No proof for Darwinian evolution

Like skin color in accordance with ultraviolet light or the lack thereof, this extra lung capacity can happen relatively fast, explainable by natural selection.

What is not acceptable is the politically correct notion that groups of “African” hunters/gatherers about 15,000 or so years ago migrated north and became Caucasoids (Europeans and Semites), while those who migrated east became Mongoloids (East Asians) and those who went southeast became Australoids (Australian aborigines and Papua New Guineas) etc.

There are continuous (dental) characteristics between the Peking Man dating back 500,000 years and today’s East Asians.

Same goes for Java fossils and European/Near Eastern Neanderthals to today’s locals respectively.

(Today’s population in Indonesia and Malaysia are considered Mongoloids, but not so in the past.)

Dogs can interbreed with wolves and that’s the origin of Siberian huskies.
But are dogs really the result of domestication by humans? I don’t think so. But that’s another story.

I guess you never met a dog breeder. They are very specific about breeding for specific traits, or eliminating same.
BTW, Java Man, Peking Man have been proven hoaxes decades ago. Neanderthal Man was … wait for it… a man, like we are with rickets.

Skin tones (we are all shades of brown) are easily accounted for simply by understanding genetics.
Capital AB is the dominant high melanin level, small ab is recessive no melanin. All the skin tones can be acquired from one source with both parents having AbBb genes for melanin. Other traits are equally as diverse.


If Adam and Eve had been “heterozygous” ( AaBb ; two dominant, two recessive genes), they would have been middle-brown in color. And, from them—in one generation—racial differences could have occurred quite easily.

Not complete skeleton but

I’m not in agreement with wikipedia articles, but for reference only.

The site outside Peking (Beijing) is a cave, covering tens of thousands of years in different layers.

More ancient fossils were found in China recently.

Creationists generally deny the evolution of hominids and instead believe that God created humans distinct from the animals, and in His image as described in the Bible. The creation point of view holds that the supposed ape-man transitional forms are either apes or true humans - there is no in-between.

Over the years, other fossil fragments similar to Pithecanthropus, were discovered in Java. Many anthropologists noted a remarkable similarity between the Java Man and the Neanderthal skulls, and even Dubois finally admitted a close resemblance. Although smaller than Neanderthal, they apparently represented the same species of humans. Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith stated that based on two anatomical features (size and muscular processes) the Java Man skull was distinctly human. The cranial capacity of Java Man was estimated at 1000 cc, small but well within the range of modern humans, whereas the anthropoid apes never exceed 600 cc.[13]

Regarding the femur, which was found a year later and about 50 feet from the skullcap, virtually every authority except Dubois has felt that it was indistinguishable from modern humans. In addition, the skullcaps of other specimens, such as Peking man and Okduvai Hominid 28 bear striking resemblance to Java Man, and yet the femurs from these others are dissimilar, again illustrating that the Java Man femur is more modern. Sadly, although the Java Man femur has been questioned by the most respected evolutionary anatomists since its discovery, it was presented to the public together with the skullcap as proof of a missing link.[14]

Since the 1950s, Java man ( Pithecanthropus erectus ) along with Peking man have been known as Homo erectus (upright man). With rare possible exceptions (such as Homo habilis ), the taxonomic genus homo contains true humans with a variety of anatomical sizes and shapes that are well within the range of expected diversity.

1937 Newspaper article stating that Java Man was a giant gibbon-like creature according to Eugene Dubois.

(13) (14) Lubenow, Marvin. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992.


Java Man was discovered by a Dutch anatomist, Eugene Dubois, on the island of Java. A skullcap and three teeth were found in 1891, and in 1892, a femur (thighbone) was found 46 feet away. Dubois held that the skullcap had both human and ape features, whereas the thighbone appeared very human-like. Dubois claimed until his death that he had found “the real missing link,” his purpose in journeying to the Dutch East Indies.

The doctor was not completely forthright, however - he also found two obviously human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls) near the Java Man remains, at about the same level. He kept them secret for thirty years (until 1920), while promoting Java Man as the missing link. Obviously, Java Man could not be the evolutionary ancestor of humans with whom it coexisted. While the shape of the skull would be unusual today, it falls within the range of human variability. Java Man is now classified as Homo erectus, meaning erect or upright-walking human. Thus, even evolutionists agree that these fossils are human - not an ape-man.


Peking Man was discovered in China, in the 1920s and 1930s, and like Java Man has been renamed Homo erectus. The fossils, found about 25 miles from Peking (Beijing), consisted mostly of skull fragments (only five skulls were intact enough to gauge the brain capacity) and teeth, with very few limb bones. All of the original bones were mysteriously “lost” between 1941 and 1945. (Fortunately, some excellent casts of the originals were made before their disappearance.) Peking Man was a bit smaller overall than the average human today, but in all respects falls within the modern range of variation, and its middle ear structure has been found to be just like ours.

As with Java Man, much of the truth surrounding Peking Man was kept from the public, while evolutionists acclaimed it as a “missing link.” At the site were also found the remains of ten fully human inhabitants who quarried the limestone, built fires, and left behind a variety of tools. It seems that - far from being the ancestor of modern man - Peking Man was not only a contemporary, but may also have been his dinner. The evidence suggests that the larger people removed (and very possibly ate) the brains of the smaller Peking Man individuals.
The “missing links” are still missing, because they never existed in the first place. From the beginning, true apes and true humans have coexisted as biologically distinct, created kinds - the works of the Creator.

For further study

  • Paul S. Taylor - The Illustrated Origins Answer Book
  • Marvin L. Lubenow - Bones of Contention, a Creationist’s Assessment of Human Fossils

Skull shape and brain capacity have little to do with “intelligence”
(European Neanderthals had a larger brain size than us)

Australian aborigine skull with ancient traits

I contend humans are subject to the same Laws of Thermodynamics as the rest of the universe.
Geneticists know that mutations are passed from parent to child, most are benign, some are not which is why mating with a close relative is often detrimental to the child, since both parents are likely to have the same mutations, and therefore may become the dominant trait.
These mutations compound each generation and diminish the organism slightly with each level. We are devolving. We are more susceptible to diseases, our immune systems are failing, less fertile in some cases. Our nutrition was improving over the rest of the world here in the U.S. until recently accounting for our increased height. Not so much anymore, as I understand.

They’ve found a missing link! . . . at least that’s what the headlines (once again) will tell you!

A recent study trumpeted the discovery of a supposedly 11.6-million-year-old ape from what is now Germany. Danuvius guggenmosi allegedly had “long arms suited to hanging in trees, [and] features of its legs and spine suggest it might also have been able to move around on its hind feet.” It’s now being hailed as the earliest evidence of bipedalism (habitual walking on two legs) and now upends the evolutionary timetable for bipedal evolution. So, did they find a missing link? Well, not so fast.

Dr. David Menton, an anatomist and former professor at Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis, took a look at the study and the reports about this new find. His conclusion? Much ado about nothing—or at least very little.

The find itself, like many fossil finds, was very fragmentary, with the most important bones (e.g., pelvis and skull) missing entirely. Here’s Dr. Menton’s analysis, with quotes from the popular summary of the study included in italics:

“Discovery of creature that lived in the trees but stood on its hind legs suggests bipedalism emerged millions of years earlier than previously thought.”

Menton’s “law”: everything will continue to be found to have evolved earlier than previously thought.

“Had long arms suited to hanging on trees, features of its legs and spine suggest it might also have been able to move around on its hind feet.”

They claim that Danuvius guggenmosi might have been able to move around on its hind feet! One could say this for any ape or monkey. What exactly does it mean to be bipedal? Is the circus elephant that walks on two hind legs bipedal?

Bipedal means walking on two rear limbs. Many animals can walk on two limbs, but obligate or habitual bipeds essentially always walk on two limbs. Many animals engage in bipedalism, including kangaroos, tree kangaroos, kangaroo rats and mice, scaly ant-eaters, bears, apes, monkeys, many lizards, theropod dinosaurs, and all birds. There is even a cockroach that runs on two legs. A visit to the circus reveals that horses, dogs, lions, tigers, and elephants are capable of walking on two legs. The ostrich is the fastest living biped (nearly 45 miles an hour). Some living tree-dwelling primates, such as gibbons and indriids (a type of lemur), are exclusively bipedal during the brief periods they spend on the ground. No evolutionist considers any of these “bipeds” to be ancestral to bipedality or humans.

And there is an essential difference between human and ape bipedality—the stride or gait. Apes must swing their upper body from side to side to keep their weight over the planted foot and to keep the contralateral hip from dropping. The best evidence for gait is the anatomy of the pelvis. The curvature of the iliac blades on the human pelvis is unique. Unfortunately, no critically important pelvic bones were found with Danuvius guggenmosi .

“how and when bipedal walking evolved is currently a mystery . . . ”

But they are absolutely certain that it did evolve somehow sometime!

“The 4.4 million-year-old hominin Ardipithecus ramidus was clearly bipedal.”

This claim is not true.

From the website of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History:

Does the pelvis of Ar. ramidus support the hypothesis that this early human species was bipedal? The pelvis was reconstructed from crushed fossils and, according to some scientists, is only suggestive of bipedalism.

Also, Ar. ramidus had a laterally diverging and grasping big toe typical of tree dwellers.

[B]ones belonging to at least four individuals . . . include thigh, shin and lower arm bones, as well as several vertebrae and hand and foot bones. The vertebrae and leg bones in particular suggest that D. guggenmosi moved around on two feet . . . the shapes of some of the vertebrae suggest that the ancient ape had a long and flexible lower back, a feature that allows modern humans to stay balanced while walking upright.

The original paper published in Nature shows evidence of only two vertebrae: a first thoracic vertebra, and a diaphragmatic vertebra. These are hardly sufficient data to show any evidence of a “long flexible back” or that the creature “moved around on two feet.”

The big advantage of this sort of speculative “research” is that no one can prove your speculations to be wrong, but then no one can prove them to be right.

With the handful of bones they found, the claim that this ape was bipedal is speculation. It’s an interpretation of the fossils.

Dr. Menton concluded by telling me, “How does one disagree with mere speculation? It’s like disagreeing with a novel.” With the handful of bones they found, the claim that this ape was bipedal is speculation. It’s an interpretation of the fossils. Unsurprisingly, other scientists disagree with the conclusion made by the study authors regarding D. guggenmosi , saying the evidence is too fragmentary to make such a conclusion possible.

Evolutionists will continue to search for a missing link to fill in the gaps in their story. But they won’t find them because they don’t exist. God’s Word gives us the true history of the world. And it says God created humans unique from the animals, in his very image (Genesis 1:27).

Maybe they should rename this creature Danuvius desperanti to illustrate how desperate evolutionists are to find their non-existent missing link!

Like all other IQ It’s done in a standardized test

Subspecies are not different breeds of dogs a polar bear and a black bear are subspecies of bears

Dogs have been through selective breeding and are completely domesticated animals they don’t really fit into this discussion that well

So, you say a test is done like a test? Not an answer one would expect from someone with a high IQ. :wink:

1 Like

Well, there we go. We need to define terms for this discussion. Dogs are the perfect example to use since they not only are selectively bred but adapt well into many breeds/species of dogs, wolf, jackal, Labrador, Poodle, etc.
The Bible uses a simpler term of ‘kinds’ of animals where an animal kind is one that is able to interbreed, about at the level of the current classification of ‘family’.
Humans are all the same race/specie/kind and always have been. Unlike the racist theory of Darwin’s.

Subspecies are groups of animals within a species who do not mate, usually because of geographical distance.
They show minor differences in physique which do not hamper interbreeding when they meet.

However, when it comes to tigon and liger (cross between tiger and lion, so named according to which is male/female), such interbreeding does not happen in nature. These animals came into being only because of human intervention and manipulation.

When it comes coyotes, some speculate that they originated as a cross between wolf and fox, or dog and fox. I don’t know how it came about.

As for pigs and wild boars, it is generally assumed that wild boars somehow got domesticated and became pigs. However, I think it’s the other way around. Domesticated pigs escaped the pens and became wild boars.

I have a different theory about dogs and cats (small domesticated ones) but it’s another story.

Darwin hardly mentions human races.

The Bible talks about lions in Palestine, but never mentions household cats anywhere. Interesting.

If you leave domesticated pigs in the wild they get physical differences and become more rough and aggressive within one generation

1 Like

OK, I admit I haven’t read his Origins.
But as far as what I learned in college, he never mentioned human racial differences as part of human evolution.

He did, often, within the text of his books. We need to stop teaching children they are one step removed from different lines of animals, some more evolved than others. Maybe then they will stop acting like animals and treat each other like who we are, cousins.
(“Race” is strictly an evolutionary concept used by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and the other nineteenth-century evolutionists to rationalize their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! “God that made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:24,26). “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?” (Malachi 2:10). HMM)

Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest.”
Living longer is not the name of the game. Rather, it is leaving behind more descendants than your competitors.

In a lion society, a new alpha who has deposed the former boss will kill his cubs. Why? Because they don’t carry his genes and it’s counterproductive to guard the harem with none of his genes present. By killing the cubs of his former boss, the new ruler can make the females receptive to him.

“I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.” - (1869) fifth edition chapter four of Darwin’s "The Origin of Species