Human Evolution Questions - Questions, Answers
The fossil record for human evolution is not as clear cut as evolutionists wish to believe. Fossil evidence is often fit into a preconceived design, which had been largely developed before fossils proving the point had been discovered, an unscientific methodology. The interpretation of the fossil record for Neanderathals, as one example, is subject to both interpretation and debate. Neanderthals, which were once listed as dating from at least 100,000 years ago have been redated with recent finds in Gibraltar to have been from as recent as 28,000 years ago, overlapping the time period of modern humans. So, while this dating does not fully coincide with the Bible as to the chronology of modern humans, it is exponentially closer from what scientists once believed.
Linear view of Human Evolution no Longer Accepted by Scientific Community
This common view of evolution which has appeared
in some school textbooks as recently as 1994, is
no longer considered to be scientifically valid.
Additionally, the clear-cut progression from primitive to modern human, that was once routinely demonstrated in classroom science textbooks, is no longer considered to be valid, even though it does show up from time to time in the classroom. Rather, a complex matrix of ever-changing placement of fossils has been developed, with many primitive types once thought to be ancestors of modern humans, actually believed now to be branches of more primitive species rather than actual forebearers of modern man.
Aboriginal Skulls and Neanderthals:
Which skull is human and which is Neadnerthal?
See bottom of page for answer.
The Aboriginal skull appears to the left is much more primitive than that of other "races".
Both Aboriginals and Neanderthals have high eyebrow ridges.
This is why some feel that the classifying of Neanderthal skulls and skeletons is geocentric.
White-European features are considered the norm, and Aboriginal and tribal features are not considered to be "modern".
There are many peoples today have skeletons with similar high brow-ridges, which are often used a determining factor to classify a skull as being Neanderthal. This reminds one of the scientific thought of racial superiority which gave birth to the ideology of Hitler and the Nazi party where white
Europeans were considered the norm, and other races and racial features were considered inferior.
******
Homo floresiensis
While the h.floresiensis fossil recently discovered in Indonesia was hailed as a primitive forerunner of homosapiens, other scientists have interpreted the evidence differently and feel that the fossil is fully human. Artists depictions and interpretations of skeletons are subjective, and open to artistic interpretation. The artist’s imagination plays as much or more a role than does scientific fact, in creating depictions of human sub-species.
******
Cro-magnon Man
Lithography of Cromagnon Man Skull 1868
Louveau. E. Lartet & H. Christy: Reliquiae Aquitanicae
While it was once believed and taught that Cro-magnon's were a separate species,
and dated to 100,000 years ago, depicted as primitive and sub-human, it is now know that this idea is not true and Cro-magnon man is fully human.