About the Book

Table of Contents

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V



     

 Part V: Is Man An Animal?

     IT HAS often been said that man's hands are an extension of his mind. When we come to deal with speech we shall see that this is profoundly true. In the meantime, let us consider the fact that his hands are what they are anatomically, and serve the purposes they serve culturally, because of man's erect posture. And here, again, it would be easy to suppose that his erectness is not essentially different from that of a number of other creatures, except that he retains it as a normal posture, whereas animals adopt it only for short intervals. The situation is, however, more complex than this, with many factors being involved -- among which are the structure of his feet, the structure of his spinal column and pelvis, the relative proportional length of his limbs, the structure of his neck, and even the configuration of his windpipe and voice box.
     In an attempt to minimize the significance of man's erectness, it is well known that Thomas Huxley falsified a diagram in which he showed four skeletons, three of the primates of increasing size standing in line behind a skeleton of a man. (58) His object was to indicate that man was not the only creature who could stand upright. But in order to emphasize his point, he posed the animal skeletons in an unnaturally upright position � as Weidenreich points out, a position which is not at all characteristic of them � whereas man was put in an equally unnatural position with slightly bent knees (Fig.13a). Although some of the primates do maintain an upright position for a short time, it is generally held that no animals (other than birds) remain erect for more than a total of 25 percent of their waking life, and this 25 percent is made up, for the most part, of brief interludes lasting only a few minutes at any one time. And the

58. Huxley, Thomas: see Franz Weidenreich, Apes, Giants, and Man, University of Chicago Press, 1948, p.6; and for Huxley's Epilogue, see Dawn, September. 1931, p.267.

     pg.1 of 16    

     Fig. 13a. Thomas Huxley's doctored diagram.                              Fig. 13b. The true posture of man and ape

  pg.2 of 16  

primates stoop forward even when erect (Fig.13b), whereas man is truly vertical. (59)
     A great deal more is involved in sustained erect posture than merely a decision to stand up. Animals which are forced to remain in an upright position for an undue length of time may lose consciousness. The classical experiments on this were carried out by Leonard Hill in 1895. (60) Or, if they do not actually faint due to the fact that their circulatory mechanisms are not adjusted for this kind of change, then they very quickly become fatigued and will fight to regain a normal horizontal position. F. G. Parsons, (61) writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica observed, "There is a greater gap between the musculature of man and that of the other primates than there is between many different orders, and this is usually traceable either directly or indirectly to the assumption of the erect posture." But in his Descent of Man, Darwin did not appreciate this. (62) To him the change from quadrupedal to bipedal gait presented no difficulty. He wrote, "We see . . . in existing monkeys a manner of progression intermediate between that of a quadruped to a biped." What Darwin was not giving adequate recognition to is the fact that the other primates do not actually have feet to walk on. They walk on their hands. As we have already noted, animals have either four hands or four feet, a fact which gave rise to the older term quadrumana, as opposed to quadruped. The feet of the apes are very poor feet: they are really hands, with opposable thumbs and quite capable of grasping. Man's feet are very different in structure, so different in fact that Dudley J. Morton, in a paper "Human Origin," observed: (63)

     In so far as my own studies would enable me to judge, I endorse Wood Jones' statement to the effect that "if missing links are to be traced with complete success, the feet, far more than the skull or the teeth or the shins, will mark them as monkey or man."

     As will be seen in Fig. 14, the foot of man and of the orangutan (which was given its name because it looked so much like an old man) are quite different in outline, and -- which is even more important -- quite different in their anatomical structure (see also Fig.15) . In man the great toe is bound in by a ligament to the other four toes. In the apes the four toes are bound together, but the big toe is strictly a thumb. Moreover, with respect to maintaining an erect

59. Schultz, Adolph, "The Specialization of Man and His Place Among the Catarrhine Primates", Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Qualitative Biology, vol.15, 1951, p.38.
60. Hill, Leonard: reported in Journal of Physiology, vol.18, London, 1895, p.15f.
61. Parsons, F. G., in Encyclopedia Britanica, 1953 edition, vol. 15, p.990.
62. Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man, Merrill & Baker, New York, revised edition 1874, p.59.
63. Morton, Dudley, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol.10, 1927, p.195.  

     pg.3 of 16     

Fig. 15. The plantar aspect of the ape and human foot, the former belonging to an adult orangutan, and the latter to a nine-year-old girl.

Fig. 16. Over-simplified diagram of the ape and human foot, showing the difference in transverse metatarsal ligament. After Wood Jones, Man's Place Among the Mammals (Fig. 147).

  pg.4 of 16  

posture at rest, it is important to notice that there is an arrangement of muscle associated with the linear aspera in the human lower limb by which, in conjunction with a special knee joint, man is able to lock his leg in a permanently straight position, more or less restfully. The ape's lower limb does not have this feature and must therefore maintain truly erect posture only by considerable muscular effort. S. L. Washburn, in a paper entitled "Analysis of Primate Evolution," remarked, "Changes from a foot of such a sort (as the ape foot) to the human foot would not involve any major evolutionary changes. After all, the joining of the first metatarsal to the second by a ligament may well account for a great many of the features which differentiate the foot of men and apes." (64) It seems to me that this is naive, for a "thumb" such as we see in Fig. 16 to be suddenly bound by an entirely new structure to the rest of the toes, thus converting a hand into a foot, is just as difficult to imagine occurring by a series of stages as any other of the major evolutionary changes which the same writer would undoubtedly admit � for example, the balancing of the head on the shoulders in man. It is a completely transforming change with tremendous cultural significance for man, for it allows him to be completely free to use his hands for manipulative rather than balancing or locomotive purposes. The contact of the two feet with the ground is entirely different.
     In this connection, Vallois wrote: (65)

     In spite of the existence of some transitional grades of structure observed in certain monkeys and man, all these characters are practically so definite that there can be absolutely no confusion between the most highly developed of living monkeys and the lowest of men.

     The genuine importance of erectness of posture for man is witnessed by the almost desperate effort on the part of physical anthropologists, such as Le Gros Clark, to prove that hominoid forms such as the Australopithecines actually walked erect. The controversy over this question has raged for twenty years. And, to my mind, the greatest antagonist to the idea, Sir Solly Zuckerman, has also been the most thorough in his analysis of the data . (66) In paper after paper he has shown, simply by the presentation of factual data,  

64. Washburn, S. L., "Analysis of Primate Evolution," in Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol.15, 1951, p.72.
65. Boule, Marcellin and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Man, translated by M. Bullock, Dryden Press New York, 1957, p.76.
66. Zuckerman, Sir Solly, "An Ape or The Ape, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol.81 (parts I and II), 1952, pp.57-68: with an adequate bibliography of W. E. Le Gros Clark's papers on the subject.

     pg.5 of 16     

that Le Gros Clark and those who have followed him are guilty of wishful thinking. The very title of one of Zuckerman's papers on the subject, "Myths and Methods in Anatomy," is an indication of what he feels about Clark's interpretation of the data. (67)
     One of Zuckerman's strongest arguments is the analysis which he made of the relative position of the foramen magnum in the Australopithecines skulls which are complete enough to allow for its location. For the non-expert, Fig. 17 will show how this point of connection between the spinal column and the base of the skull is found to be increasingly more forward, i.e., more centrally located, as one moves from the dog (A), to the chimpanzee (B), to man (C). The Australopithecines show a foramen position which is essentially ape-like as in (B). Moreover, careful measurements show that the plane in which this opening lies faces toward the back in the Australopithecines but toward the front in man, a fact which shows that the spinal column meets the ape skull from slightly behind (see Fig. 18). But it meets the human skull from slightly forward by taking a curve in the neck or cervical region, which is not found in the apes, but which contributes to the flexibility of the human neck. This fact relates to the difference in configuration between man's spinal column and that of all other animals below him. Fig. 19 shows that man's spinal column is complex, compounded of several curves reversed; the ape spinal column is either almost a straight line or a simple backward curve as shown. As we have noted in the first chapter, this compound form allows man to assume a restful condition in a remarkably wide variety of physical postures. He can sit, stand, and lie in an almost infinite number of ways and maintain these positions for a remarkable length of time, a fact which has great importance to man as a culture-bound creature.
     In any case, the Australopithecines are no longer considered as ancestral to man, and the possibility that they actually achieved any culture is felt by many authorities to be very slim indeed. The finding of flint weapons of a very crude kind with their remains is equivocal, for archaeologists have actually found pieces of pottery among the bones of some extinct lemurs, perhaps the very pots they were cooked in -- but hardly the handiwork of the lemurs themselves. Since we know that the hunter may leave some at least of his weapons beside his prey, the Australopithecine apes may have been the prey of truly human hunters in view of the fact that even by conventional

67. Zuckerman, Sir Solly, "Myths and Methods in Anatomy", Struthers Lecture, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, vol.11, 1965, pp.87-114; the basis of his chapter, "The African Cousins" in Beyond the Ivory Tower: THe Fortress of Public and Private Science, Taplinger Publishing Co., New York, 1970, pp.75-94.

  pg.6 of 16 

Fig. 17. Basal aspect of skull of dog (A), chimpanzee (B). and man (C). The darkened area is the opening into the skull termed the "foramen magnum." In man it is almost centrally located, the spinal column thus balancing the head with least stress in a vertical position.

Fig. 18. A companion drawing to Fig. 17, showing how the spinal column supports the skull in man, ape, and dog.  

     pg.7 of 16     

evolutionary standards of dating they were probably contemporary. (68)
     Pre-occupation with the determination to find some intermediary creature between the apes and man that walked with a stoop was responsible for the tremendous number of reconstructions of Neanderthal Man, which are still to be found in popular and serious books and museums. In these he is shown brutelike, slouched, and often (appropriately, of course) hairy and carrying a club. It is a curious fact of history that the first Neanderthal man to have been discovered did, indeed, walk with a stoop. Later on other Neanderthal specimens were found who walked as completely erect as modern man does. The first of these was reported in 1939 in Science under the name of Sergio Sergi. (69) Since then, more careful examination

68. The Living World of Animals, edited by L. Harrison Matthews, Reader's Digest Publication, London, 1970, p.214.
69. Sergi, Sergio, Science, vol.90, supplement, 4 Aug., 1939, p.12.

  pg.8 of 16  

of the bones of the first Neanderthal has revealed that he was a pathological specimen, afflicted with osteoarthritis, which forced him to walk with a stoop. (70) But because Neanderthal Man was thought to be a kind of missing link and because in the popular mind he is still looked upon in this guise, even the best scholars yield to the temptation to picture him in this way. Carl 0. Dunbar, in his 1966 edition of an oft quoted Historical Geology, has a full page illustration of "old man Neanderthal" with a note reading: "Note the slouched posture and compare with Fig.386." (71) Fig.386 reinforces the slouch by being juxtaposed to a skeleton of modern man. Concession is made to the reader, however, as follows: (72)

     Although Neanderthals stood upright, their carriage was more like that of a great ape than that of living man, because the spine lacked the fourth or cervical curvature and the thigh bones were sigmoidally curved in compensation.

     That healthy Neanderthals maintained a truly erect posture is now almost universally accepted by physical anthropologists. Moreover, Neanderthal Man is sometimes found in association, as contemporary, with modern man. And sometimes modern man is even found preceding Neanderthal Man at the same site. (73)
     In view of the tremendous importance of his truly erect posture to man as both a culture-creating being and a creature with spiritual aspirations, a word needs to be said about the claim which is often made that he achieved his erectness by an evolutionary process which is still incomplete, and that he suffers considerably, physiologically speaking, as a consequence of this incomplete process of development.
     To my mind, the most thorough single paper on this question was written by F. A. Hallebrandt and E. B. Franseen, entitled "Physiological Study of the Vertical Stance in Man." (74) The following brief extracts will give a useful summary of this paper that runs into some thirty-six pages. The authors stated in introducing their subject: (75)

     Many clinical papers in the current literature on posture indicate that 

70. Neanderthal Man and osteoarthritis: C. S. Coon, The Story of Man, Knopf, New York, 1962, 2nd edition, revised, p.40
71. Dunbar, Carl O., Historical Geology, Wiley, New York, 1966, 2nd edition, p.450.
72. Ibid., p.449.
73. Neanderthal Man preceded by modern man, notably in the finds at Fontechevade: G. W. Lasker, Evolution of Man, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1961, pp.118, 119.
74. Hallebrandt, F. A., and Franseen, E. B., "Physiological Study of the Vertical Stance in Man," Physiology Review, vol.22-23, 1943, p.220-225.
75. Ibid., p.221. 

     pg.9 of 16     

stance defects may result ultimately in a variety of malfunctions including lessened respiratory efficiency, prolapse of the abdominal viscera, impairment of digestion, pressure and derangement of the pelvic organs, dysmenorrhea, haemorrhoids, varicose veins, constipation, cyclic vomiting, foot strain, backache, neuritis, and arthritis. Barring orthopedic disabilities, few of the etiologic associations are based on demonstrable fact. . . .
     Almost from their first enunciation these now firmly entrenched concepts have been questioned. Many observations throw doubt on their validity.

     The authors then proceeded to examine the evidence pro and con for each of these supposed consequences of man's having adopted a supposedly unnatural animal posture. That some of these ailments result from minor skeletal malalignments they found difficult to believe on the basis of evidence as tenuous as that usually presented. (76)
     They then give some thought to the question of the supposed increase in energy cost which is assumed to be involved in maintaining a vertical position. Figures are given for the actual increase in oxygen consumption when a test subject changes from a horizontal to a vertical position and their conclusion was that the cost is very small indeed: "From this point of view, normal standing on both legs is almost effortless" [my emphasis] (77) In summing up this aspect of the study they said," Standing is cheap in terms of metabolic cost . . . . The remarkable indefatigability of relaxed standing has not been fully explained." (78) Perhaps the explanation is that God made us this way. . . .
     Even with regard to circulation, some rather surprising findings have been reported, including the fact that stroke volume is significantly reduced in the vertical stance but heart rate increases, thus compensating for the reduced venous return flow from the lower extremities due to gravitational effects. (79)
     The authors reported extensive evidence that both erect posture and prolonged recumbance are equally conducive to the formation of kidney stones, so it cannot be argued that man's excretory system has been upset by a presumed subsequent assumption of erectness. And provided that free postural sway is allowed, gastric secretory curves are indistinguishable in the vertical body from those in recumbancy. (80)

76. Ibid., p.223.
77. Ibid., p.231.
78. Ibid., p.248.
79. Ibid., pp.232,234.
80. Ibid., p.237.

  pg.10 of 16  

     Although in an erect posture man finds himself at a disadvantage in terms of gravity, since the base upon which he stands is quite small, yet apparently compensatory mechanisms of various kinds automatically cancel mechanical disadvantages of the vertical position, so that gravitational stresses are counteracted easily in the majority of normal men. (81) The phenomenon of standing is elaborately protected by a multiplicity of cooperating reflexes.
     I think it is also worth noting in passing that a careful study of factors involved in the size of man, made by F. W. Went, lead him to the conclusion that man is actually the tallest creature which could reasonably walk upright on two legs. (82) Any creature larger would be in grave danger of upset, with serious consequences to himself. A man approximately six feet tall, if he trips, will have a kinetic energy upon hitting the ground of anywhere from twenty to one hundred times greater than a small child learning to walk. If a man were twice as tall as he is now, his kinetic danger in falling would be so great (thirty-two times greater than it now is) that it would not be safe for him to walk upright at all. Larger animals can become taller because they are more stable on their four legs. Interestingly enough, Went also showed that if man were much smaller, his cultural attainments would have been tremendously limited due to his greatly reduced striking power as a craftsman. His analysis of the total situation suggests that man is, indeed, "an optimum size."
     The consequences of man's orthopedic capabilities are tremendous. Some of them are very obvious. Some of them are not so obvious but are, if anything, even more important. The importance of the freedom of his hands needs little labouring, though we shall explore this further in dealing with man as a creator of culture, in which his hands become in a very real sense an extension of his mind. Sir Charles Bell wrote eloquently about the refinements and the potential of the human hand. (83)

     We have (in the hand) the consummation of all perfection as an instrument. This, we perceive, consists in its power, which is a combination of strength with variety and extent of motion; we see it in the forms, relations, and sensibility of the fingers and thumb; in the provisions for holding, pulling, spinning, weaving, and constructing; properties which may be found in other animals but which are combined here to form this most perfect instrument.

     Bell might have mentioned such complex exercises as those involved 

81. Ibid., p.247.
82. Went, F. W., "The Size of Man," American Scientist, vol.56, no.4, 1968, p.400-413.
83. Bell, Sir Charles, The Hand: Its Mechanism and Visual Endowments As Evincing Design, Bridgewater Treatises, 4th treatise, Pickering, London, 1837 [unable to locate the exact page]. 

     pg.11 of 16     

in typing at high speed or, even more remarkably, in playing the piano. The close association between mind and hand in both is evident from the fact that skill enables the individual to forget about the hands entirely. You will know, if you type by touch, that one will have no immediate picture, in reflection, of the actual position of letters on the keyboard. One has to "discover" them, as it were, in one's imagination if one is not in the presence of a typewriter by acting as though one were typing a word, and if a typographical error is made, it may be several words on before some subconscious part of the mind signals to one that an error has been made. The message passes straight from the copy to the typescript through the mind and the fingers as though mind and hand were really a single transfer channel. This nervous connection, which accompanies the liberation of the hands by reason of man's erectness, has been recognized as one of the most important aspects in the total situation. William L. Straus has said: (84)

     Any further studies of posture and locomotion -- whether bipedal, bimanual, or quadrupedal -- must necessarily be physiological as well as anatomical. Too often have posture and locomotion been thought of in terms of skeleton and muscle alone. Yet these are essentially effector organs, for it has been clearly demonstrated that the central nervous system is the prime controlling agent.

     In the first chapter we listed, among other things, man's possession of truly opposable thumbs combined with wide-angle stereoscopic vision. The point has often been remarked upon by others. Sir Solly Zuckerman, in an article dealing with man's social evolution, wrote: (85)

      According to many authorities, the one unique character which was most prominently concerned in our prehuman development, and without which we should not have evolved to the human level, is our dual possession of stereovision and fully opposable thumbs. This combination exists in no other animal.

     Kenneth Oakley underscores the combined effect of these two features: (86)

     Man owes much of his skill to his visual powers, and yet apes and many monkeys have eyes capable of refined stereoscopic and colour vision. Man is, however, psychologically distinguished by his capacity for close visual attention

84. Straus, William L., "Primates," in Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, University of Chicago Press, 1953, p.83.
85. Zuckerman, Sir Solly, "The influence of hormones on man's social evolution." Endeavour, April, 1944, p.80.
86. Oakley, Kenneth P., "Skill as a Human Possession," in A History of Technology, edited by Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard and A. R. Hall, Oxford University Press, 1954, vol.1,p.12.

  pg.12 of 16  

and for prolonged co-ordination of eye and hand [my emphasis].
     These are reflections of cerebral rather than ocular functions. Convergence of the eyes upon handwork is largely dependent upon conscious concentration -- in other words, it is under the control of the cortical motor areas, which act in response to coordinated impulses from the eyes.
     It has been reported that chimpanzees can learn to use their hands under the direction of their eyes for long enough to thread a needle, but in general the attention that an ape can give to manipulating an object is very fleeting. Furthermore, the erect posture of man, and the fact that his skull is poised above the top of his spine instead of being slung in a forwardly projecting manner as in apes, make it easier for him to pay close attention to any point over a wide field of vision.

     It is not without significance that among the very earliest artifacts of man are to be found needles of quite refined design (see Fig.20), and Genesis 3:7 indicates that the very first cultural activity of man after the Fall was to sew clothing for himself.
     One of the less well recognized results of truly erect posture in man is its effect upon his powers of communication. The neck structure allows a certain configuration of the windpipe and vocal organs which permits men to talk easily to one another while maintaining the natural and normal position of the head. Both speaking and singing are possible for man without any such straightening out of the head and neck as must occur in other animals when they give voice. (87) One only has to observe the mooing of a cow, or the howling of a dog to realize that considerable change of head position from the normal is required before they can vocalize. Adolph Schultz, in a paper entitled "The Physical Distinctions of Man," remarked upon the fact that the human head does not have a position relative to the spine similar to that in all non-human primates: "The profound phylogenetic change in this relation between head and spine in man can be understood only as an ontogenetic specialization. . . ." (88) I would omit the word only. After all, this is surely the way God made man in the first place, for very good reasons. In passing, it might be noted that the other class of animals which maintain a normal erect posture, namely, the birds, can also sing without changing their head position.
     Furthermore, the refined jaw structure of man may also contribute to his ability to speak. In the apes (as in man) the chief stress placed upon the bone structure of the jaw in chewing hard substances or cracking nuts on one side of the mouth only is concentrated at the chin. The very powerful jaw muscles in the gorilla are  

87. Kahn, Fritz, Man in Structure and Function, Knopf, New York, 1960, vol.1, p.73.
88. Schultz, Adolph "The Physical Distinctions of Man," American Philosophical Society Proceedings, vol.94, 1950, p.445

     pg.13 of 16     

Fig. 20. Some bone needles found by Karl Absalon at Vestonice, Moravia "dated" 30,000 years old.

Fig. 21. The so-called simian shelf in the ape jaw, contrasted with the human chin.

met with a corresponding mechanical strengthening of the jaw at the crucial point of stress by a "flange" of bone which penetrates inwards as shown in Fig. 21. It is widely accepted that this so-called simian shelf, and it is found I believe in all the apes, has the effect of considerably reducing the freedom of movement of the primate animal tongue by restricting the area available for muscles. (89) The number of sounds which the apes can make is therefore more restricted than in man. In a paper on cultural evolution, Julian H. Steward, while agreeing that the origin of language is still quite unexplained, nevertheless saw it as significant that man is capable of speech thanks to the speech and auditory centres of his brain, but also "thanks to his jaw and tongue structure." (90) This is no doubt true, but the evidence is not altogether unequivocal, as will be seen above.
     The same need for strengthening exists, of course, on the human jaw but in this case the flange projects outward instead, leading to the characteristic formation of the human chin, thus allowing considerably more freedom for the tongue. Man's powers of vocalization

89. Howells, William, Mankind So Far, Doubleday, New York, 1944, pp.78,79.
90. Steward, Julian H., "Cultural Evolution," Scientific American, May. 1956, p.72.

  pg.14 of 16  

are, as a consequence, far greater than in the primates, and he makes full use of this capacity both to share his ideas and to express his emotion.
     It has been argued that by balancing the head on top of the vertical column, optimum conditions exist for removing waste products of metabolic activity in this most important area. It is also customary to equate the enlargement of the brain with the assumption of erect posture in man. While I am personally persuaded that God made man upright in the first place, I think it is not at all unlikely that in some way to be yet clearly demonstrated, the size and complexity of man's brain is related to the position of that organ with respect to the rest of his body. S. W. Britton, reflecting the evolutionary view of man's supposed biological history, wrote: (91)

     Man alone stands erect with little or no functional disturbance . . . contemporaneous with development of orthograde progression, the human brain showed its greatest growth and differentiation. The force of gravity exerted linearly through the body significantly influenced conformation and growth.
     Delicately balanced arterial reactions, better oxygenation, and enhanced venous removal of metabolic products became possible in the head end. Special sensory and cerebral mechanisms have probably benefitted, particularly through improved circulatory conditions.

     The erectness of man is therefore of tremendous importance as an extension of his mental capacities and to give those mental capacities freedom of expression.
     It seems also that man is a creature who, by habit, in a way "looks up," and he does this to an extent that few if any other animals do. Their vision seems bent upon the ground; man's is directed otherwise. It is as though his very structure is a reflection of the fact that his spirit "goeth upward," whereas the spirit of the beast "goeth downward to the earth" (Ecclesiastes 3:21) . His very physical posture itself in some way corresponds to his spiritual nature. Man was truly upright as God made him (Ecclesiastes 7:29), but in the end he becomes bowed down (Psalm 37:3,6), with the weight both of years and sin. The Lord encouraged His people to "straighten up" as they saw the day of their redemption approaching (Luke 21 :28), for such is the meaning of the original, as though the very position of the body could symbolize the posture of the soul � as indeed it does!
     It is perhaps significant that in grief, sorrow, and crying, man tends to double forward, using muscles which bow him down; but in joy and laughter and praise, he straightens up, indeed even bends

91. Britton, S. W., Science, vol.11, 1950, p.445; under Abstracts of the National Academy of Sciences.  

     pg.15 of 16     

over backwards, using muscles which more than straighten him up. His very worship, as John R. Howitt pointed out, bows him before his Creator in contrition, but then leads him to lift up his head in praise. (92)

92. Howitt, J. R., "Man the Upright," Creation Research Society Annual, 1968, pp.46-48.

  pg.16 of 16