Takaisin Ajatusvarikolle - Back to the Thought Deposit

Dinoglyyfit - Dinoglyphs - Esihistorialliset eläimet historiankirjoissa - Prehistoric Creatures Documented by the Ancient Man



Devolution of the Modern Man

May 2010: Comparison of Neanderthal genome with modern humans from Africa and Eurasia show that modern non-African humans have 1–4% Neanderthal DNA

Saksalaisessa Max Planck -instituutissa tehdyssä tutkimuksessa todettiin, että neandertalilaiset ja nykyihmiset ovat risteytyneet.

Nykyihmisten geeneistä noin 1-4 prosenttia on peräisin neandertalilaisilta. Neandertalilaisten geenejä on eurooppalaisilla, aasialaisilla ja Tyynenmeren kansoilla, mutta ei afrikkalaisilla.

A reanalysis of a first draft of the Neanderthal genome by the same team released in May 2010 indicates that interbreeding did occur.[4][5] "Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA in us," said Svante Paabo, who led the study. "The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent. It is a small but very real proportion of ancestry in non-Africans today," says Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who worked on the study. This research compared the genome of the Neanderthals to five modern humans from China, France, Africa and Papua New Guinea. The result is that 1 percent to 4 percent of the genes of the Asians and Europeans came from Neanderthals, while Africans have no uniquely Neanderthal genes. This indicates a gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans, i.e., interbreeding between the two populations. Since all non-African genomes show a similar proportion of Neanderthal sequences, the interbreeding must have occurred early in the migration of modern humans out of Africa, perhaps in the Middle East. No evidence for gene flow in the direction from modern humans to Neanderthals was found. The latter result would not be unexpected if contact occurred between a small colonizing population of modern humans and a much larger resident population of Neanderthals. A very limited amount of interbreeding could explain the findings, if it occurred early enough in the colonization process.

While interbreeding is viewed as the most parsimonious interpretation of the genetic discoveries, the authors point out that they cannot conclusively rule out an alternative scenario, in which the source population of non-African modern humans was already more closely related to Neanderthals than other Africans were, due to ancient genetic divisions within Africa. Among the genes shown to differ between present-day humans and Neanderthals were RPTN, SPAG17, CAN15, TTF1 and PCD16.

Genetic studies indicate some form of hybridization between archaic humans and modern humans have taken place after modern humans emerged from Africa. An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (French, Han Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (Yoruba and San probands).
R. E. Green et al.. "A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710-722. doi:10.1126/science.1188021.

February 2009: Prof Paabo said the team did not expect to find any clues which might help solve the riddle of the Neanderthals' demise.

"I don't think they became extinct due to something in their genome," he said.

"It was clearly something in their interaction with the environment or with modern humans that caused them to be extinct."

"That will not be something you can see from their DNA sequence."

I guess the Neanderthalians just lived in dark. Ice age was mainly dark age due to vulcanism, I doubt.

Ever hear of nuclear winter after full blown nuclear war?

All the nuke TNT powers combined in the world could be compared to the remnants of the largests calderas.

The single Pinatubo in 1989 decreased the average temperature of the world by half degrees.

The single Krakatau in 1880'ies caused a drop of even 3 Celsius centigrades for a few years.

What if there was a chain reaction at the tectonic plates?

These guys ate less green and vegetables or berries than the present day wolves.

The bones get twisted without sunlight and D vitamin for any of us.

Comparison between Neanderthal skeleton and modern man.

Occasionally, the other has been interpreted as the shorter one, next time the other.

In almost every case, however, the fossil Neanderthalian man was much more muscular and had a larger skull.

Besides their obvious anatomical similarity, Neandertals behaved like humans.

They had art: painting and jewelry.

They had instrumental music and constructed musical instruments that the average 20th Century guy could only dream to manufacture.

They buried their dead; it seems,with ceremony.

They cared for their injured and old.

Most important they seemed to believe in an after-life and had religion.


But what about the genetic make-up of the Neanderthal, the long-faced, barrel-chested relative of modern human beings?

Bone curvature of the Neanderthal fossil


WANTED - Neandertalian Man

Skull size variation

The Neanderthalian skulls fit within the skull variation of the Northern American Indians.

The Indian tribes, even if killed in extinction, had modern intelligence and had diverged from each others only thousand years ago

Java man

Ernst Haeckel gave the Linnaen binomial classification name

Pithecanthropus alalus ('ape-man without speech')

for the first "forefather" of man - before it was even dug up.

The Java-Man was a discovery of Eugene Dubois, a disciple of Haeckel.

The connection to Haeckel was covered first by changing the name to

Pithecanthropus erectus

and finally to

Homo erectus

Nebraska man

Nebraska man was built upon one single tooth. That tooth was derived from an extinct pig.

The Americans claimed the first man was American (Nebraskian).

The British claimed the first man was British (Piltdown).

Both discoveries were, unfortunately, bullshit popularized.

Peking man - Cro Magnon

The Peking man cave contained bones from both human and apes.

The ape skulls were typically broken by a hammer hit to the head. Most probably, the ancient Chinese just ate apes.

The popularization, somehow, just forgot this backround.

The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Leipzig, Germany, and the 454 Life Sciences Corporation, in Branford, Connecticut, will announce on 12 February during the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and at a simultaneous European press briefing that they have completed a first draft version of the Neanderthal genome. The project, made possible by financing from the Max Planck Society, is directed by Prof. Svante Pääbo, Director of the Institute’s Department of Evolutionary Anthropology. Pääbo and his colleagues have sequenced more than one billion DNA fragments extracted from three Croatian Neanderthal fossils, using novel methods developed for this project.


Pääbo, a pioneer in the field of ancient DNA research, made the first contribution to the understanding of our genetic relationship to Neanderthals when he sequenced Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in 1997. The two groups have sequenced a total of more than 3 billion bases of Neanderthal DNA, generating a first draft sequence of the entire Neanderthal genome. Altogether, these fragments make up more than 60% of the entire Neanderthal genome. These DNA sequences can now be compared to the previously sequenced human and chimpanzee genomes in order to arrive at some initial insights into how the genome of this extinct form differed from that of modern humans.


Together with other advances implemented during the project, the innovations in 454 Life Sciences drastically reduced the need for precious fossil material so that less than half a gram of bone was used to produce the draft sequence of 3 billion base pairs. The majority of the sequence comes from Neanderthal bones from Vindija Cave in Croatia, which the group studies as a part of a long-term collaboration between the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy. Professor Javier Fortea and colleagues from Oviedo, Spain, have excavated Neanderthal bones under sterile conditions at El Sidron, Spain, that have yielded DNA sequences, while Dr. Lubov Golovanova and Dr. Vladimir Doronichev from St. Petersburg, Russia, have contributed bone from Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucasus. In addition, Dr. Ralf Schmitz from the LVR-Landesmuseum in Bonn, Germany has allowed a sample to be removed from the Neanderthal type specimen, which was found in 1856 in the Neander Valley, the source of the name, Neanderthal.

Dietary Differences Separate Neandertals from Humans

By Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.

You are what you eat. Paleoanthropologists from the United Kingdom and the United States recently used this principle to study the dietary habits of Neandertals and the earliest modern humans. By analyzing different forms (isotopes) of carbon and nitrogen from bone collagen (fibrous protein in bones), these investigators determined the sources of protein in Neandertal and early human diets. They found that the protein in the Neandertal diet came almost exclusively from the consumption of terrestrial herbivores. In contrast, the first humans (living 30,000 to 40,000 years ago) consumed a variegated diet—foods from freshwater wetlands, sea coasts, and dry terrestrial regions that included fish, mollusks, fowl, and terrestrial herbivores.

At the time of their earliest appearance, humans displayed a far greater proficiency in obtaining food from their environment than did Neandertals. The dietary difference likely reflects an important disparity in cognitive capacity. Early human capacity to access protein from a wide range of sources suggests superior intelligence. Neandertals apparently lacked the ability to adjust their diet as circumstances demanded.

Michael P. Richards et al., “Stable Isotope Evidence for Increasing Dietary Breadth in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98 (2001): 6528-32.

Neanderthals were stocky and well-adapted to a cold climate, with brains that were on average larger than those of modern humans. Some fossil evidence suggests they were occasionally cannibalistic, though they more commonly hunted large animals including horses and mammoths. They lusted especially after bone marrow, which also indicates vitamin deficiency.

Cuozzo, J. Buried Alive Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1998

Buried Alive tells the story of Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s quest to uncover the truth of our origins.  Having studied the original Neanderthal remains in musuems around the world, Dr. Cuozzo realized that the facial shape of Neanderthal man correlates to normal age related changes of the head and face.  The extent of these changes seen in Neanderthals shows that they were normal humans who lived for hundreds of years and not apemen at all. The rates or velocity of growth were probably slower in the past then our modern ones. The continuing adult growth is a valid concept by which to judge Neanderthal morphology.

Will the Real Neandertal Please Stand Up?

Robert Harsh

Two years later Charles Darwin published his "Origin Of Species", which provided a seemingly reasonable explanation of how new types of animals could arise [evolve] from already existing types of animals. Professor Hermann Schaafhausen, from the University of Bonn studied the bones and proposed they represented an ancient race of humans probably even primitive and barbaric. So at first we were thought of as a more primitive race. In 1872 the greatest pathologist of that time, Richard Virchow, examined the bones and proposed that they were from a diseased human. His diagnosis was that the odd curvature of the femur bone was due to rickets or arthritis.However, as more "Neandertal type"fossils were discovered over the next few decades the leg bones seemed to be straighter but they exhibited the heavy eyebrow ridge, low forehead, and massive jaw. People from that time on looked at us as not exactly ape and not quite human.The man on the street in 1998 believes we were one of the great missing links in the evolution of humans from apes.

Of the 345 Neandertal individuals, 183 of them[ 53%] represent burials- all of them burials in caves or rock shelters [Lubenow,1998]. In fact many of the caves would better be called cemeteries because of the numbers of individuals buried in the caves. Krapina Rock Shelter in Croatia contains at least 75 individuals. Arcy-sur-Cure caves in France contained 26, while Kebara Cave Mount Carmel, Israel had 21 Neandertal remains buried there.

Enter Svante Paabo. His strongest support comes from the research involving comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of one Neandertal with 994 modern day humans from five different races. Svante Paabo and several associates first introduced this line of evidence by way of a paper in the July 11, 1997 issue of the journal, Cell, [Krings, M., Stone,A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki,H., Stoneking, M., and Paabo, S., Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90: 19-30]. Paabo claims to have examined the nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial DNA taken from the humerus [arm bone] of the first Neandertal that was discovered in the Neander valley in 1856. His colleague, Mattias Krings extracted the mtDNA from a 0.125- ounce sample of bone and cloned it by polymerase chain reaction technique and produced enough new mtDNA to be able to study the nucleotide sequences. He then compared that data with the nucleotide sequences from more than 1600 modern Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians, Oceanians, as well as Europeans.

Paabo and his associates were able to study only 379 base pairs out of a total of 16,500 base pairs of human mitochondrial DNA or about 2% of the total. In an attempt to insure that the results were not from contamination from modern humans, Krings repeated the whole experiment with a new 1/100th of an ounce sample of Neandertal bone. He got the same results. Mark Stoneking from Penn State University examined yet another sample and got the same sequence. The results showed that the 379 base pair Neandertal sequence differed in 27 positions from average modern human sequences while modern sequences differed among each other, on average, by only eight places. Paabo concluded that because the Neandertal mtDNA was not similar enough, Neandertals were not closely related to humans and had to have evolved separately for at least 500,000 years to have become so different.

Eggs and sperm are each single cells which contain, not only the nuclei but also a vast array of organelles. When a sperm fertilizes an egg it contributes its chromosomes which then combine with the chromosomes of the egg to form the first nucleus of the zygote [fertilized egg]. The other organelles of the sperm do not become part of the zygote and are merely lost. However according to Giles and associates, a small portion of mtDNA, less than 4% could come from the father [Giles, Richard, Blanc, Cann and Wallace. 1980. Maternal inheritance of human mitochondrial DNA. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA. V.77[11]:6715-6719.]. Nicholas Schork and Sun-Wei Guo estimated from their research that up to 0.1% of the mtDNA in the zygote [fertilized egg] is paternal[ Schork, Nicholas J. and Sun-Wei Guo. 1993.Pedigree models for complex human traits involving the mitochodrial genome. Am. J. Genet. 53: 1320-1337]. For purposes of our discussion we will ignore the paternal mtDNA.

In 1981 the complete sequence of the human mitochondrial DNA genome [all of the DNA ]was published [see The Cell. 1994. P, 708]. Human mitochondria were found to contain 16,569 nucleotides that code for 37 genes. This compares to nuclear DNA [nDNA] which codes for roughly 20,000 genes [Bishop, 1998] and is 300,000 times longer [ Miller, 1998, The Fire Within ]. The mitochondrial genome contains 2 ribosomal RNA genes, 22 transfer RNA genes and 13 genes that code for non-structural proteins. " The DNA's of several other animal mitochondrial genomes have also been completely sequenced and they have the same genes and gene organization" [ Cell p.708]. Research has shown that mtDNA mutations happen at a rate ten times greater than nDNA. According to a leading university cell biology textbook " the relatively high rate of evolution of mitochondrial genes makes mitochondrial DNA sequence comparisons especially useful for estimating the dates of relatively recent evolutionary events, such as the steps in primate development."[Cell p.710]

Another distinct problem is that , fundamental to any valid scientific investigation, the investigation and its results must be repeatable. Paabo and his team, as well as other investigators. have attempted to extract mtDNA information from other Neandertals without any success whatsoever! Are evolutionists jumping the gate a little bit in their confident proclamation that Neandertals were not Homo Sapiens?

The problem lies, not so much in the science, but in the disgraceful tactics they employ. The original report was an attempt to do good science and it was tentative[ as it should be ] with acknowledgment of alternative interpretations and sources of error. However the subsequent articles based on the original research do not hint of any tentativeness. The conclusions are offered as absolute truth. Then the, possibly flawed, information is passed on to the unsuspecting public who grab it up and believe that scientists have definitely proven that Neandertals and humans are not related.

Another area of concern in evaluating Paabo's research is in his statistical deficiencies. Paabo compared the mtDNA from 1,669 modern humans with one Neandertal! The whole thesis of his conclusions is based on statistical averages. An average of 27 differences was observed between 1,669 modern humans as compared with an "average" of one Neandertal. I do not understand how a professional scientist can take such liberties with his statistical analysis! The range of nucleotide substitutions between modern humans and Neandertal was from 22 to 36 differences. On the other hand, the range among the 1,669 modern humans was from 1 to 24 differences!

Another curious result found in Paabo's Cell report is that modern humans are more related to chimpanzees than are Neandertals related to chimps. The amount of divergence in DNA base pairs is the basis for the "so called" molecular clock. A report in Science gave the opinion that mtDNA may mutate as much as 20x faster than previously thought. In referring to the mitochondrial Eve, Gibbons wrote: "Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old" [Gibbons,A., 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock. Science, 279:28]. In the December, 1992 Scientific American I read that Stoneking and Vigilant published a range for the time of existence of mitochondrial Eve " between a lower boundry of 63,000 years and an upper boundry of 416,000 years. The range has 95 percent reliability, the standard statistical test of such measures" [ Ross,P.,1992. Shaking the tree. Scientific American. December, 1992]. A little simple arithmetic will show that the range could legitimately be calculated to be 3,159 to 20,800 years since the mitochondrial Eve walked planet Earth[63,000/20 and 416,000/20].

Fossil Man

by Ian Taylor



The study of early man is known as paleoanthropology and, although scientific techniques are used, this discipline deals with non-repeatable and non-observable events of the past and by definition cannot be considered as a science. The exercise begins by assuming that man evolved from the animal Kingdom then looking for evidence that would confirm it. This is not the scientific method or method of induction. The object is always to find the perfect hominid commonly referred to as ape-man or missing link. This would be marvelous confirmation of the theory of evolution worthy of much kudos. Although there are superficial similarities between the ape and man, the differences are actually much greater. The ape has a cranial capacity of about 500 cc whereas the man has about 1450cc; the ape has large canine incisors and a U-shaped dental arcade, man has small incisors with no diastema and a parabola-shaped dental arcade. The ape has 48 chromosomes, man has 46; the ape has a bacculun, man does not, etc. Fossil bones that appear human or near human are not common and are almost always found as small pieces which must be reassembled. The distribution in terms of parts found are: teeth 100, jaws 22, femurs 11, tibias 6 and any other bones have a smaller number. Complete skeletons are very seldom found.


Neandertal Man was discovered in a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1857. Only the skullcap and a few limb bones survived but the skull showed a large superorbital torus (eyebrow ridge) and an occipital bun (lump at the back of the head). Over 60 similar skulls with some leg bones have been found since that time and reconstructions have always depicted these individuals as naked, hairy, brutish figures, stooped over and living in caves. The reproduction in each case tries to produce a creature mid-way between the ape and man but if this was true the cranial capacity should be about 900 cc, just mid-way. In fact, the complete skulls have a capacity of about 1600 cc, significantly larger than that of the average man today! In 1872 the great German anatomist, Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), had the opportunity to study the bones of the 1857 Neandertal Man and stated that this middle-aged man had a pathological condition caused by rickets or arthritis. Virchow was not believed at the time but in 1957 was proven correct by modern anatomists in London. A new view of Neandertal Man began to emerge: today he is classified Homo sapiens neandertalensis and it is acknowledged that if given a bath and put in modern clothes he would appear perfectly human. Some investigators have claimed that Neandertal Man may have been an outcast of society, living in caves and suffering from rickets (caused by lack of sunlight, vitamin D deficiency). He was certainly true man, cared for the aged and infirm and buried his dead with religious ritual, a positive indication of being truly human. In September 1997, following the analysis of DNA extracted from ancient, non-mineralized bones, the claim was made that Neandertal DNA differed significantly from modern human DNA. This would effectively shift Neandertal Man back into the ape-man category. This work has, however, been vigorously contested. In February 1999 fossil evidence was reported which showed that Neandertal Man and Cro-Magnon Man had lived together and had produced off-spring thus showing them to be the same species.


Java Man. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), professor of zoology at Jena University, Germany, taught his students that the most sought after prize would be the definitive evidence of the transition between ape and man and he suggested that such a discovery might be made in Java. Haeckel had a painting made of such an ape-man and named it Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless ape-man). A Dutch student, Eugene Dubois (1858-1940), graduated in anatomy and served as military surgeon in Java; during 1891 to 1892 his workers discovered a skullcap, a femur and two teeth in the bank of the Solo River. Over 10,000 cubic meters of soil were sifted. He claimed this to be the much sought-after missing link and called it Pithecanthropus erectus; it has since been reclassified as Homo erectus. In 1920 Dubois, now at 62, confessed that 30 years earlier he had found three perfect human skulls, the Wadjak skulls, in the same stratum but had hidden them because these were damaging counter evidence to his P. erectus. No one seemed to want to know about this. In 1935 he publicly confessed that the skullcap was actually that of a large gibbon but no one wanted to know about this either. To this day, Java Man can still be found in museum exhibits and textbooks.


Cro-Magnon Man. The word "Cro-Magnon" means "big hole" in the local dialect of Les Eyzies in the Dordogne area of SW France. First discovered in 1868, a number of complete skeletons of Cro-Magnon Man have been found but they have always been regarded as truly human and not ape-man. They were well over six feet tall and had a cranial volume slightly larger than man today. They were accomplished artists as indicated by their paintings on the walls of caves at Lascaux in southern France and Altamira, Spain. They were evidently contemporaneous with many of the extinct mammals such as the woolly mammoth and this is what prevented the public from visiting the caves for a very long time. The paleoanthropologists had to juggle with the figures in order to overlap the dates of intelligent man and the extinction of "prehistoric beast." We can be sure that had it not been for the evidence of Cro-Magnon Man we would have been told that the woolly mammoth became extinct millions of years ago instead of 10,000. Even then there is evidence that the mammoths were still alive in North America at the beginning of the last century. One final item concerns the etchings found on the cave walls at La Marche, central France (1937) and at Minateda, Spain (1915). These have been authenticated and show Cro-Magnon men with clipped beards while the women have dresses and hair styles; quite possibly, the caves were not dwelling places but simply used for ritualistic purposes; the Cro-Magnons are acknowledged to be true Homo sapiens.


Piltdown Man. The discoveries of so-called ape-men during the nineteenth century in Europe may have left the British feeling that they had no ancestors of their own. Between 1908 and 1912 a series of discoveries were made at a gravel pit in Piltdown, a village just south of London and not far from Charles Darwin's home. Parts of a human skull together with most of the jaw and teeth of an ape had been stained to look aged and placed in the Piltdown gravels known to be frequented by Charles Dawson, an avid fossil hunter. Sure enough, the precious parts found their way to a team of Britain's most distinguished experts. In 1912 they declared this to be Eoanthropus dawsoni, later known popularly as Piltdown Man. It was a diabolically clever forgery, the condyles were missing so fitting the jaw to the skull had to be by guesswork. The skull had pieces missing so the capacity of the reconstruction was again by guesswork. The canine teeth were filed to make them closer to human teeth but the file marks were evident. a fact pointed out by a dental anatomist in 1916 but ignored by the experts who were later knighted and became Sir Arthur Keith, Sir Arthur Woodward and Sir Grafton Elliot Smith. In 1953 during some routine fluorine tests it became evident that the bones were quite recent and the hoax was exposed but by this time most of the principal characters were dead.


Peking Man. The Chinese drug stores in Peking (Now Beijing) and even in downtown Toronto, sell "dragon bones" (often fossil dinosaur bones) that are used in a decoction to cure insomnia. In the early 1920's a human-like tooth was discovered in a draw full of these fossils and thus began a hunt for the elusive ape-man at Chou K'ou Tien, the source of all "dragon bones" in that area. The Canadian physician, Davidson Black, was the first to arrive and in 1927, just as the finances for the operation were running out, he unearthed a tooth. He claimed this as Sinanthropus pekinensis and effectively used it as leverage to pry loose more funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. Hundreds of workers were employed and after two years of digging an incomplete skull was freed from the surrounding rock. This was the prize and became the S. pekinensis shown in reconstruction in every museum and textbook. In 1934 Black died aged 49 and the work was taken over by Franz Weidenreich who renamed the precious tooth Gigantopithecus blacki in memory of Black. Weidenreich's reconstruction of the skulls claimed it had a capacity of 1000 cc, just midway between ape and man, but almost every other expert has since considered it to be smaller and relegated it to that of an ape. Textbooks never reveal the actual size by scale or comparison but it was, in fact, about the size of a large orange. Unfortunately, this partial skull and a series of fourteen others represented by pieces together with some jaw bones and teeth all disappeared during World War II. Text books usually refer to "traces of fire" found at the site indicating man's first use of fire but the facts are "traces" turn out to be a furnace seven meters deep together with stone tools indicating an extensive human "industry." The honest conclusion drawn from all the facts in this tangled web is that Peking Man was nothing more than the remains of ape skulls from which the brains had been extracted by human activity. It has been reclassified as Homo erectus.


Nebraska Man. In 1922 Harold Cook discovered a single tooth in a river bed in Nebraska. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History, declared it to be from a pithecanthropoid and named it Hesperopithecus harold cooki, thus America now had their own ape-man. England's prestigious Illustrated London News having a worldwide distribution, published a full reconstruction of the ape-man and his wife based upon this tooth. The ACLU was prepared to use this tooth as prime evidence in the famous Scopes trial in July 1925. By 1928 it was discovered that the tooth actually belonged to an extinct peccary or pig. This embarrassment was compounded in 1972 when living herds of this same pig (Catagonus wagneri) were discovered in Paraguay and thus it was not even extinct!


Nutcracker Man. In 1959 Louis Leakey, the father of Richard Leakey, discovered the skull of an ape-like creature in the lowest level (Bed I) of the Olduvai Gorge, East Africa; he named it Zinjanthropus boisei. Charles Boise was the American who had funded the work. The news media dubbed it "Nutcracker Man" because of its large jaw. Some crude stone tools were found at the same site which led Leakey to believe this was the coveted ape-man who walked upright. He claimed a date of 600,000 years but in 1961 potassium-argon dating gave an age of 1.75 million years making it by far the oldest hominoid fossil to be discovered. This nicely served to extract further funding from the National Geographic Society. Not reported was the fact that Hans Reck, a German anthropologist, had found a perfectly normal and complete human skeleton in Bed II just above the Z. boisei in 1913. Louis Leakey had been to examine this skeleton in the Munich museum and was fully aware of it. Carbon 14 tests later showed that Reck's skull dated at 16,920 years – a far cry from 1.74 million years! In his old age Leakey retracted his claim that Nutcracker Man resembled modern man and conceded that it was only an Australopithecine or extinct ape. This is the general opinion today.


Handy Man. Leakey's retraction in 1964 was made easier by the fact that another skull had turned up in Bed I which was far more human-looking. Some nearby stone tools and hand bones, which later turned out to be vertebral fragments, caused him to name it Homo habilis meaning "handy man." Of course, it was still dated at 1.75 million years. Since Louis Leakey's death in 1972 the limb bones have been discovered that clearly have apelike proportions and it has been classified as an Australopithecine or extinct ape.


1470 Man. Discovered in 1972 at Lake Rudolf, East Africa, by Richard Leakey, this fossil skull was fractured in thousands of pieces but when reconstructed it looked veryhuman. The associated rock dated at 2.6 million years making it the oldest human remains on record. Others contested this age but further dating gave ages from 290,000 years to 19.5 million years. Today, it is said to be 1.8 million years and classified by all as an Australopithecine. Richard Leakey is still convinced that both Handy Man and 1470 Man are the long sought for missing links.

Lucy. The American paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson, discovered this prize near the Omo River in southern Ethiopia in 1974 but waited until a more propitious time for its announcement at the Nobel Symposium on Early Man in 1978. The time and place for announcement is most important for funding. The hominid skeleton is 120 centimeters tall (4 feet) and 40% complete with the jaw but no cranium, hands or feet. Dating of the associated rock by the potassium-argon method gave 3.1 to 5.3 million years. On the basis of the knee joint, Johanson maintained that the creature walked upright and thus claims it as missing link status. However, his admission in 1986 that "the knee-joint was found 60 or 70 meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away [from the other parts of the skeleton]" leaves one wondering how he can be so sure they are all from the same creature? Others have pointed out that the skeleton is virtually the same as the pygmy chimpanzee. It has been classified as Australopithecus afarensis.


Ramapithecus punjabicus. Discovered in Northern India in 1932 by student Edward Lewis, this consisted merely of a single fragment of upper jaw. Since that time almost fifty other jaw fragments have been found from Greece, Turkey, Hungary and Pakistan. The parabolic curvature of this jaw gave it human status but the dentition gave it ape status thus it was a good candidate for a missing link. However, it has since been found that not only were the fragments pieced together incorrectly but the small galada baboon (Theropithecus) has a parabolic dental arcade the same as man. Gigantopithecus blacki was undoubtedly an ape with a similar dental arcade to the galada baboon.


Other Claimants. There are a number of other claimants for the missing link such as Rhodesian Man, sometimes called Broken Hill Man (Homo rhodensiensis), the Taung Child sometimes called "Dart's child" (Australopithecus africanus) and the Galley Hill Man. However, these are seldom mentioned today. There is also the Guadeloupe Woman and the Calaveras Skull. These two were formally reported and solidly supported the creation position but naturally were an embarrassment and never mentioned. In 1996 the bones of Kennewick Man alleged to be 9,300 years old were discovered in the banks of the Columbia River in the State of Washington. The situation is wreathed in controversy as the Northwest Pacific Native Americans claim it is a relatively recent ancestor!


Modern names. The proliferation of names with each discovery brought about a revision in classification and today there are simply three categories:

Australopithecines. This category is reserved for those with a cranial capacity of 750 cc or less and are claimed to have been extant about 3 million years ago. The A. Robustus and A. gracile are now said to be simply the male and female versions. Members of this entire category are true but extinct apes.


Pithecanthropines also called Homo erectus are reserved for cranial capacities between 900 and 1225 cc and are said to have been extant 500,000 years ago. Evolutionists claim this category to be missing links although every case is wreathed in controversy.

Homo sapiens. This category is for cranial capacities of 1450 cc or more and is for true man for the last 20,000 years.

Promotion of man's ape ancestry. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling painted in 1502 depicts the creation of man by the finger of God infusing a soul into a living anthropoid. The chimp's tea party on Sunday afternoon at the zoo was very successful in the last century. The ranked row of ape to man skeletons promoted from the time of T.H. Huxley has always been popular and examples will be found in every museum today. Exhibition of very hairy people (Hypertrichosis) or photographs of those with a human "tail" (caudal appendage) is quite convincing. The August 1972 National Geographic promotion of the "Stone-Age swindle." It was claimed that twenty-four naked, cave-dwelling, stone-age men, women and children were discovered in a remote cave in the forests of the Philippine Island of Mindanao apparently living proof that Darwin was right. In April of 1986 the entire story was exposed as a hoax that had fooled several major newspapers and the National Geographic. Certain members of the Tasaday tribe living in a nearby village had been forced to act as cavemen by Elizalde, a Marcos government official, who wanted to make sure that the forest would be protected from all commercial interests except his own! Elizalde fled at thecollapse of the Marcos government but that did not stop the so-called "cave-men" from taking him to court. It seems they had evolved into the twentieth century man rather quickly!


Conclusion: Scripture makes it clear that Adam was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and it must surely be nothing less than blasphemy to depict early man as a brutish figure. Scripture also points out that Adam was created from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) not from the animal Kingdom. Moreover, Eve was made from the side of Adam (Genesis 2:21-22). Both of these scriptures must be completely denied by those who subscribe to theistic evolution. 1 Corinthians 15:39 tell us that that there is one kind of flesh for men and another kind of flesh for animals. Finally, if "formed from the dust" (Genesis 2:7) is interpreted to mean "evolved from the animal Kingdom" then by that same argument, "return to the dust" in Genesis 3:19 must mean that we should return to the animal Kingdom! Clearly nonsense.

Ian Taylor, Creation Moments, PO Box 839, Foley, MN 56329 800-422-4253


Ascent of Man, Descent of fake APEMEN

Piltdownin ihmisestä (1911-1955) julkaistiin viitisensataa artikkelia ja esseetä, kunnes kallo osoittautui potaskalla täytetyksi ja viilalla viimeistellyksi väärennökseksi. Piltdownin ihminen onkin klassikko tieteellisten huijausten joukossa. Sen tekijää ei tänä päivänäkään tunneta, mutta aivotyöstä on epäilty niinkin älykästä huijaria kuin Sherlock Holmesia - korjaan Conan Doylea (1, 2). (Doyle esitteli myös paljon huomiota herättäneitä valokuvia keijukaisista...) Ensimmäinen esi-ihminen ei ollutkaan britti.


Maailman ensimmäinen radioitu oikeudenkäynti – jota myös ensimmäiseksi mediasirkukseksi on kutsuttu – käytiin Tennesseen osavaltiossa vuonna 1925. "Apinaoikeudenkäynnissä" käräjöintiä oli edeltänyt evoluutiokriitikoiden psyykaus mm. miljoona vuotta vanhalla Nebraskan ihmisellä. Nebraskan ihminen konstruoitiin tieteellisesti yhdestä hampaasta, jonka on myöhemmin arveltu kuuluneen sukupuuttoon kuolleelle sialle (3). Ensimmäinen esi-ihminen ei ollutkaan amerikkalainen.


Pekingin ihmisen todistusaineisto on kadonnut Toisen Maailmansodan selkkauksissa. Ramapithecuksen sanottiin alunperin olleen pystyasennossa liikkuneen hominidin niin ikään ainoastaan purukaluston perusteella (4, 5).

Homo Erectuksen tarina alkaa Eugene Duboiksesta (1858-1940) ja Jaavan ihmisestä. Charles Darwinin kirjoittaessa Lajien Syntyä (1859) ja Ihmisen polveutumista (1871), ei esi-ihmisen fossiileita oikeastaan ollut vielä olemassa. Rekapitulaation virheellisestä opista ja vertailevien selkärankaissikiöiden väärentämisestä tunnettu professori Ernst Haeckel oli kuitenkin vuorenvarma, että ihmisen ja apinan välimuoto on ollut olemassa. Käytännön ihmisenä Haeckel päätti asian paperilla ja antoi ko. eliölle nimenkin: Pithecantropus alalus, "apinaihminen ilman puhetta". Haeckel oli itsekin taiteilija, mutta patisti toisen piirtäjän maalaamaan Pithecantropus alalus –pariskunnan, siis ennen löydön löytöä. Haeckelin into sai myös nuoren hollantilaisen medisiinarin Eugene Duboisin innostumaan. Dubois otti ja lähti perheineen Darwinin kilpailijan Alfred Wallacen tutkimille Filippiineille kaivamaan apinaihmistä. Kun tietää, mitä etsii, niin tulosta tulee. Dubois antoi nimen Homo erectuksen ajan aloittaneelle Pithecantropukselle erectukselle Haeckelin noin vuosikymmentä aiemman ennakoinnin mukaan (6). Sittemmin viitteet muistakin huijauksista syytettyyn Haeckeliin häivytettiin muuttamalla nimi ensin Pithecantropus erectus –nimeksi, sitten Homo erectus –nimeksi.


Lähtiessään tutkimusmatkalleen Dubois kertoi lehdistötilaisuudessa aikovansa löytää ihmisen esi-isän. Paikan päällä hän ei viitsinyt aina itse edes kaivaa, vaan osteli luunkappaleita paikallisilta alkuasukkailta. Osan löydetyistä luista Duboisin työntekijät taas myivät salaa paikallisille lohikäärmeenluina parannuskäyttöön jauhettavaksi. Vuonna 1891 Dubois löysi Jaavan joenpenkalta 900 cm3 vastaavan pääkallon laen. Vuotta - ja viittätoista metriä myöhemmin - hän löysi reisiluun, ja täydensi myöhemmin kokoelmaansa vielä kolmella hampaalla. Vuonna 1895 Dubois esitteli löytönsä asiantuntijoille, jolloin se torjuttiin väittelyn hengessä. Dubois ei kuitenkaan lannistunut, vaan kuljetti apinaihmistään matkalaukussa konferenssista toiseen ympäri Eurooppaa. Vuosien empimisen jälkeen ja mm. Kiinasta löydetyn Pekingin ihmisen jälkeen sensaatio alkoi olla kypsä.


Mitä tarinasta jäi kertomatta, olivat tietenkin ne muut samalta penkalta kaivetut roippeet. Kun samaa pengertä kaivaneet toiset tutkijat vuonna 1922 olivat julkaisemassa löydöksensä 1500 - 1600 cm3 pääkalloista, kertoi Dubois olevansa tietoinen mahdollisuudesta, että paikka olisikin toiminut jossakin myöhäisemmässä vaiheessa jonkinlaisena hautausmaana. Dubois oli tehnyt vastaavat löydöt, muttei ollut julkaissut niitä, jottei raati olisi saanut liikaa pureskelemista yhdellä kertaa. Omituista kaikessa on vain se, että uutta lusikallista piti odotella lähes kolmekymmentä vuotta.


Duboisin kunniaksi mainittakoon, että hän on eräs harvoista paleontologeista, jotka sanoutuivat myöhemmin irti omasta sensaatiomaisesta löydöstään. Vanhalla iällään Dubois oli itse Pithecanthropus erectuksen ankarin kritisoija. Tässä vaiheessa tiedeyhteisö oli kuitenkin jo vakuuttunut löydön merkityksestä ja Homo erectuksen – "pystyihmisen" – kunniakas aika oli alkanut (7, 8).


Kappaleita alligaattorin reisiluusta hevosen varvasluuhun ja delfiinin kylkiluuhun on jossakin vaiheessa pidetty hominidin solisluuna (9, 10). Toisaalta kivikauden ihmisen luolamaalauksia pidettin korkean teknisen tai taiteellisen tason vuoksi pitkään huijauksina. Tiedemiehet päättivät etteivät maalaukset voineet olla peräisin esihistorialliselta ajalta - vaivautumatta edes käymään Altamiran luolassa. On väitetty, ettei Salvador Dalikaan työstäisi Altamiraa tai Lascauxia kehittyneempiä maalauksia, mikäli käytettävissä olisivat samat välineet.


Esihistorialliset taiteilijat valitsivat todennäköisesti luolia, joiden erityiset akustiset ominaisuudet kykenivät vahvistamaan ja elävöittämään töitä. Luolien akustiikkaan ei pitkään kiinnitetty tutkimuksessa mitään huomiota. Esimerkiksi käsillä taputtaen tai kiviä kilistäen tehdyt äänet heijastuivat edestakaisin luolissa kaikuen ja kuulostaen luolien seiniin kuvattujen eläinten kavioniskuilta. Syvien kissaeläinluolien tuottamat kaiut ovat usein voimakkuudeltaan vain kolmasosa biisoni- ja hevosluolista. Joskus huuto heijastuu kuvista aivan kuin kuva vastaisi (11). Taide oli valmista ikään kuin heti alussa. Perinteinen käsitys eurooppalaisissa kalliomaalauksissa kuvattujen eläinten huikean suuresta koosta on niiden maalaaminen jonkinlaisena jahtimagiana. (Kts. )

Uudenaikainen tietokonetomografialla eli kerroskuvauksella suoritettu tutkimus on paljastanut lähes 20 prosentin systemaattisen virheen "esi-ihmisten" kallontilavuuksien mittaamisessa. Virhe on ylöspäin, kuten arvata saattaa.

Esimerkiksi Australopithecus africanuksen 440 kuutiosenttiseksi arvioidut aivot ovat Glenn Conroyn ryhmän uudella menetelmällä mitattuna 370 kuutiosenttiä, mikä vastaa tavallista simpanssien aivojen kokoa. Tutkimusta kommentoinut Dean Falk sanoo uuden löydöksen osoittavan, että "jotain on hyvin pielessä aiemmin julkaistujen hominidien aivokapasiteetissa." (12)


Apinaihmisten kehitys näkyy parhaiten siinä, että löytyessänsä ne pääsevät kansan tietoisuuteen arvonsa mukaisella ryminällä, mutta myöhemmin "korjaavat luunsa" huomattavasti vähäeleisemmin. Neandertalin ihmisen kallonkoko ja oletettava aivokapasiteetti oli jopa suurempi kuin nykyihmisellä (13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Neandertalin ihminen on myös tunnettu inhimillisistä jäämistöistään. Vankkarakenteiset ja vääräsääriset neandertalilaiset hautasivat vainajansa kukkasten, korujen, värien, ruokien, nahkavaatteiden ja lääkekasvien kera. (Luterilainen voi kysyä ortodoksilta, milloin vainajat saapuvat haudalle jätettyjä ruokia maistelemaan. Ortodoksi voisi vastata kysymyksellä, milloin he tulevat kukkia haistelemaan.) Osa löydöistä osoittaa neandertal-yhteisön pitäneen huolta vanhuksistaan ja rammoistaan. Joka viidennen yksilön on arveltu olleen yli 50-vuotias (18). Toisaalta on muistettava, että neanderintalinihmisten määrän oletetaan pysyneen koko niiden olemassaolon ajan suhteellisen pienenä löydösten pienestä lukumäärästä johtuen. (Löydöspaikkoja on alle 30.) (19)


Onkin puolileikillisesti sanottu, että jos ajaisi Neandertalin ihmisen parran, leikkaisi tämän hiukset, sekä lainaisi tälle pukuansa ja axe-partavettään, ei mies herättäisi huomiota puolirealistisen Skepsis ry:n sääntömääräisessä yleiskokouksessa. Sapere aude – uskaltaisivat ajatella oikeasti. Helpompi nähdä rikka eli roska veljen silmässä, kuin malka eli kattohirsi omassa.


Euroopan neandertalilaisten hautaustavat ovat yksi vahvimmista todisteista heidän ihmisyydestään. Useimmille ihmisille heidän yhdistämisensä luoliin tuo mieleen mielleyhtymän alkeellisista ja apinamaisista ”luolamiehistä”. Koska niin monet neanderinlaaksolaisten jäännöksistä löydetään luolista, oletetaan heidän myös eläneen luolissa. On löydetty myös neandertalilaisten asumuksia. 1 Moos. 23:17–20 kertoo Aabrahamin ostaneen heettiläiseltä Efronin ”perintöhaudan”. Vain Saara kuoli haudan maantieteellisessä läheisyydessä. Aabraham, Iisak, Leea, Rebekka, Jaakob jne. kuljetettiin sinne muualta. Eivät he normaalisti luolassa asuneet.


Kaikkiaan 475 neanderthalin yksilöstä ainakin 258 (54 %) on haudattu luoliin tai kivisuojiin (LubenowinBones of contention–kirjan mukaan). Vahvin todiste siitä, että neandertalilaiset olivat aitoja ihmisiä ja kuuluivat omaan lajiimme, on kuitenkin se, että neljässä paikassa neandertalilaisten morfologian omanneita ihmisiä on haudattu yhdessä modernin morfologian omanneiden ihmisten kanssa. Ihmisperhe on yhtenäinen perhe. ”Ja hän (Jumala) on tehnyt koko ihmissuvun yhdestä ainoasta asumaan kaikkea maanpiiriä” (Apt. 17:26). Neandertalinihmisten luiden isotooppianalyysi osoittaa, että heidän ruokavalionsa koostui 90-prosenttisesti lihasta. Yhtä yksipuolinen ruokavalio on mm. leijonilla ja susilla. Jobin kirjan kommentaarissani spekuloin Raamatun luolamiesten kuvauksen yhteydessä mahdollisuudella, että "Neandertalin laakso" sijaitsikin jääkaudella ja että jääkausi oli itse asiassa vulkaanisesta ilmakehän tuhkasta johtunut pimeäkausi, jolloin iholla ei muodostunut riittävästi D-vitamiinia.


Kladistiikaksi kutsutussa metodiikassa lajien (niin fossiili- sellaisten kuin elävienkin) sukupuita konstruoidaan "primitiivisten" ja "periytyneiden" piirteiden perusteella, jotka löydöt joko jakavat keskenään tai eivät jaa. Yhteiset primitiiviset piirteet ovat yhteisiä, koska ne ovat periytyneet yhteiseltä kantamuodolta, ja eroavat piirteet kertovat erillisistä kehityspoluista. Kädellisten kohdalla tämän lähestymistavan subjektiivisen elementin näkee tavallistakin paremmin: ei ole olemassa mitään yhtä ja tiettyä sukupuuta, josta paleontologit olisivat yksimielisiä. Päinvastoin, lähes jokaista kuviteltavissa olevaa elävien ja sukupuuttoon kuolleiden hominidien kombinaatiota ja permutaatiota on ehdotettu jonkun kladistikon taholta (20).


On muistettava, että paleoantropologin tapa saada nimeä on tehdä oma evolutionistinen löytönsä. Ihmisluilla ei ole kysyntää. Esimerkiksi kuuluisa Louis Leakey, Richard Leakeyn isä, hallitsi hyvin suhdetoiminnan ja onnistui "myymään" tiedotusvälineille Zinjanthropuksen eli "pähkinänsärkijäihmisen", ihmisen esivanhemman Itä-Afrikasta. Tuohon aikaan vallitseva käsitys katsoi ihmisen kehittyneen Aasiassa, ja Leakey oli yksi harvoista jotka puolustivat Charles Darwinin käsitystä Afrikan alkukodista. Ensimmäisen Tansanian Olduvain rotkosta tehdyn löydön aikoihin 17.7.1959 Louis ja Mary Leakey olivat pakkotilanteessa: rahat olivat käymässä vähiin ja rahoittajat vaativat näkyviä tuloksia. Pankkitili oli jo debetin puolella, eikä lisärahoitusta ollut odotettavissa (21). Leakeyn dynastian myöhemmin löytämä "Lucy" lienee maailman kuuluisin hominidiksi katsottu fossiili.

On ironista, että nk. mikrokefaliaa on nyt tullut käytettyä ja laajasti popularisoitua kahdella täysin päinvastaisella tavalla evoluution todisteena. Lainaan Richard Weikartin kirjaa "From Darwin to Hitler-
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" (Palgrave 2004; Weikart on California State Universityn historian professori):

"The first German biologist to apply Darwinian inequality to the disabled was Karl Vogt, a political exile to Switzerland because of his participation in the Revolutions iof 1848. Vogt, a professor at
the university of Geneva, was one of the earliest German biologists to embrace Darwinism. In his two-volume work, Lectures on Man (1863), which is considered such a classic work in anthropology that it was republished in 2003m he asserted that some mentally disabled people (he used the term "idiots") were closer to apes in their brain function and mental abilities than they were to the lowest normal humans. He claimed an "idiot" is biologically closer to an ape than to his or her own parents. In 1867 Vogt argued that microcephalic persons were evidence for Darwinian evolution. He saw them as a kind of contemporary missing link between apes and humans. He noted that their brains are about the same size as a spider or monkey, and he further claimed that they generally had excellent dexterity in climbing! (Darwin, by the way, agred with Vogt's view on this matter.)"
(s. 95.)

Nyt näitä "hobiteita" siis käytetään evoluution vertaansa vailla olevana todisteena kun heidän jäänteitään löydettiin fossiileina.

Lainattakoon rotuoppien näkökulmasta vielä Ernst Haeckeliä. Natural History of Creation (jota AJ Mela/Malmberg kuuluisassa evoluution vihkimisesittelyssään muuten mukaeli, vaikka Darwinista hämäävästi
puhuikin): "...between the most highly developed animal soul and the least developed human soul there exists only a small quantitative, but no qualitative difference, and that this difference is much less, than
the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference between the highest and lowest animal souls."

Weikart kommentoi tätä: "It may be hard for us today to imagine that a serious scientist could actually believe that the differences within the human species are greater than the differences between humans and other animals, but this was indeed haeckel's position, which he reiterated in many publications".
(s. 90).


Luomisuskovien propagandistinen motto kuuluu, että kaikki ihmisen kehitysopilliset esi-isät mahtuisivat samaan ruumisarkkuun. Itse en osaa asiaa arvioida, vaan joudun luottamaan viime kädessä asiantuntijoina esiintyvien sanaan. Cro-Magnonin ja Neandertalin ihmisen kohdalla vainajille voisi minun mielestäni kuitenkin pitää ihmisarvonsa mukaiset hautajaiset. Suuren määrän löytöjä selittää nykyinen variaatio henkiseltä tasoltaan yhdenvertaisista pygmeistä pitkiin pohjoismaalaisiin. Esimerkiksi ihmisen kallontilavuus vaihtelee tiukan tulkinnan mukaan välillä 1100-1700 ja väljemmän mukaan 800 - 2000 kuutiosenttimetriä, tämän vaikuttamatta sen kummemmin yksilön älynlahjoihin (22). Pohjoismaisetkin muinaislöydöt ovat olleet mukana synnyttämässä "kirveskulttuurin" käsitettä.


Eräs esimerkki muiden kuin ihmisten fossiilien väkisinlokeroinnista on Charles Doolittle Walcott ja Burgessin esiintymän tarina. Kyseessä on merkittävin pehmeiden fossiilien löytö, joka oli jäädä kokonaan unohduksiin ja museoiden holveihin kivettymään uudelleen Smithsonian -instituutin esimiehen analysoitua henkilökohtaisen löytönsä. Näytteet oli luokiteltu sovinnaisesti, kun tosiasiassa ne kätkivät sisäänsä useita meille kokonaan tuntemattomia pääjaksoja. Walcott toimi Yhdysvaltain kansallisen tiedeakatemian ja Amerikan tieteen edistämisen seuran puheenjohtajana (23).


Allekirjoittaneen eniten tutkima empiiristen havaintojen manipulaatio on eri eliölajien sikiöiden vertailu, sekin fasismin biologismin isän ja ensimmäinen Judenfragen kokonaisratkaisun esittäjän Ernst Haeckelin toimesta (24, 25). (Haeckel ehdotti, että kaikki saksanjuutalaiset pitäisi karkottaa oppituoleiltaan, hän eli yhtä maailmansotaa ennen aikaansa.) Ontogenia tosiaan rekapituloi fylogeniaa. Kyseenalaisena olevassa opissa todistettiin ihmissikiön käyvän yksilönkehityksen aikana kohdussa läpi pikakelauksella ihmislajin kehityksen kalasta sammakoiden ja matelijoiden kautta maalle.


On käsittämätöntä, että vertailevat sikiöpiirrustukset ovat kulkeneet niin lukion kuin yliopistonkin biologian oppikirjoissa lähes koko evoluutioteorian elinajan - vaikka havainnot on osoitettu väärennöksiksi jo sata vuotta sitten (26). Tällä paradigmalla perusteltiin lisäksi oksat pois –rasismia, mustan pojan sielu kun rekapituloi hänene vasta noin 5-vuotiaana. Neekeri oli lähempänsä lammasta tai koiraa, kuin teutonista ihmistä. Neekeri oli evoluution elävä esimerkki. Olipa kerran puu. Ihan tavallinen puu. Yhdellä istui oranki, yhdellä simpanssi, yhdellä gorilla, ja sitten "neger" – kukin oksallaan. Ja Haeckelin tiedekirjoja painettiin huomattavasti enemmän kuin Darwinin teoksia konsanaan. Ei Suomeen milään darwinismi rantautunut. Vulgaarille haeckelismille meidät myytiin – vaikka sama saksalainen perinne parjasi suomensuomalaisia Euroopan alempana, keltaisena ja rumana mongolirotuna.


Niin ikään laajalti käytetty teollisuusmelanismin esimerkki on siksi ikävä, että kyseinen perhonen ("peppered moth") ei yleensä lepäile puiden rungoilla, ellei valokuvaustilannetta lavasteta. Jonathan Wells on populistinen kynäniekka, joka ottaa kirjassaan Icons of Evolution esille kaikkiaan kymmenen samankaltaista esimerkkiä, joissa oppikirjoissa jätetään kertomatta jotakin olennaista havaintomateriaalista. Hämmästyttävää on se, että kyseessä ovat evoluution paraatiesimerkit 27). Hämmentävää on Wellsin niskaansa saaman loan määrä:

"The creationist abuse of evo-devo" (Rudolf Raff, Evolution & Development 3, 373-4, 2001; Uusi julkaisusarja inauguroitiin uuden vuosituhannen kunniaksi
"Fatally flawed iconoclasm" (Eugenie C. Scott, Science 292, 2257-8, 2001)
"Creationism by stealth" (Jeery Coyne, Nature, 410, 745-6, 2001)
"The talented Mr. Wells" (Padian & Gishlick, The Quarterly Review of Biology 77, 33-7) jne. jne.

Paljon olisi todellakin kirveelle töitä, vaan höylän hankkimisesta puhutaan. Kysyntää näyttää löytyvän niin hominideille kuin humanoideillekin. Hyykä perju, juupa taalar. Edellä mainitut tapaukset ovat kärjistettyjä esimerkkejä, mutta pienikin otos osoittaa, miten herkkäuskoinen ja lapsellisen innokas tiedeyhteisö ynnä tiedotusvälineet ovat vastaanottamaan kehitysopillisia tuloksia. "Ellette tule lapsen kaltaisiksi, ette pääse sinne sisälle." Raamattu on rehellisempi. Mikäli jokin asia perustuu uskolle, se sanotaan suoraan.


1. Steven Jay-Gould, Natural History 88 (3):96, 1979. Lisää liskolinnusta: P Wellnhefer, "Archaeopteryx". Scientific American, May 1990; R. Gore, "The Cambrian Period Explosion of life". National Geographic 184:125, October 1993.
2. J. Hawkes, Nature 204: 952, 1964.
3. W.K. Gregory, Science 66:579, 1927.
4. DR Bilbeam, The Evolution of Man. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970, s. 107.
5. DR Bilbeam, Natural History 93:2, 1984.
6. Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of evolution 1990 s. 147-148.
7. Duan Gish, Evolution - The Fossils Still Say No! s. 280-283.
8. W.S. Howell, Mankind in the Making. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967, s. 155-156.
9. W. Herbert, Science News 123: 246, 1983.
10. Moline (Illinois) Daily Dispatch, 14 May 1984.
11. Tieteen kuvalehti 8/1993 s. 26.
12. HS 14.6.1998 C2 (?) /The New York Times.
13. Malcolm Bowden, Ape-Men, Fact or Fallacy?
14. Allen L. Hammond, Tales of an Elusive Ancestor, Science 83, November 1983, s. 37, 43.
15. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, False Start of Human Parade, Natural History, August/September 1979, s. 86-91.
16. Eugene Dubois, On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus, Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, s. 4.
17. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, Homo Erectus Never Existed? , Geotimes, October 1992, s. 11.
18. Björn Kurtén, Musta Tiikeri s. 269. Tammi 1987.
19. Tieteen kuvalehti 10/2000 s. 24-27.
20. Lowenstein J. & Zihlman A. (1988) The Invisible Ape, New Scientist 120 (1641), 56-59, s. 58.
21. TK 8/2001 s. 71-74.
22. AH Schultz, The Recent Hominoid Primates. Perspectives on Human Evolution, vol 1. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. s. 168, 186.
23. Steven J. Gould, Ihmeellinen elämä s. 246-301. Gummerus 1991.
24. Jari Koponen, Yliopisto 16/97, s. 40.
25. W.R. Thompson, Introduction to The Origin of Species, s. 12.
26. Michael Richardson, Anatomy and Embryology August 1997. Science 277, 1435.
27. Jonathan Wells, Icon of Evolution. Science or myth? Regnery Publishing Inc. 2001.



Insert from an AiG article 

Human and chimp similarity?

The Tribune article then touched on the often-cited similarity of the human and chimp genomes as evidence from operation science that supports the presupposition of molecules-to-man evolution/millions of years. One University of Utah biologist who was quoted declared that human/chimp similarity is “absolutely, completely, totally convincing. It is proof [of evolution].” This is an astonishing statement, for nothing in science ever proves or disproves a theory. The evidence either supports or does not support a theory; proof is too strong of a word, and instead the word support is always preferred. This same scientist then went on to say that, “Anyone who has examined the evidence can see that the similarities point toward an ancient common ancestor that links all species.”

I am a scientist, a molecular geneticist, and I have examined the same evidence, and I believe the similarities point towards a common Designer that created animal kinds and man.

And how similar are the human and chimp genomes really? The often-quoted numbers of 96–99% similarity are only for regions of the DNA (DNA is the molecule of heredity) that code for proteins. If a particular protein serves a function in one organism and the function was needed in another organism, wouldn’t we expect to find the same protein?

In addition, the remainder of the genome consisting of “junk” DNA and highly repetitive sequences has not been examined for similarity. Why? Because in the evolutionists’ mind, they are not important.

“Junk” DNA, for example, is thought of as an evolutionary leftover. However, there is increasing evidence to support a role for so-called “junk” DNA. It may serve a role in regulating how much protein is eventually expressed from the DNA. “Junk” DNA may also serve as a spacer between genes (protein coding sequences) much like the function of the spaces between the words in this article—without them the letters wouldn’t make any sense.

Differences between humans and chimps

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

To address these concerns and others, comparisons of the human and chimp genomes will be a part of “GENE” project sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).The bioinformatics team (of which I am a part) will be analyzing different aspects of the human genome with special emphasis given to the comparison of human and chimp genomes.



Human and chimp genomes differ markedly in:

  • Chunks of missing DNA

  • Extra genes

  • Number of chromosomes and chromosome structure

  • Altered connections in gene networks

  • Indels (insertions and deletions)

  • Gene copy number

  • Coexpressed genes

December 2006 paper from PLoS One where Matthew Hahn found a “whopping 6.4%” difference in gene copy numbers, leading him to say, “gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated.” But even that number is misleading. At the end of the article, Cohen quoted Svante Paabo, who said something even more revealing.  After admitting he didn’t think there was any way to calculate a single number, he said, “In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.1Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well” ?!? Huh? Was it the millions of school children and laymen who were lied to? No!  “Us” refers to the members of the Darwin Party, the dogmatists who shamelessly lied to advance their agenda.  They had a strategy to portray humans and chimpanzees as similar as possible, in order to make their myth of common descent seem more plausible.  Now, 32 years later, they have come clean, without any remorse, only because the usefulness of that lie has run out, and needs to be replaced by new lies.  They had a political, social and cultural agenda that, in many cases, worked for 32 years.  “Truth be told,” he said.  Too late.


Science. 2005 Apr 1;308(5718):107-11. Epub 2005 Feb 10. Comparison of fine-scale recombination rates in humans and chimpanzees. Winckler W, Myers SR, Richter DJ, Onofrio RC, McDonald GJ, Bontrop RE, McVean GA, Gabriel SB, Reich D, Donnelly P, Altshuler D.
    We compared fine-scale recombination rates at orthologous loci in humans and chimpanzees by analyzing polymorphism data in both species. Strong statistical evidence for hotspots of recombination was obtained in both species. Despite approximately 99% identity at the level of DNA sequence, however, recombination hotspots were found rarely (if at all) at the same positions in the two species, and no correlation was observed in estimates of fine-scale recombination rates. Thus, local patterns of recombination rate have evolved rapidly, in a manner disproportionate to the change in DNA sequence.


10-10-2008 17:12 | Dr Richard Buggs

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level.

Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded
in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of
chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that
chimpanzees should have the same ’rights’ as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different
from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in
our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to
understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the
special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what
it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the
98.5% figure is very misleading
. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA
sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find
major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome
that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human
genome’s 3164.7 million ’letters’ align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human
. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with
the chimpanzee genome is useless ”junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain
over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact
alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome.
These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’
is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between
the two genomes
. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome,
or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation”
causes another 2.7% difference between the two species
. Therefore the total similarity of the
genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present
we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome
was used as a template (or ”scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98%
chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests
that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.


DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2008) — Researchers have carried out the largest study of differences
between human and chimpanzee genomes, identifying regions that have been duplicated or lost
during evolution of the two lineages. The study, published in Genome Research, is the first
to compare many human and chimpanzee genomes in the same fashion.

The team show that particular types of genes - such as those involved in the inflammatory
response and in control of cell proliferation - are more commonly involved in gain or loss
They also provide new evidence for a gene that has been associated with susceptibility to
infection by HIV.

"This is the first study of this scale, comparing directly the genomes of many humans and
chimpanzees," says Dr Richard Redon, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, a leading
author of the study. "By looking at only one 'reference' sequence for human or chimpanzee,
as has been done previously, it is not possible to tell which differences occur only among
individual chimpanzees or humans and which are differences between the two species.

"This is our first view of those two important legacies of evolution."

Rather than examining single-letter differences in the genomes (so-called SNPs), the
researchers looked at copy number variation (CNV) - the gain or loss of regions of DNA
CNVs can affect many genes at once and their significance has only been fully appreciated
within the last two years. The team looked at genomes of 30 chimpanzees and 30 humans: a
direct comparison of this scale or type has not been carried out before.

The comparison uncovered CNVs that are present in both species as well as copy number
differences (CNDs) between the two species. CNDs are likely to include genes that have
influenced evolution of each species since humans and chimpanzees diverged some six million
years ago. (Suom. Huom. Ihanko totta!)

"Broadly, the two genomes have similar patterns and levels of CNVs - around 70-80 in each
individual - of which nearly half occur in the same regions of the two species' genomes,"
continues Dr Redon. "But beyond that similarity we were able to find intriguing evidence
for key sets of genes that differ between us and our nearest relative."

One of the genes affected by CNVs is CCL3L1, for which lower copy numbers in humans have
been associated with increased susceptibility to HIV infection. Remarkably, the study of 60
human and chimpanzee genomes found no evidence for fixed CNDs between human and chimp and
no within-chimp CNV. Rather, they found that a nearby gene called TBC1D3 was reduced in
number in chimpanzee compared to human: typically, there were eight copies in human, but
apparently only one in all chimpanzees.

The authors suggest that it might be evolutionary selection of CNDs in TBC1D3 that have
driven the population differences. Consistent with this novel observation, TBC1D3 is
involved in cell proliferation (favoured category) and is on a core region for duplication
- a focal point for large regions of duplication in human genome.

"It is evident that there has been striking turnover in gene content between humans and
chimpanzees, and some of these changes may have resulted from exceptional selection
pressures," explains Dr George Perry from Arizona State University and Brigham and Women's
Hospital, another leading author of the study. "For example, a surprisingly high number of
genes involved in the inflammatory response - APOL1, APOL4, CARD18, IL1F7, IL1F8 - are
completely deleted from chimp genome
. In humans, APOL1 is involved in resistance to the
parasite that causes sleeping sickness, while IL1F7 and CARD18 play a role in regulating
inflammation: therefore, there must be different regulations of these processes in

"We already know that inactivation of an immune system gene from the human genome is being
positively selected: now we have an example of similar consequences in the chimpanzee."

CNVs in humans and chimpanzees often occur in equivalent genomic locations: most lie in
regions of the genomes, called segmental duplications, that are particularly 'fragile'.
However, one in four of the 355 CNDs that the team found do not overlap with CNVs within
either species - suggesting that they are variants that are 'fixed' in each species and
might mark significant differences between human and chimpanzee genomes.

DNA Samples and analysis

The project used DNA samples from 30 chimpanzees (29 from W Africa, one from E Africa): the
chimpanzee reference was produced using DNA from Clint, the chimpanzee whose DNA was used
for the genome sequence.

Human DNA samples were obtained from following participants: ten Yoruba (Ibadan, Nigeria),
ten Biaka rainforest hunter-gatherers (Central African Republic) and ten Mbuti rainforest
hunter-gatherers (Democratic Republic of Congo). The human reference is a European-American
male from the HapMap Project (NA10852).

CNVs and CNDs were detected using a whole-genome tilepath of DNA clones spanning the human
genome used previously to map human CNVs: this platform can reveal structural variants
greater than around 10,000 base-pairs in size.

This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the LSB Leakey Foundation, the Wenner-Gren
Foundation for Anthropological Research, the National Institutes of Health, The University
of Louisiana at Lafayette-New Iberia Research Center and the Howard Hughes Medical

The authors thank the Human Genome Diversity Project, the Coriell Institute for Medical
Research, the Integrated Primate Biomaterials and Information Resource, New Iberia Research
Center, and the Primate Foundation of Arizona for samples.


Journal references:

1. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee
genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature, 2005; 437 (7055): 69 DOI:
2. Perry et al. Copy number variation and evolution in humans and chimpanzees. Genome
Research, 2008; 18 (11): 1698 DOI: 10.1101/gr.082016.108
Adapted from materials provided by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.

How to See the Handcraft of the Creator in Nature?

Drawings from the Finnish Nature

Pelasta elämä - lahjoita verta!

Safe a Life - Donate Blood! 

Jos painovoima loppuisi NYT! niin milloin se vaikuttaisi miljardin valovuoden päässä olevassa kohteessa? Tangentin suuntaisesti.
Valovuodet eivät ole ajan yksikkö. Valovuosi mittaa etäisyyttä, ei historiaa.

Edes valonnopeus ei mahdollisesti olekaan vakio ja saattaa rapistua asymptoottisesti arvoon 300 000 km/s.

Mutta  "gravitonia" ei ole vielä löydettykään. Se on liian nopea. Ajan lyhyt hysteria.


If Gravitation would stop to exist NOW! When would it be seen in a remote star?

 Straight via tangentia.

Light years are not a measure of time or history, but of distance.

 Even the speed of light may not be constant, after all, and may decay asymptotically to 300 000 km/s.

In contrast to the Photon, the "Graviton" has not been even found yet. It is so fast. The short hystery of time.