Did humans evolve from apes?

If so, which humans evolved from which apes?

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APES OR APE-LIKE CREATURES, WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN? And which creatures were involved at that important point in history?

With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say “this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?

Homo habilis is actually an ape The short answer is “none, it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here's what we mean.

First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don't all fit into a fully accepted sequence. Many fossils are set aside because they can't be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong timeframe.

This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn't help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.

Second, here is an amazing fact: None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.

A possible sequence

Let's look at the candidates that are put forward as being in this ape-to-human process, and see if we can identify any at the “transition stage”. We must point out that some people object when we say that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from apes. They think we should say that there was once a common ancestor of both apes and humans. Our reply is that evolutionists never name this common ancestor in their evolutionary lists. They simply have apes, then humans. For example:

The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:

This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science 284(5411):65-71). So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list. If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened? Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.

With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.

But which one?

Chart of human evolution The Handprint website says of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis that “there is considerable uncertainty as to how to connect these fossils to other remains from the same geological era, how all of them are related to the australopithids — and which of the Homo skulls shows us the true ancestor to subsequent humans.”

In other words, habilis and rudolfensis are a mess. You can't show how they relate to apes before them, or humans after them, or fossils “from the same geological era.” This is not because they have transitional features; the problem is that they don't show a transition, or even a clear link to anything else. The group just seems to contain a jumble of ape-like fossils that don't show clear links between apes and humans at all. Evolutionists Wood and Collard found only ape-like traits in both habilis and rudolfensis.

So let's try the next step up to see if we can find some human features — Homo ergaster. Now we're getting somewhere. H. ergaster is described like this:

“There is near unanimity among paleoanthropologists that HOMO ERGASTER, which appeared about 2 million years ago, is the anchor species for all subsequent humans.” (Ref: Handprint — Homo ergaster.)

Clearly human

Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”? Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test. On the evidence from Wood and Collard's tests, habilis and rudolfensis looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features. The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain. But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

So if habilis and rudolfensis were apes in every way, and ergaster (which followed them) was clearly human, where is the evidence that there was ever an ape-human between them? Absolutely none!

Fossils of apes and humans do not fit neatly into any clear evolutionary sequence. We believe this is because humans and apes were created as humans and apes in the beginning — natural evolution from non-human to human has never taken place.

We believe that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.


Footnote: There are other fossils besides those above that some evolutionists might include, such as Homo floresiensis and fossils found at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia.

Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place of floresiensis in human evolution.” (Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department)

Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions. National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition, “Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: 'They ought to put it back in the ground.'”

Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn't really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)

Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors. (Ref: BBC News)

University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.” (Ref: University of North Texas news)

So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.

Therefore they can't be the link between apes and humans.

Further reading

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen, Journal of Creation 19(1):22-32, April 2005
Old fossil skeletons, News to Note, Answers in Genesis, September 22, 2007
The non-transitions in human evolution, Technical Journal13(2):10-12, November 1999
How coherent is the human evolution story?, Institute for Creation Research, June 1, 2006
Is there fossil evidence of “missing links” between humans and apes?, ChristianAnswers.Net

red line



Larger evolution chart

red line



Related topics: