Chapter 5: Orangutans, Monkeys and Man

The Evolution = of a=20 Creationist

5=20 ORANGUTANS,=20 MONKEYS AND MAN

= When=20 studied at the level of molecules, cells, or fossil bones, the=20 evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-man or man-like-apes) are = not to=20 be found. In spite of this, elaborate attempts are made to = "prove" that=20 man evolved from early primates (ape-like creatures).

In the late sixties and early seventies, much of = the=20 scientific community ruled Ramapithecus (an ape-like creature) = ancestral=20 to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of its original position = as=20 ancestral to humans. When considering Ramapithecus in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote = their belief=20 that the jaw of Ramapithecus was that of a true ape = (Nature, Vol.=20 244, 1973, p. 313).

Yet, in 1982, the son of Louis and Mary=20 Leakey, who are world famous pioneers in the study of = "prehistoric" man,=20 stated:

"Ramapithecines = are thought=20 to be the group from which our ancestors = evolved." ^[1]

PILTDOWN MAN=20

= If=20 Ramapithecus appears in school or college textbooks as part of = the=20 evolution of man, it can be discarded, as should the Piltdown = man, which=20 was shown to be a hoax in 1953.^[2] Piltdown's filed teeth = and bone=20 had been stained to make it appear to be ancient.

Fourteen years after Piltdown Man was proven by = the=20 evolutionary scientific community to be a total fake and bad = joke,=20 Harvard University Press published these words (admittedly this = is a=20 long quote, but I include it to display how far the evolutionary = community will go to support their insupportable claims even = years after=20 one of their "evidences" has been proven to be a fraud):=20

"Unlike all = other fossil men=20 is Eoanthropus, = known from a=20 fragmentary skull and the right half of a lower jaw with two = teeth, the=20 first and second molars, in place. The specimens were obtained = by Mr.=20 William Dawson from a small opening by the roadside at Piltdown, = Sussex,=20 England, and described by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. It is = difficult to=20 determine their age, for fragments of mammals characteristic of = the=20 Pliocene and Pleistocene are mingled in the river-borne gravel. = If=20 contemporaneous with the most modern of them, Piltdown man was = probably=20 not more recent than the third interglacial stage, since Hippopotamus and other = subtropical animals occur with it.

The skull is so = fragmentary=20 that those who have studied it have been unable to agree as to = the=20 proper reconstruction: estimates of its cranial capacity have = varied=20 from 1079 cc. to 1500 cc. , and an intermediate figure of about = 1300 cc.=20 has finally been reached. It is not at all of the Neanderthal = type, but=20 has a high forehead like that of modern man. Aside from the fact = that=20 the bones are exceedingly thick, it is not peculiar. The jaw, = however,=20 is admitted by all to be more like that of a chimpanzee than = like that=20 of any man, living or extinct. This was recognized in the = original=20 description. The two teeth are like human molars, but the = remainder of=20 the jaw affords too much space to be filled by ordinary teeth. = Hence, in=20 his restoration of the anterior part, Smith Woodward made the = canines=20 large, like those of a chimpanzee, and allowed for a small = diastema. The=20 correctness of his view was demonstrated in a striking way the = year=20 after publication, when Dawson and Father Teilhard de=20 Chardin, who were resifting the gravel at the spot where the jaw = was=20 found, found a large canine. It is twice as large as that of a = man and=20 almost exactly like that of a modern chimpanzee. This = association seemed=20 to many to be an unnatural one, so the jaw was attributed by = some to a=20 species of chimpanzee. The later finding of a few more fragments = at a=20 near-by site seems, however, to have convinced most of those = interested=20 that skull and jaw belong together. Eoanthropus dawsoni = (Piltdown=20 man), then is to some people the missing link between man and = the apes.=20 The forehead is high, the brow ridge insignificant, and the = brain large,=20 all features of man, but the chinless jaw has the big canines of = an=20 ape." ^[3]=20

Thus as late as 1967, the prestigious Harvard = University=20 Press was still promoting the Piltdown Hoax as a possible = "...missing=20 link between man and the apes", when it had been proven a sham = nearly=20 fifteen years earlier.

= NEBRASKA MAN=20

Nebraska man was formed from a single tooth = found in 1922.=20 In 1924, the skull was found and the tooth fit perfectly in the = empty=20 socket -- it was a pig's tooth! ^[4]

NEANDERTHAL AND=20 CRO-MAGNON

We might also add that Neanderthal and = Cro-magnon man are=20 now believed to be normal European Homosapiens. Some of these=20 "prehistoric men" have a larger brain cavity than modern = man.

Dr. Percy E. Raymond of = Harvard=20 University, states in regard to Neanderthal: =

"In actual = capacity, the=20 cranial cavity was larger than that of the average European, = some skulls=20 measuring l,600 cc." ^[5]=20

Donald Johanson, one of the = world's=20 most recognized experts on "fossil man", writes: =

"...Neanderthal = Man. He was=20 another Homo. Some = think he=20 was the same species as ourselves.... =

I consider = Neanderthal=20 nonspecific with sapiens,=20 with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit = and=20 turning him loose in the subway. It is true; one could do it, = and he=20 would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier-boned than = people=20 of today, more primitive in a few facial features. But he was a = man. His=20 brain was as big as modern man's, but shaped in a slightly = different=20 way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a = token? He=20 certainly could." ^[6]=20

According to evolutionist Johanson, Neanderthal = is not=20 prehistoric man, not some ancient evolutionary ancestor, but = just like=20 us, modern man!

PEKING MAN=20

Peking Man has been categorized as Homo erectus. = He=20 disappeared during World War II. There is not a single bone left = of=20 Peking Man, although books have been written about the = international=20 search for the "bones".

An entertaining and readable book on the search = for Peking=20 Man was written by Christopher Janus with = William=20 Brashler, entitled, The Search for Peking Man. Mentioned = in the=20 book as one of the people who aided in the discovery of Peking = Man is Teilhard De Chardin -- one of the perpetrators = of the=20 Piltdown Man hoax! ^[7]=20 Since De Chardin was implicated in the Piltdown hoax and managed = to=20 involve himself with Peking man as well, how can we be certain = that the=20 documentation we have of Peking man is reliable?

=20 Janus records the total = number of=20 Peking Man fossil fragments before the Japanese invasion of = China:=20

"... they = labeled,=20 described, photographed and categorized the casts of the 175 = fossil=20 fragments that had been collected" ^[8]

Peking Man supposedly consisted of: =

"...5 skulls, = about 150 jaw=20 fragments and teeth, 9 thigh bones and fragments, 2 upper arm = bones, a=20 collar bone, and a wrist bone" ^[9]=20

All these bones have disappeared! Apparently, = the=20 evolutionary scientists cannot even agree on how many bones = represented=20 Peking Man. Johanson records:

"...5 skulls, 15 = smaller=20 pieces of the skull or face, 14 lower jaws and 152=20 teeth." ^[10]=20

So there is no hard evidence that Peking Man is = an=20 ancestor of Homo sapiens. Some photographs of Peking skulls = remain. The=20 skulls were broken into from the rear and most probably, the = brains=20 served as food for true Homo sapiens. It would hardly be likely = that the=20 ancient ancestor of man lived concurrently with man and that his = brains=20 would be considered a delicacy of his great-grandchildren, homo = sapiens.=20 As early as 1957, French paleontologist, Dr. = Marcellin=20 Boule, proposed that the people who made the tools that killed = Peking=20 Man were true Homo sapiens.^[11]

JAVA MAN=20

= Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered another = creature in=20 the "Homo erectus" category, which he called "Java Man". Java = Man was a=20 skullcap and leg-bone. By the end of his life, Dubois recanted. = He=20 believed the leg-bone to belong to Homo sapiens and the skullcap = that of=20 a giant ape or gibbon.

HEIDELBERG=20 MAN =

The other commonly = mentioned Homo=20 erectus is Heidelberg Man. Johanson writes: =

"Heidelberg Man, = for=20 example, was named Homo heidelbergensis. His finder recognized = that he=20 was a man and, thus, belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to = put him=20 in a species of his own." ^[12]=20

Heidelberg Man consists of a single fossil -- a = lower jaw=20 with teeth.^[13]=20 Heidelberg Man is imagination built around a = "jawbone"!

"LUCY" AND THE=20 AUSTRALOPITHECINES

Even Australopithecus is open to question. The = star of=20 this "human ancestor" is Donald Johanson's 3=BD foot tall = "Lucy".=20 Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feet = instead of=20 four feet, like other apes did (and still do). Lucy resembles = Homo=20 sapiens in three ways (theoretically): her knee, arm-leg length, = and=20 left pelvic bone. She has a human-like knee joint, but this = joint was=20 found sixty to eighty meters deeper in the rock strata and = almost a=20 mile away from the rest of the skeleton. To claim that = this knee=20 joint belonged to a partial skeleton found about a mile away is = as=20 logical as saying a chicken drum stick bone found in the parking = lot of=20 the local Kentucky Fried Chicken establishment was originally = the leg of=20 a chicken whose partial skeleton was found in your back yard. = There is=20 no way to prove the knee-joint is part of Lucy's skeleton. = Johanson=20 published Lucy's arm-leg length ratio to be 83.9%. In other = words her=20 arm bone was said to be 83.9% as long as her leg bone. This = would place=20 her about midway between ape (arm and leg of equal length) and = human=20 (arm about 75% of leg length). The 83.9% seems quite specific, = but the=20 leg-bone had been broken in two or more places and one end was = crushed.=20 The pieces do not fit perfectly together, so there is no way to=20 accurately measure it. The 83.9% sounds good, but it is a guess = (see=20 Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, 1983, p. 5).

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic = bone. This=20 bone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright. The = problem=20 is that this bone does not prove upright walking. Johanson = believes the=20 bone has been distorted by some means. And yet, there is no = other pelvic=20 bone with which to compare it. The bone as it stands, more = likely shows=20 Lucy to have walked on all fours!

According to another evolutionist, Dr.=20 Solly Zuckerman, Australopithecus is an ape and walked on all = fours like=20 an ape. Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone of the = Australopithecines=20 and he concluded that this telltale bone corresponded in one = type of=20 measurement to monkeys and baboons. Looking at it from another = angle, it=20 was "...completely unlike man, and identical with monkeys and = apes.^[14]

=20 Fellow evolutionist=20 Dr. Charles Oxnard, believes Australopithecus walked in a = fashion=20 similar to a chimpanzee^[15] or=20 an orangutan. Oxnard writes:

"Let us now = return to our=20 original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not = burden you=20 with details of each and every study that we have made but...the = information...shows that whereas the conventional wisdom is that = the=20 Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to = humans and=20 when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in African = apes,=20 the new studies point to different conclusions. The new = investigations=20 suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different = from=20 any living form; when they do have similarities with living = species,=20 they are as often as not reminiscent of the = orangutan." ^[16]=20

Lyall Watson is right. = There does not=20 appear to be enough bones from "true" fossil man, "...to fill a = single=20 coffin."

ANTHROPOLOGICAL = ART=20

Even the artwork typically used to depict these = creatures=20 is questionable. Those National Geographic-type pictures = of apes=20 gradually becoming more and more human until you finally see the = man on=20 the street (usually with an ape-like haircut and a beard) are = called=20 anthropological art.

"Unfortunately, = the vast=20 majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination, = than=20 evidence.... Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. = Bones=20 say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. = Artists=20 must create something between an ape and a human being: the = older a=20 specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it.... = Hairiness is=20 a matter of pure conjecture.

The guesswork = approach often=20 leads to errors." ^[17]=20

How did the above words get into an evolutionary = magazine=20 like Science Digest? Those National Geographic = pictures of=20 "evolving" man are "artists' conceptions", "imagination", and=20 "guesswork". When is the last time you saw a bone with hair on = it? Or=20 how do the artists know what kind of ears or lips to put on = skull=20 fragments or even whole skulls? There are no lips on skull = bones. As=20 Science Digest confesses, it is the artists' imagination. = This is=20 not science!

Every bone or bone particle discovered so far = has been=20 classified, by one evolution expert or another, as ape, monkey, = or man=20 -- not ape-man or man-ape.

IS A = MONKEY ALMOST=20 A MAN? =

There are other facts to be = considered=20 when attempting to prove that man had ape-like evolutionary = ancestors.=20 J. W. Klotz lists a few of the important differences between man = and the=20 primates.^[18] I=20 have edited Dr. Klotz's list of 31 major differences down to the = ten=20 most outstanding in my opinion. If man evolved from the = primates, then=20 everything in the right column (characteristics of primates) = would have=20 to somehow evolve into the characteristics of man in the left=20 column.=20

&nbs= p; = ;=20 MAN

&nbs= p; =20 PRIMATE=20

These are real, basic differences between man = and the=20 primates. Let us examine three.

What would it take to evolve a great toe like = that on the=20 foot of a primate into a great toe like that on the foot of a = man? This=20 digit on a primate is located and functions like a thumb. With = its=20 thumb-like great toe, it can grab onto a tree limb.

And yet the great toe of man comes out the front = of his=20 foot in a line with his other toes. In reality, there is no = animal in=20 the supposed evolutionary family of man with a great toe = positioned=20 somewhere between man's "out the front" and primate's "more = toward the=20 rear and out the side". There are no living animals and no = fossil=20 animals that display a great toe migrating toward the front of = the foot.=20 Surely "survival of the fittest" would ensnare and destroy any = primate=20 that lost its ability to grab limbs with its "evolving higher" = great=20 toe! It would quickly become extinct and would not evolve on up = in the=20 "evolutionary chain" to man.

The placement of the head is also quite = significant. A=20 human head is balanced on top of the spinal column to facilitate = walking=20 and running in the upright, two-legged position. Where is the = evidence=20 that the primates somehow managed to move their heads from being = hinged=20 in front of the spinal column (for ease of function on all = fours) to the=20 top of the spinal column as in humans? How could a creature = function,=20 whose head was placed halfway between the primate and man? = Obviously,=20 the "survival of the fittest" would catch up with it also. It = would=20 probably become extinct in one generation.

Evolution seems to be going in reverse as you = look at the=20 ability of human babies to survive, compared to the primates. = Human=20 babies are totally helpless at birth and for months afterward. = Baby apes=20 are ready to run to safety or climb onto their mother's back for = a ride=20 soon after birth. How would those first human babies have = survived? And,=20 what is the probability that the last set of ape-parents would = give=20 birth to dizygotic twins (a male and female) which could not = only=20 survive as the first non-ape human babies, but could reproduce = offspring=20 (male and female) which could again reproduce and on and on? = And, why do=20 we still have so many species of apes and monkeys, if they are = evolving=20 into something else, perhaps even into people? Again may I = emphasize the=20 fact that what we see in real life today and over the span of = recorded=20 history are discrete, identifiable animals, plants and people; = not=20 intermediate, transitional life forms.

If, as evolutionists = believe,=20 monkey-like creatures evolved into man about 1 million years = ago, (Lucy=20 is said to be around 2.8 million years old), we would anticipate = a=20 massive population problem. Dr. Henry Morris gives some = interesting=20 figures in his book, Biblical Cosmology and Modern = Science,=20 published in 1970. Assuming parents lived to the age of 35 and = had four=20 children, roughly 3 billion people would have been produced in = just the=20 first thousand years! = You=20 might say, "Well, that is too many children." Dr. Morris shows = the=20 figures for a family with three children, using the same = condition as=20 above. In roughly 2 thousand years the population of earth would = have=20 reached about 4 1/2 billion. With 2.5 children per family and = extending=20 the length of a generation to 43 years, in little more than 4 = thousand=20 years 3 billion people would populate the earth. To quote Dr. = Morris=20 verbatim: "It begins to be glaringly evident that the human race = cannot=20 be very old!" ^[19]

According to Dr. Morris, if the earth's = population started=20 with two people 4,300 years ago, it would only have to increase = at the=20 rate of 0.5% per year in order to reach the population of the = world of=20 1970. This 0.5% is significantly less than the 1970 population = growth=20 rate of about 2% per year. The farther back in history you go, = the=20 higher is the percentage of growth. Less industrialized people = have=20 bigger families on the average.

Dr. Morris states that the best secular estimate = of world=20 population at the time of Christ, is 200,000,000 people. Using = 2.75=20 children per family, plus a 40-year generation and starting with = 2=20 people in 2340 B.C., there would have been about 210 million = people=20 alive in A.D. 1. These figures would fit the Biblical time frame = nicely.

Bringing into consideration the effects of = disease and=20 wars on population growth, Dr. Morris says: =

"But what about = the=20 possibility that the great plagues and wars of the past may have = served=20 to keep the population from growing at the indicated rates? = Could the=20 population have remained static for long ages and only in modern = times=20 have started to expand?

We are unable to = answer=20 these questions dogmatically, of course, since population data = are=20 unavailable for earlier times....

Furthermore, = there is really=20 no evidence that the growth of population has been retarded by = wars or=20 disease epidemics. The past century, which has experienced the = greatest=20 mushrooming of populations, has also witnessed the most = destructive wars=20 in all history, as well as the worst plagues and=20 famines." ^[20]=20

Dr. Morris singles out the Jewish people as a = good example=20 of the accuracy of his population estimates. The Jewish people = had no=20 homeland for many years. They suffered persecution and the = holocaust.=20 Morris states that if the average Jewish family had 2.4 children = and a=20 43-year generation, that in 3,700 years (beginning about the = time of the=20 patriarch, Jacob) there should have been 13,900,000 Jewish = people alive=20 by 1970. ^[21]

Man could not possibly have been here as man for = even=20 l,000,000 years. Using Morris' figures, l,000,000 years is over = 28,600=20 generations, which would put the world population of 1970 at 10 = to the=20 5,000th power! That is enough people to fill the entire = universe, and we=20 are not including rats and rabbits. As Dr. Morris said,=20

"It begins to be = glaringly=20 evident that the human race cannot be very old! ...the = assumption of the=20 evolutionists that man first appeared a million or more years = ago=20 becomes completely absurd when examined in the light of = population=20 statistics." ^[22]=20

If man has been recognizable as man for 30 = million years,=20 15 million years or even 500,000 years, there should be hundreds = of=20 billions of fossils scattered in huge piles all over the earth! = Where is=20 fossil man? Let's face it -- man has not been and cannot have = been on=20 earth for very much longer than a few thousand years! If studies = of=20 population statistics demand a short (few thousand years) = history of man=20 on earth, then evolution of man over thousands or millions of = years is,=20 most unlikely if not totally, impossible!

Could it be that "prehistoric" man was not = "before=20 history" after all? Job may have been referring to the type of = people=20 scientists call "cavemen" as he wrote:

"But now they that are younger than I have me in = derision,=20 whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs = of my=20 flock.
Yea, whereto might the strength of their = hands profit me, in whom old = age was=20 perished?
For want and famine they were solitary; = fleeing=20 into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste.=20
Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots for their meat.=20
They were driven forth from among men, (they cried = after them=20 as after a thief;)
To dwell in the cliffs of the = valleys,=20 in caves of the = earth, and in=20 the rocks.
Among the bushes they brayed; under = the=20 nettles they were gathered together. =
They were = children of fools,=20 yea, children of base men: they were viler than the earth." = (Job=20 30:l-8)

Perhaps "cavemen" were cast-offs from the = civilized=20 societies of their day. Possibly these were people given over to = a=20 reprobate mind due to their habitual sin and decadence. In any=20 event,they were not man's ancestors. They lived concurrently = with=20 man.

The God of the Bible says He created man after = His own=20 image from the dust of the earth:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust from = the ground,=20 and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man = became a=20 living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

God formed man from dust, not from some = prehistoric,=20 ape-like, hominid creature or the primordial ooze. The dust = became, by=20 God's creative design and power, a man; but the man had no life = until=20 God breathed life into him. Genesis 2:7 clearly shows that man's = emergence from some previous living creature is not true. He = came from=20 non-living dust which became, by God's creative design and = power, a man=20 -- a man which had no life until the living God breathed = life=20 into him. This means that man could not have evolved from some = more=20 primitive "LIVING" monkey-like creature. People were created by = God in=20 God's own image. There can be no compromise for the Christian as = to the=20 origin of man. We did not come from monkey-like creatures but = through=20 the indescribable, unfathomable, supernatural power of the God = of the=20 Bible.

God placed man, the pinnacle of His creation, in = a special=20 environment of delicately balanced systems. Scientists are now = calling=20 this balance of ecosystems (that support the life of man) the = "Anthropic=20 Principle". For our lives to be maintained we must have exactly = the=20 correct amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sunlight, = magnetic=20 field, speed of rotation and revolution of earth, distance from = the=20 moon, distance from the sun, ozone, water, gravity, etc., etc., = etc. All=20 of these factors must be in the correct amounts, in the right = places, at=20 the right times, and in exact relationships with each other. For = instance, if our earth's gravity was weaker, our atmosphere = would thin=20 out and be unable to support life. If gravity was stronger, = undesirable=20 gases such as ammonia gas would be held in higher concentrations = and be=20 detrimental to life. That means our earth has to have been made = exactly=20 the right size to generate the perfect amount of gravity to = support our=20 atmosphere. But it also had to be the right size to hold our = moon in=20 orbit -- that means the moon had to be made the right size so it = wouldn't drift off into space or crash into earth -- and the = moon also=20 had to be the right size so that the ocean tides stay under = control. We=20 could go on and on with this, but the fact is the evolution = model as an=20 explanation for this incredible universe comes up grossly = lacking! God,=20 the God of the Bible, is to be praised and He, alone, is to = receive the=20 glory and the honor.

"It is a=20 good thing to give thanks to the Lord and to sing praises unto = thy name,=20 O most High." (Psalm 92:1)

^[1]=20 Richard E.=20 Leakey, Human Origins, = Lodestar Books=20 (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1982), p. 20. For much information about = fossil-man from a creationist perspective please read: Bones = of=20 Contention by Marvin Lubenow (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) = 1992. Also:=20 The Illustrated Origins Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor = (Eden=20 Productions, P.O. Box 41644 Mesa, AZ 85274-1644)=20 1992.

^[2] See The Hominid Gang: Behind = the Scenes=20 in the Search for Human Origins by Delta Willis, with an introduction = by Stephen=20 Jay Gould (New York: Viking Press, 1989), p. 24. See also The Piltdown Man by = Ronald=20 Millar (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972), front cover=20 slip.

^[3] Percy E. = Raymond,=20 Prehistoric Life (Cambridge: = Harvard=20 University Press, 1969) pp. 282, 283.

^[4] See The = Hominid=20 Gang, p. 22. Also W. R. Bird's The Origin of Species=20 Revisited (Regency: Nashville) Vol. 1, pp. 227,228.=20 (1991).

^[5]=20 Raymond, p.=20 281.

^[6] Donald C. = Johanson=20 and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of=20 Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),=20 p. 20.

^[7] = Christopher Janus,=20 The Search for Peking = Man=20 (New York: MacMillan Pub. Co., Inc., 1975), p.=20 31.

^[8] Ibid, p.=20 30.

^[9] Ibid, p.=20 32.

^[10] Johanson = and=20 Maitland, p. 34.

^[11] Marcellin = Boule, Fossil Men (Dryden = Press, 1957),=20 p. 535.

^[12] Johanson, = p.=20 36.

^[13] Raymond, = p.=20 280.

^[14] "It turned = out that=20 the angle of twist between the main plane of the ilium and the=20 ischio-pubic part of the innominate in the Australopithecine=20 cast corresponded to that in the four-footed macaque or = cercopitheque=20 monkeys and baboons,...Another dimension we have examined = describes the=20 length of the body of the ischium relative to the innominate as = a=20 whole...In this feature, Australopithecus is completely unlike = man, and=20 identical with monkeys and apes." Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower = (New=20 York: Taplinger Pub. Co., 1970), pp. = 89,91.

^[15] Dr. Chas. = Oxnard,=20 "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," American Biology = Teacher, Vol.=20 41, No. 5 (May, 1979), 264.

^[16] Ibid, p.=20 273.

^[17] Author = unknown,=20 "Anthropological Art," Science=20 Digest, 89 No. 3 (April, 1981), 44.

^[18] J. W. = Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and = Evolution=20 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp.=20 332-336.

^[19] Henry M. = Morris, Biblical Cosmology and = Modern=20 Science (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1970), p.=20 75.

^[20] Ibid, p.=20 76.

^[21] Ibid, p.=20 77.

^[22] Ibid, pp. = 75,=20 77.

TOP OF = page

SITE=20 MAP * SEARCH * HOME= =20 * INDEX

FAVORITE LINKS *=20 SPECIAL BOOK OFFERS

E-MAIL- COMMENTS

HARVESTIME BOOKS

PO. BOX 300

ALTAMONT TN. = 37301