A skull dating back some 13,000 years unearthed
in Kow Swamp in Australia that has the characteristics of
both modern man and Homo erectus.
Presented as "primitive man" by evolutionists,
Homo Erectus is actually a lost human race. The differences between
Homo Erectus and us are simply racial differences.
In the scheme of "man's evolution"
devised by evolutionists, fossils classified as Homo erectus come
after the Australopithecus species. (The classification, "Homo
habilis", which was proposed by certain evolutionists, has
been included in the Australopithecus species in recent years.)
A typical Homo erectus skull found in Koobi
Fora in Africa in 1975.
As the word "erect" implies, "Homo
erectus" means a "man walking upright". Evolutionists
have had to separate these men from previous ones by adding the
quality of "erectness", because all the available Homo
erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of
the Australopithecus or Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference
between the skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus.
"Tall and modern". That was the comment Richard
Leakey made on this fossil dating back 2.2 million years.
There is virtually no difference between this fossil classified
as Homo erectus and the modern human skeleton.
A good indication of this is the "Turkana
Boy" fossil that is included in the Homo erectus class. It
is confirmed that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who would
have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeleton
structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man,
on which point American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that
he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference
between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human."52
ENGINEER HOMO ERECTUS
News published in New Scientist on March 14th, 1998,
tells us that the humans called Homo Erectus by evolutionists
were practicing seamanship 700,000 years ago. These humans,
who had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel
and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can
hardly be called primitive.
The primary reason for evolutionists to define
Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of
its skull (900-1100 cc), which is smaller than that of the average
modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are
many people living today in the world who have the same cranial
capacity as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies) and there are
some other races that have protruding eyebrows (for instance the
In its 23 December 1996 issue, Time magazine
covered a 27,000-year-old Homo erectus found on the Island
of Java. The fact that Homo erectus existed till very recent
times is evidence that it is not a different species but a
modern human race.
It is a commonly agreed fact that differences
in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence
or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation
of the brain rather than its volume.53
Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states that
the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more
than racial variance:
Aborigines, the native people of Australia, who are
still living today, have great similarities to Homo erectus
in terms of their cranial features.
"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
In short, human beings, whom evolutionists classify
as Homo erectus, are a lost human race whose level of intelligence
is no different from our own. There is, on the other hand, a huge
gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded
it in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus,
or Homo habilis). This means that the first men appeared in the
fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history.
There can be no clearer indication of their being created.
52- Boyce Rensberger, The Washington
Post, 19 November 1984
53- Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Grand Rapids,
Baker, 1992, p. 83
54- Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London:
Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62