The following is extracted from a general commentary on the Watchtower
Society book _Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?_.
Paragraph 33 of the _Life_ book discusses the creature
called _Homo erectus._ The paragraph is distinguished more
by what it does not say than by what it does. For example:
Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range
of modern man's.
While true, this statement leaves out a number of signifi-
cant points. The cranial capacity of _H. erectus_ skulls
averaged about three quarters that of modern man. The shape
of the skull was very different. The skull was so different
that no one would mistake its skull for that of a modern
human. The skull bones were much thicker, it had huge brow
ridges, the face was much more massive, and the dome of the
skull was much smaller. One has only to examine a series of
photos of skulls to see this. See for example, _National
Geographic,_  for a comparison of _Australopithecine_ and
_Homo_ skulls. It does not take an expert to see a struc-
tural sequence from _H. habilis_ to _H. erectus_ to archaic
_H. sapiens_ and Neanderthal to the modern form of skull.
See also _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction,_ 
pages 47, 53, 56, 71, 75-77, and compare the gross differ-
ences in skull shape among the above fossils. See also the
drawings of skulls in _The Myths of Human Evolution,_  on
pages 70, 84, 107, 110, 138, 147-149, and 153. Also see any
_Encyclopedia Britannica_ version after 1980, under the sub-
jects "Homo erectus" and "Evolution, Human." _Life_ does not
mention the gross differences in skull shape between _H.
erectus_ and modern man.
Next, paragraph 33 refers to _Encyclopedia Britannica,_
which said that
"the limb bones thus far discovered have been indis-
tinguishable from those of _H[omo] sapiens._"
As shown above, this assessment has been superceded by
newer information. By comparison with _other species_, the
skeleton is very much like modern man's. But it was much
more massive and had far more substantial muscle attachment
points. _Blueprints_  commented that
these were extremely powerful people, if indeed they
were people. They made the brutish Neanderthalers
seem positively effete by comparison.
It is interesting to note that _Life_ used the 1976
_Encyclopedia Britannica_ for the above quotation, rather
than the latest edition available before _Life's_ 1985 pub-
lication date. The following parallel quotation from a sim-
ilar article appearing in the 1984 edition shows why. Note
that the 1981 through 1985 edition articles were identical.
Under the subject "Homo Erectus" it said: 
- 2 -
the limb bones thus far discovered have been similar
to (although more robust than) those of _H. sapiens._
Note that the quotation _Life_ used said the limb bones were
_indistinguishable from,_ rather than _similar to_ those of
_H. sapiens._ I was not able to locate a 1976 _Britannica,_
but a 1974 edition said the same thing as quoted in
_Life._ The article was virtually identical to the 1984
article, except for the above quotation. Very little had
changed between 1974 and 1984 concerning _H. erectus_ except
the assessment of the limb bones, and _Life_ selected a quo-
tation from the edition that happened to be the most advan-
tageous to its argument. Is this not yet another example of
selective use of quotations and of arguing as a literary
critic to support a preexisting point of view?
The 1992 _Britannica_ said much the same as the 1984 edi-
tion. Under the subject "Homo erectus" it said: 
Most of the anatomical differences between _H. erec-
tus_ and _H. sapiens_ concern the skulls and teeth.
The limb bones of _H. erectus_ that have been found so
far have been similar to _H. sapiens,_ leading to the
inference that _H. erectus_ was a creature of medium
stature who walked upright.
What did _Britannica_ mean when it said the limb bones were
similar? The 1992 edition _Macropaedia,_ Vol. 18, expanded
upon this under the subject "Evolution, Human" on pages
The form of these [femur] bones resembles that of mod-
ern humans, and _H. erectus_ must have walked upright
efficiently. On the other hand, the construction of
the bones is robust, a condition also seen in other
skeletal members. This robusticity suggests that the
life-style of _Homo erectus_ was physically demand-
ing.... The total pattern of the bodily structure of
_H. erectus,_ as preserved in the bones, is rather
different from that of _H. sapiens._ Parts of the
postcranial skeleton are robust but otherwise gener-
ally comparable to those of modern humans. The brain
is relatively small, though not so small as that of
_Australopithecus_ and _H. habilis._ In addition, in
this hominid's thick skull bones and extraordinarily
developed eyebrow ridges and occipital torus, some
investigators say they see unique, specialized fea-
tures, not characteristic either of its presumed
ancestors or of apes and not pointing to _H. sapiens_
as the direction of subsequent evolution....
* _Encyclopedia Britannica,_ 1974, Macropaedia, Vol. 8,
- 3 -
_Britannica_ then discussed various theories of descent from
early hominids through _H. erectus_ to modern man, showing
there is much evidence that is difficult to interpret, and
there are several possibilities for reasonable explanations,
including one that _H. erectus_ was an evolutionary side
branch that did not lead to modern man. It comments that
much work needs to be done to sort out all the evidence.
Finally it says:
In the meantime, another hypothesis that meets most of
the available evidence is that _H. erectus_ was in the
process of evolving from pre-_Homo erectus_--probably
_Australopithecus_ and _Homo habilis_--to post-_Homo
erectus;_ that is, to _Homo sapiens._ In most details,
the bodily structure of _H. erectus_ fulfills what
might have been predicted for an intermediate between
_Australopithecus_ and _H. sapiens._
_The Myths of Human Evolution_ gave an alternative view: 
In sum, during the period that lasted from about 1.6
million to 0.4 or 0.5 million B.P., nonrobust hominids
[referring to _A. robustus_] seem to be represented by
a single species which is both geographically and
locally variable, but which has an instantly recogniz-
able gestalt. The major cranial characteristics of
this species, _Homo erectus,_ have already been enu-
merated, and postcranially it is clear that _Homo
erectus_ was robust but an erect biped in the manner
of ourselves. What many have found remarkable is that
over this long span of time, well over a million years
and perhaps as long as 1.2 million, _Homo erectus_
shows virtually no change; local and geographical
variations are at least as striking as differences
between older and younger members of the lineage.
Some scholars have suggested that brain size does show
an increase over time, pointing to the fact that
ER-3733 had a brain of under 900 cc., while the
largest of the late Choukoutien population had a brain
volume of over 1,200 cc. One should point out, how-
ever, that after the East Turkana specimens the oldest
firmly dated _Homo erectus_ is the Olduvai skullcap,
dated at about 1.2 million years and which has a
capacity of almost 1,100 cc., larger than all but two
of the Choukoutien specimens, which are the best part
of a million years younger. Indeed, a recent attempt
to quantify variation in _Homo erectus_ over time has
failed to show significant trends that would convinc-
ingly suggest that the species was undergoing any
Paragraph 33 next says of _H. erectus:_
- 4 -
However, it is unclear whether it was human or not.
This is only in the judgement of _Life's_ author. He leaves
it vague simply because the Watchtower Society does not want
to commit itself on evidence that so clearly could cause
difficulties for the Biblical viewpoint. The Society proba-
bly feels the chances of getting burned are too great.
Paleontologists judge that it was not a modern human, but
was a member of the human family. This is fairly well con-
firmed by the presence of cultural artifacts, such as tools
and the remains of hearths found in association with _H.
erectus._ The point is whether _H. erectus_ was a member
of the human family, since it is obvious that it was not a
modern human. That it was not quite fully human is sug-
gested by the fact that no remains have been found in an
obvious burial, in contrast with the later Neanderthals.
As the expression says, a picture is worth a thousand
words. _National Geographic_ contains a picture of a skele-
ton discovered in 1984, of a _Homo erectus_ boy about twelve
years old at the time of death 1.6 million years ago.  It
is the most complete _H. erectus_ skeleton ever unearthed.
The skeleton is virtually human, but the skull is something
else again. The accompanying article comments:
This spectacular find dramatically confirms the antiq-
uity of the human form. In its parts and proportion
only the skull of the Lake Turkana boy would look odd
to someone untrained in anatomy. The rest of his
skeleton, essentially human, differs only subtly from
that of a modern boy.
And too, because it is a youth's skeleton and so com-
plete, it offers us a unique glimpse of growth and
development in early humans. At five feet four inches
tall, the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large com-
pared with modern boys his age; he could well have
grown to six feet. Suitably clothed and with a cap to
obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would
probably go unnoticed in a crowd today.
* Some people have attributed the cultural artifacts to
modern men that lived alongside _H. erectus_ and
hunted it, but whose fossil remains have never been
found. See, for example, _Ape-Men--Fact or Falla-
cy?_, by Malcolm Bowden, 1981, sections on Java man
and Peking Man; _The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolu-
tion,_ by William Fix, 1984, pp. 117-122; and _Evolu-
tion: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,_ by Duane
T. Gish, 1985, pp. 180-204. These books must, of
course, be taken with a large grain of salt because
they, too, leave out whatever evidence does not sup-
port their ideas.
- 5 -
A later report on this find said: 
In 1985 Richard Leakey and his colleagues reported the
recovery of the remains of a remarkably complete
skeleton of an approximately 12-year-old _Homo erec-
tus_ youth, which revealed some surprising anatomy.
For instance, in the cervical and thoracic vertebrae,
the hole through which the spinal cord runs is signif-
icantly smaller than in modern humans--presumably
indicating a smaller demand for nerve signal traffic.
In addition, the spines on all the vertebrae are
longer and do not point as far back as in modern
humans, the significance of which is puzzling.
The thigh bone is unusual, in that the femoral neck is
relatively long while the femoral head--which is part
of the ball-and-socket joint with the pelvis--is
large. This combination is something of a mix between
modern human and australopithecine anatomy: modern
humans have a short femoral neck attached to a large
head, while in australopithecines the neck is long and
the head is small.
The pelvis itself indicates that the birth canal was
smaller than in modern humans, which implies that
infants born to _Homo erectus_ mothers would have
needed to continue fetal growth rates after birth.
This so-called secondary altricial condition means
that a more extended period of child care was
inevitable, which might well have had important social
The _Homo erectus_ youth, which came from 1.6 million-
year-old deposits on the west side of Lake Turkana in
Kenya, is `the first [early fossil hominid] in which
brain and body size can be measured accurately on the
same individual', note Leakey and his colleagues.
After paragraph 33 says it is unclear whether _Homo erectus_
was human or not, we finally read:
If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family
and died off.
This statement is so absurdly obvious as to be disingenuous,
since _Homo erectus_ is clearly not alive today. It is rem-
iniscent of a statement made in 1799 by one Charles White, a
British physician. He tried to show the gradation of life
forms inherent in the "Great Chain of Being" concept popular
at the time. In describing this idea Roger Lewin quoted him
and said: 
"Ascending the line of gradation, we come at last to
the white European; who being most removed from the
- 6 -
brute creation, may, on that account, be considered as
the most beautiful of the human race," opined Charles
White.... White concluded a panegyric on the suppos-
edly superior qualities of the European form with the
following: "Where, except on the bosom of the Euro-
pean woman, [can one find] two such plump and snow
white hemispheres, tipt with vermillian?" Quite so.
It is obvious that the _Life_ book does not want to bur-
den its readers with the unnecessary details of specific
1. "The Search for Our Ancestors," _National Geographic Mag-
azine_, pp. 568-573, Washington, D.C., November, 1985.
2. Roger Lewin, _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduc-
tion_, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1984.
3. Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersal, _The Myths of Human Evo-
lution_, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.
4. Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson, _Blueprints_, p.
329, Penguin Books, New York, 1989.
5. _Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropaedia_, Vol. 8, p. 1032,
6. _Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia_, Vol. 6, p. 27,
7. Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, _op cit_, pp. 144-145.
8. Roger Lewin, _Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduc-
tion, Second Edition_, pp. 99-100, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Boston, 1989.
9. Roger Lewin, _Bones of Contention_, pp. 303-304, Simon
and Schuster, New York, 1987.
Alan Feuerbacher | As long as you think you have the truth, you
Tektronix, Inc. | will feel no need to pursue knowledge and
PO Box 500, MS 47-623 | understanding.
Beaverton, OR 97077 | There is often a difference between good
firstname.lastname@example.org | sound reason and reasons that sound good.
Robert P.J. Day 277-3175
"Have you read the little blue book 'Life - how did it get here, by
evolution or creation ?'"
Last year, a couple of Witnesses came to my door, waving that particular
book around. I invited them into the living room, where they had no choice
but to stand next to my bookshelf filled with all of my books on
religious criticism and evolutionary biology. They were just a touch
uncomfortable but, sensing an open mind, pulled up a couple of chairs
and we were off to the races.
The elder of the two (with a young, thoroughly brainwashed acolyte in
tow), proceeded to quote at me from their little blue book. At one point,
he brought up Francis Hitching, quoting him, "For all its acceptance in
the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism,
after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."
I stopped him there, and tried to explain the difference between an
acceptance of evolution, and an adherence to Darwinism. To no avail.
I did not have my Hitching ("The Neck of the Giraffe") handy, but I
told the elder to please call back in a few weeks and I would be happy
to dissect his little tome.
Shortly after they left, I tracked down Hitching, and perused carefully
the first few pages. The little blue book gives a reference for the
above quote as page 12 -- that's wrong, it's on page 4. What is more
shocking is what follows immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) after
that quote in the text. And I quote from Hitching:
"Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing.
But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is
a FACT (emphasis added), if we are to believe evidence gathered during
the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology
and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in
Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution
has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms."
In addition, in the edition I have, the opposite page has a chart
of the geological ages, quite clearly going back hundreds of millions
It is difficult to believe that whoever wrote the little blue JW book
could have actually read Hitching and not continued to read the very next
paragraph or seen the geological chart. To present Hitching as rejecting
evolution is either blindingly incompetent or hideously dishonest.
Quite simply, "Life -- how did it get here?" seems no better or worse
than the standard dishonest creationist dreck one would get from the
ICR or the Creation Research Society Quarterly, possibly even a little
worse. Hard to believe.
> It is difficult to believe that whoever wrote the little blue JW book
>could have actually read Hitching and not continued to read the very next
>paragraph or seen the geological chart. To present Hitching as rejecting
>evolution is either blindingly incompetent or hideously dishonest.
>Quite simply, "Life -- how did it get here?" seems no better or worse
>than the standard dishonest creationist dreck one would get from the
>ICR or the Creation Research Society Quarterly, possibly even a little
>worse. Hard to believe.
I've got another one. The original quotes are from Dr. Robert Jastrow's
"God and the Astronomers:"
(from page 14) "The details differ, but the essential elements in the
astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of
events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment
in time, in a flash of light and energy."
"...A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe;
but if it does, science cannot find out what that explanation is. The
scientist's persuit of the past ends at the moment of creation.
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but
the theologians. They have always believed the word of the Bible: In the
beginning God created the heavens and earth. To which St. Augustine added:
"Who can understand this mystery or explain it to others?" It is
unexpected because science has had such an extraordinary success in tracing
the chain of cause and effect backward in time. We have been able to
connect the appearance of man on this planet to the crossing of the
threshold of life, the manufacture of the chemical ingredients of life
whithin stars that have long since expired, the formation of those
stars out of the primal mists, and the expansion and cooling of the
parent cloud out of the cosmic fireball.
"Now we would like to persue that inquiry further back in
time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.
It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another
measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though
science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of
creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the
power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled
the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest
peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a
band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
The following text was described (by a minister I'm debating on a local BBS)
as a single "paragraph", found on page 105. In my copy of Jastrow's
"God and the Astronomers", the first section is found on page 14, the
second on page 115, the third on 116. This is from "A Shattered Visage",
by Dr. Ravi Zacharias:
"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical
and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same...
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the
theologians. They have always believed the word of the Bible. But we
scientists did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning
because we have had, until recently, such extraordinary success in
tracing the chain of cause and effect backwards in time...
"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to
raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who
has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a
bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; He is about to
scale the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
Not only is the surrounding context eliminated, but the quote itself has
been re-written! Does anyone have a copy of "A Shattered Visage"? I'd
love to mail a photocopy to Dr. Jastrow.