Man’s Earliest Human Ancestor

This article is typical of how evolutionary indoctrination is advanced. First, the headline in SciTech Daily proclaims, “Newly Discovered Fossils Reveal Man’s Earliest Ancestors.” The article goes on to claim that researchers “have discovered fossils of the oldest mammals related to mankind”, and then declares that these “are the earliest ‘undisputed’ fossils that led to human beings.” But the hype doesn’t end there. The writer goes on to explain that the small, rat-like creature in question is also the ancestor of most living mammals, including the Blue Whale!

One of the many problems with this kind of reporting is the absolute certainty it communicates with its readers. There’s no room for dispute because the findings are ‘undisputed’, which means that anyone who disagrees can be shamed and labeled anti-science. After all, if this is the conclusion scientists have come to, then their interpretations shouldn’t be called into question. Especially since they’re experts, right?

Now, some would admit that the reporting in this story is suspect, and that the writer shouldn’t run such sensational claims. Many publications have been accused of misrepresenting the actual research, and some have gone so far as accusing publications of hurting their own cause due to such over-the-top claims. It isn’t helpful because it doesn’t leave any room for future discoveries, alternative explanations, or other unknown factors.

Nonetheless, reporting like this helps advance the belief in evolution, especially if the reader doesn’t question the claims and accepts all premises. This is one example of how students are indoctrinated in schools, convincing them that evolution is a fact and shouldn’t be challenged… But, if that’s the message, then that’s not really science. Real science can be questioned because there’s always new information being discovered that could overturn old paradigms. Teachers and professors should encourage their students to question the assertions and research what they’re being taught to see if it’s true. But that rarely happens.

One of the researchers, Dr. Sweetman, actually perpetuates this line of indoctrination by touting his specimen: “our 145 million-year-old teeth are undoubtedly the earliest yet known from the line of mammals that lead to our own species.” Really? There’s no doubt about it? How does he know that?

His line of reasoning is that the fossilized teeth they found came from the earliest Cretaceous rocks and are “highly advanced” and “highly evolved”. Okay, but how does this prove that the creature these teeth belonged to is one of our earliest ancestors? How do they know that with such certainty? The article doesn’t explain this. It just assumes no one will question it, and the reader will buy into hype.

But what the authors promote as certainty is merely an assertion. Dr. Sweetman assumes evolution is true, and that the fossil record represents a reliable time-line. Thus, if he finds what he considers to be ‘highly advanced’ teeth from a rat-like mammal, he presumes this animal was one of the earliest mammals to evolve, and thus it has to be related to humans and all other mammals. Voile! In other words, it’s a simple line of deduction based on a biased worldview; he believes evolution is true, therefore, the teeth have to belong to one of our ancient ancestors. In his mind, there’s no other possible conclusion.

Now keep in mind that the entire conclusion is based on two teeth belonging to two different animals. That’s right, two teeth. There are no other bones that can be definitively tied to either of them. And the only other thing they have is the location where the teeth were found. With that, they’d like to convince us that they’ve unlocked the mystery surrounding human origins.

I have no problem accepting that the fossilized teeth belonged to a mammal. He also points out that the teeth are very worn, suggesting that the animal lived a long life for its species. Experts can certainly look at teeth and identify the kind of animal they belonged to, and they can infer the age of the animal based on factors like wear and tear. But, even if they had the entire skeleton, they still wouldn’t be able to tell us, with any kind of certainty, if the organism is related to any higher order of mammal, let alone humans. Such claims are the basis of faith, not science, and I think that’s an important understanding to have when it comes to evolution.

If we investigate further and question the findings we’ll see that there’s much less certainty. The actual research paper, published in Acta Palaeontologica, provides plenty of room for skepticism. The paper points to other creatures identified as the earliest placental mammals, but it casts doubt, explaining that they’re only ‘purported’ to be the oldest… not that they really are. Second, it points to ‘strongly conflicting evidence from phenomic and molecular data’, as well as dental characteristics and morphology. So, in order for the authors to claim their specimen is the oldest, they must cast doubt on previous candidates, and that’s what they do, ruling out the other candidates based on selected criteria.

Catch that? In order to advance the certainty of their own claims, they must demonstrate that previous scientific conclusions are uncertain and should be discarded in favor of these new findings. They ask us to question previous scientific claims, but not theirs.

Further, the research paper admits that the exact position of the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary they were studying is uncertain, obscure, and surrounded in debate. That’s interesting because the boundary is obviously vital to whether or not their conclusions are valid, even according to evolutionists. They also point out that some of the similarities on the teeth in relation to other mammals are uncertain. Even more remarkable, they indicate that no attempt to study the evolutionary history and relationships has been made due to the limitations on the teeth. Imagine that… evolutionary history can’t be determined based on teeth alone.

To conclude, if you believe in evolution, then you’re likely not going to be persuaded that anything I’ve presented disproves evolution. Granted. But I hope everyone is able to recognize the uncertainty and story-telling that occurs in this field, and that we don’t have to accept the premise that this rat-like creature, known as Durlstotherium newmani, is a human ancestor. The authors certainly haven’t considered alternative explanations, like, maybe none of the organisms evolved from some other kind of organism in the first place. Perhaps these rat-like creatures are related to other rat-like creatures, that are themselves rat-like, and so on. Or maybe they are a type of rat that just happened to be buried where it was. There’s nothing that would demand this organism be some kind of missing link. That’s purely a subjective claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s