What do you think?
Rate this book
Contested Bones
Contested Bones is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology. This work is unique in that it is the most comprehensive, systematic, and up-to-date book available that critically examines the major claims about the various hominin fossils. Even though the topic is technical, the book is accessible for a broad audience and is reported to be engaging even for nontechnical people. Contested Bones provides new insights regarding the history of paleoanthropology, and the sequence of discoveries that bring us up to the current state of confusion within the field. The authors provide alternative interpretations of the hominin species. Surprisingly, the conclusions of the authors consistently find strong support from various experts within the field. This book addresses a wide variety of important topics… “Which, if any, of the species gave rise to man?” “Did ‘Lucy’s’ kind walk upright like modern humans or did they live among the trees like ordinary apes?” “Was ‘Ardi’ the earliest human ancestor?” “Were ‘Erectus’ and the newly discovered ‘Naledi’ sub-human or were they fully human?” “What are the implications of the growing evidence that shows man coexisted with the australopithecine apes?” “Are the dating method consistently reliable?” “What does the latest genetic evidence reveal?” “Can we be certain that man evolved from an australopith ape?” Contested Bones brings clarity to a fascinating but complex subject, and offers refreshing new insights into how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
333 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
15 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 7, 2020
Rupe and Sanford have certainly put significant research and thought into the arguments made in this book. The authors raise a number of points that could be valid, given a certain view of the evidence available. However, it’s that view that can get in the way of doing scientific work for its own sake and not in the service of an agenda.
From the beginning, the authors set out to convey evolution as a “theory in crisis” based on the fact that there is still some confusion and debate about the details. But considering the numerous varieties of fossils discussed in this book, the authors, and readers of this book, should keep in mind that the very existence of different species of apes, and different variants within a species, is itself a demonstration of evolution, if only in the sense that the authors propose at the end of the book, in which apes and humans each have multiple variants, but remain separate groups.
They also tend to portray the arguments of their opponents negatively by using terms like ”admit” and “confess”. If one’s own argument is strong, there is little need to take this approach. When experts say that the precise ancestry of humans is unclear and can be confusing, that is not an admission or a confession; it’s a statement of fact. As more data is gathered, maybe things will become clearer. Or maybe not - there are no guarantees of easy answers. As suggested early in the book, “Perhaps an on-going debate is a sign of a healthy field of science.” (p. 20)
The authors take the position that there are humans and there are apes, and every species discussed fits neatly into one of these two categories. For example, in chapter 3 there are 25 pages making the case that humans and Neanderthals are close enough to be considered variants of the same species. This effort seems a bit excessive for a conclusion that’s not particularly controversial. On p. 38, there is a continued discussion about the implausibility of “complete reproductive isolation” between humans and Neanderthals - but it was already noted back on p. 30 that modern humans have between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA, so this discussion is irrelevant.
Chapter 4 makes a similar case for Homo erectus, but in this case the argument is less convincing. We should not expect the boundaries between erectus and Homo sapiens to be “clearly demarcated” (p. 58) - the populations changed over time. There was never a moment when one species became another. The conclusion of this chapter is that erectus is “fully human” as opposed to “sub-human” without defining either term. The reduced height and reduced brain volume of erectus is explained by “reductive evolution” - but that term doesn’t mean “backward evolution” as opposed to “forward evolution”, it just means a reduction in genetic complexity, which is not what the authors are trying to claim here. There is no such thing as direction in evolution. There is only evolution by natural selection to adapt to a given environment (along with genetic drift).
Chapter 5 attempts to make a similar argument for Homo floriensis being a variant of Homo sapiens, and this is even less convincing, since part of the argument is that floriensis is close enough to be considered the same species as either Homo sapiens or erectus - and it hasn’t been established that these are the same.
Then the authors move on to species they consider to be apes, starting with Australopithecus afarensis in chapter 6, where they present the controversy about the “Lucy” fossil, and proceeding to Ardipithecus ramidis in chapter 7. In both cases the incompleteness of the skeletons are emphasized. Researchers are accused of “marketing” their finds (p. 118), of having a “treasure hunt mentality” (p. 123), and having a “bizarre interpretation” (p. 124). Again, it’s unfortunate that the authors see a place for personal attacks in a scientific discussion.
The next three chapters are devoted to candidates for species that are neither entirely ape nor entirely human: Homo habilis, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo naledi. The authors dismiss the first two as a mixture of ape and human bones, and conclude that naledi is “fully human” based on their interpretation of the fossils as well as discussion of their presumed behavior, such as use of fire and burial of dead. But the continued use of the term “fully human” is not an argument against naledi (or floriensis) having been different species, or different stages in human evolution. As an example, consider that eagles build nests. We would not say that sparrows, because they also build nests, must be “fully eagle”. Neither are they “sub-eagle” - they are simply different species that share many traits, including nest building.
The authors list a number of traits suggesting that naledi is a separate species and then propose alternative interpretations for each one: inbreeding, vitamin D deficiency, physiological adaptation... while these explanations are each plausible, it seems less likely that all of these conditions were present than that naledi really was a different variant. The reader has to start wondering at this point what would be sufficient evidence to convince the authors that two sets of fossils represent different species.
Many of the arguments presented here are an attempt to persuade the general public, whom the authors feel have been misled into trusting a false narrative. But with arguments as technical as some of these, the appropriate audience is probably the scientific community itself rather than the general reader. This is particularly true about chapter 12, with its discussion of “excess argon” and “thorium solubility”. Disputes on these topics can be best addressed by experts, who at this point apparently accept that the dating methods have some level of validity. The genetic arguments presented in chapter 13 also fall into this category. If the authors’ arguments are strong, their peer reviewed papers on the subjects should be enough to convince the experts that they were mistaken, and the consensus view can be changed.
The effort expended in casting doubt on paleontological work from its origins to the present day certainly wasn’t easy, and the authors are to be commended for their diligence in doing this in as methodical a way as possible. However, a more difficult task remains: to propose an alternative hypothesis for the diversity of life and the origin of humanity. This is attempted beginning on page 318 (of 329) where the authors abandon scientific study and ask us to consider biblical history and special creation as the explanation. Even the gospel itself makes an appearance on page 328. But having spent more than 300 pages pointing out the discrepancies in the scientific exploration of hominid ancestry, it should be clear that an expression of faith in the truth of Christianity in the final 10 pages will not be sufficient to replace the structure the authors have tried to dismantle. Just as there is room to cast doubt on the “ape-to-man story”, books of similar length could be (and have been) written casting doubts on the Christian narrative, as the authors are well aware.
In the end, I think Rupe and Sanford have done some serious research and come up with some plausible sounding arguments, but have approached the project with the intention of supporting their idea that evolution is not true. While the authors’ convictions are no doubt sincere, this is not an ideal perspective from which to address this subject.
Note, it should be admitted that anything is possible, and challenges are needed to ensure that scientific progress is self-correcting. But the basic issue is that in spite of the contention among scientists and lack of complete clarity about the ancestry of humanity, there simply is no better explanation for what life looks like today than evolution.
On a minor editorial note, the book is a bit repetitive in places and contains a number of typos, so probably could have benefited from some additional editing.
Readers of this book who are truly interested in evolution should also consider Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero, and perhaps Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale.
Thanks very much to the brother of one of the authors for giving me a copy of this book, knowing of my interest in evolution.
From the beginning, the authors set out to convey evolution as a “theory in crisis” based on the fact that there is still some confusion and debate about the details. But considering the numerous varieties of fossils discussed in this book, the authors, and readers of this book, should keep in mind that the very existence of different species of apes, and different variants within a species, is itself a demonstration of evolution, if only in the sense that the authors propose at the end of the book, in which apes and humans each have multiple variants, but remain separate groups.
They also tend to portray the arguments of their opponents negatively by using terms like ”admit” and “confess”. If one’s own argument is strong, there is little need to take this approach. When experts say that the precise ancestry of humans is unclear and can be confusing, that is not an admission or a confession; it’s a statement of fact. As more data is gathered, maybe things will become clearer. Or maybe not - there are no guarantees of easy answers. As suggested early in the book, “Perhaps an on-going debate is a sign of a healthy field of science.” (p. 20)
The authors take the position that there are humans and there are apes, and every species discussed fits neatly into one of these two categories. For example, in chapter 3 there are 25 pages making the case that humans and Neanderthals are close enough to be considered variants of the same species. This effort seems a bit excessive for a conclusion that’s not particularly controversial. On p. 38, there is a continued discussion about the implausibility of “complete reproductive isolation” between humans and Neanderthals - but it was already noted back on p. 30 that modern humans have between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA, so this discussion is irrelevant.
Chapter 4 makes a similar case for Homo erectus, but in this case the argument is less convincing. We should not expect the boundaries between erectus and Homo sapiens to be “clearly demarcated” (p. 58) - the populations changed over time. There was never a moment when one species became another. The conclusion of this chapter is that erectus is “fully human” as opposed to “sub-human” without defining either term. The reduced height and reduced brain volume of erectus is explained by “reductive evolution” - but that term doesn’t mean “backward evolution” as opposed to “forward evolution”, it just means a reduction in genetic complexity, which is not what the authors are trying to claim here. There is no such thing as direction in evolution. There is only evolution by natural selection to adapt to a given environment (along with genetic drift).
Chapter 5 attempts to make a similar argument for Homo floriensis being a variant of Homo sapiens, and this is even less convincing, since part of the argument is that floriensis is close enough to be considered the same species as either Homo sapiens or erectus - and it hasn’t been established that these are the same.
Then the authors move on to species they consider to be apes, starting with Australopithecus afarensis in chapter 6, where they present the controversy about the “Lucy” fossil, and proceeding to Ardipithecus ramidis in chapter 7. In both cases the incompleteness of the skeletons are emphasized. Researchers are accused of “marketing” their finds (p. 118), of having a “treasure hunt mentality” (p. 123), and having a “bizarre interpretation” (p. 124). Again, it’s unfortunate that the authors see a place for personal attacks in a scientific discussion.
The next three chapters are devoted to candidates for species that are neither entirely ape nor entirely human: Homo habilis, Australopithecus sediba, and Homo naledi. The authors dismiss the first two as a mixture of ape and human bones, and conclude that naledi is “fully human” based on their interpretation of the fossils as well as discussion of their presumed behavior, such as use of fire and burial of dead. But the continued use of the term “fully human” is not an argument against naledi (or floriensis) having been different species, or different stages in human evolution. As an example, consider that eagles build nests. We would not say that sparrows, because they also build nests, must be “fully eagle”. Neither are they “sub-eagle” - they are simply different species that share many traits, including nest building.
The authors list a number of traits suggesting that naledi is a separate species and then propose alternative interpretations for each one: inbreeding, vitamin D deficiency, physiological adaptation... while these explanations are each plausible, it seems less likely that all of these conditions were present than that naledi really was a different variant. The reader has to start wondering at this point what would be sufficient evidence to convince the authors that two sets of fossils represent different species.
Many of the arguments presented here are an attempt to persuade the general public, whom the authors feel have been misled into trusting a false narrative. But with arguments as technical as some of these, the appropriate audience is probably the scientific community itself rather than the general reader. This is particularly true about chapter 12, with its discussion of “excess argon” and “thorium solubility”. Disputes on these topics can be best addressed by experts, who at this point apparently accept that the dating methods have some level of validity. The genetic arguments presented in chapter 13 also fall into this category. If the authors’ arguments are strong, their peer reviewed papers on the subjects should be enough to convince the experts that they were mistaken, and the consensus view can be changed.
The effort expended in casting doubt on paleontological work from its origins to the present day certainly wasn’t easy, and the authors are to be commended for their diligence in doing this in as methodical a way as possible. However, a more difficult task remains: to propose an alternative hypothesis for the diversity of life and the origin of humanity. This is attempted beginning on page 318 (of 329) where the authors abandon scientific study and ask us to consider biblical history and special creation as the explanation. Even the gospel itself makes an appearance on page 328. But having spent more than 300 pages pointing out the discrepancies in the scientific exploration of hominid ancestry, it should be clear that an expression of faith in the truth of Christianity in the final 10 pages will not be sufficient to replace the structure the authors have tried to dismantle. Just as there is room to cast doubt on the “ape-to-man story”, books of similar length could be (and have been) written casting doubts on the Christian narrative, as the authors are well aware.
In the end, I think Rupe and Sanford have done some serious research and come up with some plausible sounding arguments, but have approached the project with the intention of supporting their idea that evolution is not true. While the authors’ convictions are no doubt sincere, this is not an ideal perspective from which to address this subject.
Note, it should be admitted that anything is possible, and challenges are needed to ensure that scientific progress is self-correcting. But the basic issue is that in spite of the contention among scientists and lack of complete clarity about the ancestry of humanity, there simply is no better explanation for what life looks like today than evolution.
On a minor editorial note, the book is a bit repetitive in places and contains a number of typos, so probably could have benefited from some additional editing.
Readers of this book who are truly interested in evolution should also consider Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero, and perhaps Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale.
Thanks very much to the brother of one of the authors for giving me a copy of this book, knowing of my interest in evolution.
April 7, 2019
The authors did a nice job supporting their argument and had me nodding along with only some minor issues until the last chapter where they state that humans clearly have dominion over the earth and that no other animal on the planet is quite like us, meaning that we are not animals. This is so egocentric that it nearly made me throw out the entire book. Every animal is unique and operates as if it has dominion over the world. The authors’ failure to acknowledge this so openly causes me to question everything else they have said in the book.
October 8, 2019
an intreaguing insight into the world of paleoanthropology. Slightly high brow in places but blows evolution out of the water! slam dunk:)
May 16, 2023
A DETAILED SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF THE APE-TO-MAN LITERATURE
Coauthor (with Christopher Rupe) John Sanford wrote in his ‘Personal Prologue’ to this 2017 book, “Why did Chris and I write this book? As a Cornell University research scientist and geneticist, I was a committed evolutionist for most of my adult life… I was about 50 years old before I first began to seriously question human evolution. My initial skepticism was not based upon the fossil record, but upon my own genetic research. I was learning that there are clear limits to what can realistically be accomplished by the Darwinian process… Ever since that time… I have doing original genetic research addressing the fundamental question: can mutation/selection transform an ape into a human being?... My research has confirmed … [that] the mutation/selection process has major problems, which profoundly limit what it can realistically accomplish…
“There is now strong genetic evidence against ape-to-man evolution. However, people argue that the genetic evidence must be wrong because the fossil record proves ape-to-man evolution. It is for this reason that Chris Rupe and I began to carefully examine the fossil evidence that is said to prove ape-to-man evolution… We have been surprised by our findings. The … bones themselves do not show what is widely claimed. Furthermore… most of the workers in the field sharply disagree about the key discoveries. Nearly all of the important bones are contested---hence out title… Neither Chris nor I have a Ph.D. in paleoanthropology. So why should you bother reading this book? Perhaps it is because… fresh scientific perspectives … almost never arise from established members of a given field. Outsiders are … needed to help break free from the shackles of the ‘group-think.’” (Pg. 6-7)
Later, they add, “We have written this book to simply make more people aware that that actual fossil evidence is fragmentary and it is typically self-contradicting. Contrary to what is widely believed, the fossil evidence is weak and does not provide compelling evidence for human evolution… We trust that when you are done reading this book you will at least acknowledge that the bones in question really are CONTESTED.” (Pg. 10)
They outline, “the theory of human evolution has the following profound problems: *The history of … paleoanthropology consists of a long series of bone discoveries… But in each case the claim has either been debunked, or at least become contested… *As more bones have been discovered, the basic story has NOT come into clearer focus; rather, the story keeps getting more convoluted… *Even the most credible hominin fossils are contested in terms of their place in the human evolutionary tree. *There are only two meaningful genera: Australopithecus (‘southern apes) … and Homo (humans). There is no clear evidence of a transitional ‘bridge genus. *The ape-like australopith … appear to have coexisted with man until the australopiths went extinct.. *The methods used to date most hominin fossils… have been shown to be unreliable…*…deviant forms within the Homo genus appear to manifest various pathologies… [and] seem to reflect genetic degeneration association with inbreeding and accelerated mutation accumulation.” (Pg. 18-19)
They state, “While Erectus is clearly human, it is not a normal human. Erectus was very much like Neanderthal---but displaying evidence of various pathologies. Many Erectus skulls are disturbing---showing diverse abnormalities and asymmetries.” (Pg. 53) Later, they add, “Erectus populations… appear to have been highly inbred and genetically compromised… There seems to be an element of degeneration and pathology inherent in these populations.” (Pg. 73)
They argue, “Although many of the Afarensis bones are described as very ape-like, there are bones that appear to be a distinctly different species, that in fact belong to a different genus. These ‘out-of-place’ bones were acknowledged to be present from the outset by [Donald] Johanson and his coworkers… This explains why some bones of the Afarensis type have been described as remarkably human… the overall picture of Afarensis… is unmistakably ape.” (Pg. 96) They summarize, “Afarensis was an ordinary ape, very similar to chimpanzees and gorillas.” (Pg. 117)
They assert, “The bones that have been called Sebida do not appear to represent a ‘transitional form’ at all… [it] rather appears to be a … mixture of human and non-human bones. It is not uncommon for paleo-experts to unintentionally mix bones belonging to different species. This is especially true when they are highly motivated to find an ‘in-between; creature… The researchers’ explanation for the mishmash of traits is that Sediba is a snapshot of ape evolving into man…” (Pg. 175)
They suggest, “Why did Naledi, Erectus, and Hobbit all have abnormally small braincases and other genetic anomalies? And why did these small and anomalous populations disappear? A very strong case can be made that they suffered form inbreeding, which led to their morphological oddities and eventual extinction.” (Pg. 186) They say of Naledi, “these so-called ‘primitive’ traits are better explained by extreme isolation, inbreeding, and subsequent genetic degeneration---not because Naledi evolved from an australopith… In other words, Naledi … is fully human, Homo sapiens.” (Pg. 209)
They summarize, “The failure of paleo-experts to find a legitimate ‘ape-like’ ancestor to man after over 150 years of fossil hunting is remarkable. This flies directly in the face of the claim that human evolution is an uncontested fact. It is clear that neither Habilis, nor Sediba, nor Naledi bridge the vast evolutionary gap between and ape-like australopiths and man… The date now assigned to Naledi shows it is not a pre-human species but appears to be a degenerant human population that lived in isolation. The missing link is still missing… However, the origin of mankind is not just a scientific issue. There are deep moral and philosophical implications tied to this very important topic…” (Pg. 209-210)
They state, “This consistent pattern of ancestor/descendant mixed bone beds argues against the ape-to-man story, Extensive coexistence greatly confounds the evolutionary model, however, coexistence is a straightforward prediction of our alternative model.” (Pg 213)
They argue, “putting human feet onto an ape would by itself accomplish very little. Enabling an ape to walk like a human would simultaneously req uire the reworking of the feet, legs, knees, hips, backbone, neck, and brain. Reworking anyone of these traits would require the ‘fixation’ of many very specific mutational events… this is … certainly impossible in just a few million years.” (Pg. 286-287)
They summarize, “We feel we have the answer to the persistent question, ‘Why can’t the various hominin species be arranged into a coherent ape-to-man progression?’ We propose it is simply because man did not evolve from any australopithecine ape, or any other type of ape. This is the answer that most paleo-experts refuse to consider.” (Pg. 311) They continue, “These new genetic findings strongly support our model of degeneration of small sub-populations. We had already come to this conclusion---even before these new papers were published… Erectus is essentially a variant of Neanderthal… Hobbit was a modern human pygmy with reduced brain and body size caused by inbreeding.” (Pg. 316)
They conclude, “we are skeptics of the ape-to-man story… we dissent because we have a different point of view. Our worldview, our prior commitment, is that there is a creator God, and that mankind was made by God, and in the image of God… Personally, we are both orthodox (i.e., traditional Bible-believing Christians..” (Pg. 327-328)
The authors have done a fine job in reviewing the relevant literature---including technical journals that most of us don’t have ready access to. But their commitment as Christians tends to make them too willing to accept that a large percentage of the fossils found can be attributed to ‘inbreeding,’ ‘degeneration,’ etc. At any rate, this is a book well worth reading.
Coauthor (with Christopher Rupe) John Sanford wrote in his ‘Personal Prologue’ to this 2017 book, “Why did Chris and I write this book? As a Cornell University research scientist and geneticist, I was a committed evolutionist for most of my adult life… I was about 50 years old before I first began to seriously question human evolution. My initial skepticism was not based upon the fossil record, but upon my own genetic research. I was learning that there are clear limits to what can realistically be accomplished by the Darwinian process… Ever since that time… I have doing original genetic research addressing the fundamental question: can mutation/selection transform an ape into a human being?... My research has confirmed … [that] the mutation/selection process has major problems, which profoundly limit what it can realistically accomplish…
“There is now strong genetic evidence against ape-to-man evolution. However, people argue that the genetic evidence must be wrong because the fossil record proves ape-to-man evolution. It is for this reason that Chris Rupe and I began to carefully examine the fossil evidence that is said to prove ape-to-man evolution… We have been surprised by our findings. The … bones themselves do not show what is widely claimed. Furthermore… most of the workers in the field sharply disagree about the key discoveries. Nearly all of the important bones are contested---hence out title… Neither Chris nor I have a Ph.D. in paleoanthropology. So why should you bother reading this book? Perhaps it is because… fresh scientific perspectives … almost never arise from established members of a given field. Outsiders are … needed to help break free from the shackles of the ‘group-think.’” (Pg. 6-7)
Later, they add, “We have written this book to simply make more people aware that that actual fossil evidence is fragmentary and it is typically self-contradicting. Contrary to what is widely believed, the fossil evidence is weak and does not provide compelling evidence for human evolution… We trust that when you are done reading this book you will at least acknowledge that the bones in question really are CONTESTED.” (Pg. 10)
They outline, “the theory of human evolution has the following profound problems: *The history of … paleoanthropology consists of a long series of bone discoveries… But in each case the claim has either been debunked, or at least become contested… *As more bones have been discovered, the basic story has NOT come into clearer focus; rather, the story keeps getting more convoluted… *Even the most credible hominin fossils are contested in terms of their place in the human evolutionary tree. *There are only two meaningful genera: Australopithecus (‘southern apes) … and Homo (humans). There is no clear evidence of a transitional ‘bridge genus. *The ape-like australopith … appear to have coexisted with man until the australopiths went extinct.. *The methods used to date most hominin fossils… have been shown to be unreliable…*…deviant forms within the Homo genus appear to manifest various pathologies… [and] seem to reflect genetic degeneration association with inbreeding and accelerated mutation accumulation.” (Pg. 18-19)
They state, “While Erectus is clearly human, it is not a normal human. Erectus was very much like Neanderthal---but displaying evidence of various pathologies. Many Erectus skulls are disturbing---showing diverse abnormalities and asymmetries.” (Pg. 53) Later, they add, “Erectus populations… appear to have been highly inbred and genetically compromised… There seems to be an element of degeneration and pathology inherent in these populations.” (Pg. 73)
They argue, “Although many of the Afarensis bones are described as very ape-like, there are bones that appear to be a distinctly different species, that in fact belong to a different genus. These ‘out-of-place’ bones were acknowledged to be present from the outset by [Donald] Johanson and his coworkers… This explains why some bones of the Afarensis type have been described as remarkably human… the overall picture of Afarensis… is unmistakably ape.” (Pg. 96) They summarize, “Afarensis was an ordinary ape, very similar to chimpanzees and gorillas.” (Pg. 117)
They assert, “The bones that have been called Sebida do not appear to represent a ‘transitional form’ at all… [it] rather appears to be a … mixture of human and non-human bones. It is not uncommon for paleo-experts to unintentionally mix bones belonging to different species. This is especially true when they are highly motivated to find an ‘in-between; creature… The researchers’ explanation for the mishmash of traits is that Sediba is a snapshot of ape evolving into man…” (Pg. 175)
They suggest, “Why did Naledi, Erectus, and Hobbit all have abnormally small braincases and other genetic anomalies? And why did these small and anomalous populations disappear? A very strong case can be made that they suffered form inbreeding, which led to their morphological oddities and eventual extinction.” (Pg. 186) They say of Naledi, “these so-called ‘primitive’ traits are better explained by extreme isolation, inbreeding, and subsequent genetic degeneration---not because Naledi evolved from an australopith… In other words, Naledi … is fully human, Homo sapiens.” (Pg. 209)
They summarize, “The failure of paleo-experts to find a legitimate ‘ape-like’ ancestor to man after over 150 years of fossil hunting is remarkable. This flies directly in the face of the claim that human evolution is an uncontested fact. It is clear that neither Habilis, nor Sediba, nor Naledi bridge the vast evolutionary gap between and ape-like australopiths and man… The date now assigned to Naledi shows it is not a pre-human species but appears to be a degenerant human population that lived in isolation. The missing link is still missing… However, the origin of mankind is not just a scientific issue. There are deep moral and philosophical implications tied to this very important topic…” (Pg. 209-210)
They state, “This consistent pattern of ancestor/descendant mixed bone beds argues against the ape-to-man story, Extensive coexistence greatly confounds the evolutionary model, however, coexistence is a straightforward prediction of our alternative model.” (Pg 213)
They argue, “putting human feet onto an ape would by itself accomplish very little. Enabling an ape to walk like a human would simultaneously req uire the reworking of the feet, legs, knees, hips, backbone, neck, and brain. Reworking anyone of these traits would require the ‘fixation’ of many very specific mutational events… this is … certainly impossible in just a few million years.” (Pg. 286-287)
They summarize, “We feel we have the answer to the persistent question, ‘Why can’t the various hominin species be arranged into a coherent ape-to-man progression?’ We propose it is simply because man did not evolve from any australopithecine ape, or any other type of ape. This is the answer that most paleo-experts refuse to consider.” (Pg. 311) They continue, “These new genetic findings strongly support our model of degeneration of small sub-populations. We had already come to this conclusion---even before these new papers were published… Erectus is essentially a variant of Neanderthal… Hobbit was a modern human pygmy with reduced brain and body size caused by inbreeding.” (Pg. 316)
They conclude, “we are skeptics of the ape-to-man story… we dissent because we have a different point of view. Our worldview, our prior commitment, is that there is a creator God, and that mankind was made by God, and in the image of God… Personally, we are both orthodox (i.e., traditional Bible-believing Christians..” (Pg. 327-328)
The authors have done a fine job in reviewing the relevant literature---including technical journals that most of us don’t have ready access to. But their commitment as Christians tends to make them too willing to accept that a large percentage of the fossils found can be attributed to ‘inbreeding,’ ‘degeneration,’ etc. At any rate, this is a book well worth reading.
July 29, 2019
“This is Devo-lotion”, 80’s new wave music had it right.
This book was well written, researched, and cited. This is an excellent book for the Theist who wants to see how the steady march of science is double timing to God. It is also one of the best books for the evolutionist who wants to understand why most Christians who are aware of the subject does not believe in the evolutionary theory “from ape to man”
I am looking forward to the next book from these authors.
This book was well written, researched, and cited. This is an excellent book for the Theist who wants to see how the steady march of science is double timing to God. It is also one of the best books for the evolutionist who wants to understand why most Christians who are aware of the subject does not believe in the evolutionary theory “from ape to man”
I am looking forward to the next book from these authors.
January 17, 2025
In some respects this is a great book; it provides elaborate details on the scanty bones classified as Australapithcines, Erectus, Hablis, Sadeba, Naledi and Homo sapiens and smashes the notion that there was a transition among them through pointig out mixing of species' bone fragments to give an impression of intermediary forms. To appreciate my perspective realize i do not advocate neither of the two dimensional paradigms: an Evolutionary nor the Creationism explanations for a multi-dimesional problem. Both can't be right but both can be wrong.
The first half of the chapter (13) on Genetics aligns with my take that statisically creating genes randomly is impossible. They use a Nucleotide String Length vs Waiting Times approach whereas I calculate there isn't enough time nor mass in the known universe to devise one gene, nevermind the countless many that exist or existed. The authors go further and give ten reasons human Chromosome Two couldn't come from two Chimpanzee chromosomes. Most of that was beyond me and I'm somewhat up on DNA make-up.
Before that there is a Chapter (12) on the unrelibility of dating techniques. They use examples of solidified lava samples taken from recent New Zealand and Mount St. Helens eruptions given dates millions of years old (when it was merely decades).
Then they take that poor method to suggest all the hominid dating is similarily miscalculated and that Homo sapiens (man) have only been around 6000 years (ie since biblical times) thus supporting the Bible's contention God created man (six millenia ago).
It is reminiscent of the joke where a scientist is experimenting with a frog and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. The scientist writes in his notebook "Frog with four legs can jump.". He cuts off a leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with three legs can jump." He cuts off another leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with two legs can jump." He cuts off a third leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with one leg can jump." He cuts off the last leg and says 'Jump frog' and the doesn't do anything. He writes in his notebook "Frog with no legs is deaf".
The print is very small; there are almost as twice as many words per page as in my previous read (640 to 360). The subtext was even smaller (ie under illustrations and footnotes) and hurt my eyes to read/decipher. The illustrations were also too small. Instead of being given one sixth of a page they would have been better presented as full page illustrations. The use of colour was suprising and nice to help delineate some text and drawings.
As other reviewers have noted there is substantial repitition. For instance Mary Leaky being peeved with Johanson relabeling her hominid finds was covered three times.
Take out the repitition and the the first thirteen chapters could serve as a Paleoarchaeology text and how not to do science (not to make bones analysis fit preconceptions and be aware of picking from a vast array of dates because they suit one's paradigm).
Further information and detail is available from the website www.contestedbones.org
The first half of the chapter (13) on Genetics aligns with my take that statisically creating genes randomly is impossible. They use a Nucleotide String Length vs Waiting Times approach whereas I calculate there isn't enough time nor mass in the known universe to devise one gene, nevermind the countless many that exist or existed. The authors go further and give ten reasons human Chromosome Two couldn't come from two Chimpanzee chromosomes. Most of that was beyond me and I'm somewhat up on DNA make-up.
Before that there is a Chapter (12) on the unrelibility of dating techniques. They use examples of solidified lava samples taken from recent New Zealand and Mount St. Helens eruptions given dates millions of years old (when it was merely decades).
Then they take that poor method to suggest all the hominid dating is similarily miscalculated and that Homo sapiens (man) have only been around 6000 years (ie since biblical times) thus supporting the Bible's contention God created man (six millenia ago).
It is reminiscent of the joke where a scientist is experimenting with a frog and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. The scientist writes in his notebook "Frog with four legs can jump.". He cuts off a leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with three legs can jump." He cuts off another leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with two legs can jump." He cuts off a third leg and says 'Jump frog' and the frog jumps. He writes in his notebook "Frog with one leg can jump." He cuts off the last leg and says 'Jump frog' and the doesn't do anything. He writes in his notebook "Frog with no legs is deaf".
The print is very small; there are almost as twice as many words per page as in my previous read (640 to 360). The subtext was even smaller (ie under illustrations and footnotes) and hurt my eyes to read/decipher. The illustrations were also too small. Instead of being given one sixth of a page they would have been better presented as full page illustrations. The use of colour was suprising and nice to help delineate some text and drawings.
As other reviewers have noted there is substantial repitition. For instance Mary Leaky being peeved with Johanson relabeling her hominid finds was covered three times.
Take out the repitition and the the first thirteen chapters could serve as a Paleoarchaeology text and how not to do science (not to make bones analysis fit preconceptions and be aware of picking from a vast array of dates because they suit one's paradigm).
Further information and detail is available from the website www.contestedbones.org
July 29, 2022
This book is radically, fundamentally, and ridiculously wrong about _Homo floresiensis_ (among hundreds of other falsehoods) being "fully human," to such an extent it can be assumed the writers lied to us. There is no disease pathology found in the bones of the _Homo floresiensis:_ the assertion claiming otherwise is not supported by any and refuted by all of the analyses performed on the bones.
The shoulders are not modern human, nor the feet, nor the hands: they are similar to _ Homo africanus,_ and show a separate and distinct mosaic morphology not found in any humans, pathology-wise and healthy.
It is a demonstrable fact that _Homo floresiensis_ was a species of hominid, went extinct ~12,000 years ago.
The writers lied. Why?
The shoulders are not modern human, nor the feet, nor the hands: they are similar to _ Homo africanus,_ and show a separate and distinct mosaic morphology not found in any humans, pathology-wise and healthy.
It is a demonstrable fact that _Homo floresiensis_ was a species of hominid, went extinct ~12,000 years ago.
The writers lied. Why?
October 8, 2022
This is an excellent resource for Christians who need words to respond to the falsehood of evolution. In this book, Rupert and Sanford show that the theories don't match the bones. Often, the conclusions reached by evolutions are based on what they want to see, not what is true. There is some technical language but it isn't too much. I highly recommend thus book.
April 2, 2023
Paradigm reigns supreme over data!
One wonders how academics can be so willingly ignorant of facts! But it is evident in so many ideologies that we are forced to comply with in our present day mixed up culture. Sometimes it seems the more “educated” you are, the more susceptible you are to obfuscation of facts.
One wonders how academics can be so willingly ignorant of facts! But it is evident in so many ideologies that we are forced to comply with in our present day mixed up culture. Sometimes it seems the more “educated” you are, the more susceptible you are to obfuscation of facts.
November 4, 2024
Rupe needs to crawl under a rock in embarrassment for this book. How can anyone go so unchallenged for the blatantly false claims he put in this book? I wish I could get this time in my life back. Such a waste.
March 3, 2022
This was exactly what I was looking for to learn about the problems that human evolution theories face. It was a little redundant at times, but other than that I felt that there were no real issues.
September 14, 2024
An excellent look at the confused and muddled mess that forms the Darwinists' story of human "evolution". The authors show how the various theories about the evolutionary narrative is driven more by ideology than actual facts. For example, chapter 7 (covering A. afarensis or "Lucy") describes how the knee joint and femur found in 1979 were identical to modern humans but were not called "human remains" because of their supposed age.
December 29, 2025
Very well-researched with abundant sources and quotes from leading paleo-anthropologists.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews