Peking Man Argument

I was reading on talkorigins.org about the Creationist arguments for Peking Man. They said,

Creationists often claim that the Peking Man fossils are the remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans; that the original fossils may have been disposed of to conceal the evidence of fraud; that only models of the fossils remain; and that they are distorted to fit evolutionist preconceptions. Duane Gish (1985) discusses Peking Man extensively, drawing most of his material from Boule and Vallois (1957). This book, which was almost 30 years old when Gish wrote, was a light revision by Vallois of a book that had originally been written by Boule another 20 years or so previously (Boule died in 1942).

Gish, citing the "fact" that the bases of the skulls had been bashed in so the brains could be extracted, states that "All authorities agree that every one of the Sinanthropus [Peking Man] individuals had been killed by hunters and eaten". That may have been true in 1957, although Boule and Vallois do not say so. It is definitely not true now. Almost all recent authorities (Jia (1990) is an exception) reject as unsupported the idea that Sinanthropus was hunted. The missing skull parts are the most fragile parts which are least likely to be preserved. It is most probable that the skulls were the prey of hyenas, the bones and feces of which were often found in the excavation.

Boule and Vallois do discuss the claims of various scientists that Sinanthropus had been eaten by modern man, or by Sinanthropus himself (i.e. cannibalism). Gish ignores the latter option and declares that since humans were responsible, Sinanthropus could not have been our ancestor, and must have been a giant ape. This is incorrect; ancestor and descendant species can coexist. So Gish's argument fails on multiple grounds: there is no proof, or even good evidence, that the Sinanthropus skulls were eaten by anyone, let alone modern humans. Even if they were, it would still not show that Peking Man was not a primitive human.

Gish's claim that the skullcaps are of apes is similarly farfetched. The largest skullcap, about 1225 cc, is twice as large as that of a large male gorilla. Any ape with a brain that size would be enormous, but no such ape has been found at Zhoukoudian or anywhere else, and the jaws of Peking Man are much smaller, and more human-like, than those of a gorilla or any other ape. The skullcaps are, however, very similar to (but larger than) those of some Homo erectus skulls, one of which is attached to a body that even Gish recognizes as human (the Turkana Boy). Clearly it makes more sense to assume that Peking Man belonged to the same species than to hypothesize giant apes.

Gish claims that "The features of the lower jaws described by Boule and Vallois were all apelike except for the shape of the dental arcade ...". In fact, Boule and Vallois list only 3 apelike characteristics (one of which, a receding chin, is found in many fossil humans), and 1 humanlike characteristic, but state that there are more of both. They agree with the conclusion of Weidenreich, who said the lower jaws present "a veritable intermingling of pithecoid [apelike] and human characters".

Why is the author arguing that it's not a primitive man? First, he gets all excited that this is one of the links to Homo eretcus. Then, he argues it can have no resemblance to apes (from which they are supposedly to evolve from).

He then argues that the skull is twice as large as that of a large male gorilla, saying that any ape with a brain that large would be enormous, then continuing on saying that "no such ape has been found at Zhoukoudian or anywhere else." And then agreeing that the skullcaps are larger than those of some Homo erectus skulls. So, Peking Man actually has no resemblance to the same species. Then he's another animal or maybe a man. It's remarkable how they reconstruct a whole body out of a moulding of a skull, tooth, or jaw bone. That's quite the imagination!

He also argues that the Pekin Man would have most likely been eaten by hyenas. Where is that proof? I checked the documents on the Peking Man and there was no mention of hyenas. Actually, in Section II, 11.7 Annex 1 (14) a skeleton of a cave bear was found. Who knows if they ate the bear or the bear ate them or both? There would have to be evidence on both accounts to prove either otherwise.

After checking the Advisory Body Evaluation for the Bureau (1986), I found that the skulls were actually lost in the Sino-Japanese conflict in 1937. Not during a boat trip to the US in 1941. The mouldings and fragments are preserved in a museum in Sweden. Later in China, they found a jaw (1959) and some elements of a cranium (1966). Nevertheless, even from the other findings in China, there is too much information missing to make alligations about the "Peking Man," if he did exist at all.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

The fossil records have already disproved evolution. Darwin even struggled with the fossil record. In the same place, China, they found fossils dated in the pre-Cambrian era which show even more evidence that there are none of these imaginary "transitional forms" anywhere indicated before the Cambrian explosion. And neither are there any fossils that show evidence of transitional forms. All species were created according to their kind as shown in the fossil records, and as God said in Genesis.

It's funny because if there was any resemblance, they still haven't proved evolution and still try to find missing links to the chain. The best way to hide the "missing links" is to just make them up in the first place. There aren't any links. It's just a dream. An imaginary family tree of life. A dream that Darwin and others had to get God out of their lives. If we can get rid of God in the picture of creation then we are free to indulge in our lusts.


Highlight
It's not surprising why the leading Atheists of our time used to believe in the Bible and God. It makes sense. They'd rather not fight against God and break free to do as they please, choosing what is right and wrong for themselves. It's liberating to their minds. And the world laps it up. People just don't want to follow someone. We want to be our own God, knowing good and evil. But the serpent lied, it only brings destruction and death. Exchanging the truth for a lie, we choose what is right and wrong, running away as fast as we can, indulging into our pleasures, finding nothing but death. No life to look forward to, just living for the money and lusts of the body. A never ending thirst for knowledge, sex, and money that will never be quenched. Only Jesus can satisfy you with living water. Water that will become a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life (John 4:14).