Early humans were less primitive than previously thought, being able to carry out many of same tasks as man, such as making tools and adapting to the environment, researchers have found.
I have read the Bible especially the Book of Genesis; there is nothing in it which would support the author's statement that early humans were less primitive. If early humans were less primitive, that certainly means that Adam and Eve were the primitive ones, not a bunch of apes. But, if one could live forever without dying and his body could therefore not decay at any particular point in time, it would lack common sense to call him primitive. From my point of view, one can only be primitive if he does not have the cure for "all" the existing illnesses our planet's inhabitants have to deal with and has no assurance to live perpetually. It is conceivable to say that one who is living with an immortal body; will live eternally, cannot be called primitive nor be found to be living a primitive lifestyle. However, one who lives with a mortal body that can decay at anytime is primitive to the extent he cannot even come up with a complete solution to live forever. The Bible confirms that there were no primitive humans before Adam and Eve. See Genesis 2:17 (suggesting to any individual who has no unbelief that thousands of years ago, there could exist no death unless God's main command relative to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was neglected by the creations He had created to have dominion over all animals). I am concluding in this opinionated material that the evolutionary statements made in the cited Telegraph article are contrary to established principles embodied in the Holy Scriptures. One part of the article claims to the public that:
Archaeologists had believed hominids like Australapithecus, which lived between four and two million years ago, were less physically and culturally advanced than early man.
There is no verifiable evidence from anywhere that the earth has lasted for more than one million years especially where the gap theory is concerned. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism (disproving anything that would seem to support the misleading theory of evolution and pointing out that there are humans who still believe that the earth's age is "between 5,700 and 10,000 years"). Of course, the Telegraph author is entitled to her own opinions but from where I am currently located, I think it makes sense for me to refuse to think the earth can somehow be a million years old. Another part of the article says that:
It was thought early species like Homo Erectus evolved long limbs, a larger brain and the ability to make tools to cope as the African climate became cooler and drier around 2.4 million years ago.
Again, where the Bible is concerned, this statement has very little importance. I really do not think that so-called Africans have lasted for more than two million years. And, if there are disagreements from any persons concerning my thought here, it is obviously because such persons have no credible interest in the Bible. I write with confidence that no African climate could have existed before Adam and Eve were made by God. In fact, there were no professed Africans prior to the first ape being created by God. A portion of the article reads:
But a new review by the University of Washington suggests that many characteristics associated with the Homo genus were developing a million years earlier. “Traits once thought to define early Homo, particularly Homo Erectus, did not arise as a single package,” said report author Dr Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Programme at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. “Some features once considered characteristic of Homo are found in Australapithecus. “In terms of the history of evolution there is no single benchmark that separates the different species, no single point of transition. It was a mosaic process with some characteristics evolving before Homo and some much later. “Characteristics that we have traditionally seen as indicating Homo are in fact around much earlier, so early humans were less primitive than we thought.” The team analysed new climate and fossil evidence and found that early humans were developing long limbs as early as 3.9 million years ago. And the first tool-making dates from around 2.6 million years, hundreds of thousands of years before the first Homo genus was recorded.
I cannot say that the team which analyzed the climate and fossil evidence to come up with the idea that "early humans were developing long limbs as early as 3.9 million years ago" did not present a fallacy. Even if I could assume that the Bible's Genesis contained no truths, which I must not and cannot, there would be no basis to reason that the early humans who developed long limbs during that time frame were the majority. It would be a big mistake to accept the unfounded analysis of the team which purports to tell the entire earth that all early humans possessed long limbs without having access to any "conclusive" evidence. Another thing I noted in the article was the statement that:
Researchers also found that many Australapithecines had a diverse diet, normally associated with early man, suggesting they were already adapting to changes in the environment...Prof Chris Stringer, of the Human Origins Group at London's Natural History Museum, said: “It is certainly true that what we consider as 'modern' traits seem to have been assembled piecemeal in Africa over a long period of time. “The traits shown by Australopithecus sediba in southern Africa show that conditions were driving the evolution of human-like features in parallel in different regions, and potentially at different rates, around 2 million years ago. “I think that the development of tool-making and carnivory could have spread across different australopithecine populations and even species across Africa, catalysing comparable evolutionary changes in anatomy and behaviour, including increasing brain size and complexity, greater terrestrial mobility, and a reduction in the size of the jaws and teeth. “If this is so, disentangling the actual single pathway that led to the first members of the genus Homo will be a difficult task.
The fact that professor Stringer "th[ought] that the development of tool-making and carnivory could have spread across different australopithecine populations and even species across Africa" shows any normal person how speculative the view point of most educated evolutionists can be. It is entirely speculative and not true that there has ever been an increasing brain size in humans since the first creations were made by the God who created the heavens and the earth all because some groups of individuals continue to examine fossil evidence. First, these researchers have not examined every existing discoverable fossil evidence. Second, researchers cannot always be trusted with findings they come up with after inspecting fossil evidence since they generally do not speak for the God who created them. I see from the article that:
New data suggests that the era from 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago was a time of strong climate instability and shifting intensity of annual wet and dry seasons. The review suggests species like Homo Erectus were far better at adapting to the changes and learning to alter their diets accordingly. Leslie Aiello, president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research in the US added: "Taken together, these data suggest that species of early Homo were more flexible in their dietary choices than other species. "Their flexible diet-probably containing meat-was aided by stone tool-assisted foraging that allowed our ancestors to exploit a range of resources."
The only acceptable place the data should have come from is the Bible. But, in any event, the suspicious data suggested by the researchers to be reasonable and veracious somehow contradicts the entire Bible. The Bible makes it clear that it was the God of heaven who recommended the right dietary plan for his creations, not the creations themselves. See Genesis 2:16 (where the texts clearly say to whoever discovers them that there were rules as to what the creations could consume and could not). Thus, the researchers, despite their apparent unbelief, have produced data which invite nothing but debates. Nowhere in the logical texts of the Bible does Adam and Eve decide what diets they can eat and cannot. Rather, the original diets of the two created beings were decided by the Creator of this planet when they were first designed. I was able to read from the article that:
The team [of researchers] concluded that this flexibility likely enhanced the ability of human ancestors to successfully adapt to unstable environments and disperse from Africa.
It is inconceivable "that [any] human ancestors successfully adapt[ed] to unstable environments and disperse[d] from Africa" millions of years ago if thousands of years ago, only eight people, see Genesis 7, had survived the flood which destroyed the entire earth. By now it should be presumed that there is no sense in human evolution because if Romans 5:12 is saying death came about only after both Adam and Eve had sinned, it is evident that the millions of "human ancestors" would have existed on our planet before "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Genesis 1:26. But, it is apparent no humans existed before God was about to make man in His image as the context of Genesis 1 provides.