Lubenow probably has the best young-earth creationist book. But he has
serious omissions. He fails to identify Adam or what he thinks Adam looked
like. He clearly says that H. erectus was human. (Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones
of Contention, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), p. 120) But then he says
that this falsifies evolution.
But even Lubenow skips past the details. Considering the many morphological
distinctions between them and us his failure to mention the morphological
details is astounding. If Homo erectus falsifies evolution then why are
they so different from us. The differences are:
Erectus had a simian shelf we have a chin
Erectus lacked a forehead-their skulls swept back like an ape's ours is domal.
Erectus had a ape-like rib cage, ours is straighter along the side,
The lower most rib was bigger in diameter than the upper rib.
Erectus had a smaller vertebral canal
Erectus had big, big brow-ridges, we hardly have any.
Erectus had broad skull base, we don't
Erectus had thick cranial bones, ours are thin
Erectus had gigantic molars, we don't
That these features are genetic is due to the fact that they bred true over
vast areas of the world. If these differences were genetic, then the only
way to get from them to us is via evolution. So, while Lubenow says that H.
erectus disproves evolution, the fact that they were so different says to me
that they prove evolution. Lubenow does not discuss details like this and
the implications these details have for evolution. Merely saying that
evolution is disproven is quite a different thing from having the data to
back that assertion up.
Lubenow never discusses the behavior of fossil man and does not mention
things like the Gesher Benot Ya'qov plank.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm