Are so-called "archaic humans" like homo erectus just apes?
No.12188391 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>12188429 >>12188862 >>12189911
Did evolutionists just take sparse ape skeletons and "reconstruct" them to look like they had intermediate characteristics, when in fact they were just apes?
>It must be emphasised that where there is sufficient evidence, ALL skulls can be identified as being either ape or human. There are NO other classes, for they are all the imaginings of the evolutionary paleaoanthropologists who insist on concocting a string of links between man and apes. In order to fill this enormous gap, any ape skull is greatly enlarged and the fossil's 'human' features exaggerated (e.g. Pekin man and 'Lucy'), whilst human skulls are decreased and their 'ape' features are similary emphasised (e.g. 1470 Man).
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf
>It must be emphasised that where there is sufficient evidence, ALL skulls can be identified as being either ape or human. There are NO other classes, for they are all the imaginings of the evolutionary paleaoanthropologists who insist on concocting a string of links between man and apes. In order to fill this enormous gap, any ape skull is greatly enlarged and the fossil's 'human' features exaggerated (e.g. Pekin man and 'Lucy'), whilst human skulls are decreased and their 'ape' features are similary emphasised (e.g. 1470 Man).
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_152-153.pdf
