Tape 2 - Evolution vs. Creation Seminar

Park Meadows Church

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

He had a beautiful set of fish fins, highly designed, I would hear the evolutionists might say highly adapted, to balancing, steering, locomotion in the water.

00:10

This amphibian had, at his first appearance, the basic amphibian limb.

00:18

And there's not a trace of an intermediate stage anywhere in the fossil record. We can't find one intermediate with a partway fin and a partway foot.

00:26

Not one. Next slide will illustrate some other fundamental differences between amphibians and fishes.

00:34

Now there's a fish on the right, taken from the Chicago Museum of Natural History.

00:39

Cross section of fish to the pelvic region. The fins do not support the weight of the body.

00:46

The pelvic bones are small and loosely embedded in muscle. There is no connection between the pelvic bones of a fish and the vertebral column in any fish, living or fossil.

00:58

You don't need any connection. The fins do not support the weight of the body. The so -called walking catfish in Florida doesn't walk.

01:07

He flitters along on his belly using the same motion that he uses in the water. But now look at the amphibian.

01:15

In the amphibian, the limbs do support the weight of the body. The pelvic bones are very large and firmly attached to the vertebral column.

01:24

There's the basic difference. Not bridged by one single transitional form.

01:31

Now it does seem rather amazing that we could have all of these millions of years of evolution, all of those hundreds of billions of forms that must have lived and died, and yet we cannot find one in the fossil record.

01:43

Unless, of course, these creatures were separately created. And then this is the kind of evidence that we would predict on the basis of our creation model.

01:55

Now, I would like to consider the origin of flight as an ideal test case of this creation versus evolution.

02:02

It should present an ideal test case for several reasons. First of all, to convert a non -flying animal into a flying animal should require a revolution in structure.

02:13

If we are going to find transitional forms, if there are going to be some transitional forms that one should be able to recognize easily without going to school and getting a

02:24

PhD in paleontology and being thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary theory, if just any of us could go into a museum, the

02:34

Chicago Museum, the American Museum, the Denver Museum, the American Museum, if any of us could go in there and say, there it is, here is where we ought to find those transitional forms.

02:45

The change should be obvious. Furthermore, flight occurs in four classes of animals, in birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals.

02:56

Birds, insects, reptiles, the flying reptiles now being extinct, and the mammals, the bat being the flying mammal.

03:05

So here's four evolutionary processes which led to the ability to fly.

03:13

These processes were separate from one another. Each one required many millions of years, involving hundreds and hundreds of millions and even billions of transitional forms.

03:27

It must have lived and died. So here, if anywhere, we ought to find transitional forms, obviously.

03:34

And the changes were so obvious that they should be easy to identify. Now the change from, say, a reptile to a mammal is rather subtle, osteologically speaking, and maybe we might be a little difficult here, or perhaps it might be a little easier to imagine one way or the other.

03:55

This is, of course, one of the favorite places evolutionists go, to the so -called mammal -like reptiles. Let me say this.

04:02

Of course, we would expect this creation to find some similarities, shared in common by different classes, but we'd not expect to find transitional series.

04:15

This is what the fossil record shows. But now in the case of the so -called mammal -like reptiles, may

04:20

I just point out one thing? They are believed to have become extinct at the end of the

04:27

Triassic period. Mammals appear in great abundance in the

04:33

Tertiary period. There's 100 million years in between, according to evolutionists.

04:39

And in that 100 million years supposed to have existed between the end of the Triassic and the beginning of the

04:46

Tertiary, that 100 million years, you could take all of the fossils that you can ascribe to mammals, and you could hold it all in the cup of your hand.

04:55

A very few teeth and a few fragments of the skull, perhaps the jaw.

05:03

The so -called mammals. Now, it seems remarkable that the ancestor gave rise to mammals, and then after he became extinct and mammals arose, then the dinosaurs arose, reigned over this world and died out.

05:20

During all that 100 million years, somewhere the mammals were sneaking around, hiding somewhere. But apparently in such few numbers, that we find practically no evidence at all.

05:32

It doesn't seem to be a true time sequence at all. Well, let's go on with our story. Next slide, please.

05:37

I want to... Oh, yes. Another aspect of the story about the fish. He's believed to have become extinct 70 million years ago.

05:46

That in rocks that is 70 million years or younger, they do not find the fossils. They assumed he became extinct until he was found alive and well off the coast of Africa in 1939.

05:57

Here's one of the expeditions that brought in one of the creatures. Next slide, please. And here's another one of the fishes.

06:04

Now, there he is, ladies and gentlemen, your ancestor. But apparently this creature forgot to evolve because there he is, still the same old fish.

06:12

And it does seem rather remarkable that one portion of the population was so plastic they evolved all the way to man.

06:18

But yet there he is, near 10, still living today. It does seem very remarkable.

06:24

And how can we have 70 million years and no fossils? There are some invertebrates that are believed to have become extinct 300 million years ago which are found today, still living.

06:39

So it does cast some doubt on these millions of years. Next slide, please. All right, now in the next slide you see what's supposed to be the ancestor of dinosaurs, birds, and flying reptiles.

06:49

That is, according to Dr. Alfred S. Romer at Harvard University, famous paleontologist and evolutionist and many other evolutionists, here's the granddaddy of the dinosaurs, the birds, and flying reptiles.

07:00

I want you to get a look at this structure, see what it looked like. I'm going to skim briefly through the dinosaurs.

07:06

We have just a brief time left. Next slide, please. Here's Triceratops.

07:11

He has a tremendous bony armor plate, several inches thick. Look at the spikes on his head.

07:17

Look at tremendous transformation from his so -called reptilian ancestor. Well, wouldn't he make a marvelous tackle on the

07:24

Texas Tech football team? No Texas halfback would ever get over that creature.

07:31

But you can find the fossils of that animal in your museums, and you can find the fossils of his so -called reptilian ancestor, but you don't find the intermediates.

07:40

Next slide, please. Now here's a Stegosaurus. Look where his spikes are, way out on the tail, out on the opposite end.

07:47

Look at the little tiny head, no neck on this creature. Look at those unique plates along the back.

07:53

No one knows what purpose they were. Maybe some say, well, maybe they were heat exchangers. Others say, well, maybe they were some kind of armor plates.

08:00

Well, nobody really knows. But the significant thing is they're uniquely different. And if they arose slowly and gradually over millions of years of time, it seems to me we ought to find a few of these intermediates showing the differences, showing the transition.

08:14

But we do not find these intermediates. Next slide, please. Here's a Trachodon dinosaur, a remarkable dinosaur.

08:22

His reptilian ancestor had jaws with teeth. He has a duckbill.

08:29

He's called a duckbill dinosaur. Here he does not have jaws and teeth, but he has a duckbill -like construction here used, no doubt, for slurping up the vegetation off the bottom of streams and lakes.

08:42

But now, here again, if this creature evolved from a reptile that had jaws and teeth, where are the intermediate forms?

08:50

Why don't we find some of these? Somewhere on the face of the earth. How could all those intermediates snuck off somewhere and hid for the millions of years required for the evolution of this creature, and then all of a sudden he flowers, and here he is in large numbers?

09:04

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Next slide, please. Here's one of the carnivorous dinosaurs, in this case

09:10

Allosaurus. There's a famous Tyrannosaurus and others. Here he is feasting on the remnants of a

09:15

Brontosaurus. A little bit easier to imagine the relationship of this to that reptilian ancestor, but there is a fundamental difference, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, which are not theirs.

09:27

Next slide, please. Here's the Brachiosaurus, a long -necked dinosaur. We had the Stegosaurus, which was practically no neck.

09:34

Here's a long -necked dinosaur. It seems to me, then, we ought to find some of the intermediates showing a gradual increase in the length of the neck.

09:41

But again, we do not find these transitional forms. Next slide, please. And here's the famous Brontosaurus, 40 tons of steaks and roasts walking around on four feet.

09:51

And see where we got our big Texan steaks, I guess, like one of those things that I saw in a restaurant last night.

09:57

Take a bigger man than me to eat that thing. Now, this creature supposedly consumed several hundred pounds of food a day.

10:07

But here he is, a monstrous creature, 40 tons, 80 feet long. Now, that's quite a difference, ladies and gentlemen.

10:15

And there ought to be some of the intermediate stages somewhere along the fossil record, but again, we do not find these transitional forms.

10:22

Certainly vast differences in the shape of the feet. Some had claws, some did not, and so forth and so on.

10:28

Well, it seems to me that we ought to have a pretty good idea of the transitional forms somewhere in some museum, but I haven't found them in the

10:35

American Museum of Natural History. I haven't found them in the Denver Museum. I haven't found them in the Chicago Museum.

10:41

I haven't found them anywhere. Next slide, please. Well, let's go back to our origin of the dinosaurs and the birds and reptiles and so forth, flying reptiles.

10:53

Dr. Morris is going to discuss, at least briefly, what we believe happened to the dinosaurs.

10:59

Now, the evolutionary geologists, they don't know what happened to dinosaurs. Why did dinosaurs, and this tremendous variety, why did the flying reptiles, why did marine reptiles, why did all this tremendous number of reptiles suddenly become extinct?

11:14

Suddenly, I'm using geological terms, suddenly become extinct and suddenly be replaced by a bewildering array of mammals that were barely hinted at in the preceding period.

11:28

Thirty -two orders of mammals abruptly appeared. Now, there's some problems here for the evolutionists to answer.

11:35

Now, here again is the ancestor of the flying reptiles and the birds. Next slide, please. Here's one of the flying reptiles.

11:43

Now, what a remarkable transformation in structure has occurred. Notice the difference between this creature and his so -called ancestor.

11:51

Notice this very, very long tail with a rudder. I guess that's kind of a handy gadget for creatures to fly.

11:56

At least he found it to be handy. Notice the huge keel or sternum for the anchoring of the flight muscles.

12:04

This was a tooth reptile, but notice particularly the fingers and the wing membrane and so forth.

12:12

This reptile, this is not a finger, steroid bone, this creature had four fingers, three fingers, which are believed to have been remarkably stable, but look what happened to that fourth finger.

12:23

By random mutational changes, strictly accidentally, by just a series of errors scattered through millions of years of time, this finger got longer and longer and longer and longer.

12:36

Of course, for some reason, when that finger began to get a little bit longer, natural selection selected.

12:44

But by other random mutational changes, the wing membrane began to develop, flight muscles began to develop, the keel got larger and larger, and the bones become hollow and we finally end up with this marvelous flying machine.

12:56

Next slide, next slide please. Here is a couple of other examples of flying reptiles.

13:01

Notice particularly the tyrannodon, the lower portion of the slide, this was a toothless reptile.

13:07

It had no teeth, but it had this large toothless beak, very large bony crest, and in this case, the fourth finger supported a wingspan of over 25 feet.

13:17

I don't know about you, but I'm glad this critter is extinct. Can you imagine Texas Tech, you've got your three points behind, you're about 15 seconds to go, your halfback is broken into clear, he's got nothing but 15 yards of daylight between him and the goal line, and this thing swoops down, snatches the football out of his hand, and you lose the game.

13:38

That'd be tragic. Well, here's the important point, ladies and gentlemen. If these unique structures slowly and gradually evolved over millions of years of time, we ought to find a few of the intermediate stages.

13:49

We ought to find, say, an intermediate stage with the fingers about that long, maybe one about that long that's the worst, and so on.

13:54

But as a matter of fact, there's not a trace of an intermediate stage anywhere in the fossil record.

14:00

Not a trace of an intermediate stage has ever been found. These flying reptiles abruptly appear in the fossil record just as predicted directly on the basis of the creation model, but the tremendous number of transitional forms that lived and died during all those millions of years, not one can be found.

14:22

Now, it seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, this evidence fits directly to creation model, but the evolutionists somehow must try to explain it away.

14:30

But no transitional form. The same is true of insects. Evolutionists argue among themselves what structure on an insect gave rise to wings.

14:38

Now, there would be no argument if they could find one intermediate. That would settle the argument.

14:45

But the controversy is still raging today. No transitional form in the case of insects.

14:50

What about the bird? Next slide, please. Here's Archaeopteryx, the world's oldest known bird.

14:56

Supposed to be the world's oldest known bird. All right, here he is. As you can see, a remarkable revolutionary structuring has occurred.

15:05

This bird had wings. He had feathers, completely feathered, and those feathers were just as complex as the feathers found in a modern bird.

15:15

And feathers are exceedingly complex structures. He had perching feet, a bird -like skull.

15:22

He was a bird. And there are no transitional forms between Archaeopteryx and his so -called reptilian ancestors.

15:29

There are no transitional forms between this bird and any other bird. Well, now the evolutionists will hasten to point out that there were some unusual features that they called reptilian.

15:41

They say that this bird, of course, his so -called reptilian features were the presence of teeth, presence of paws, and vertebrae extending out along the tail.

15:50

That's some of his so -called reptilian features. Well, what about the teeth? Well, now there were other birds, ancient birds, that appeared in the fossil record abruptly that had no teeth, absolutely no teeth.

16:04

And we don't find these intermediates. But now, modern birds do not have teeth. So they say, well, now you see, that's a holdover from his reptilian ancestors.

16:14

Well, now, ladies and gentlemen, it's true. Some ancient birds had teeth and some didn't. Well, what does that really prove?

16:21

Well, it proves that some ancient birds had teeth and some didn't. That's what it proves. But does it indicate a link to a reptile?

16:28

Well, may I remind you that the presence and absence of teeth is true of all subclasses of the vertebrae.

16:34

Some fishes have teeth, but some do not. Some amphibians have teeth, but others do not. Some reptiles have teeth, but some do not.

16:41

Some mammals have teeth, but some do not. Some of you have teeth, and some do not.

16:48

But that does not necessarily establish a link to a reptile. One of the mammals that has no teeth, and therefore ought to be more highly evolved than you and I, is the duckbill platypus.

17:02

Now, it's not really a duckbill. It's a leathery structure, but it resembles a duckbill. As a so -called duckbill, webbed feet and lays eggs.

17:13

Now, there you are. He must be a highly evolved mammal because he's lost his teeth. But I wouldn't call that a very highly complex mammal.

17:20

No. And he can't be our ancestor because he appears in the fossil record 150 million years too late, according to evolutionary data.

17:28

But, what about the claws? Now, that would seem to be rather convincing, wouldn't it?

17:33

Until we realize that there are birds living today, 100 percent birds that have claws.

17:38

Next slide, please. Here's a Watson of South America, a bird just as much as a bird can be.

17:45

Now, archaeopteryx is supposed to be a poor flyer. It has a very small keel because we haven't found it yet.

17:50

So, it's soon to be small. Therefore, he's soon to be a poor flyer. This bird has an astonishingly small keel.

17:56

He's just a lousy flyer. He flies about 100 yards and then just collapses into bushes. He's had it. That's the best he can do.

18:02

But this bird also has claws. Next slide, please. Here's a juvenile for Watson.

18:08

As you see, he has two claws. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if we could find this bird as a fossil,

18:14

I'm sure that it would be claimed that he was a transitional form. But he's not. He's a bird living today.

18:20

And the Turaco is another bird living in Africa that has claws. The ostrich has three claws.

18:27

Here are birds living today with claws. The claws are a morphological characteristic shared in common by the class

18:34

Aves and the class Reptilians. They do not represent some intermediate stage. Next slide, please.

18:40

Well, here's our archaeopteryx. As we can see, he was a bird. Now, Dr. W .E.

18:46

Swinton, an expert on birds and evolutionist in comparative physiology and biochemistry of birds, published in 1960, made the following statement.

18:58

That volume was published in two, or that set was published in two volumes.

19:03

In volume one, first chapter, The Origin of Birds, Dr. Swinton, now, he believes that birds did evolve from reptiles.

19:11

But nevertheless, he says that the origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction.

19:19

There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change was made from reptile to bird.

19:28

There is no fossil evidence. Now, you could infer the origin of birds from reptiles, he said, but there's no fossil evidence.

19:36

So we've seen the absolute transition from here. Next slide, please. Here's a bat. These fingers gradually increase through vast stretches of time.

19:52

Now, that's bone. That's easily fossilizable, if anything is. It seems to me we ought to find a few of the intermediates here showing the origin of bats.

20:01

Next slide, please. Well, here's the world's oldest known bat. Here's the actual photograph of the bones of the bat, published in Science Magazine on the cover page,

20:12

December 9th, 1966, and if you stretch the bones out and close them with flesh, this is what the bat would look like.

20:19

All right, ladies and gentlemen, there he is, the world's oldest known bat. What is he?

20:25

Oh, I should have mentioned they claim that these bones were found in a rock dated at 50 million years of age.

20:32

They say there's nothing they've ever found related to a bat any older than this.

20:39

All right, then, here he is, the world's oldest known bat. And he is 100 % bat.

20:47

He's not 50%, he's not 80 % bat, he's 100 % bat, and the evolutionists must admit that the first evidence of flight in mammals occurs in fully developed bats and no transitional forms.

21:07

That's true of all classes of mammals, by the way. The rodents abruptly appear in the fossil record.

21:13

The primates abruptly appear in the fossil record. And various other classes of mammals, 32 orders of mammals, and in every case, the basic characteristics are present in the first members.

21:30

Well, in any case, we see now in the origin of flight four classes of animals, birds, insects, the reptiles and the bats, or mammals, there are no transitional forms.

21:42

But here's where we ought to find these transitional forms, surely, if they existed. That's all for the slides now.

21:48

May we have the lights? I won't mention anything about man, I'll deal with man this afternoon. But ladies and gentlemen, the thing, the, the, what

21:56

I have illustrated for you this morning is what characterizes the fossil record. This is what characterizes the fossil record.

22:05

Systematic absence of transitional forms. The gaps in the fossil record are systematic. Dr. E .J.

22:12

H. Korner of Cambridge University, a botanist and an evolutionist, in the book, on the, the, well

22:24

I can't, I can't remember right now the title of the book. Oh, it was, I think it's called

22:30

Recent Botanical Thought, something of that nature, published in 1961. Here's a book published in 1961.

22:37

You'll find the reference and documentation in my book. This man, who is an evolutionist, who does believe that plants have evolved, said that there is much evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution from biology, biogeography, and paleontology.

22:54

But, he said, I still think to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of spatial creation.

23:06

Here is an evolutionist admitting that the fossil record of plants doesn't favor evolution, it favors creation.

23:12

Seed -bearing plants, the flowering plants, abruptly appear, as do all the major plant kinds without transition forms.

23:20

Dr. George Gator Simpson at least admits that the gaps in the fossil record at the higher category between phyla, classes, and orders, and families, are systematic and nearly universal.

23:32

Finally, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, famous geneticist and evolutionist, one of the most rabid evolutionists

23:37

I've ever read, he says evolution is a fact for which no further proof is needed. But, then in an article that he published in American Scientist, Volume 52,

23:50

January of 1952, I'm not sure about that volume number, but it was in the

23:56

January 1952 issue of American Scientist, Dr. Goldschmidt just proceeds to demolish evolution, for he says, now wait a minute, fellas, the evidence doesn't fit this idea of slow and gradual change.

24:08

You see, most evolutionists believe that evolution is a very slow and gradual process passing through these micro -mutation changes.

24:15

Dr. Goldschmidt said, now wait a minute, fellas, the evidence doesn't fit that theory. He says, look, the gaps in the fossil record are systematic.

24:23

He says, the major kinds do appear instantaneously without transition forms. He says, that doesn't fit your idea of slow and gradual change.

24:30

Well, now, Goldschmidt was not about to become a creationist, so he proposed an alternative mechanism for evolution, which he called the hopeful monster mechanism.

24:38

Goldschmidt says, for instance, at one time, a reptile laid an egg, and guess what? A bird came crawling out of the egg.

24:47

Boy, what a shock to mama reptile. And you know, I think she had a very embarrassing time explaining that to papa reptile.

24:56

As a matter of fact, I think he would have sued her for a divorce, claiming infidelity. Well, the neo -Darwinists, the ones who believe in slow gradual change, they don't think

25:04

Goldschmidt had a better idea either. As a matter of fact, they think he's the one that laid the egg. But Goldschmidt saw the gaps, accepted them at face value, and felt forced to propose his preposterous hopeful monster mechanism.

25:19

But this evolutionist now, a man who really wanted to find transitional forms, said that the facts of greatest general importance from the fossil record are these, that when the phyla, classes, and orders appear, there's an explosive appearance of these various forms, geologically speaking, so that practically every order and every family appear in the fossil record abruptly without any transitional form.

25:53

And that's documented also in this book here, the statement by Goldschmidt and statements of others where Goldschmidt says, phyla, classes, and orders, and down to including almost every family appear in the fossil record abruptly without transitional form.

26:07

Now ladies and gentlemen, as a creationist, I could hardly describe the fossil record in more glowing terms than that, what

26:14

I would expect on the basis of creation. But Dr. Goldschmidt, this dogmatic evolution says, that is what the fossil record shows.

26:23

The facts of greatest and general importance shows the abrupt appearance of these kinds without transitional form.

26:30

I submit, then, that when we just look at the fossil record, when we try to evaluate it objectively, we would come to the same conclusion that Dr.

26:42

Korner comes, the same conclusion that Dr. Korner expressed, that the fossil record supports spatial creation and not evolution.

26:51

It weighs heavily in favor of the creation model. Not only is creation credible, it's far more credible on the basis of the fossil record than evolution.

27:00

Well, thank you very much, and I was requested to close in prayer and offer

27:07

God's blessings upon the food that is being served below. I trust that you will be back with us this afternoon as we look at some other aspects of the scientific record as it relates to this question.

27:17

Shall we pray? Heavenly Father, we do thank you for the understanding and help that you have given us.

27:23

We know that we are, surely, very limited in our intelligence. We are very limited in our understanding.

27:31

There is so much that we cannot understand and know, yet we do know that thy word is truth. We thank you for it.

27:37

We thank you for the tremendous, wonderful, highly complex and wonderful universe that you have given to us, the evidence that you have given to us through your marvelous creation.

27:51

Now, we do ask that you will bless the food that has been prepared to our body's health and strength, which we give you the praise and thanks in Christ's precious name.

28:01

Amen. We hope you'll be back as closely to one o 'clock as you can.

28:17

I mentioned my little book earlier this morning. I do have a chapter in this book on The Origin of Man, in which we have the material that I'll be giving, some of this material that I'll be giving this afternoon.

28:31

If you're particularly interested, you can find the material here in the book, the documentation that I'll be using, the statements that I'll be giving.

28:40

Most of these statements are documented in this book. Someone asked us about our particular scientific background.

28:47

I should stress that both Dr. Morris and I were practicing scientists for many years after receiving my

28:56

Ph .D. at Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley. By the way, when I went to school at Berkeley, it was fun.

29:02

After that, it sort of became a riot. I'm glad things sort of settled down on that campus now.

29:11

After I left there, I went to Cornell Medical College in New York City where I worked with Dr. Vincent D 'Avigno, who won the

29:18

Nobel Prize when I was there on the staff. We had a little fun of being among that excitement.

29:26

Then we went back to Berkeley at the University of California Virus Laboratory where I was on the staff there.

29:32

At Cornell, I worked with the pituitary hormones. We were working on the synthesis of these pituitary

29:38

Then at Berkeley, I was working on the other end of things, taking things apart. We worked on the structure of the tobacco mosaic virus protein.

29:48

The group I was in, our research group, worked out the structure of the protein of tobacco mosaic virus.

29:55

After that, I went to the Upjohn Company in Kalamazoo where I spent 11 years on the research staff there synthesizing compounds related to ACTH, anti -cancer and immunosuppressive drugs.

30:10

Dr. Morris himself, of course, was professor of hydrology and head of the civil engineering department,

30:16

VPI, for 13 years before he came to California. He has one of the best known texts in hydraulics.

30:26

So, we are scientists, and this is the kind of evidence that we wish to emphasize in a meeting of this kind.

30:34

Now, this afternoon, I want to give you the creationist interpretation of the record as it relates to the origin of man, and particularly my interpretation of this evidence.

30:46

Now, I'm not an anthropologist. I am not a paleontologist, and some people would immediately disqualify me from considering this material.

30:58

Now, if that's true, if we must be disqualified, then our whole system of justice is a sham, because the man sitting on the jury, he is no expert in ballistics.

31:11

He is no expert in blood chemistry. He is no expert in psychiatry.

31:17

But yet, he must listen to the evidence presented by the professor who is the probabilistic expert, the expert in chemistry, the expert in psychiatry, and he is the one, then, who must make the decision.

31:31

Now, I'm in much of the same position, only I am a scientifically trained person, and I do at least have some understanding of scientific principles and what constitutes scientific evidence and methods of interpretation.

31:47

I'm going to take a look at that evidence, and I want you to take a look at that evidence with me and see how we might interpret the evidence as it relates to our origins.

31:56

Now, of course, I begin my consideration with some very strong preconceived ideas.

32:03

I'm a creationist. I believe that God created this universe. I believe that he did create man.

32:09

I believe there is a God to whom we are responsible. In this, I disagree with George Gaylord Simpson, this famous evolutionist.

32:16

Dr. Simpson says man stands alone in the universe. He's just the product of a long evolutionary materialistic process.

32:24

There is no one to whom he is responsible. I disagree. I want you to note that Dr.

32:31

Simpson has his strong preconceived ideas. I have mine.

32:36

You have yours. No one can approach the interpretation of evidence of this kind without starting with some set of preconceived ideas.

32:47

We all have some interpretive model or some faith within which we are going to interpret this evidence.

32:55

I think the question is, who has the best evidence for his faith? I want you to take a look at the actual fossil record today as it relates to man.

33:06

Now, we are told that as a fact, we know as a fact, man has evolved from lower creatures.

33:12

This is what we are presented in all of our colleges and universities. You see this beautiful material from Time Life, all of these beautiful pictures based upon reconstructions and evidence which have been related to the extremely fragmentary fossil record that is available.

33:29

A tooth in one case, a fragment of a skull in another, a few little remains here and there. But those reconstructions, those ideas are based upon this extremely fragmentary evidence and the person who is interpreting this evidence has these very strong preconceived ideas.

33:50

What I am conveying to you that this evidence surely does not show in any way a series of transitional forms leading from some subhuman ancestor to man.

34:02

I believe here just as in the remainder of the fossil record that we see sudden appearances of basically different kinds of creatures with no transitional forms.

34:13

All the way from the so -called subhuman or sub - primate ancestors all the way to man.

34:20

Well, I want to take a look at that evidence and I will just discuss the evidence and see what this evidence can tell us.

34:29

Now, man is classified as a primate. We are put in the order of primates because we share certain characteristics in common with other animals.

34:43

Now, we believe that we have these common characteristics because God, the creator, you certain, good, sound, sound, engineering principles in his creation.

34:56

A creature that required a grasping hand, which monkeys do and apes and man,

35:02

God used certain engineering principles in devising structures that would endow these structures with the ability to grasp.

35:12

Monkeys needed grasping hands. Humans needed grasping hands. So we have these similarities.

35:21

It is not so important that we have a keen sense of smell, but on the other hand, that we have a keen eyesight and hearing.

35:28

So, the animals that we call primates do not have a keen sense of smell, but they have keen eyesight and keen hearing.

35:38

For their activities, primates require more intelligence.

35:44

So, the order of primates have relatively large brains.

35:50

Now, we share these characteristics in common with monkeys and with the apes.

35:57

Grasping hands, relatively large brains, keen eyesight and hearing, but in relation to many other animals, a poor sense of smell.

36:09

So, we have been placed in this order of primates. By the way, the father of taxonomy, the man who was really who invented this system of classification,

36:20

Carolus Linnaeus, was a creationist. He grouped animals and organisms and plants together without using any evolutionary presuppositions whatsoever.

36:33

As a matter of fact, since we can place all animals and plants in discrete categories, the fact that we have that ability means that there are these basic differences between animals and plants.

36:52

But as Dr. Morrison has pointed out, if all animals and plants had gradually evolved through a vast stretch of time, through this vast number of intermediate stages, it seems to me it would be completely impossible to do this.

37:06

We shouldn't find discrete categories among animals today and discrete categories of plants.

37:12

It should be very difficult to place anything in any category. But the fact that we can do this in the present world and in the fossil world seems to us to indicate that these creatures have always been basically different.

37:28

Well, so we have the order of primates. Now you will have that first slide, please, and we'll have to turn out the lights now.

37:34

The first slide, where do I have my slide operator? Where's my projectionist today, this afternoon?

37:43

Would you do that? Could you do that for me, Roger? Yes. Roger, would you operate that for me?

37:48

Just slip into the next pew there and flip on that switch. The first slide is in place. And then you have the control and right on the back of the machine you'll find a switch.

38:01

Pull it clear up. All right. Is it clear up? Do we have it in the maximum brightness?

38:07

Is that switch clear up? Okay. All right. Now, there's a forward and reverse button and a, okay, fine.

38:14

And there is a focus control there, too. All right. Now, so man's been placed in the order of primates.

38:20

Now, primates supposedly evolved from insectivores. So the living insectivores being the moles and hedgehogs.

38:30

Now, there is a very considerable difference between primates and insectivores. Now, evolutionists use living representatives of the order insectivores and living primates to infer that primates have evolved from insectivores.

38:52

You cannot go to the fossil record and show that some primates have evolved from You cannot go to the fossil record and show that primates have evolved from insectivores.

39:22

that primates have evolved from insectivores. You cannot go to the You cannot go to Now, ladies and gentlemen, if we could find the actual transitional point between the insectivores and the primates, that statement could not be made.

39:33

We would know the time and place of the origin of the order of primates, but that evidence is not available.

39:39

Dr. A .J. Kelsau, in his book Physical Anthropology, says that we must infer the origin of primates from insectivores by studying the living representative.

39:52

I want you to understand, then, that the answer to ancestor of man, we have a huge gap here in the fossil record. We do not have the transitional forms in the actual fossil record to show the origin of the order of primates.

40:03

Same is true of the other 31 order of primates. As I mentioned this morning, the rodents, the bats or chiroprura, and the various of the whales, so forth and so on, appear abruptly.

40:17

We cannot trace their origin back to some supposed insectivore ancestor or something like that. Well now, the order of primates have been subdivided in two sub -orders.

40:27

Generally speaking, this is the way it's done. The sub -order prosimian, or the prosimiae, and the anthropoides.

40:36

Now, prosimiae, prosimian, pro -apes. In other words, the prosimians, or the lemur -like creatures, supposedly gave rise to the ape -like creatures.

40:48

Then, in the anthropoidea, we have grouped the monkeys, the great apes, and man.

40:57

So all the rest of us, outside these lemur -like creatures, in the order of primates, are put in a sub -order.

41:04

You notice we have the catarines and the protarines. The catarines are the narrow -nosed monkeys and creatures.

41:11

The protarines are the broad -nosed. There's a distinctive difference here. The New World monkeys are the catarines.

41:19

Another thing. You look in the book, Vertebrate Paleontology, by Alfred S.

41:25

Romer. Look in the book, Physical Anthropology, by A .J. Kelso. Look, see what you can find about the ancestry of the monkeys.

41:33

You find nothing. Monkeys, when we first see them, are monkeys. Whether they're

41:39

Old World monkeys or New World monkeys. And you cannot go to the fossil record and trace the origin of monkeys.

41:46

Supposedly, back to the prosimians. But there are no transitional forms. There are no transitional forms between the prosimians and the anthropoids.

41:56

Dr. Simons, in another publication, I like to quote Dr. Simons. He's certainly one of the most respected evolutionists in this area.

42:04

He says, nowhere do we find anything that could really be called a proto -catarine.

42:14

That's the ancestor to all the Old World monkeys, apes, and men. There's nowhere that we can find a proto -catarine.

42:20

Of course, we couldn't find a proto -platerine either. There are no transitional forms between these two sub -orders.

42:27

And there's quite a difference. May we have the next slide, please? This is a, you probably won't see this too well.

42:33

This is a fossil prosimian, a lemur -like creature. You notice the long face that this creature has, the snouty appearance.

42:42

That's characteristic of the prosimian, the long face. The apes and man tend to have a flat face.

42:51

They're certainly flatter than we find in the prosimians. The next slide will show a fossil ape.

42:57

I wonder if we can, can we focus that a little bit better? I don't know whether you can or not, but it might sharpen it up a little bit.

43:02

Notice the flat face in this fossil ape. Very different from the prosimians.

43:08

Now, there's a fundamental difference here, then, between the prosimians and the apes not frizzed by anything in the fossil record.

43:15

At least we haven't found it yet. So, again, we must infer that the prosimians gave rise to the ape -like creature.

43:23

Now, the prosimians are found in what is called the

43:29

Paleocene and Eocene. The earliest epochs in the Tertiary Period. This is where all the mammals appear.

43:37

In the Tertiary Period, all of a sudden, here's all the mammals. The dinosaurs, flying reptiles, marine reptiles, all these creatures have become extinct all of a sudden, and I say all of a sudden,

43:51

I'm speaking geologically now. The evolutionary geologist, when he uses the word sudden, he might mean a million or two million years, but he's been looking at what he believes to be a hundred million years.

44:03

You see, the reign of the dinosaurs and the other reptiles, all of a sudden, they become extinct, all of a sudden, here's all the mammals.

44:13

Well, these prosimian -like creatures, now, they're the primates, see? They're supposed to be the higher mammals,

44:21

I would assume, but they appear right along with the other mammalian orders, the rodents and the bats, the odd -toed ungulates, the even -toed ungulates, that is, the hooked animals, they all appear at this time, but these so -called prosimians now appear in the

44:43

Eocene and Paleocene of North American Europe. Now, the evolutionary interpretation would be around North American Europe for 30 million years and yet apparently not reach

44:52

Africa during those 30 million years. Why don't we find primates in Africa, in the Eocene and Paleocene down there in Africa, if the primates were around for 30 million years?

45:03

Again, it sort of casts some doubt on the duration of that time. Now, the

45:10

Oligocene is the epoch that supposedly follows the Eocene, and the

45:16

Oligocene, what we call the Oligocene deposits, generally are on top of the Eocene.

45:23

That is supposed to be a period of 12 million years which followed the Eocene. All right?

45:30

Now we've had these lemur -like creatures, the ancestors of the ape -like creatures, in North American Europe for 30 million years.

45:37

Where would you expect the apes to appear? Where would you expect the revolutionary offspring to appear?

45:43

Well, in North American Europe, of course. There they were for 30 million years, evolving all that time into the apes.

45:52

So that's where you expect to find the ape -like creatures. In the Oligocene, then, you would look in North American Europe to find the apes.

46:01

In this entire supposed 12 million years, in the Oligocene, in North American Europe, you find not one single fossil ape, and hardly a primate of any kind.

46:17

But where do you find the apes of the Oligocene? In Africa. Here, in the

46:24

Oligocene, in Africa, you find all these ape fossils. Now, if they arose from the primate, from prosimians, why don't we find prosimians down in Africa?

46:35

Or at least, why don't we find the apes over in North American Europe? You see what

46:40

I'm trying to say? When you try to look at all this data, you interpret every bit of it, and try to get a coherent picture, it doesn't become coherent, it becomes incoherent.

46:52

It becomes illogical and implausible. But in any case, you don't find the transitional point between the prosimians and the apes.

47:00

They're not available. It's assumed that one evolved into the other, but we don't find the transitional point.

47:09

Now, eventually, of course, it is assumed that the apes evolved into man, or the common ancestor of ape and man evolved into man.

47:17

May we have that next slide, please? Now, here is a chart showing the line leading down to man, and then, of course, there was a line that led down to the modern apes.

47:32

Now, evolutionists do not say that man evolved from modern apes, from a gorilla, or a chimpanzee, or an orang.

47:40

No, he doesn't say that. He doesn't say he evolved from a monkey, a modern monkey. But he evolved from some creature in the past we'd all call an ape.

47:49

If we saw him walking around on two feet, or four feet, I'm sorry, walking around on four feet, we'd certainly call him an ape.

47:58

But that common ancestor you see existed many millions of years ago and gave rise, it is believed, to the modern apes, and the monkeys, and to man.

48:09

Now, that common ancestor is hypothetical. No one has been able, at least to this time, to identify that common ancestor.

48:19

Everything that has been proposed as a common ancestor has been ruled out for one reason or another.

48:26

But we have not been able to find the common ancestor. But it is assumed that he existed. Well, the paleontologists, most paleontologists say probably 30 million years ago.

48:36

But on the other hand, it just depends on who's telling the story. The people who study the biochemistry of chimpanzees, and monkeys, and gorillas, and the biochemistry of man, and relate similarities, they claim the evidence indicates that we shared a common ancestor with the apes only 5 million years ago.

48:56

Well, now there's a vast difference between 5 million years and 30 million years, ladies and gentlemen. Somebody's got to be wrong.

49:01

The evidence somehow must be equivocal. The evidence must be capable of interpretation from various points of view.

49:10

And I think the reason that it's that variable is because it just doesn't fit the evolutionary supposition.

49:19

So we can't really say how long ago this common ancestor existed, but it was somewhere back there, way back there, some millions of years in time.

49:27

And since the paleontologists claim it was about 30 million years ago, and we're studying the evidence from paleontology, let's assume that we had this common ancestor of ape and man about 30 million years ago.

49:38

Now, for some reason, some segment of the population got split off and isolated in some direction over here, and began a line leading on down to the monkeys and modern apes.

49:48

And as it came down, it kept branching off to the lemur -like creatures first, and then to the monkeys, and so forth and so on.

49:56

And finally, there was a divergence, which one line led down to man, and the other down to modern apes, about 30 million years or so ago.

50:04

Well, now, we're going to concern ourselves with the lineage that led down to man, supposedly. Now, you notice that the first possible candidate for man's ancestor following this divergence has been called

50:23

Ramapithecus. That is the material studied from India. Rama, referring to India, Pithecus, ape,

50:31

Indian ape. Dr. Louis Leakey has discovered other material in Africa, which apparently is from the same creature.

50:40

I think he called it Kenya Pithecus, an ape from Kenya. But nevertheless, here is this creature, supposed to have some features, however subtle, that would indicate he might have been in the line leading to man.

50:58

Therefore, we're going to call him a hominid. Hominoids includes apes and man.

51:05

Hominids are the ape -like, or man -like apes. So here's the first hominid, it is believed,

51:12

Ramapithecus. Notice that he's dated to about 10 to 14 million years before the present.

51:18

Then the next possible candidate, Australopithecus. The Australopithecines are dated to about 2 million years before the present.

51:29

So that means then, and of course we go to these other creatures, then on down to man, well that means then, in this first 30 million years or so, down to the

51:40

Australopithecines, that means about the first 25 million years or so, before we get to this stage, the only evidence we have for man's evolution, supposedly, is this

51:49

Ramapithecus. Well, we're going to take a look at that creature first, then the

51:55

Australopithecines, Homo erectus, and then Neanderthal man. See what evidence we can relate here to this question.

52:03

Now, the next slide please. Now here, on this side of the slide, you see a human jaw.

52:11

You can't see all of it, but a human jaw has the palate, or the dental arcade is in a parabolic shape.

52:22

You notice here. And of course he has very, we have relatively small incisors and small canines.

52:29

Our canine teeth are not test like. At the same level are the incisors.

52:36

So man has teeth that are much smaller than the apes, monkeys. He does not have the test -like canine teeth.

52:43

And he has a parabolic shape to his jaw. The ape, on the other hand, here in the dark, you see the ape, and behind it, in white, you see the human.

52:53

So it contrasts the parabolic shape of the human to the U -shape of the ape. Now the ape has, of course, very large teeth compared to man.

53:02

Particularly, he has these very large incisors. And then he has a large canine tooth.

53:09

You will see a bit later in the later picture, a little bit better. But they have very large canine teeth.

53:15

And to accommodate these test -like canine teeth, he has a gap in the upper and lower jaws between the incisors and the canine.

53:24

It's called a diastema. So he characteristically has that gap, has this U -shaped jaw.

53:30

Now, here on the left, you see rhombopithecus. Now there's all the evidence, supposedly, or that's all the alleged evidence they have for man's evolution for 25 million years, a few teeth and fragments of the jaw.

53:47

That's all they have available to document the first 25 million years of man's evolution from the time he split off from the ape.

53:54

A few teeth and fragments of the jaw. Well, now, what evidence do they feel, some feel, relates this creature to man?

54:04

This is ideas of Dr. Alvin Simons, David Pilbeam, and some others. Other evolutionists disagree.

54:11

Other evolutionists say, no, just an ape. Some evolutionists say, no, this possibly was on the line leading to man.

54:18

Well, the reason some of them feel it was on the line leading to man, although he had very large incisors, you can see the one incisor, they didn't find any incisor teeth, they're not available, but from the remains, they figured it had a large incisors and a typical canine tooth, typical ape -like canine.

54:40

But smaller than you find in a modern ape. Typical ape, but reduced in size.

54:47

Not quite as large as you find in a modern ape. So, you see, the reduction in tooth size would be one of the predictions we'd make on the basis of evolution.

55:01

As our teeth are smaller than apes, there must have been a continual reduction in the size of the teeth. Upright, bipedal gait.

55:13

Man is the only creature that has this mode of gait or walking.

55:20

Upright, bipedal walk. The gibbon habitually walks upright when he walks, but usually he swings through the trees.

55:27

He's a brachiator. But when he does walk, he walks upright. But all other apes and monkeys do not walk upright, not habitually.

55:35

Well, anyhow, going back to our story now. So they say, they claim, that there was, you couldn't notice, a slight reduction in the size of these teeth.

55:44

And you see the way that they arranged these fragmentary bones.

55:49

They put it in a U -shape, I mean, sorry, in a parabolic shape rather than a U -shape. Of course, that's highly subjective, isn't it?

55:57

When you just have a few fragmentary remains, whether it was U -shaped or like this or parabolic shaped like man, that's rather subjective.

56:05

But that's what they claim, the evidence shows, some slight reduction in the size of teeth, and perhaps you could arrange a dental arcade in this way.

56:15

Next slide, please. I don't know, oh, I'm sorry. Will you go back?

56:20

I thought I had another slide in there somewhere. Yeah, there it is. Now, can you focus that a little better?

56:26

I can't see it very well. I hope you can see it a little bit better than I can. Can you sharpen that up a little bit? Well, anyhow, this,

56:36

I don't know how much you can see here, but this is a reconstruction of a jaw by two different evolutionists using exactly the same evidence.

56:46

The actual evidence available was the material in blue. That's the actual material that was available, just a few teeth, fragments of the jaw.

56:55

The evolutionist that reconstructed this jaw made it look human -like. He drew in the teeth very human -like.

57:02

These front teeth weren't available, but he drew them in human -like. He arranged them in this parabolic shape, and he came out with a very man -like jaw.

57:09

This other evolutionist took exactly the same material. He assumed it came from an ape, so he drew in these very large incisors, a gap here, and there's very large canine teeth, and he got a

57:19

U -shaped jaw out of it. Now, all right, there you are. Same evidence, two different evolutionists can come up with two different views.

57:27

Now, going back to the previous jaw, then, was it really in parabolic shape or U -shape?

57:32

Well, I think it depended on just, you know, what you wanted to believe, the evidence being that fragmentary.

57:39

Well, nevertheless, and I think this is what is so significant, in the

57:46

January 1972 issue of Scientific American, Dr.

57:51

Robert Eckert of Penn State University, an evolutionist, a paleoanthropologist, published an article in which he reported, as a matter of fact, this is where I got this picture of these two jaw bones.

58:08

That's the article where I found the picture. He pointed this out, how you can get such different pictures from the same material when it's so fragmentary.

58:16

He pointed out the fact that he had measured the teeth in rhomopithecus and cuneopithecus.

58:23

He had taken these fossil teeth and he had made measurements, 24 different dimensions, height of the crown, length of the tooth, width of the tooth, and so forth and so on.

58:32

He took all these dimensions, 24 different dimensions, and then he tabulated the differences between the dimensions of this rhomopithecus and those of a fossil ape.

58:44

He took the fossil ape, dryopithecus, known to be an ape, from the fact that they have enough of the skeleton, known to be an ape, he measured the tooth dimensions of dryopithecus, a fossil ape, compared them to the tooth dimensions of rhomopithecus and tabulated the differences.

59:04

Then he went to a population of chimpanzees, a living population of modern chimpanzees.

59:11

He measured the tooth dimensions in these chimpanzees and tabulated the differences. He found that the differences, the range of differences in this one population of chimpanzees were greater than the range of differences between rhomopithecus and the fossil ape.

59:29

He therefore concluded that there was no significant difference in the teeth of rhomopithecus and those of apes.

59:36

He concluded that rhomopithecus was simply an ape, period, and had nothing to do with the origin of man.

59:46

Furthermore, they have found a baboon living in Africa today, the Galata baboon, Theropithecus galata.

59:54

He's a high -altitude baboon, lives up in the mountains about 10 or 11 ,000 feet. Now here's a baboon walking around today, just a baboon, not related to man at all, that has the dental and the mandibular, that is the jaw characteristics, in common with rhomopithecus.

01:00:12

You've got a baboon walking around with teeth like that today. Well, if a baboon owns those teeth, you sure can't say there's no way to claim that they were related to man.

01:00:24

Now I think all of the weight of this evidence simply indicates, as Dr. Eckert claimed, that rhomopithecus was just an ape.

01:00:32

All right, let's just remove rhomopithecus off our list of candidates, and we have nothing then for all of this supposed evolution of man, all of this millions of years of evolution, down to including the

01:00:49

Australopithecine. That's just a big blank. There's nothing there to document man's evolution. A long evolutionary sequence leading from some supposed ape -like ancestry cannot be documented on the fossil record.

01:01:00

Now let's consider the Australopithecines. In 1924,

01:01:05

Dr. Raymond Dart found in South Africa a skull. It was grossly ape -like.

01:01:14

It had the cranial capacity certainly of an ape. The average cranial capacity of Australopithecus is about 500 cc.

01:01:25

Man's is nearly triple of that. The gorilla has a cranial capacity up as high as 650 cc.

01:01:33

So regardless of what else we can say about these creatures, they had ape -sized brains. Grossly ape -like skull.

01:01:42

In many respects, just simply ape. But he noticed one certain characteristic about this creature we'll see shortly, the front teeth.

01:01:52

The front teeth certainly were not what you find in modern apes. They were reduced in size.

01:01:59

The front teeth were smaller than those that you find in a modern ape. Dr. Dart then, on the basis of this evidence, claimed that this creature was in the line leading to man.

01:02:08

Now it created a great deal of controversy. Some anthropologists said, yes, Dart's right.

01:02:15

Others said, oh no, look at that grossly ape -like creature. Just maybe an irrelevant side branch.

01:02:21

Had nothing to do with the origin of man. So forth and so on. Well, during the years, it gained quite a few advocates of the ancestry of man.

01:02:30

Because the nature of the teeth, plus the fact that on the basis of extremely fragmentary evidence, it was claimed that he walked habitually upright.

01:02:40

These are two characteristics we expect for man. Reduction in size of teeth, upright, bipedal gait.

01:02:48

In 1959, Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife Mary found a skull in East Africa that they claimed were distinctly different than anything man had ever seen before.

01:03:01

It was completely unique and was importantly related to man's evolution.

01:03:07

They gave this creature the name Zinganthropus. East Africa man.

01:03:15

And through the pages of the National Geographic and other journals and newspapers, radio and television,

01:03:22

Dr. Leakey became world famous as a discoverer of Zinganthropus, the evolutionary ancestor of man.

01:03:29

East Africa man. Why, that alone would convince people that here's evolutionary form.

01:03:37

We even call it man. Zinganthropus. Well, some years later,

01:03:43

Dr. Leakey and everyone else realized that Zinganthropus was just another variety of the

01:03:48

Australopithecine. Wasn't different, wasn't new. Had been discovered 35 years earlier.

01:03:55

But by this time, Dr. Leakey had become world famous. That didn't make any difference anyhow. He was already world famous. But nevertheless, just another variety of the

01:04:03

Australopithecine. Well, let's take a look at the evidence. Next slide, please. Let's see.

01:04:10

I think it's the jaw first. Let's go back. Maybe I got those slides out of order. Come back. One more.

01:04:17

I've got two slides out of order. Will you come back one slide? No. I want you to reverse. Push the reverse button.

01:04:27

It won't back up? Excuse me. Oh, I'm harnessed. There's a button right there on the side of the projector.

01:04:34

There's a reverse and forward button. Will you push that reverse button? Another one?

01:04:40

Another one? All right. Now, focus that, would you please? Okay. I'm sorry.

01:04:46

I got one of the slides out of order. This is the jaw bone. This is the jaw of the

01:04:51

Australopithecine. Dr. Leakey called it Zinjanthophus, but it's classified as Australopithecus.

01:04:58

Now, you will notice that the front teeth are small, relatively small, and so is the canine teeth.

01:05:03

And at least the way they've reconstructed the jaw, there's no gap here. But the cheek teeth, on the other hand, are massive in size.

01:05:14

Those cheek teeth are as large as the teeth that you find in a 400 -pound gorilla. But this creature is believed to have been no more than 60 to 70 pounds.

01:05:24

But he has cheek teeth as large as those found in a 400 -pound gorilla. So he had massive cheek teeth. He had massive jaws, but small front teeth.

01:05:32

Next slide, please. Next slide. Here is the skull of this

01:05:38

Zinjanthophus, or Australopithecus. And notice the grossly ape -like characteristics.

01:05:46

Notice that he has a sagittal crest, a bony ridge across the top of the skull, which is the characteristic of the apes, used for the anchoring of these very heavy chewing muscles that he uses.

01:05:59

Notice these very large bony processes here. Notice this massive jaw, grossly ape -like, an ape -sized brain, no forehead.

01:06:09

But, of course, he did have these unusually small front teeth. That is relative, now, relative to the size of his cheek teeth.

01:06:16

They were relatively small, but still quite large compared to man. Next slide, please. Here is the gracile form of Australopithecus.

01:06:26

The other one was the robustus form. Again, you see, this was very ape -like compared to the gorilla here.

01:06:34

Notice the very large front teeth and canine teeth in the gorilla. The bony processes here, and the, of course, no forehead.

01:06:43

Very, very, very similar, except in the nature of the front teeth. These front teeth here are smaller than you find in those of a gorilla, but a massive jaw, even in the gracile form.

01:06:53

Now, Dr. Leakey believed that there had been some evolutionary change of some kind between the robustus form and the gracile form.

01:07:01

He put them in separate species. But recently, Richard Leakey, the son of this

01:07:06

Dr. Leakey, claimed that he found the gracile form along with the robustus form in the same strata.

01:07:17

He says it's quite obvious, and they cannot be from different species. So he says, the evidence now indicates, the gracile was the female and the robustus was the male.

01:07:30

And there are very significant, there is a very significant sexual dimorphism among primates.

01:07:37

The female tends to be smaller, more gracile than the male. And Richard Leakey says, now the evidence indicates, this is simply the female, the other was the male.

01:07:47

There was no evolution involved at all. Just the male and female of the same species. Furthermore, Richard Leakey now says that he has found sufficient remains of the forelimbs and of the hindlimbs of this creature to indicate, to prove that the forelimbs were longer than the hindlimbs.

01:08:10

And the forelimbs were rugged, sturdily built, indicating that they bore weight.

01:08:17

So Richard Leakey says, this evidence indicates that this creature did not walk upright. But he is more or less in the nature of a long -armed, short -legged knuckle -walker, similar to the extant apes.

01:08:30

All right, now let's take a look at the evidence then. Ape -sized brain, grossly ape -like, long -armed, short -legged knuckle -walker.

01:08:41

Everything about this creature is ape, except his front teeth. The front teeth are somewhat smaller than you find in a modern ape.

01:08:51

Massive cheek teeth. Now ladies and gentlemen, I maintain that teeth alone don't make the man.

01:08:58

And certainly front teeth alone don't make the man. Here was an ape that had an ecological habitat or an environment very similar to the

01:09:08

Galata baboon. The Galata baboons, by the way,

01:09:14

I mentioned earlier, have dental and mandibular characteristics. Many of these characteristics he shares in common with the

01:09:20

Australopithecines. Furthermore, when Richard Leakey was in San Diego and lectured, I asked

01:09:25

Richard Leakey about the possible association of the Australopithecines with the Galata baboon.

01:09:31

He said, you do find the fossils together. I think this creature was certainly not on the way to man.

01:09:40

He was just simply an ape. But he had teeth which suited him to a somewhat different environment or food supply than the common apes that we find on the earth today.

01:09:54

I think the total way the evidence indicates is he simply was an ape. And I think as we view the latest evidence from Richard Leakey, who

01:10:02

I'll mention shortly, we'd all have to agree that it had nothing to do with man's evolution. All right, now this was man's supposedly quite ape -like ancestor about two million years old.

01:10:14

Well, now the next candidate is the so -called Homo erectus. Now they think they've got a creature man -like enough that they put it in the genus

01:10:22

Homo and it walked erect, Homo erectus. Now the first creature they found related to Homo erectus was

01:10:32

Java man, Pythacanthropus erectus. Dr. Eugene Dubois, a

01:10:38

Dutch physician, became convinced, well, he believed in evolution, and he became convinced for some reason that man probably evolved down in the

01:10:47

Dutch East Indies. So he tried to raise money to finance an expedition to the Dutch East Indies and was unsuccessful.

01:10:54

So he joined the army. Boy, that is getting desperate, isn't it? He joined the Dutch army, volunteered for duty in the

01:11:01

East Indies. So they sent him down there and he began his search, and lo and behold, one year after he reached

01:11:07

Indonesia in a loose gravel deposit near the Solo River in Java, he found a skullcap.

01:11:18

A year later, he found a femur about 50 feet away, quite human -like femur.

01:11:26

As a matter of fact, indistinguishable from man, a human femur. Maybe we have that next slide. This constituted

01:11:31

Java man. There you are. There you have him. That's Java man. In addition to these, some time later, he found three teeth.

01:11:40

Two of these teeth were later identified as those from an orang. The third tooth was identified as human.

01:11:48

In other words, it had nothing to do with this creature. But now he put the femur with the skullcap.

01:11:54

Now, there was quite a bit of controversy generated when he revealed these bones. Some of the paleontologists looked at the skullcap and said, well, that's nothing but a monkey, nothing but an ape.

01:12:06

Others looked at the femur and said, well, that was just man. Others put the two together and said it's ape man.

01:12:14

The fact is, Marcelin Boulle, that man's name is B -O -U -L -E, author of the book called

01:12:22

Fossil Man, a very, very well -known, famous expert on human skulls, said if you just looked at the skull, you'd say man.

01:12:31

If you looked at the femur, you'd say, I'm sorry, if you looked at the skull, you'd say monkey. If you looked at the femur, you'd say man.

01:12:37

Well, I think that's exactly correct. That was a human femur. I don't think there's any question about it.

01:12:44

They were found together in this loose deposit and one was associated with the other. Why? Because it fit into the nice evolutionary picture.

01:12:51

You've got an erect ape man, you see. That is simply as Dubois himself finally concluded the skullcap of a giant gibbon or a macaque of some kind, a monkey.

01:13:04

He finally lost his faith in this creature and believed that it was a giant gibbon.

01:13:10

Furthermore, Dubois concealed the fact for many years that he'd found two human skulls at the same level.

01:13:18

Not right there in the same deposit, but at the same level. He kept that fact concealed for almost 30 years.

01:13:25

How are you going to make people believe you've got an evolutionary form of man when you've got humans? You see there. But he finally did reveal this fact, the wadjack skulls that he found who were just plain human.

01:13:36

Well, I think there's considerable doubt as to the true nature of this material. There's been some other material found down there in the

01:13:44

East Indies. Again, just the skullcaps and very fragmentary material of the same kind of material here.

01:13:51

Now, ladies and gentlemen, of course I realize I have these preconceived ideas and so forth, but I think there's just nothing but a giant macaque or a monkey of some kind or gibbon, whatever it might have been.

01:14:04

I would agree with Dr. Dubois on his final conclusion. That was a human femur.

01:14:09

It had nothing to do with the owner's skullcap. However, in the 20s, they began finding some material near Peking, China.

01:14:19

They first found a tooth. On the basis of this tooth, Davidson Black, Dr. Davidson Black, constructed the taxon

01:14:28

Sinanthropus Pekinensis, that is, China Man, Peking, Peking China Man.

01:14:35

Later on, they found fragments of 40 individuals in this limestone cliff about 25 miles from Peking, China at Chukudian.

01:14:46

This became the famous Peking Man. Now, the early reports of Peking Man were quite...

01:14:54

The features were very, very monkey -like. The reports of Black and Teilhard of Sardin and some of the others were very monkey -like.

01:15:05

Marcel Amboule, this great French expert who went there and studied the bones, said that this creature was so monkey -like, he equated it to Java Man, said they're the same thing.

01:15:17

As a matter of fact, the conclusion is today that these are all of the same species, Homo Erectus.

01:15:23

But as time went on, it seems to me the reports... As the reports came out, the pictures came out, they became more and more man -like.

01:15:33

I'm convinced that the evolution involved here was an evolution of the descriptions and the pictures more than they were in the true...

01:15:39

than the creature himself. Weidenreich, a paleontologist of Franz Weidenreich, who went there to Peking, was about 1936 to 1940, the pictures he came out with were very man -like.

01:15:52

Next slide, please. We show this. Here's the model produced by Weidenreich.

01:16:00

We still have these models, or so -called casts, together. We have them available today. Now, there's no bones here.

01:16:06

There's no bones. We don't know whether that was a real model or a true model or not, but there it was, a so -called female of Peking, and you can see it's quite man -like.

01:16:17

Always got a flat forehead and heavy brow ridge and no chin and so forth, but I sure would call that a man before I'd call it an ape.

01:16:27

But I'm wondering how true this model really was.

01:16:33

Is this what he thought it ought to look like, or is this what he made it look like to fit his evolutionary presuppositions?

01:16:40

When you study the publications of Marcel Ambroul and his description of this creature, it sure doesn't look like that.

01:16:48

Furthermore, there's some very peculiar things here about Peking man. They found fragments of 40 individuals.

01:16:55

They did not find the post -cranial skeleton of a single one. You know, when something just gets killed, you find some of the fragments of the teeth and bones of the jaw and the skull and maybe the pelvis or some piece of the lower limb or the arm or something like that.

01:17:12

They found practically nothing. They concluded that every one of these creatures had been killed somewhere else and carried to the site where they were found.

01:17:25

Some of the skulls, at least the skulls that they had available, proved that they had been bashed in from the rear so the brains could be extracted and eaten.

01:17:35

These creatures had been killed and eaten and the skulls and the lower jaws preserved as trophies.

01:17:43

Now, to preserve the evolutionary story, Widenwright says that Peking man was both the hunted and the hunter, that he was a cannibal.

01:17:51

He ate his enemies. But Bull, this great

01:17:58

French expert, he said, that he and others, based upon the whole weight of the evidence, preferred to believe that man was the hunter, true man was the hunter, and Peking man was nothing more than the victim.

01:18:14

Just like the fragments of the other hunted creatures that they found there in their deposits, he was just there in the guise of the victim, not the hunter, and the hunter was true man.

01:18:24

He said that the stone industry, the weapons and the tools that they found there could not have been manufactured by this monkey -like individual, that man must have made those tools, and therefore man was the true hunter.

01:18:38

The one thing seemed to be certain, if man was the hunter, Peking man can't be our ancestor.

01:18:44

You can't have man and his ancestors, a million -year -old ancestors, living together. And by the way, they found remains of humans at a higher level, and they referred that as the upper cave.

01:18:58

There was no cave there at all in reality. Some believe that those humans, and they found the post -cranial skeleton of these, as well as the skulls, that they were the hunter, and that the skulls had been left there in a lower site, further down the cliff, and the undermining of this limestone cliff.

01:19:21

You see, there was tremendous evidence that they had been mining this limestone, burning it in kilns for the production of lime.

01:19:30

They find many, thousands of stones with soot on one side and no soot on the other. It indicates they were part of a kiln.

01:19:36

And some believe that there was this mining operation that had undermined the cliff and collapsed and buried all these creatures.

01:19:44

Well, I don't know. Some even claim there was fraud involved, because the bones are no longer available for study.

01:19:54

The bones were lost during the war. The story was that, now the work had been going on there for many years.

01:20:02

The Japanese had come into China in the 36th and 37th. Widenreich had stayed there at Peking without interference, carried on his work.

01:20:10

But the claim was that when the United States got into the war, then it was suddenly decided they had to get these bones out of China.

01:20:17

Why, I don't know. But the story is they bundled them up, put them in boxes, tried to get them to the Marine Detachment, and nobody ever saw them again.

01:20:24

Nobody knows what happened to those bones. Some have claimed that those bones were deliberately destroyed, because if they reached the outside world, they would have exposed some element of fraud here.

01:20:39

Now, I'm not making that charge. I don't know. A Catholic priest, who was in China at the time, a creationist,

01:20:46

Patrick O 'Connell, had read the reports in English and Chinese, followed this all the way through, claimed there was no cave at either place.

01:20:55

He claimed that there was elements of fraud here, and that's why the bone disappeared. I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm very much convinced that that model was what

01:21:06

Widenright wanted it to look like, fit within his preconceived ideas rather than the true evidence, because the actual evidence available does not fit that at all.

01:21:18

The Java man doesn't fit that at all. Well, nevertheless, the bones aren't available. We can't tell one way or the other whether that's a true model or not.

01:21:27

The bones have disappeared. So we find these very strange aspects of this problem.

01:21:35

The bones are gone. The model is very different from the early report. All these creatures have been killed and eaten.

01:21:42

Just the skulls preserved. Marcelin Bull, an evolutionist, says he was just the victim of a hunter.

01:21:49

So I just simply say he was just that. Of course, his cranial capacity was larger than we find in the modern apes and monkeys.

01:22:00

Eight hundred, nine hundred cc, something like that, but I believe to be, I believe, a giant primate of some kind.

01:22:07

Not, wouldn't be unusual. We have dragonflies, three feet in wingspan, three feet of giant sloths.

01:22:14

We have giant everything. Giant turtles of immense size, giants of all kinds. It wouldn't be surprising that some of the primates were large size as well.

01:22:23

Well, because of this evidence, we tend to place it in the suspended category. There are some other identified as homo erectus that might have been because I understand they would have been called

01:22:34

Neanderthal, but they're just believed to be too old. Didn't fit, didn't fit

01:22:39

Neanderthal. They were too old. Otherwise you just call them Neanderthal. When Neanderthal was human, you'll see shortly. But I'm saying

01:22:44

I doubt very seriously that this is a true model at all. This is simply an ape. Next slide, please.

01:22:51

Well, we come down to Neanderthal man. Neanderthal, now, the

01:22:56

Peking man, Java man, dated about a half a million years, half a million to a million. Australopithecines, two to three million.

01:23:05

Now, Neanderthal man dated around 100 ,000 years. That's just a guess. Radiocarbon can only date a sample, if it is a valid method, a few thousand years.

01:23:16

Uranium and lead and potassium, argon, if they are valid, can only date something down to, say, two or three million years.

01:23:21

So all that would mean is more or less a guess. But anyhow, the founder of the Neanderthal man, Neanderthal, hadn't quite made the grade.

01:23:28

So he was semi -erect, beetle -browed, slope -shouldered, knuckle -dragging, primitive, subhuman,

01:23:38

Homo neanderthalensis. Genome Homo, but of a subhuman species. And this was the picture that got in all the textbooks and was taught for many, many years.

01:23:47

This was the picture of Neanderthal man. Now there was a great doctor, anatomist,

01:23:54

Dr. Virchow, in 1870, he said, now wait a minute. The problem is here, this skeleton is from an arthritic old man.

01:24:02

It's a pathological specimen. Well, nobody paid any attention to him because after all, this fit into preconceived ideas.

01:24:09

A semi -erect creature, that just fit. Don't pay any attention to nonsense like that.

01:24:15

Well, since that time, they have found other skeletons of Neanderthal fully erect.

01:24:21

They have found remains of Neanderthal contemporary with what we call modern man. And the x -rays of the bones and teeth of all these specimens indicate that they all suffered severely from rickets, or vitamin

01:24:35

D deficiency, which causes a softening of the bone. Indeed, it's now recognized that this skeleton was of an arthritic old man.

01:24:44

He didn't walk upright because of his severe osteoarthritis which afflicted his spinal column.

01:24:51

There are even some doctors who claim today that they can see that the condition of the bones of Neanderthal men could have been due to congenital syphilis.

01:25:03

You see the same condition in people who suffer from congenital syphilis that you see in these bones. So what we see then here is that these so -called primitive features were not genetic.

01:25:17

They were environmental. They were dietary. They had nothing to do with his humanness or non -humanness.

01:25:25

He was just as human as you and I. Next slide, please. We find the modern version of Neanderthal man shown in this slide which

01:25:33

I purchased from the American Museum of Natural History. They say now if you take

01:25:39

Neanderthal man, give him a shave, a haircut and a bath, put him in a business suit, seat him here in the auditorium and nobody would take a second look.

01:25:47

Well, of course, today you wouldn't even have to give him a shave or a haircut, would you? And of course, there are some circles you wouldn't even have to give him a bath and he'd fit in very nicely.

01:25:59

But today he is classified homo sapiens, human just like you and I.

01:26:05

Well, we lost him as our ancestor. Now the recent work of Richard Leakey indicates we've lost all of our ancestors.

01:26:17

We lost him earlier. He's one of the ancestors we lost. Now we've lost all of our ancestors. Because Richard Leakey now claims that he has found what is man in the strata dated at 3 million years old.

01:26:39

Now I'm just saying what he says. Now if you accept what Richard Leakey says about his specimen, if you accept what

01:26:47

Richard Leakey says about the dating method and the validity of his dates, Leakey says he's found man older than all of our supposed ancestors.

01:27:00

No brow ridges, thin wall skull, modern shape, the limb bones indistinguishable from man.

01:27:08

The cranial capacity is somewhat smaller. Although it's in the range of the

01:27:13

Australian aborigines, at least what some say, but the average certainly was smaller than modern man.

01:27:22

Anathol, by the way, had a general cranial capacity larger than modern man, perhaps a couple hundred cc's on the average.

01:27:30

But this creature, Leakey says, is so modern it was certainly human, or man.

01:27:39

But it's older than all of our supposed ancestors. It's a million years or so older, or at least contemporary with the

01:27:45

Australopithecines. It's two million years older than our so -called Homo erectus. Now, ladies and gentlemen, how can the parents be younger than the children?

01:28:00

That can't be. If the Australopithecines are our ancestors, man is older than his ancestors, according to these latest findings.

01:28:08

And Johansen and others, they now claim they found remnants of man from Ethiopia that's four and a half million years old.

01:28:18

Well, I heard Richard Leakey lecture in San Diego, and he said that what he has discovered has simply demolished everything we've ever been taught about human evolution.

01:28:26

And he said, and I heard him say it, I have nothing to put in its place.

01:28:33

In other words, we've lost all of our ancestors, and he doesn't have any other ancestors to plug in for man.

01:28:40

And he appealed for funds to go back to Africa and start looking all over again. Dr. Alan Mann, Dr.

01:28:48

Alan Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, reported that he was very skeptical of what Leakey said until he went down to Africa, studied the specimen, came away convinced that Leakey had revolutionized anthropology.

01:29:00

Mann says we are right back down to ground zero, we just have no theory left. Now, ladies and gentlemen,

01:29:07

I think that this evidence indicates simply this. Regardless of the validity of the dating methods, regardless of the age of these things, one thing is for sure,

01:29:15

Mann is just as old, or older than all of his supposed ancestors. It indicates that Mann and the apes have always been contemporary.