At the end of December 2003, the television channel CNNTurk announced that it would be screening a documentary called “Walking with Cavemen.” In its previews of the documentary CNNTurk showed actors dressed in ape-man costumes, thus clearly favouring the theory of evolution, which maintains that such “ape-men” were the ancestors of human beings.
The documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” screened by CNNTurk, consists of Darwinist propaganda which is riddled with scientific errors and distortions...
At the end of December 2003, the television channel CNNTurk announced that it would be screening a documentary called “Walking with Cavemen.” In its previews of the documentary CNNTurk showed actors dressed in ape-man costumes, thus clearly favouring the theory of evolution, which maintains that such “ape-men” were the ancestors of human beings.
The fact is, however, that the theory of evolution, or to put it more accurately the claims made by Darwinism, have been totally undermined by evidence from various branches of science. Scientists from various fields who express this fact state that, just like Freudianism or Marxism, Darwinism is on its way to being consigned to the waste bin of history. California Berkeley University professor Phillip Johnson for instance, one of the foremost critics of Darwinism, emphasises that “… Darwinism has passed into the dustbin of history, an event that surely will occur sometime in this century… .” 1 Johnson and many other scientists maintain that the origin of life lies not in “chance evolution,” as Darwinism would have us believe, but in ”intelligent design,” and put forward powerful evidence on the subject.
The CNNTurk management, on the other hand, ignore these important developments and conceal the true facts. One of the major proofs of this is the way that the channel depicts the documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” one of the most superficial pieces of Darwinist propaganda in recent years, as “scientific fact.” Yet the superficiality of this documentary, a joint BBC/Discovery Channel production, is admitted even by those who support the theory of evolution. One comment in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper refers to “Walking with Cavemen” as “A factual programme without facts.” 2
In this article we shall examine why this documentary on CNNTurk is full of distortions and scientific errors and constitutes hollow “Darwinist propaganda.” Our aim is to reveal, once again, both to CNNTurk"s viewers and to its production team that the theory of evolution is a dogma bereft of any scientific foundation.
The True Face of the “Ape-Men”
The most striking aspect of the documentary “Walking with Cavemen” was the presence of actors dressed in ape-men costumes in order to give viewers the impression that “evolution really exists.” The documentary gave viewers the impression of being a historical film in which the bodies of “ape-men,” a product of fantasy belonging to entirely different species, and what is more their social lives and even emotions and desires were portrayed.
The truth of the matter is, however, that there is not a single shred of concrete scientific evidence that such creatures ever existed! Indeed, the documentary was produced by setting out from the assumptions of the theory of evolution, not from the scientific evidence. This may be explained as follows:
• The fossil remains of such classifications as Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), Homo habilis, Paranthropus boisei, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis , brought to life in the documentary, are few in number and questionable. For example, the fossil remains of Homo habilis consist of a few skull fragments and a few bones. It is impossible to use these as a starting point for defining such details as a creature"s lifestyle, the activities it engaged in, the tools it used and what it ate. As Henry Gee, editor of the well-known magazine Nature wrote in an article in 2001, “ Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. ” 3 In fact, in CNNTurk"s documentary “Walking with Cavemen” only interpretations compatible with the preconceptions of Darwinism were given, and the evident scientific facts which are incompatible with evolutionist interpretations were kept from viewers.
• As we have already made clear, the fossil record regarding the origin of man is very weak, and a few bone fragments cannot support the “ape-man” portraits depicted in “Walking with Cavemen.” The fossils in question consist of only of bone fragments and it is impossible to conclude, on the basis of such fragments, whether or not a creature was covered in fur, nor the shape of its nose, eyes, lips or ears. In “Walking with Cavemen” the “soft tissues” which are impossible to identify were shaped in a totally arbitrary manner according to the preconceptions of Darwinism.
• The “social” scenes portrayed in “Walking with Cavemen” are completely the product of the imagination. Naturally nobody can know anything about the conflicts, desires and family life of individuals belonging to an ape species which lived 5 million years ago. Yet great weight was attached to these in the documentary, and dramatic scenes were even sometimes staged with the aim of having an emotional impact on the viewer, by means of which scenes it was intended to reinforce the “ape-man” myth in the viewer"s mind.
Following these general warnings, let us now examine the course of “Walking with Cavemen” and together witness how this programme was not a true documentary at all, but rather a propaganda film.
PART 1: THE ATTEMPT TO HUMANISE APES
Truth and Propaganda about the Lucy Myth
 |
| Although Australopithecus is portrayed as “the first ancestor of humans” in the documentary broadcast by CNNTurk, scientific findings prove that this species is entirely unrelated to man, and is actually an extinct species of ape. |
The documentary “Walking with Cavemen” began by considering Lucy, one of the most important fossils, from the Darwinist perspective, of the last 30 years. In the documentary Lucy, a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis , and a great many other “hairy ape-men” from that species were brought to life and suggested as being the ancestors of man.
The fact is, however, that this claim about Lucy has been the subject of debate amongst evolutionists for decades now, and the latest findings have actually dealt a lethal blow to the Lucy myth.
We have already reported these facts regarding Lucy many times. To summarise; the living thing in question is an extinct species of ape closely resembling modern chimpanzees in terms of such criteria as the skeleton, brain volume and skull structure. The only basis for the way evolutionists seek to establish a connection between this species and man is that Lucy, like human beings, walked upright. Yet there is important evidence to show that this claim is untrue:
• Although Lucy was declared to be bipedal (two-legged) immediately after her discovery in 1974, two famous evolutionist anatomists who examined this fossil in those years, Solly Zuckerman and Charles Oxnard, rejected that claim and stressed that the creature"s gait bore no resemblance to that of human beings. Zuckerman and Oxnard "s objection has retained its importance ever since.
• Recent findings are of a kind as to confirm Zuckerman and Oxnard "s view. The latest study of the Australopithecus pelvis, in 2000, shows that the bone is very different to that in human beings and that the creature could not have walked in a manner similar to that of man. 4
• A study of Lucy"s fore-arms in that same year showed that her hands possessed a classical “knuckle walker” anatomy. 5 This expression describes the manner of moving of apes who lean on their knuckles when walking, which are in other words quadripedal (four-legged).
• A study of the balance system in the inner ear of Lucy and all apes of the species Australopithecus proved that these creatures did not possess a system of balance suited to walking erect. 6
In short, the claim that Lucy ( Australopithecus afarensis ) and other Australopithecus species walked upright like human beings is devoid of any proof. Although it portrays this matter as having been proven in the documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” even the BBC, in its website concerning the documentary, sates that this is a subject of disagreement amongst evolutionists. 7 One fact admitted on the same site is the discovery that Lucy"s manner of walking was closely similar to that of modern-day orang-utans.
In other words, the claim that Lucy walked upright is nothing more than evolutionist speculation and a forcing of the facts.
Apart from the “walking upright” claim, there is nothing to distinguish these creatures from ordinary apes.
For that reason, these creatures merely belong to an extinct species of ape.To describe them as “the ancestor of man” is a totally ideological preference, not a scientific one.
“There Are No Fossils, But We Know It Existed!”
In fact, the documentary “Walking with Cavemen” looks at nature through an ideological lens, rather than through a scientific one. Instead of analysing the scientific evidence, the documentary seeks to make it compatible with Darwinism, and at some points assumes the existence of totally imaginary creatures in order to cover up the deficiencies of the theory of evolution.
A clear admission of this can be heard in the programme itself. In the first part of the film, after the references to Australopithecus , mention is made of another species assumed to have been the ancestor of these creatures, and the following interesting comment is made: “ We have never been able to find any fossils of these mysterious apes. Yet we still know a number of crucial things about them. We know that, like modern apes, they used their hands and feet to move about.” 8
In the absence of any fossils, how do we know that these alleged “ancestral apes” existed at all? It is clear that the source of this “knowledge” lies not in any scientific finding, but in a blind belief in Darwinism. The documentary producers have a dogmatic belief that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, interpret the evidence accordingly, and have no hesitation in resorting to assumptions in the absence of that evidence.
The main problem is that this assumption is portrayed to the viewer as “knowledge.” Another word for this is propaganda.
A Discredited Tale: “The Forests Dried up and the Savannah Increased”
In claiming that Australopithecus walked upright, the documentary “Walking with Cavemen” seeks to explain how this came about. The story recounted on this subject is the classic one which has been repeated for decades in evolutionist sources. According to this account, Africa was covered in forests when the climate changed 8 million years ago, then there was severe drought, and in most places the forests were replaced by savannah (dry areas covered in tall grass). Since walking on two-legs came to constitute an “advantage” in such tall grass, apes of the species Australopithecus allegedly evolved to adapt to the new environment.
It must first be made clear that this account to which evolutionists so frequently resort is totally devoid of any scientific basis; the fact is that a change in the natural environment cannot affect the bodily structure of living things. Belief in the contrary is called Lamarckism, known for centuries to be a mere superstition. Living things" bodily structures are defined by their genes, and genes do not alter according to the external climate or the foliage cover.
So why is it that evolutionists still defend this tale of “apes which grew upright in the savannah”? What they are actually doing in maintaining this, yet what they seldom openly state, is to believe that the apes in question were affected by a number of “mutations” which caused their skeletons to assume an upright posture. They believe that mutations, which have never yet been observed to confer any benefit on any living thing, but which actually inflict severe damage, “touched up” the ape skeleton, causing it to assume an upright posture. This is a belief far removed from reason and logic. Despite being an evolutionist himself, the French zoologist Paul Pierre Grassé, regarded as one of the most eminent natural historians of the 20 th century, criticises this Darwinist belief:
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. 9
The second important aspect of the matter is the fact that that the claim that “the forests dried up and the savannah increased,” used as the basis for the “apes that grew upright in the savannah” story, has actually been discredited in the light of the latest scientific discoveries! CNNTurk offers its 2000 documentary “Walking with Cavemen” to its viewers, but the well-known Darwinist Carl Zimmer made the following confession regarding this claim, to which the documentary attaches such importance, in the September 2003 edition of Discover magazine:
The answer to the question of how our ancestors evolved into bipeds seemed pretty clear for decades. "The long-standing idea was that we became bipedal because we moved out of the forest and onto the savanna, either because we had to look over tall grass or get to isolated stands of trees," says Craig Stanford [Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Southern California]... But in recent years new evidence has thrown that scenario into doubt . "The time- honored idea that a weakling hominid left the safety of the forest for the dangerous savanna and had to live by its wits and stood upright is a nice story, but it"s probably fiction ," says Stanford. As researchers have looked closer at the older hominid sites, many have concluded that the areas were not savannas at all but a variety of lightly to densely wooded landscapes. 10
For that reason, the scenes of the “ape which grew upright to wander about the savannah,” filmed with all kinds of difficulties in “Walking with Cavemen,” are the product of fantasy. There is no evidence at all that such a thing ever took place. It is therefore most illogical to believe in the existence of the creatures which CNNTurk declares to be our so-called ancestors.
Paranthropus boisei and Homo rudolfensis
In the wake of all these fantastical stories and dramatisations regarding Australopithecus , which is nothing more than an extinct species of ape, “Walking with Cavemen” then time travels back to 2 million years ago. At that time three species of hominid are proposed:
Paranthropus boisei
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Paranthropus boisei is actually an Australopithecus species. In other words, it is an extinct species of ape which, with its thick and powerful skeletal structure, small brain volume, and the muscle-holding protrusion on top of its skull, closely resembles modern-day gorillas. It has nothing to do with humans. This is actually accepted in the documentary. The description of the creature as “hominid” is nothing more than a Darwinist preconception.
Homo rudolfensis is a debatable creature. Some researchers prefer to include it in the classification Homo habilis . All we have belonging to this class is a skull, and no bodily skeleton. That is doubtless why “Walking with Cavemen” says little about this creature but concentrates on Homo habilis . According to the fantastical claims in the documentary, human beings" next ancestor after Australopithecus is the extinct species known as Homo habilis .
The truth, of course, is very different.
Homo habilis fantasies and facts
Homo habili s first needs to be defined. The word “homo” is used in biology to mean “human being.” For that reason, evolutionists regard such different species as Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo rudolfensis as members of the human “genus” (the classification above the species). However, according to the evolutionary thesis, early examples of Homo species (in other words H. habilis and H. rudolfensis ) still possess semi-ape anatomies.
The fact is that these classifications and definition are forced categories produced in order to create an “evolutionary ladder” extending from ape to man.
Therefore, the question of whether such a species as Homo habilis ever really existed or not is still the subject of debate amongst evolutionists.
The objections began in the early 1980s. The well-known palaeoanthropologists Bernard Wood and Loring Brace maintained that it was incorrect to include this creature in the “Homo” or human category, and that instead of Homo habilis it should be called Australopithecus habilis , or “South African ape capable of using tools.”
In 1994 the American anthropologist Holly Smith concluded, as a result of an analysis of the teeth of the species Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neandertalensis that:
Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes … 11
That same year, three experts on anatomy, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, performed a comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of apes which serve to provide balance. The inner ear canals of all the Australopithecus and even Homo habilis specimens studied by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were identical to those of present-day monkeys. 12
The studies published in Science magazine in 1999 by two well-known figures, regarded as authorities in this field, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, revealed that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis categories were fictitious and that the fossils examined under those categories should actually be studied under the classification Australopithecus. After saying that “… recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and the limitations of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria for attributing taxa to Homo ” Wood and Collard arrive at the following conclusion:
...Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo... but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus . 13
The conclusion reached by Wood and Collard is this: there is no evidence to indicate that the species described as “the ape-like ancestors of man” in “Walking with Cavemen” have any relationship with human beings. All the species depicted in the first part of the documentary are extinct species of ape which should be classified under the category Australopithecus .
In fact, even the producers of “Walking with Cavemen” admit that Homo habilis , which they portray as a definite species in the documentary, is actually a matter for debate. The “Fact Files” section of the film DVD, says, “this classification is at present highly debatable” in reference to Homo habilis . Yet they have no hesitation in screening and imposing on their viewers this “highly debatable” imaginary creature, from its social life to its internal family dynamics.
The main factor behind Homo habilis being regarded as “human-like” is the stone tools it is assumed to have used. Great emphasis is placed on this in the documentary, and considerable space is devoted to scenes of Homo habilis carving stone implements. However, as stated by the British writer Paul Garner who criticised the programme 14, there is no definitive proof that Homo habilis used these tools. A number of stone tools have been found in regions where Homo habilis fossils have been discovered, and the former have immediately been ascribed to the latter. However, that is the equivalent of accepting that a knife was made by an elephant when discovered close to an elephant fossil.
Summary of Part 1
In fact, all the living things portrayed in the first part of “Walking with Cavemen” are species of ape which are now extinct. Even evolutionists now admit that although species have been included in the classification “ Homo ” over the past decades this is an entirely forced interpretation and the living things in question need to be reclassified under Australopithecus , in other words to be regarded as apes. The other tales related in the documentary, for example the “savannahisation” of Africa and the way this led to walking erect, are hollow tales invalidated by the latest scientific findings.
In conclusion, all we have are apes which are sought to be turned into human beings. The producers of “Walking with Cavemen” are engaging in Darwinist propaganda by imagining the human-like social lives of these creatures and imposing a human guise upon them. CNNTurk is a party to this propaganda. Yet science works against them.
As we shall shortly see, science reveals that the first human beings appeared suddenly, with no ancestors behind them.
PART 2: HUMAN BEINGS SOUGHT TO BE TURNED INTO APES
Human Beings Who Suddenly Appear
 |
| The make-up applied to and depictions of the social lives of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus give the viewer the impression of semi-ape cavemen. The fact is, however, that the evidence shows that there is no reason to regard these human beings as “primitive.” |
When you begin watching the second part of CNNTurk"s documentary “Walking with Cavemen” you encounter rather different characterisations to the imaginary ape-man depictions in the first. The screen is no longer full of hairy-bodied versions of chimpanzee-gorillas uttering ape-like cries, but of human beings with no hair on their bodies, whose skeletons are identical to ours.
The reason for this is that in the fossil records included in the myth of “human evolution” the first human beings appear suddenly with all their unique features. Even the producers of “Walking with Cavemen” are unable to conceal this fact. (We shall soon be looking at why the touching up they employ to make them seem like apes is actually invalid.)
The deer-hunting human beings you see at the beginning of Part 2 are humans whom scientists place in the class Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster is generally regarded as the same species as Homo erectus; they resemble each other very closely. What is striking is that these categories, the first human beings to appear in the fossil record, are very different to the alleged humanoids which preceded them (in other words Australopithecus species and such forced “Homo” species as Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis which are in fact part of Australopithecus). In a paper published in 2000 in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution , the evolutionist researcher Hawks and his team summarise this, to them, surprising situation:
We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens [H. erectus and H. ergaster] was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior. 15
Homo erectus and Homo ergaster : Different Human Races
Homo erectus and Homo ergaster to a large extent possess the same anatomy. Indeed, Homo ergaster is the name given to Homo erectus fossils found in Africa .
Homo erectus means “erect walking human being.” Evolutionists have had to distinguish these human beings from their predecessors with the title “erect.” That is because all the known Homo erectus fossils are far more erect than the Australopithecus or Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the modern-day human skeleton and that of Homo erectus. The best-known instance of this is the “Turkana Boy” fossil found near the shores of Lake Turkana in Kenya . This fossil has been established as belonging to a 12-year-old boy who would have been some 1.83 metres tall when fully grown. The erect structure of the skeleton is identical to that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker says that he doubts that, “ the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human .” With regard to the skull, Walker says, “ it looked so much like a Neanderthal. ” 16 As we shall shortly be seeing, Neanderthals are a present-day human race. Homo erectus is therefore also a present-day human race.
Professor William Laughlin of Connecticut University spent many years performing anatomical studies on Eskimos and the people of the Aleutian Islands and observed that they resembled Homo erectus to an astonishing degree. Laughlin"s conclusion was that all these races are in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern-day man):
When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species [ Homo sapiens ] . 17
The most important reason why evolutionists regard Homo erectus as “primitive” is the small size of its brain (900-1100 cc) in comparison to the average of modern man, and its thick eyebrow protrusions. Yet the fact is that there are many people alive today who have the same average brain volume as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance), and there are prominent eyebrow protrusions in various races (Aborigines, the native people of Australia , for example). The skull of the Turkana Boy has been determined to be very similar to those of individuals from the Masai tribe, who still live in Africa .
It is a known fact that differences in skull volume represent no difference in intelligence and ability. Intelligence varies according to the internal organisation within the brain, not according to its volume. 18
In short, there is no evidence that Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster ), depicted as a “primitive human being” in “Walking with Cavemen,” was in fact primitive at all. It is even suggested in the documentary that these people possessed a primitive capacity for speech, and this is nothing more than speculation which can never be proved and which rests on no scientific evidence.
It has recently been increasingly stated in the scientific world that Homo erectus is an artificial class and that the fossils included in the category Homo erectus do not contain sufficient differences to cause it to be regarded as a different species from Homo sapiens . At the Senckenberg conference in 2000, the results of which were published in American Scientist magazine, Milford Wolpoff of Michigan University and Alan Thorne of Canberra University and their colleagues maintained that “ Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. ” According to these scientists" conclusion, “ All members of the genus Homo , from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens .” 19
To put it another way, what we are dealing with is not “the direct transition from primitive to modern human beings,” but a single human species ( Homo sapiens ) living as different races in different regions of the world.
There is an enormous gulf between this single human species and the apes ( Australopithecus, Homo habilis ) which preceded it in the scenario of “human evolution.”
For that reason, the first human beings identified in the fossil record appeared suddenly, at the same time, and with no process of evolution behind them. This, in turn, is scientific proof that the origin of man lies in “Creation,” not in “evolution.”
Homo heidelbergensis and the Neanderthals
 |
| Although Neanderthal Man is depicted in the CNNTurk documentary as a primitive ape-man creature with no imagination, the evidence shows that these human beings possessed an advanced culture. It has even been proved that the Neanderthals possessed musical abilities. |
Following the recreations regarding Homo erectus and Homo ergaster , “Walking with Cavemen” again engages in time travel, reaching a period some 500,000 years ago. The human races dealt with in this period are Homo heidelbergensis (also known as archaic Homo sapiens ) and the Neanderthals.
In the documentary these people are again depicted as “primitive human beings,” as a requirement of Darwinist preconceptions. The fact is, however, that if we leave preconception to one side and look only at the evidence, we see that there is no reason to regard these human beings as primitive at all.
Homo heidelbergensis is distinguished from human beings only by very minor differences. Indeed, some researchers point to the native peoples of Australia and say that representatives of this race are still alive today. Just like that race, the native Australians have thick eyebrow protrusions, and inward tilting jaw and a slightly smaller brain volume. In addition, there is serious evidence that in the very recent past such people also lived in a number of villages in Hungary and Italy .
The Neanderthals are an individual human race. We even know that their average brain volume was higher than that of today. All the claims about the “primitive nature” of the Neanderthals, who were once portrayed as semi-ape creatures on account of Darwinist prejudices, have now been invalidated. Erik Trinkhaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University who is regarded as an authority on the subject, writes:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. 20
Brain Volume Comparisons and the Great Difference between Apes and Man
Comparisons of brain volume, which Darwinists usually interpret from an evolutionary point of view, have now turned against the theory of evolution in the light of the latest data. One scientific paper, called “ Hominid Brain Evolution: Looks Can Be Deceiving, ” published in Science in 1988, revealed that the skull volume measurements performed in previous years, particularly those of Australopithecus species, had been exaggerated due to the use of faulty techniques. D. Falk, the author of the paper devotes space to evolutionist claims, and states that there was a “ dramatic trajectory ” in the dimensions of the hominid skull some 2 million years ago and that “ an approximate doubling of brain size .” 21
When one thinks about it, leaving evolutionist prejudices aside, the evident conclusion to be drawn from this finding is that the first human beings appeared some 2 million years ago, and that these peoples" brain volumes were twice as large as those of the apes which had gone before them.
In other words, we are looking not at “evolution,” but at “sudden emergence.”
The most important tool adopted by evolutionists at this point is the fact that the skull volumes of the first human beings, known as “early Homo sapiens ” ( Homo ergaster, Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis ) are smaller than the present-day average. This does not mean, however, that the human beings in question were “primitive.” That is because the skull volume of modern man contains great differences according to race and the individual, and the “early Homo sapiens” specimens fit easily into the skull volume range of modern human beings. As can be seen in the table:
| TAXON | CRANIAL CAPACITIES |
| Gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla ) | 340-752 cc |
| Chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes) | 275-500 cc |
| Australopithecus | 370-515 cc |
| Homo habilis Avg | 552 cc |
| Homo ergaster Avg | 854 cc |
| Homo erectus | 850-1250 cc |
| Homo neanderthalensis | 1100-1700 cc |
| Homo sapiens (modern man) | 700-2200 cc |
It is known that the skull volumes of human beings alive today vary between 700 and 200 cc. When we look at the fossil record we see that fossils with a skull volume particular to modern man begin with Homo ergaster and include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man). Earlier fossils (in other words Australopithecus and Homo habilis ) clearly possess the skull volumes of apes. The above table, which sets out the various volumes, once again shows that human beings appeared suddenly on earth, and with no ancestors behind them, in other words that they were created. (Table source: Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design, Human Evolution and Bioethics,” www.ideacenter.org ).
The Error of Portraying Early Human Races as Primitive
Despite all these facts, Darwinists are still determined to regard early Homo races as primitive, because that is what their theory requires. This dogmatic approach also prevails in the documentary “Walking with Cavemen.” The claim that early human races were unable to speak properly or lacked the capacity for abstract thought is insistently emphasised in the documentary. Yet this assumption is entirely the product of fantasy and is devoid of any foundation.
All the images of “primitiveness” depicted in the documentary—eating raw meat, savage behaviour, etc.—are entirely imaginary. There is no evidence to allow us to determine that these human beings ate raw eat or to show that they behaved savagely. What we do have are fossils of these people, and conclusions of this sort cannot be drawn from them.
The British author Paul Garner describes this distortion in the documentary thus: Page: 13
There seemed to be a concerted effort to reinforce evolutionary ideas by mixing in ape-like behaviour with the human attributes. For example, the ergaster people shown did not wear any clothing or adornment of any kind, they ate uncooked food, and they were shown using ape-like gestures and facial expressions. This animalistic emphasis was at its most brutal when an older male was shown savagely clubbing a younger male involved in a fight with a rival .
Furthermore, as Paul Garner has emphasised, there is in fact direct evidence that Homo erectus did use clothing: Homo erectus fossils have been found in Germany , Siberia and Dmanisi (on the shore of the Black Sea ) and it appears impossible for human beings to survive without clothing in such extremely cold regions.
In addition, there is also extremely important evidence indicating that, contrary to what is claimed about erectus/ergaster human beings in the documentary, they actually possessed an advanced intelligence, imagination and culture. Yet this has been determinedly ignored by evolutionists for decades. One of these pieces of evidence is the 1.7-million-year-old hut remains found by the well-known fossil researcher Louis Leakey at Olduvai Gorge in the early 1970s. 22 Leakey and other researchers concluded that these remains were so complex that they could “only have been constructed by Homo sapiens .” If we leave aside the assumption that Homo erectus was primitive then it appears that this hut was built by erectus human beings living at that time and that it reflects an advanced “ erectus ” culture.
Another striking piece of evidence about Homo erectus is the findings that these people engaged in sailing. One article in New Scientist titled “Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected” refers to evidence that members of Homo erectus who lived 700,000 years ago voyaged on the sea. 23
The fact that human beings who built huts and sailed on the sea are portrayed as primitive ape-men in the documentary “Walking with Cavemen” shows the extent of the distortions in the film.
 |
 |
| A bone flute made by Neanderthal Man. The calculations made regarding this flute by the musicology expert Bob Fink show that the holes are set out in such a way as to produce the correct notes, in other words that it is an expertly designed instrument. |
The same distortion is carried out with regard to the Neanderthals, and these human beings are also portrayed as primitive creatures “bereft of the power of imagination.” Yet fossil discoveries reveal that the Neanderthals actually possessed a sophisticated culture. One of the most interesting instances of this is a fossilised flute made by Neanderthal Man. This flute, made from the thigh bone of a bear, was discovered in a cave in Northern Yugoslavia in 1995 by the archaeologist Ivan Turk. It was later analysed by the musicologist Bob Fink, who established that this instrument, carbon dated to between 43,000 and 76,000 years old, produced four notes with full and half-tones. This discovery shows that the Neanderthals used the seven-note scale which represents the basic form of Western music. Fink states that “ the distance between the second and third holes on the old flute is double that between the third and fourth .” This means that the first distance represents a full note, and the neighbouring distance a half-note. Fink also says that “ These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique," and states that the Neanderthals were human beings with a musical ear and knowledge. 24
Certain other fossil findings show that the Neanderthals buried their dead, cared for the sick and wore adornments such as necklaces and the like. 25
A 30,000-year-old sewing needle used by Neanderthals was also found during excavations. Made of bone, this needle is exceedingly regular and has a hole made in it to pass the thread through. 26 It is of course impossible to regard human beings with a clothing culture so sophisticated as to require a sewing needle as “primitive.”
The documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” which insists, in the face of all the evidence, on regarding the Neanderthals as “primitive,” is a propaganda film based on falsehood, rather than a true documentary.
Conclusion
By broadcasting the documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” CNNTurk may wish to give the impression to Turkish society that the claims of “human evolution” are a scientific fact. Yet this message is, in a word, deceptive, because like the theory of evolution as a whole, the theory of “human evolution” is in a state of crisis.
This is admitted even by proponents of the theory.
One article by Robert Locke, editor of the magazine Discovering Archeology, one of the best-known publications on the subject of the origins of man, says “the search for human ancestors gives more heat than light,” and the famous evolutionist palaeontologist Tim White makes the following confession, “We"re all frustrated by all the questions we haven"t been able to answer.” 27
The problem is that all the claims made by the theory of evolution fly in the face of the scientific evidence, which shows that the different living groups on earth – human beings included – appeared suddenly and with their own unique structures. This is proof of “intelligent design,” not of “evolution.”
It is for these reasons that the “Intelligent Design Movement” reflects a scientific challenge to the dogmatic supporters of the theory of evolution in the world of science.
The CNNTurk management needs to investigate these facts and to present them to their viewers by examining the evidence for “intelligent design.” And if they really wish to broadcast scientific documentaries about the origin of life, then they should have resort to objective documentaries instead of programmes like “Walking with Cavemen” which blindly support Darwinism.
In that way, CNNTurk viewers will have the opportunity of objectively examining the evidence instead of being deceived by Darwinist propaganda.
Anyone objectively examining this evidence will clearly see the following truth: the origin of life on Earth is creation, not a blind, random “process of evolution.” God created all living things, with their own unique and perfect bodily structures, individually.
1 Phillip E. Johnson, "Mothballed Science, Touchstone Magazine , December 2003
2 Programme of the day. The Sunday Telegraph TV & Radio March 23-29, 2003 , p. 43
3 Gee, H., "Return to the planet of the apes," Nature , 412:131–132 (July 12, 2001)
4 Marchal, F., "A New Morphometric Analysis of the Hominid Pelvic Bone," Journal of Human Evolution , 38:347-365 (2000)
5 Collard, M., Aiello, L. C., “From forelimbs to two legs,” Nature , 404:339-340 (March 23, 2000)
6 Spoor, F., Wood, B., Zonneveld, F., "Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion," Nature , 369:645-648 (June 23, 1994)
7 “Human Evolution, Mother Of Man - 3.2, Million Years;” http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/chronology/contentpage1.shtml
8 Comment, “Walking With Cavemen” Part 1, 11. minute
9 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 103
10 Carl Zimmer, "Great Mysteries of Human Evolution", Discover, Vol. 24, No. 9, September 2003
11 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, Vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325
12 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, 369:645-648, (June 23, 1994)
13 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus", Science , Vol. 284, No. 5411, April 2, 1999, pp. 65-71.
14 Paul Garner, “Walking with Caveman: Part Two;” http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/origins_archaeology/bcs127.html
15 Hawks, J., Hunley, K., Sang-Hee, L., Wolpoff, M., "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution," Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution , 17(1):2-22 (January, 2000)
16 Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post , November 19, 1984
17 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992. p. 136
18 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992, p. 83
19 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist , November- December 2000, p. 491
20 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals", Natural History, vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "The Neanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive", American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement , Vol. 12, 1991, p. 94.
21 Falk, D., "Hominid Brain Evolution: Looks Can Be Deceiving," Science , 280:1714 (June 12, 1998).
22 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st ed., 1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 272
23 "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected", New Scientist , March 14, 1998
24 The AAAS Science News Service, Neandertals Lived Harmoniously, April 3, 1997
25 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar: The First Flower People, Knopf: New York, 1971, p. 196; Paul G. Bahn and Jean Vertut, Images in the Ice, Leichester: Windward, 1988, p. 72
26 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p. 99, 107
27 Robert Locke, "Family Fights" Discovering Archaeology , July/August 1999, pp. 36-39
