Back to the Thought Deposit
- CHALLENGE ←
- 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
A reanalysis of a first draft of
the Neanderthal genome by the same team released in May 2010 indicates that
interbreeding did occur. "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'
"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
"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
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
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.
ANATOMY CHART of the MUSCULATURE
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
Ernst Haeckel gave the
Linnaen binomial classification name
Pithecanthropus alalus ('ape-man
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
and finally to
Nebraska man was built upon one single tooth. That
tooth was derived from an extinct pig.
The Americans claimed the first man was American
The British claimed the first man was British
Both discoveries were, unfortunately, bullshit
Peking man - Cro Magnon
The Peking man cave contained bones from both human
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
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
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,
Differences Separate Neandertals from Humans
(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
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.
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.
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.
Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1998
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
Will the Real Neandertal
Please Stand Up?
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.
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.77:6715-6719.]. 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]
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].
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
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
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
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
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
Ian Taylor, Creation Moments, PO Box 839,
Foley, MN 56329 800-422-4253
Ascent of Man, Descent of
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
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. http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gigantismi.htm )
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
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
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 (Lubenowin
”Bones 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
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/job.htm 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
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
"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
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.
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
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,
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,
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.
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:
The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes,
leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.
In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA
sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.
Chimps have 46 chromosomes and humans have 44 chromosomes (excluding
sex chromosomes for both species).
To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the
human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans
evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the
pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.
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
Number of chromosomes and chromosome structure
Altered connections in gene networks
Indels (insertions and deletions)
Gene copy number
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%,”
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. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm
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
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,
chimpanzees should have the same ’rights’ as humans.
Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are
from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as
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
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
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
genome. 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
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%
the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around
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
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
The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.
DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp
ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2008) — Researchers have carried out the largest study of
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
infection by HIV.
"This is the first study of this scale, comparing directly the genomes of many
chimpanzees," says Dr Richard Redon, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, a
author of the study. "By looking at only one 'reference' sequence for human or
as has been done previously, it is not possible to tell which differences occur
individual chimpanzees or humans and which are differences between the two
"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
CNVs can affect many genes at once and their significance has only been fully
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
differences (CNDs) between the two species. CNDs are likely to include genes
influenced evolution of each species since humans and chimpanzees diverged some
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'
continues Dr Redon. "But beyond that similarity we were able to find intriguing
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
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
no within-chimp CNV. Rather, they found that a nearby gene called TBC1D3 was
number in chimpanzee compared to human: typically, there were eight copies in
apparently only one in all chimpanzees.
The authors suggest that it might be evolutionary selection of CNDs in TBC1D3
driven the population differences. Consistent with this novel observation,
involved in cell proliferation (favoured category) and is on a core region for
- a focal point for large regions of duplication in human genome.
"It is evident that there has been striking turnover in gene content between
chimpanzees, and some of these changes may have resulted from exceptional
pressures," explains Dr George Perry from Arizona State University and Brigham
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
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
inflammation: therefore, there must be different regulations of these processes
"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
CNVs in humans and chimpanzees often occur in equivalent genomic locations: most
regions of the genomes, called segmental duplications, that are particularly
However, one in four of the 355 CNDs that the team found do not overlap with
either species - suggesting that they are variants that are 'fixed' in each
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
chimpanzee reference was produced using DNA from Clint, the chimpanzee whose DNA
for the genome sequence.
Human DNA samples were obtained from following participants: ten Yoruba (Ibadan,
ten Biaka rainforest hunter-gatherers (Central African Republic) and ten Mbuti
hunter-gatherers (Democratic Republic of Congo). The human reference is a
male from the HapMap Project (NA10852).
CNVs and CNDs were detected using a whole-genome tilepath of DNA clones spanning
genome used previously to map human CNVs: this platform can reveal structural
greater than around 10,000 base-pairs in size.
This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the LSB Leakey Foundation, the
Foundation for Anthropological Research, the National Institutes of Health, The
of Louisiana at Lafayette-New Iberia Research Center and the Howard Hughes
The authors thank the Human Genome Diversity Project, the Coriell Institute for
Research, the Integrated Primate Biomaterials and Information Resource, New
Center, and the Primate Foundation of Arizona for samples.
1. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the
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.
Research, 2008; 18 (11): 1698 DOI: 10.1101/gr.082016.108
Adapted from materials provided by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.
See the Handcraft of the Creator in Nature?
Drawings from the Finnish Nature
Pelasta elämä - lahjoita verta!
Safe a Life - Donate
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
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?
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.
contrast to the Photon, the "Graviton" has not been even found yet. It is so fast.
The short hystery of time.