Why It Is Meaningless For Evolutionists To Use Australopithecus In Their Human Evolution Claims

Enlarge video
 
Evolutionists give the name Australopithecus, meaning ‘southern ape,’ to man’s first alleged ape-like ancestor. In fact, these creatures are nothing but an ancient extinct species of ape. Although various Australopithecus species have been found, only Australopithecus afarensis (represented by ‘Lucy,’ put forward as proof of human evolution when discovered in 1974) is regarded as man’s direct ancestor. Detailed analysis of Australopithecus fossils, however, have revealed that these were an ordinary species of ape.

Evolutionists give the name Australopithecus, meaning ‘southern ape,’ to man’s first alleged ape-like ancestor. In fact, these creatures are nothing but an ancient extinct species of ape. Although various Australopithecus species have been found, only Australopithecus afarensis (represented by ‘Lucy,’ put forward as proof of human evolution when discovered in 1974) is regarded as man’s direct ancestor. Detailed analysis of Australopithecus fossils, however, have revealed that these were an ordinary species of ape.

It is believed that Australopithecines first emerged in Africa some 4 million years ago and that they lived until 1 million years ago. All the variations of Australopithecus are extinct apes closely resembling those of today. The brain volumes of all of them are the same or smaller than modern chimpanzees. Their hands and feet have protrusions, just like those of modern monkeys, used for climbing trees, and their feet are prehensile for clinging onto branches. They are short (1.30 m at most), and just as with present-day apes the male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Hundreds of details in their skulls, and many other features, such as the way their eyes are close together, their sharp molars, jaw structure and short arms, all prove they were no different to modern monkeys.

The evolutionist claim here is the thesis that despite having a totally ape-like anatomy, Australopithecines walked upright, like man and unlike all other apes.

The fact is, however, that a great many studies on Australopithecus have reached the conclusion that the species did not walk like man, and was not two-legged.

1. Despite being in favour of the theory of evolution, Lord Zuckerman concluded that Australopithecus was an ordinary species of ape and very definitely did not walk upright. (1)

2. There is a new discovery which has overturned the claim that Australopithecus, over time, began to walk upright, evolving eventually into man. Certain apes in our own time are capable of walking upright. According to a study by Dr. Robin Crompton of Liverpool University, published in The Scotsman under the title “Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin’s Theory,” chimpanzees living in the Bwindi region of Uganda also possess the ability to stand on two legs. Dr. Crompton states that this opposes the evolutionists’ assumptions:

This means that the accepted idea of apes on the ground gradually evolving to an upright stance from a crouched position is wrong. (2)

Crompton’s discovery clearly exposes the meaninglessness of the tale that a quadrupedal ancestral ape evolved over a period of time into upright walking man. The said chimpanzees can walk upright to a certain degree and yet they are still chimpanzees or apes. They live in the forest like apes, feed like apes. Looking at it from this perspective, there is no reason not to think of the Australopithecus as a common ape species, capable of walking upright to a certain degree like the chimpanzees Crompton encountered.

The basis for the evolutionists’ “proof” for the evolution of man from the Australopithecus, is the view that it was a species capable of walking upright. As we have seen, it is a wholly meaningless claim, even if it is true. What could an ape fossil, controversially claimed to have been an upright walking species prove anyhow? Obviously, that there were apes in the distant past, that could walk upright to a degree, just like Crompton’s chimpanzees… Evolutionists, on the other hand, by the power of their imagination, put forth the view that the Australopithecus was a stage in the evolution of man. The reason behind this questionable attitude is their acceptance of the dogma of man’s evolution from apes. Evolutionist “experts,” with this dogma ingrained in their minds, superimpose the anatomical features of that species onto this imaginary picture, which existed before the discovery of Australopithecus.

As we have seen, the evolutionist speculations on Australopithecus are based on mere prejudices.

3. Fred Spoor and a team from Liverpool University carried out a wide-ranging study in 1994 in order to arrive at a definitive verdict on the Australopithecus skeleton. Studies were carried out on an organ called the cochlea, which determines the body’s position relative to the ground. Spoor’s conclusion was that Australopithecus did not walk in a similar way to man. (3)

4. A study carried out by B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait and published in Nature magazine in 2000 examined the Australopithecus arm. Comparative anatomical investigations revealed that this species had the same arm structure as modern apes that walk on four legs.

Comments: The fact that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The well-known French magazine Science et Vie made the issue its cover story in its May 1999 edition. The magazine considered Lucy, regarded as the most important fossil specimen of the species Australopithecus afarensis, under the caption ‘Adieu Lucy’ (‘Good-bye Lucy’) and wrote that the apes from the Australopithecus species did not represent the origin of man and should be removed from the family tree. (5)

An article by Tim Friend in the US newspaper USA Today made the following comments regarding Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), portrayed as a direct ancestor of man:

“Lucy"s scientific name is Australopithecus afarensis. She looked very similar to a modern bonobo chimpanzee, with a small brain, a protruding face and large molar teeth. But Lucy has been losing favor over the past 10 years as the direct ancestor of the genus homo…

… And most say they now believe that the idea of tracing humans in a straight line back to an ancestor such as Lucy is too simplistic…”

Space was also devoted in the article to comments by Richard Potts, head of the famous Smithsonian University Natural History Museum Human Origins Program. Potts and several other evolutionist experts accept the fact that Lucy must now be removed from man’s family tree. (6)

 

(1) Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94
(2) Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy", Science et Vie, Mayýs 1999, no. 980, s. 52-62
(3) Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, vol. 369, 23 June 1994, pp. 645-648
(4) Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000.
(5) Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy", Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62
(6)
“Discovery rocks human-origin theories”, Tim Friend, 21 March 2003: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2001-03-21-skull.htm
(7)
The Scotsman.com: “Chimps on two legs run through Darwin’s theory”
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1016102002

0000-00-00 00:00:00

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. www.harunyahya.com - info@harunyahya.com
page_top