Record Typology! Each class is separate and distinct from the other.

What does the evidence say?: 

What does the evidence say? BIOCHEMISTRY Biochemistry looks at life at the molecular level To find evidence, examine DNA to determine the change between creatures. EVOLUTION: If evolution is true, we should be able to look at animals, A-D, and see a pattern of A -andgt; B -andgt; C -andgt; D at the molecular level – gene patterns. TYPOLOGY: If typology is true, we should see no correlation between gene patterns of animals A-D, but rather a distinct separation of classes. What do we see?

Biochemistry - Protein Experiment: 

Biochemistry - Protein Experiment Proteins are made up of amino acids arranged in a specific order. Experiment: Extract the protein from all blood bearing creatures. Compare the orders of the amino acids. Determine whether the order aligns with evolutionary or typological classification.

Protein – Cytochrome C: 

Protein – Cytochrome C Protein, Cytochrome C, is made up of ~100 amino acids arranged in a specific order. Its function is to provide energy at the cellular level. It occurs in animals from bacteria to mammals, so it is an excellent candidate for the experiment. 1089 samples were used.

Experiment Results: 

Experiment Results The order of amino acids in the Cytochrome C of bacteria differed from other classes of organisms equally, by an average of 65%! horse pigeon tuna silkmoth wheat yeast bacteria 64% 64% 65% 65% 66% 69% Order of change was not A -andgt; B -andgt; C -andgt; D, but equally, totally separate and distinct!

Experiment Results: 

Experiment Results The order of amino acids in the Cytochrome C of silmoth differed from other classes of organisms equally, by an average of 26%! horse pigeon turtle carp lamprey silkmoth 27% 25% 26% 25% 30% Order of change was not A -andgt; B -andgt; C -andgt; D, but equally, totally separate and distinct!

Experiment Results: 

Experiment Results The order of amino acids in the Cytochrome C of silmoth differed from other classes of organisms equally, by an average of 13%! horse (mammal) rabbit (mammal) chicken (bird) turtle (reptile) bullfrog (amphibian) carp 13% 13% 14% 13% 13% Order of change was not A -andgt; B -andgt; C -andgt; D, but, equally, totally separate and distinct!

Experiment Results: 

Experiment Results The order of amino acids in the Cytochrome C of bacteria differed from other classes of organisms equally, by an average of 65%! horse pigeon tuna silkmoth wheat yeast bacteria 64% 64% 65% 65% 66% 69% Order of change was not A -andgt; B -andgt; C -andgt; D, but totally separate and distinct!

Experiment Results: 

Experiment Results Equal distance between classes indicates design not gradual change from single cell to man.

Biochemistry Typology!: 

Biochemistry Typology! The mathematical perfection of isolation between classes is astonishing!

Slide36: 

H O M O L O G Y

DARWIN’S ARGUMENT: 

DARWIN’S ARGUMENT 'HOMOLOGY – LOOK’S ALIKE' The bones in vertebrate limbs, whether bat, porpoise, horse or human, follow a similar pattern – must be a common ancestor…

Haekel's Embryos: 

Haekel's Embryos Early drawings were faked.

Haekel's Embryos: 

Haekel's Embryos Humans never have gills as embryos! Embryonic Stages for different animals are not similar!

Homology - Textbook: 

Homology - Textbook 1998 Douglas Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology 'The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution – yet in truth we cannot explain it all in terms of present day biological theory'

Homology - Textbook: 

'As such, if textbooks use the drawings at all, it is as an historical example and as a way to illustrate the concept in such a way that students are able to grasp it immediately. Even if the drawings are fraudulent, they can still be used for this purpose, because the concept they illustrate is by no means fraudulent.' Homology - Textbook Futuyama, Evolutionist textbook writer, wrote textbook Biology, 1998

Slide42: 

ARCHAEOPTERYX

Slide43: 

The Amazing Tricerakeet!

Education and Textbooks: 

Education and Textbooks Biology, Miller and Levine, 2002, p. 907. 'To many paleontologists a bird is a dinosaur with feathers. That definition may sound odd, but it makes sense.'

Education and Textbooks: 

Education and Textbooks 'Birds evolved from reptiles during the Jurassic period.' Biology: Principles and Explorations, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 2001, p. 268.

Archaeopteryx: 

Archaeopteryx Biology: Concepts and Connections, Campbell, Mitchell, and Reece, 2000, p. 390. 'Like modern birds, it had flight feathers, but otherwise it was more like some small bipedal dinosaurs of its era; for instance, like those dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx had teeth, wing claws, and a tail with many vertebrae.'

What Textbooks Don’t Include: 

What Textbooks Don’t Include 'As for its ‘reptile’ characteristics, yes, it had claws on its wings, but so does the ostrich, and nobody considers it part reptile. True, Archaeopteryx had teeth, but so did other fossil birds, and its teeth differed distinctly from those of reptiles… As to Archaeopteryx’s tail, further inspection has shown it strongly resembles a swan’s.' James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p. 18.

Birds Are Different From Reptiles: 

Birds Are Different From Reptiles 'Birds are so different from other creatures that there would have been hundreds of thousands of intermediate forms between birds and land animals if birds had evolved.' Stuart Burgess (Ph.D. Engineering Design, Professor of Combustion Theory, extensive study in the area of design in nature), Hallmarks of Design,2002, p. 47.

Reptile to Bird: 

Reptile to Bird Development of feathers Reform of respiratory system Reform of skeletal system – hollow bones Reform of digestive system Reform of nervous system Construction of bills andamp; beaks Mastery of nest building Acquisition of flight Development of sound producing organ

The Feather: 

The Feather

Archaeopteryx: 

Archaeopteryx 'Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.' Alan Feduccia (World authority on birds), Science, 'Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms', 1993

Birds Are Different From Reptiles: 

Birds Are Different From Reptiles 'This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.' Alan Feduccia, (professor and former chair of biology at UNC), The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81.

Birds Are Different From Reptiles: 

Birds Are Different From Reptiles 'If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement.' Dr. Alan Feduccia, 'Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird ‘Hands’ Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs', EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002.

Archaeopteryx: 

Archaeopteryx 'And like other birds, both Archaeopteryx's maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved, while in most reptiles, only the mandible moves. Archaeopteryx's brain had a large cerebellum and visual cortex – the same as that found in today’s flying birds.' David Menton (Ph.D. Cellular Biology) and Carl Wieland (M.D.), 'Bird Evolution Flies Out the Window,' Creation Ex Nihilo, 1994.

Reptile to Bird: 

Reptile to Bird 'It is often speculated that birds evolved from reptiles. However, there are enormous conceptual differences between the two classes of creature…' Stuart Burgess (Ph.D. Engineering Design, Professor of Combustion Theory, extensive study in the area of design in nature), Hallmarks of Design,2002, p. 47.

Dinosaur to Bird Evolution: 

Dinosaur to Bird Evolution National Geographic Society and the feathered dinosaur 'Archaeoraptor' October 15, 1999 Is there any real evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds?

Bird Fraud: 

Bird Fraud 'Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The ‘feathered dinosaur’ specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird.' R. Monastersky, 'All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs,' Science News, January 15, 2000

More Bird Mistakes: 

More Bird Mistakes 1993 – Mononkykus the 'flightless bird' (cover of Time magazine) Not a bird but a theropod 1996 – 'Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds' (Science) Sinosauropteryx prima The feathers turned out to be a array of fibers 1998 – China Protoarchaeopteryx robusta

Feathered Deceptions: 

Microraptor Caudopteryx Feathered Deceptions Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, 2002 Sinornithosaurus

Evidence, Faith & Deception: 

Evidence, Faith andamp; Deception

Slide61: 

Some slides modified from Dr. Heinz Lycklama‘s Icons of Evolution presentation, heinz@osta.com, www.osta.com. In particular, the Fossil horses and a small portion of Darwin‘s Finches. HUGE CREDIT to Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton You are free to copy any KTT slides at will. Credits

Slide62: 

PEPPERED MOTHS

Peppered Moths : 

Most peppered moths were light-colored in the early part of the 19th century Moths became predominantly 'melanic' or dark-colored near heavily polluted cities during the industrial revolution in Britain Peppered Moths

Natural Selection : 

The means by which organisms survive through advantageous change with respect to each other: 'descent with modification.' Natural Selection

Kettlewell’s Experiments: 

Kettlewell’s Experiments In the early 1950’s Bernard Kettlewell performed some experiments that suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more visible on pollution-darkened tree trunks It appeared that natural selection played a role in the survival of the dark-colored variety of moths Most biology textbooks illustrate this example of 'natural selection' with photographs showing two varieties of peppered moth resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks What the textbooks do NOT tell you is that these photographs have been staged since peppered moths in the wild do not rest on tree trunks

Problems With the Evidence: 

Problems With the Evidence The percentage of melanics predicted by the theory did not materialize in the different areas of England; e.g. in some areas melanism increased after the introduction of pollution control Later determined that tree trunks are not the natural resting places of peppered moths. Moths normally rest underneath or on the side of narrow branches Moths were manually placed in desired positions for the experiments, i.e. the photographs were staged This cast serious doubt on the validity of Kettlewell’s experiments

Peppered Moths - Evidence?: 

Peppered Moths - Evidence? 'The evidence Darwin lacked, Kettlewell lacked as well.' Sermonti and Catastini, Italian biologists, mid-1980’s 'the story of industrial melanism must be shelved …as a paradigm of new-Darwinian evolution.' Sibatani, Japanese biologist Darwin’s missing evidence for natural selection is still missing!

Slide68: 

DARWIN’S FINCHES

Darwin’s Finches : 

Darwin’s Finches Darwin studied 13 species of finches in the Galapagos Islands while on a voyage in 1835. The finches differ mainly in the size and shape of their beaks The various species were concluded to be the result of natural selection since the beaks of the finches are adapted to the different foods they eat

Finch Facts: 

Finch Facts The natural selection observed in the 1970’s reversed direction soon after, resulting in no net evolutionary change Several finch species appear to be merging through hybridization

Slide71: 

F R U I T F L I E S

FOUR WINGED FRUIT FLY: 

FOUR WINGED FRUIT FLY Four-winged fruit flies do not occur spontaneously! – they must be bred in the laboratory from three artificially maintained mutant strains The extra wings lack flight muscles

FOUR WINGED FRUIT FLY: 

FOUR WINGED FRUIT FLY Not evidence of evolution! They don’t mate!

Experimental Conclusions: 

Experimental Conclusions They provide no evidence that DNA mutations supply the raw materials for morphological (change in body parts) evolution No useful organism has been produced, and the organism cannot reproduce The four-winged fruit fly does not provide the missing evidence for evolution: Genetic mutations are not the raw materials for large-scale evolution A fruit fly is still a fruit fly!

Comments by Evolutionists: 

Comments by Evolutionists Major mutations such as bithorax 'are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination' through natural selection. Harvard Biologist Ernst Mayr, 1963.

Slide76: 

FOSSIL HORSES

Horse “Evolution”: 

Horse 'Evolution'

Fossil Horses : 

Othniel C. Marsh invented this entire series back in the 1870s. He arranged them in the order he thought they would have evolved. They are not found in that order, i.e. a single line. This is known to be untrue! Fossil Horses

Horse Evolution Theory: 

Horse Evolution Theory Horse evolution is based on the following assumptions: Four-toed -andgt; three-toed -andgt; two-toed -andgt; one-toed (today) Number of ribs varies between 15 and 19 Similarities in the 'horse' skulls Similarities in leg bones

Fossil Horses : 

'The most famous of all equid [horse] trends, ‘gradual reduction of the side toes,’ is flatly fictitious.' Simpson G. G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. New York and London: Columbia University Press, p 263 Fossil Horses

Fossil Horses: 

'The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information--what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.' Raup, D. M. Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50:22-29 Fossil Horses

Fossil Horses : 

Evolutionists claim that the modern single-toed horse, Equus, can be traced to the small four-toed Hyracotherium, sometimes called Eohippus, which is supposed to have lived about 50M years ago Fossil Horses

Fossil Horses - Evidence: 

Fossil Horses - Evidence The evidence known today: Eohippus was referred to as Hyracotherium by its discoverer because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax, which was not a horse The number of lumbar vertebrae changes from six to eight and then back to six in the 'horse series.'

Fossil Horses - Evidence: 

Fossil Horses - Evidence The evidence known today: Fossils of three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, showing that they lived at the same time Modern horses vary in size from 17 inches high (Fallabella in Argentina) to the 7 foot high Clydesdale

Horses Today: 

Horses Today Some horses today have three toes. Many different varieties of horses exist today that resemble horse fossils.

Fossil Horses - Conclusion: 

Fossil Horses - Conclusion Horse evolution series was disproved years ago. No knowledgeable scientist would support the horse evolution as depicted in textbooks today. There is no consensus on horse ancestry among paleontologists

Slide87: 

Ape-Men

My Ancestors? Biblical View: 

My Ancestors? Biblical View Genesis 1:26 Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness . . .' Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them Genesis 2:7 The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

My Ancestors? Biblical View: 

Genesis 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man . . . Psalm 8:4-5 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor My Ancestors? Biblical View

My Ancestors? Biblical View: 

Mark 10:6 [Jesus replied] . . . 'But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female' Matthew 19:4 'Haven’t you read', He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female' . . . My Ancestors? Biblical View

My Ancestors? Evolution View: 

My Ancestors? Evolution View

My Ancestors? Evolution View: 

1856 – Neanderthals 1892 - Java Man 1912 Piltdown Man 1922 - Nebraska Man 1930 - Ramapithecus Paranthropus Kenyanthropus 1974 – Australopithecines (LUCY) My Ancestors? Evolution View

Neanderthals - 1856: 

Neanderthals - 1856 Original Drawing of Neanderthal

Slide94: 

The Classic Model for Human Evolution Depends on Neanderthals giving rise to Modern Humans . . . Neanderthals - 1856

Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans: 

Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans Large front teeth Brow ridge Receding forehead Brain shape Large eye sockets Chin receding

Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans: 

Flatter Skull Base Higher Larynx Thicker Bones Barrel Chests Shorter Limbs Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans

Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans: 

Large eye sockets Brain Shape Large Nose Large Sinuses Large Front Teeth Physical Differences Between Neanderthals and Humans

Human Variation: 

Human Variation Watusi Pygmy Dwarfism Basketball players Eskimo (Inuit) This is an example of genetic variation and NOT evolution

Neanderthal Burial Cites: 

Neanderthal Burial Cites 'Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious, act. But the strongest evidence that Neanderthals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neanderthals and modern humans were buried together.' Marvin Lubenow, 'Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA: An Evaluation,' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 p.89.

Neanderthal Jaw Dropper!: 

Neanderthal Jaw Dropper! One of the many fraudulent things that people have done to the Neanderthal skulls is to reconstruct the lower jaw in a forward protruding position. This is based on the preconceived notion, that Neanderthal was dimwitted, and ape-ish. The jaw is purposely manipulated to look this way in reconstruction’s, because that is how some ape jaws are aligned. Of the thousands of people who have seen Neanderthal skulls in a museum, I wonder how many of them knew the jaw had been altered? Dr. Jack Cuozzo, 'Buried Alive: The startling truth about Neanderthal man' reveals the truth about the Neanderthals jaw.

Common Argument: Original skeleton was an old Neanderthal that was bent because he had rickets or arthritis!: 

Common Argument: Original skeleton was an old Neanderthal that was bent because he had rickets or arthritis! Problem: More skeletons found later that had no diseases. The disease does not account for all the physical differences. Neanderthals and Disease

Neanderthal mtDNA Summary: 

Neanderthal mtDNA Summary DNA studies are touted as separating Neanderthals from humans BE VERY WARY – Any number of issues are being raised regarding the experiment design, the measurement methods, and the subsequent logic used to draw the conclusions. Go to Answers in Genesis for a full story.

JAVA MAN – 1892, Pithecanthropus: 

Eugene Dubois 1892, on the island of Java A skullcap and three teeth Year later and 50 feet away – a modern human thigh-bone – JAVA MAN is born. JAVA MAN – 1892, Pithecanthropus HOMO ERECTUS - Walking Upright. Dubois stated skullcap similar to gibbon. 65 miles away, at same level as Java Man discovery – 2 fully human skulls! Three teeth? Confirmed to be orangutan teeth. Although no face bones had been found, suitably ‘half-ape, half-man’ features were reconstructed in artists’ drawings!

Piltdown Man - 1912: 

Piltdown Man - 1912 Segment of human skull Segment of lower ape-like jaw

Piltdown Man - 1912: 

Piltdown Man - 1912 Fragments supposedly found in a gravel pit in England; despite Teeth were filed Jaw filed to look like ape jaw Skull doused in iron salts to create aged look. Hoax lasted 40 years

Nebraska Man - 1922: 

(Double page spread in Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922) Artist’s conception of 'Nebraska Man' (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). It was based on a single tooth that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig. Nebraska Man - 1922

Ramapithecus – 1930: 

Ramapithecus – 1930

Ramapithecus: 

Ramapithecus 'Ramapithicus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is.' Time Magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)

Ramapithecus: 

Ramapithecus In 1970 a baboon living in Ethiopia was discovered. Same dental structure Similar morphological features found on Ramapithecus Ramapithecus dropped from human line The claim: 14 million year old intermediate between ape-like creatures and humans The truth

Australopithecines - 1974: 

Australopithecines - 1974 Dr. Johanson discovered Lucy in 1974 Claimed to be 3.5 million years old Claimed bipedal (walked upright)

What Was Found?: 

What Was Found? Picture of Lucy from: Biology: Understanding Life Third Edition, 2000

Lucy and the Australopithecines: 

Lucy and the Australopithecines No similarity in appearance to humans Long arms are identical to chimpanzees Jaws are similar to chimpanzees Upper leg bone is similar to chimpanzees Lucy’s legs were very ape-like Brain size (400-500 cc) overlaps chimpanzees Large back muscles for tree dwelling Hands similar to pygmy chimpanzee

Lucy and the Australopithecines: 

Lucy and the Australopithecines Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world: Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is 'imagination made of plaster of paris'. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Lucy and the Australopithecines: 

Lucy and the Australopithecines Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world: Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is 'imagination made of plaster of paris'. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Laetoli Footprints: 

Laetoli Footprints Footprints discovered in 1978 in Laetoli, Tanzania. The footprints were dated at 3.5 million years old. Who made these footprints?

Ape and Human Footprints: 

Ape and Human Footprints Laetoli footprint

Slide117: 

Evolutionary Models Classic Model Multi-Regional Model Out of Africa Model Competing Explanations

Slide118: 


Slide119: 


Slide120: 


Slide121: 

3 models – 3 proponents each trashing the others’ models! Their 'suspect' DNA experiments are causing havoc with their own models!

Slide122: 

Testing Evolutionary Models

Slide123: 

Testing Evolutionary Models

Creationist Explanation: 

Recent Hominids = Modern Humans (Post-Babel) Neanderthals Homo Erectus (and more recent) More Ancient Hominids = Non Human Paranthropus Kenyanthropus Australopithecines Dates are Incorrect or Falsified Modern dating methods are inaccurate (10 kya = Max) Where do races come from? WEEK 10 Creationist Explanation

Slide125: 

Questions?

authorStream Live Help