A report published on the BBC website on 27 March, 2006, announced the discovery of a fossilized skull in Ethiopia. Under the heading, “Ethiopia,” the report described how the skull had been discovered in two pieces and dated back between 500,000 and 250,000 years. Sileshi Semaw, director of the excavation project and also a research scientist at the Stone Age Institute at Indiana University in the USA, claimed that the fossil they had unearthed appeared "to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and the later Homo sapiens."
A report published on the BBC website on 27 March, 2006, announced the discovery of a fossilized skull in Ethiopia. Under the heading, “Ethiopia,” the report described how the skull had been discovered in two pieces and dated back between 500,000 and 250,000 years. Sileshi Semaw, director of the excavation project and also a research scientist at the Stone Age Institute at Indiana University in the USA, claimed that the fossil they had unearthed appeared "to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and the later Homo sapiens."
However, because of the theory of evolution that he has blindly adopted right from the very outset, Semaw was from the start inclined to make such an “intermediate form” interpretation. He seeks to place the skull between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, like a link in a chain, albeit in the absence of any scientific criteria objectively indicating the existence of any chain at all. As can be seen from the picture to the side, this fossil, which exhibits the projecting eyebrow ridges of Homo erectus, is as close to us as any human race in existence today.
This is something confirmed even by the evolutionist paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, who states that the difference between Homo erectus and present-day man goes no further than racial differences:
One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time. (Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62.)
This admission came to the fore at the Senckenberg conference, attended by prominent figures from the world of paleoanthropology from various countries:
Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus, didn"t exist. (Pat Shipman, “Doubting Dmanisi,” American Scientist, November-December, 2000, p. 491)
As we have seen, the species boundary drawn between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is something based on evolutionists’ preconceptions rather than on any objective scientific criteria. In that light, Semaw’s comments regarding the new fossil are also based on preconception and are the result of a tendency to regard man as the product of an evolutionary process.
In short, the BBC is misleading its readers with reports that give the impression that the evolution scenario has been supported by evidence.
The human evolution scenario, that the BBC so often considers as if it were an established fact, is actually a groundless myth. Our advice to the BBC is that it cease misleading its audience in the name of Darwinism with fictitious intermediate-form fairy tales.
For the general invalidity of this scenario, see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html
