how far back do we go?

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real
owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a
10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. Such famous
paleoanthropologists as Don Johnson and Tim White, who examined the prints found
by Mary Leakey, corroborated that conclusion. White revealed his thoughts by
saying:

Make no mistake about it,... They are like
modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach
today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that
somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other
prints on the beach, nor would you. ;10

These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists.
That was because for them to accept that these were human footprints would mean
that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape to man could no longer
be maintained. However, at this point dogmatic evolutionist logic once again
showed its face. Most evolutionist scientists once more abandoned science for
the sake of their prejudices. They claimed that the footprints found at Laetoli
were those of an ape-like creature. Russell Tuttle, who was one of the
evolutionists defending this claim, wrote:

The remains of a 1.7-million-year-old stone hut

In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint
traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None
of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds
than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily
conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo... In any case, we
should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by
Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 11

Another of the oldest remains to do with man was the ruins of a
stone hut found in the Olduvai Gorge region by Louis Leakey in the 1970s. The
remains of the hut were found in a layer 1.7 million years old. It is known that
structures of this kind, of which similar examples are still used in Africa in
the present day, could only be built by Homo sapiens, in other words modern man.
The significance of the remains is that they reveal that man lived at the same
time as the so-called ape-like creatures that evolutionists portray as his
ancestors.
A 2.3 million-year-old modern human jaw found in
the Hadar region of Ethiopia was very important from the point of view of
showing that modern man had existed on the Earth much longer that evolutionists
expected.12
One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT 1500,
also known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 million-year-old fossil is
described by the evolutionist Donald Johanson in these terms:

He was tall and thin, in body shape and limb
proportions resembling present-day equatorial Africans. Despite his youth, the
boy's limb nearly matched the mean measurements for white North American adult
males. 13

It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a
12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 metres tall in adolescence. The
American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average
pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a
modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it
because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."14

In its December 1997 edition, Discover, one of the most
popular evolutionist magazines, placed an 800,000-year-old human face on its
cover, alongside a headline taken from evolutionists' surprised statement, "Is
this the face of our past?"

One of the human fossils that has attracted the most attention was
one found in Spain in 1995. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave
called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish
paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil revealed the face
of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Yet, it had been
800,000 years since the child died. This fossil even shook the convictions of
Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large,
something inflated-you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an
800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a
totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of
things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not
finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most
spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in
the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina.
That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in
the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same
thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.
15
As we have seen, fossil discoveries give the lie to the claim of
"the evolution of man." This claim is presented by some media organizations as
if it were a proven fact, whereas all that actually exist are fictitious
theories. In fact, evolutionist scientists accept this, and admit that the claim
of "the evolution of man" lacks any scientific evidence.

For instance, by saying, "We appear suddenly in the
fossil record" the evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villie, E. P. Solomon and
P. W. Davis admit that man emerged all of a sudden, in other words with no
evolutionary ancestor.
16
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, two evolutionist
anthropologists were forced to say, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about
human evolution are unlikely to be reliable." in an article they wrote in 2000.
17

	1975 PORTRAYAL OF NEANDERTHALS - Geheimnisse der Urzeit, Deutsche Übersetzung, 1975
	2000 PORTRAYAL OF NEANDERTHALS - National Geographic, July 2000

width=129"> EVOLUTIONISTS' VOLTE-FACE REGARDING THE NEANDERTHALS Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionists have been portraying the Neanderthals, a vanished human race, as semi-ape creatures. The above portrayal of Neanderthals was used as evolutionist propaganda for decades. However, since the 1980s this myth has begun to collapse. Both fossil studies and traces of Neanderthal culture have shown that these people were not semi-apes. For example, this 26,000-year-old needle proved that Neanderthals were civilised humans who possessed the ability to sew. As a result of this, evolutionist publications such as National Geographic had to start portraying them as civilised, as in the picture below.

Every new fossil discovery places evolutionists in an even worse
quandary, even if certain frivolous newspapers do print headlines such as
"Missing link discovered." The fossil skull discovered in 2001 and named
Kenyanthropus platyops is the latest example of this. The evolutionist
paleontologist Daniel E. Lieberman from Washington University's Department of
Anthropology had this to say about Kenyanthropus platyops in an article in the
leading scientific journal, Nature:

EVOLUTIONISTS' IMAGINARY
HYPOTHESES ARE FAR FROM ACCOUNTING FOR THE ORIGIN OF
MAN
size=2">

Despite 150 years of propagandistic evolutionist research into the origin of man, the fossils discovered show that the first human beings suddenly appeared on the Earth, with no "apelike ancestor." The three different hypotheses on this page illustrate three different and contradictory evolutionist scenarios (Stephen Jay Gould, The Book of Life, 2001). Looking carefully, we can see that there is a question mark in front of Homo erectus, which is shown as the first human race on Earth. The reason for this is that there is no "ape-like" creature that evolutionists can show as being the "ancestor of man." Species in the illustrations, which lack anything linking them to man, are actually extinct species of ape. The origin of man, as we can see, is a mystery for evolutionists, because that origin is not evolution at all, but creation.

The evolutionary history of humans is complex and
unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the
discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago…
The nature of Kenyanthropus platyops raises all kinds of
questions, about human evolution in general and the behaviour of this species in
particular. Why, for example, does it have the unusual combination of small
cheek teeth and a big flat face with an anteriorly positioned arch of the
cheekbone? All other known hominin species with big faces and similarly
positioned cheekbones have big teeth. I suspect the chief role of K.
platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler,
highlighting the confusion that confronts research into evolutionary
relationships among hominins. 18

The latest evidence to shatter the evolutionary theory's claim
about the origin of man is the new fossil Sahelanthropus tchadensis
unearthed in the Central African country of Chad in the summer of 2002.

class=resimalti">The Gran Dolina cave in Spain, where the Atapuerca fossil, of a true human being, was found.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the
world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the
world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink
our current ideas about human evolution."
19

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that
"This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
20

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human
evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from
monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less
ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a
menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if
any of them, are human forebears is still debated.
21

The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and
a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very
noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the
debate about the fossil and writes:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and
for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite
plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely
untenable.
22

As we have seen, the increasing number of discoveries is producing
results opposed to the theory of evolution, not in favour of it. If such an
evolutionary process had happened in the past, there should be many traces of
it, and each new discovery should further strengthen the theory. In fact, in
The Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that science would develop in
just that direction. In his view, the only problem facing his theory in the
fossil record was a lack of fossil discoveries. He hoped that future research
would unearth countless fossils to support his theory. However, subsequent
scientific discoveries have actually proved Darwin's dreams to be totally
unfounded.

The importance of human-linked
remains

The discoveries regarding man, of which we have seen a few examples
here, reveal very important truths. In particular, they have once again
demonstrated what a great product of fantasy the evolutionists' claim that man's
ancestor was an ape-like creature is. For this reason, it is out of the question
that these ape species could be man's ancestors.

In conclusion, the
fossil record shows us that man came into existence millions of years ago in
just the same form as he is now, and that he has come down to the present with
absolutely no evolutionary development. If they claim to be genuinely scientific
and honest, evolutionists should throw their imaginary progression from ape to
man into the bin at this point. The fact that they do not give up this spurious
family tree shows that evolution is not a theory that is defended in the name of
science, but rather a dogma they are struggling to keep alive in the face of the
scientific facts.

class=dipnot>9. Ian Anderson,
"Who made the Laetoli footprints?" New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May 1983,
p. 373.
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#9a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>10. D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The
Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250
face="Times New Roman,Times" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#10a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>11. R. H. Tuttle, Natural History, March
1990, pp. 61-64
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#11a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>12. D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to
Language, p.169
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#12a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>13. D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to
Language, p.173
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#13a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>14. Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19
October 1984, p. A11.
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#14a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>15. "Is This The Face of Our Past,"
Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100
color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#15a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>16. Villee, Solomon and Davis, Biology, Saunders
College Publishing,1985, p. 1053 size=2>
height=10 src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>17. Hominoid Evolution and Climatic Change in
Europe, Volume 2, Edited by Louis de Bonis, George D. Koufos, Peter
Andrews, Cambridge University Press 2001, chapter 6. (emphasis added)
face="Times New Roman,Times" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#17a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>18. Daniel E. Lieberman, "Another face in our
family tree," Nature, March 22, 2001, (emphasis added)
face="Times New Roman,Times" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#18a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
size=2>19. John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family
found," Nature, 11 July 2002
color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#19a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
20. D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad
Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10,
2002
href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions03.html#20a"> src="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/images/uparrow.gif" width=10
border=0>
21. John Whitfield, "Oldest member
of human