Special Topics (Reprint Articles)
QR Code
The "Missing Link" ...FOUND!

For one hundred years, anthropologists have searched for the "missing links" to man's ancestry. Many have been proposed. But the "missing link" — long overlooked by scientists — stands revealed. Read the proof in this surprising article.

   HAVEN'T YOU often wondered where you came from? That is, who are your ancestors — not of one hundred or two hundred years ago, but of one — two — five THOUSAND years ago?
   And what of the possibility that your ancestors go back 35,000 years, or 600,000 years, or three million years?
   Until about one hundred years ago, the prevailing idea was that the human family was only about six thousand years old. But some had different ideas.

The Birth of Evolution

   Charles Lyell, a geologist, was one. He had a few devoted followers. Lyell claimed to see much time in the geological record — much, much more time than had been previously accepted.
   Another outspoken giant of his time was Charles Darwin. He proposed evolution as the process by which all things came to be as they are.
   Most, at the time, were violently opposed to Darwin. But the generation of opposers died out. Young scientists, imbued with the revolutionary idea of man's evolution, occupied the universities, did research and wrote books.
   Today, few scientists of note would believe in the literal account of Genesis. Few believe that life and man were created. A popular book on the subject sums up the idea:
   "The story of creation, as told in the Bible, is a fine case in point. It is seldom taken literally now." (F. Clark Howell, Early Mall, New York: TIME-LIFE Books, 1968, p. 10.)
   Today, there are multiple hundreds of archaeological sites the world over. And the fossils are often found in droves. Who, for example, has not heard of Neanderthal Man, of Peking Man, of Java Man, of Zinjanthropus, of the Heidelberg jaw, of the Taungs baby, of Cro-Magnon Man?
   These names are familiar to nearly every student.
   Such a mountain of bones, artifacts, and new dating methods has, it would seem, buried the Bible. Writer Philip Van Doren Stern could confidently state in 1969:
   "Prehistory was on the way in the 1860's, marching in step with Darwin and his supporters. Earth taken from excavation after excavation was burying the men who still insisted that the Bible was the only reliable guide to the antiquity of man." (Philip Van Doren Stern, Prehistoric Europe, New York: W. W. Norton, 1969, page 108.)
   What then of the fossil record of early man? Who are our ancestors?

What Puzzled Darwin

   For practical purposes, there was no fossil evidence for human evolution in Darwin's day. Perhaps that is why Darwin mentioned the origin of human beings only ONCE in his The Origin of Species.
   And it was, as one book mentioned, a "single timid sentence." Said Darwin, "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
   Darwin was extremely troubled by this lack of fossil proof for his theory. Yet, he believed that fossils alone could provide the only possible direct proof that evolution had in fact occurred.
   Time after time, throughout his The Origin of Species, Darwin almost apologetically made such admissions as, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... I will here only state that I BELIEVE the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier, 1962, page 168.)
   He was, of course, referring to the lack of transitional forms — to "missing finks" in his proposed evolutionary succession. In fact, these transitional forms should have been, in some cases, MORE abundant than the final product.
   But there were none to be had — not even among the animal and plant world he cited. As far as the evolution of man, it was a COMPLETE blank. There was nothing.
   Darwin offered the assumption that the record of fossils was incomplete. Still, he nonetheless worried about this most serious problem.

Paucity of the Fossil Record

   Darwin simply had NO fossil evidence for the evolution of man. If anything, the record at the time indicated that man — indeed plants and animals — had NOT evolved.
   Darwin was extremely puzzled. Why were intermediate forms lacking?
   On this score Darwin was quite frank:
   "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain [of intermediate species], and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
   "The explanation lies, as I BELIEVE, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record" (Ibid., page 308).
   In finality he stated, "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once REJECT the theory" (Ibid., page 334).

New Discoveries Come to Light

   Progressively, since the 1856 discovery of a skeleton in the Neander Valley in Germany, bones and other evidences of ancient man have accumulated. If the evolution of man were true, the proof should be conclusive and irrefutable. But the question is, What does the fossil evidence show? Have the "missing links" been found? Has the origin of man been clarified?
   Let's go back, in time, to some of the original discoveries.
   In 1856, a faceless, heavy-browed skull cap was discovered in a small river valley near Dusseldorf. That was the first discovery of the enigmatic Neanderthal Man — Neander Valley Man. In 1886, two similar skulls were dug out of a cave near Spy, Belgium.
   Since that time, remains presumed to represent multiple dozens of Neanderthal specimens have been found in about 50 sites ranging from Asia and Europe to North Africa.
   Then in 1908, an almost complete skeleton was found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints in southwestern France. The remains were sent for study to the director of the French Institute of Human Paleontology, anatomist-paleontologist Marcellin Boule.
   It was Boule's interpretation of these particular skeletal remains that was to stereotype the descriptions of all the future Neanderthal remains yet to be found. The skeletal features of the new "ancestor" were in line with what paleoanthropologists expected to find and hence were very satisfying indeed.

Birth of a False Image

   Thus was born the world's first acceptable "missing link." The building up of the Neanderthal image to universal recognition was an accomplishment to be envied even by modern-day press agents and Madison Avenue advertisers.
   Australian-British brain anatomist Sir Elliott Smith was one who displayed eloquence in describing "uncouth and repellant" Neanderthal Man:
   "His short, thick-set, and coarsely built body was carried in a half-stooped slouch upon short, powerful, and half-flexed legs of peculiarly ungraceful form. His thick neck sloped forward from the broad shoulders to support the massive flattened head, which protruded forward, so as to form an unbroken curve of neck and back."
   In finality, Smith concluded that "heavy" eyebrow ridges, retreating forehead, chinlessness all "combined to complete the picture of unattractiveness, which it is more probable than not was still further emphasized by a shaggy covering of hair over most of the body" (G. Elliott Smith, The Evolution of Man, London: Oxford University Press, 1924, pages 69-70).
   For over forty years, bestial and stooped, with head thrust forward , Neanderthal Man posed for countless museum displays, history and anthropology textbooks and cartoonists the world over — all based on Boule's interpretation and reconstruction of the bones of La Chapelle-aux-Saints.
   Yet, today scientists now know that Boule was mistaken in many important aspects of Neanderthal Man.
   Boule, however, was not entirely at fault. It was the press' interpretation of Boule's analysis that was the real culprit. Journalistic accounts often overemphasized the more sensational aspects of Boule's reports.
   As is so often the case, the general populace is fed hurried journalistic accounts. These often deeply impress the mind with false ideas. It was the press that created a sort of fossil Frankenstein monster. No doubt, the average person STILL thinks of Neanderthal Man as brutish, dull and primitive.

Neanderthal No "Beast"

   In 1955 two professors of anatomy, William Straus of Johns Hopkins University and A. J. E. Cave of St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, London, re-examined the skeleton of La Chapelle-aux-Saints resting in the Musee de PHomme, Paris.
   According to their report, later
Appearances Are Deceiving — left, typical reconstruction of Neanderthal Man. Unkempt hair, scraggly moustache and unshaven face give "brutish" appearance. Right, the New Neanderthal Man! With sharp hair style, clean shave, trimmed moustache, tailored suit, white shirt and tie — Neanderthal could find a place for himself in high society. — (See PDF for pictures)
published in the "Quarterly Review of Biology" XXXIII (1957):
   "The skeleton, which had be longed to a male 40 -50 years old, was rotten with arthritis. This disease had affected the hinges of La Chapelle's lower jaw, his neck and much of his body. The forward thrust of his head noted by Boule was due, in part at least, to a wry neck, and the stunted stature and stooping posture were due to arthritic lesions in his vertebral column. In his youth, La Chapelle had been as tall as the average Frenchman living in the Dordogne today."
   Said anthropologist Carleton S. Coon:
   "According to the Neanderthal legend, he was a squat, stunted fellow about five feet one inch tall, or 155 cm. As indicated by careful calculations from his long bones, La Chapelle-aux-Saints stood five feet four and a half inches tall, or 164 cm., about half an inch taller that? the Frenchmen who lived in the region of his cave at the time his remains were excavated.
   "With large heads, deep chests, heavy bones and large feet, the Western Neanderthals must have been heavy for their stature, probably a good 160 pounds or more.
   "They were prime examples of what students of human constitutional types call mesomorphs... People built more or less like these Neanderthals may be seen today in the Abruzzi Mountains, in the Alps, and in Bavaria" (Carleton Coon, The Origin of Races , New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p. 546-548).
   Another conveniently ignored factor was the large brain size of Neanderthal Man. While the average brain of modern man is 1300 cc. the Neanderthal brain averaged 1450 cc. (often up to 1600 cc.) — an embarrassing endowment for a "primitive" missing link!
   Neanderthal Man was more brainy than the average modern European! Cleanly shaven and properly dressed, he would not stand out as "odd" among "more civilized" moderns.
   Culturally speaking, Neanderthal Man was more advanced than some of the modern inhabitants of New Guinea are today — in the Space Age!

Lost in the Subway

   Today, bones of Neanderthal Man have been found in various localities the world over. Their range of variation was rather wide. At times Neanderthal Man was quite modern appearing. So much so that if you:
   "Put him in a Brooks Brothers suit and send him down to the supermarket for some groceries... he might pass completely unnoticed. He might run a little shorter than the clerk serving him, but he would not necessarily be the shortest man in the place. He might be heavier-featured, squatter and more muscular than most, but again he might be no more so than the porter handling the beer cases back in the stockroom" (F. Clark Howell, Early Man, New York: TIME-LIFE Books, 1968, page 123, 124).
   What looked like a possibly brutish ancestor of man, turned out to be quite modern in appearance.

Evolution in Reverse

   The more Neanderthal bones that have been discovered, the more confused the evolutionary picture has become.
   Anthropologist Frank C. Hibben explained it this way. "It would seem that the Neanderthaloids became more distinctively Neanderthaloid as they progressed rather than less so." In fact a number of Neanderthal skeletons said to be younger, "seemed to be more primitive looking than the earlier ones" (Frank C. Hibben, Prehistoric Man in Europe, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958, page 33).
   Anthropologists were confused. Some speculated that Neanderthal Man was a dead-end line of human evolution, that he became "more primitive" as he evolved.
   More crucial was the problem of Neanderthal Man's sudden appearance and disappearance. This came as quite a shock to prehistorians. As the evidence began to accumulate, there was NO neat blending from Neanderthal Man to modern man. Could it be that Neanderthal Man was NO "missing link"?
   "Neanderthal man... abruptly disappeared," says anthropologist F. Clark Howell, "the evolutionary [were they really?] tendencies that he exhibited during this period are extremely puzzling. For he seems to have gotten more 'primitive,' not less so.... He was noticeably different from modern man and became more so as time went on....
   "In addition to stopping abruptly, the classic Neanderthaler is replaced with equal abruptness by people like ourselves. There is NO BLENDING, no gradual shading from one type to the other" (F. Clark Howell, Early Man, New York: TIME-LIFE Books, 1968, page 126).
   No wonder the experts eliminated Neanderthal Man as a direct link from the supposed chain leading to modern man.
   Then what about "modern" man? What do we know of his origins?

More Information — More Confusion

   Darwin claimed the record of bones was incomplete. He assumed that his theory would be vindicated as more evidence was unearthed. But the opposite has happened!
   More evidence has led to more confusion. If you are puzzled by this enigma, so are the experts!
   Anthropologist William Howells, a past president of the American Anthropological Association, discussed this very problem.
   "We now enter the whole question of the origins of Homo sapiens [modern man].
   "It is the worst problem in our evolution. Of course we have gaps to face, but here it is NOT a question of lack of fossils.... Yet the problem obstinately remains unsolved.
   "Who are we — us, ourselves — and what have we to do with Neanderthals? What are the connections of the two kinds of man? Here the anthropologists divide" (William Howells, Mankind in the Making, New York: Doubleday, 1967, page 215).
   This brings us to the second category of discoveries. Discoveries of bones which look exactly like modern men. Such fossils are labelled Cro-Magnon Man — a generic term for the first clearly recognized examples of what anthropologists call full-fledged Homo sapiens — humans like you and me.
   Some anthropologists see no really pertinent difference between the Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man. One should remember that Neanderthal Man was MAN in the fullest sense of the word.
   In any case, the first Cro-Magnon Men to be recognized were discovered in the spring of 1868. This was just nine years AFTER the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species.
   Earth was being removed to make way for a railroad in Perigord, France that was to run through Les Eyzies-de-Tayac. Five skeletons and some bits of foetal and infant bones were taken from the rock shelter which was exposed.
   These bones revealed a man fully "modern" in the European sense — tall, handsome, regular features, high forehead, prominent chin, small teeth, thin skull, without heavy brow ridges characteristic of Classic Neanderthal Man.
   Since then numerous remains of Cro-Magnons have been found throughout Europe from southern England to Russia. France, especially, is rich in his remains.
   What is the status of Cro-Magnon Man's evolutionary history? Is he linked to older, more primitive "men" or "near-men"?
   Can we really find a connection for modern-appearing Cro-Magnon Man with some more primitive being?
   The answer, admit prehistorians, IS "No."

No Connecting Links

   Here is what experts say of Cro-Magnon Man: "Just as we might actually be finding some of the connections to which the threads of evidence seem to be leading, we are frustrated. The evidence itself disappears... we have only Neanderthals....
   "Beyond and before this Neanderthal occupation we drop off to a still POORER LEVEL of information. The human remains are few and piecemeal, and therefore quite incompetent to answer most of the problems they raise.
   "And the main one is still the birth of Homo sapiens." (William Howells, Mankind in the Making, New York: Doubleday, 1967, pages 343, 344.)
   It is, of course, always assumed the evidence will be found. But will it? We have come well past one hundred years after the publication of The Origin of Species.
   But further finds of Neanderthal Man have confused the picture. Neither has an ancestor — a "missing link" — been found for Cro-Magnon or modern man.

Has Modern Man Evolved?

   Modern man feels that he has come a long way mentally since the "cave man" days. At least, this is the popular conception.
   But has the human brain really evolved?
   With Cro-Magnon Man we have something which CAN show just how intelligent he really was. We have his art. Those who have studied it are amazed.
Dots represent principal sites where remains of Neanderthal Man have been found. (See PDF for pictures)
They realize Paleolithic Man, as he is called, had a far more complex mentality than is generally supposed.
   Some of these facts are just being discovered.
   A researcher at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Alexander Marshack, recently published an article on some intriguing studies of Cro-Magnon "art." He has spent the last six years using new microscopic techniques to re-examine prehistoric art treasures of Europe. What he discovered is astounding.
   For example, Marshack studied the Baton of Montgaudier. It is a clublike staff of reindeer antler, about fourteen and a half inches long.
   It was presumed to be some sort of ritual staff. The baton was superbly engraved on both faces with many different kinds of animals.
   But Marshack's microscope revealed the identity of even the smallest objects — some only half an inch high. One image looked "as though it might have been engraved with the aid of a jeweler's magnifying glass," said Marshack. (Alexander Marshack, "The Baton of Montgaudier," Natural History, Volume LXXXIX, number 3, March, 1970, page 58).
   One might ask just how "primitive" were these people? What is known about prehistoric art weighs against the idea that ancient man was brutish.
   "Art came with a burst," says John Pfeiffer, "in the sense that from the very beginning the record includes works performed in a mature and established style."
   That is, there is no evolutionary gradation from primitive art to sophisticated art. The examples of art considered the most ancient are refined and beautiful works. There are no "transition" forms to be found. Of course, as usual, evolutionists claim this is a "gap" in our information.
   "This does not mean that art actually appeared full blown, only that there is a major gap in our knowledge" (John Pfeiffer, The Emergence of Man, New York: Harper and Row, 1969, page 220).
   But is there really a "gap" in our knowledge? Or did art actually appear mature and highly developed — as the record shows? It is dangerous to appeal to supposed facts that are yet undiscovered. What is discovered indicates that sophisticated art did SUDDENLY appear. That should be the conclusion until contrary facts are discovered, if any!

Problems With Pictures

   What about Cro-Magnon art?
   The very sophistication and quality of Paleolithic paintings at first caused them to be rejected. The paintings seemed far too well done to jibe with the then-current ideas of the mentality of Cro-Magnon Man.
   And once again there was the question of time. The dates assigned range up to 35,000 years ago. Yet the pigments in the paints were amazingly fresh!
   The contents of the pictures often disturbed prehistorians. The men who appear in Paleolithic pictures were• often smooth-shaven. Even the hair is roughly trimmed. Women have carefully arranged headdresses. But how was this possible? Metals were supposedly UNKNOWN at this time. This is one of many disturbing difficulties.
   Carleton S. Coon, anthropologist of note, has asked some other disturbing questions about the evolution of man. He, of course, does believe that man evolved. But he has mentioned some problems about the supposed evolution of man that other prehistorians seem to have disregarded.
   "If all races had a recent common origin," Coon asks, "why were the Tasmanians and many of the Australian aborigines still living during the nineteenth century in a manner comparable to that of Europeans of over 100,000 years ago?" (Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, page 4.)
   This problem goes deeper still.
   Can we consider something "primitive" as coming EARLIER in time? Today, we find in odd corners of the earth peoples in all levels of culture from complete nudity to Kuppenheimer suits, from the use of stone chopper tools to electric can openers, from simple leaf windbreaks to multi-story skyscrapers.
   "Technologically," says Coon, speaking of various tribes and peoples existing today, "they represent every level of competence discovered by archaeologists" (ibid., page 91).
   A cultural sequence, then, is NOT proof of evolution! Then consider the following:

The Enigma of Language

   "If the ancestors of the living races," Coon writes, "were a single people a few thousands of years ago and they all spoke a single language, how does it happen that the world contains thousands of languages, hundreds of which are unrelated to each other?" (ibid., page 5.)
   Some South African languages use sounds such as clicks. Others, in Southeast Asia, are tonal, some are nontonal. The difference between such languages is profound.
   On the other hand, Eskimo and Aleut are closely related languages. But they have been separated for two thousand years! It's interesting also to find that early Welsh settlers in the southeastern United States found certain Indian languages similar to their own.
   Coon — estimates that it would take about 20,000 years for two sister languages to lose all semblance of relationship.
   On this basis, Coon says, "If, therefore, all languages are derived from a single mother tongue, the original separation must go back many times that figure.
   "The only alternative is that more than one line of ancestral man discovered speech independently" (ibid., page 5).
   Anthropologists then are in a dilemma.
   Even by evolutionary estimates of time, there is NOT NEARLY enough time for the world's languages to have developed.
   Another evolutionary alternative is that man discovered speech independently MANY TIMES. This strains the credulity of most scientists beyond the breaking point.
   Yet another suggested alternative is that TRUE MEN go back MILLIONS of years into the dim past of antiquity. This would upset current evolutionary dating. Besides, there is no fossil proof. of this — even counting by evolutionary standards.
   Prehistorians, then, cannot solve the inexplicable dilemma of how languages could have evolved in such a very short period of time. There is an explanation for it. But most scholars have rejected it.

The Guessing Game

   Remember, no paleontologist was alive during the supposed evolution of man. No human knows what was going on at the time. He may surmise certain conditions from what he studies whether temperature was hot, or what kind of vegetation was dominant.
   But he was not there to see events happen in motion-picture style. He has no special inborn insight into past events any more than you or I! He must grope to understand what happened in the past. He has NO WAY of knowing he is right.
   Such is the limitation of scientific knowledge. Scientists such as W. E. Le Gros Clark understand "that it is never possible ultimately to prove a scientific hypothesis — the most that one can hope to do is DISPROVE it."
   Clark goes on to say, "Past events which can never be subjected to direct observation have to be inferred from the data provided by material which is presently existing (even when it consists of relics of the past)" (W. E. Le Gros Clark, article "The Crucial Evidence for Human Evolution" in Physical Anthropology, edited by Peter B. Hammond, New York: MacMillan, 1964, page 25).
   Prehistorians themselves admit how excruciatingly difficult it is to understand the past. What is needed is some kind of outline from which to reason.
   Anthropologists today use evolution as a sort of road map into the past. In other words, prehistorians use the theory of evolution as a blueprint to attempt to prove the truth of the theory of evolution! This is reasoning in a circle.
   And how do they do it? Simple. They "pick out" fossils that seem to lend support to their UNPROVED theory. The other fossils that cannot fit the theory are discarded.
   Briefly, here's how the method is carried out in practice. Let a popular text answer. Speaking of a possible primate ancestor to man, here is how an anthropologist reasons:
   "Of the four kinds of apes — the gibbon, orangutan, gorilla and chimpanzee — the gibbon is considered the least like a human being and the chimpanzee or gorilla the MOST. Therefore, if we hit on a chimpanzee-like or gorilla-like fossil from the Miocene, we presumably would have something even closer to ancestral man" (F. Clark Howell, Early Man, New York: TIME-LIFE Books, 1968, page 36).
   Note carefully the above quote. Here is how the process takes place.
   First, it has been ASSUMED that man evolved. Next, using analogy — no proof in itself — anthropologists look at what characteristics are human and non-human.
   Next, it is ARBITRARILY decided that such-and-such a type of creature would make a good ancestor. After this, a suitable stratum is searched to find this creature — again begging the question. If a creature is uncovered in the suitable stratum, he is hailed as another "missing link." But is he really? Were prehistorians on the scene to watch the evolution in progress? No, of course not! They have merely inferred it.
   Can we begin to understand?
   Anthropologists do not "see" evolution in action. They assume it has taken place. They read this assumption into the fossil record.
   Take one example — Australopithecus' — assumed by some to be a link in the supposed evolution of man.

A New Missing Link?

   In 1959, Dr. L. S. B. Leakey, digging at Olduvai Gorge in Tanganyika, found fossils of a creature called Australopithecus'. Close to the fossils were pebbles, which anthropologists regard as tools.
   Here, claimed anthropologists, was a real toolmaker and tool user. Here was a creature on the way toward Homo sapiens. Most accepted the identification.
   Some authorities hesitated to accept the conclusions. They found it difficult to believe that creatures with such small brains were capable of making tools. These authorities felt that more advanced and larger-brained hominids were responsible for the tools.
   Said Carleton S. Coon, "We do not know whether the Australopithecines made tools. We only know that someone was flaking tools in Australopithecine country when those hominids lived there.... If the Australopithecines did not make the stone implements in question, then they could only have been
NEANDERTHAL MAN — a brutish ancestor? Reconstruction of Neanderthal emphasized prevailing idea that he was brutish. But the original reconstruction actually based on a eased specimen! Later examinations have indicated that Neanderthal Man was as tall as his discoverers and that he had greater brain capacity than the average European does today. (See PDF for pictures)
made by true men, of whom no physical trace has yet been found" (Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, page 237).
   That Australopithecus walked upright seems to be verified. He was a strange creature. In fact, Australopithecus' may have been alive until a few hundred years ago. Some similar form may be alive yet today.
   The Chinese philosopher Hsun-Tzu, who lived about 400 B.C., wrote that "an ape the size of a man and covered with hair lived in the Yellow River Valley in his day, and also that it stood erect" (Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, page 17).
   A book entitled Anatomical Dictionary for Recognizing Various Diseases originated in Tibet and was published in Peking at the end of the eighteenth century. It contains a systematic description of the fauna of Tibet and neighboring regions.
   "Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and so on," said Carleton S. Coon, "are included, and each is illustrated with a recognizable woodcut.
   "Not one of the animals is fantastic, composite, or mythical. Among them, in a group of monkeys, a tail-less, bipedal primate is shown standing on. a rock, with one arm outstretched upward" (Ibid., page 207, 208).
   Since the idea of evolution presupposes some NEED to change — we might ask: "What in the world is Australopithecus doing alive in recent times when he was supposed to have evolved into something else MILLIONS of years ago?"
   Does Australopithecus "linkup" smoothly with ancestors and descendants? The answer is a resounding "NO!"
   Says W. E. Le Gros Clark, Oxford Anatomist:
   "The fact is that the most serious hiatus [gap] now in the record of hominid evolution is the gap which separates the genus Australopithecus from the fossil hominoids....
   "It is true that" — now read carefully the following — "by extrapolation backward and by ANALOGY with what is known of the paleontological history of other mammalian groups, we can contrive a THEORETICAL picture of the intermediate stages which presumably MUST HAVE been interposed....
   "But in the absence of the concrete evidence of fossil remains, this is not a satisfying procedure" (W. E. Le Gros Clark, The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, page 175 ).
   Notice the array — "extrapolation," "analogy," "contrive," "theoretical picture," "presumably," "must have" (which means we don't know), and "absence of concrete evidence!"
   Can you understand? ' Anthropologists are merely guessing. The supposed evolution of man is an offspring of fertile human imagination.
   Here is the "faith" of evolution. It claims blind, unthinking "natural selection" continuously "created" new forms of life millions of years ago. And all with no plan or purpose.

The Real Missing Link

   Belief in evolution requires faith. But which is harder to believe — the theory of evolution or the Genesis account of creation?
   The Bible reveals a Being of infinite intelligence — God Almighty — who, with plan and forethought, stooped down and formed man of dirt for a very great purpose. He did it only once.
   Which really is harder to believe? Which really is "theology"?
   The one method — unthinking natural selection with no purpose. The other method — purposeful and intelligent — a Creator purposely forming the human family.
   Science says it will not accept anything which cannot be "proven" in the laboratory. Nor will it step into the realm of "theology." Yet, we have seen that there is no way to prove evolution. There are bones. But whether they should be linked in an evolutionary chain cannot be demonstrated.
   Scientists must "infer" that evolution occurred. They cannot see it. God says He is a witness to the creation. He was THERE in person (Gen. 2:7). Which is the primary source of information? Speculation by evolutionists living thousands of years after the event? Or the Creator of the universe who was on the scene and has reported to us what He did?
   Who then is the "missing" link to man's ancestry? The Creator God — the Architect who made man of the dirt of the ground for a very great purpose.

Is Man 6000 Years Old?

   How can we then discover the true length of time that man has been on earth? The only historical record which details the beginning of mankind's existence on earth is the Holy Bible. If we reject this Book as a source of knowledge. or revelation, we can never be sure just how long man has been in existence.
   Scientists may put forth theories on the subject. Certain age — determining methods — based on scientific research — may be developed to cope with the problem. But always these dating methods are based on UNPROVED assumptions. (Send for our free article, "How Accurate Is Carbon-14 Dating?") No scientist engaged in archaeological, geological, paleontological or geochemical pursuits can be sure his theory or method is correct — without revelation.
   The only source of this essential revealed knowledge. is the Bible. That Book tells us, through its historic ally accurate chronology, that man has been in existence only about 6000 years.
   What you need to prove for yourself is whether the Bible IS the inspired, infallible word of God. Read our FREE booklet The Proof of the Bible for this essential information. You also need to scientifically prove whether God exists. Read our FREE booklet Does God Exist? You need the vital information contained in both booklets.

Publication Date: 1970
Back To Top